Walking The Corpse

.
A weekend ramble and some personal feather waving practice.

Hansen Gore and the IPCC have shared their angst, we’ve footed the research bill and the result is in. There’s nothing to worry about. Please stop your wailing.

Inhofe, Boxer Debate Global Warming On Senate Floor October 29th.
Inhofe conclusively disarmed the term anthropogenic global warming in a 2 hour speech on the 26th October, citing facts and solid evidence debunking both the artfully constructed crisis and the hugely expensive means to wave feathers at solving the invented problem. The transmutable condition of alarmism has received a fatal dose of anti-neurotic truth. The IPCC cannot be trusted, The aim of alarmism is to cripple western and particularly the US economic well being, etc.
Condensed, YouToob, or full text. 2007: Global Warming Alarmism Reaches A "Tipping Point".

The Oregon Institute sequel is available too.

The corpse of alarmism will still be paraded along with the fanfare of lies, half truths and wishful thinking based purely on the momentum 50 or 60 billion dollars of public funding spent on investigation has created and the profitability of marketing it not to mention trading our co2 without our permission. It will take legislation to reverse the damage caused by the alarmists and probably to shut them up. Perhaps the beginning of the end for environmental lunacy. However plausible a hypothesis may sound, it is still a hypothesis. Governments that create legislation based on hypotheses shouldn't be allowed and that should be enshrined. They serve no-one's interests but their own. Policy advisers that give advice based on hypotheses they have hyped without substance should be carpeted and positioned to avoid any further damage, Siberia? Individuals that promote such hypotheses as fact and capitalize on such promotion should be taught that it doesn't pay or we will have the same farce played out when the weather starts to cool a bit or an asteroid "threatens".

Zombie alarmism will be hard to stamp out quickly. People still buy London Bridge. "Are you superstitious?" "No." "Do you believe in god?" "Yes." The brain is preconditioned to be conned.
An honest fast buck is to be made by the first producer of anti-alarmism spray, perhaps a can of co2 for cooling hot air, fire extinguishers use it.

Have you noticed, the quiet majority in science is increasingly giving voice. (177 pages in this category.) And it isn't good news for the IPCC.

Inbuilt curiosity leads most kids to dismantle and reassemble complicated mechanisms to find out how they work. My sins were a watch, an alarm clock, a valve radio and lighters. I remember I started on a washing machine and was abruptly reminded of my limitations by being punished. I stuck to plastic kits after that. Most kids have this kind of experience and it is fundamental to our being human. The atmosphere is not a watch. However it is a finely tuned mechanism geared to adjust to every variation. A lot more difficult to rebuild than a watch. A well placed metaphorical smack is warranted.

Computer models are missing a carbon sink amounting to, I think, 25% of anthropogenic production. Without mentioning co2 hiding in clouds, the likeliest place the unaccountable carbon loss is to be found is inside the model. Computer models are carbon sinks purely through inadequate input and elementary understanding of the carbon cycle. As with clouds so with carbon. Low level of understanding and bad guesstimates (the most common form of currency in computer models) leads to anomalies without even looking at the quality of the software. The models are on a loser right from the word go. They are attempting to recreate history as they see it and use those equations to resolve future climate states. The climate history they are attempting to mathematically reproduce is Mannish which has been proven false. You can't recreate history as understood by IPCC scientists (static climate) and expect to come anywhere close to reality except by accident. I wonder how well the models would do if they targeted real world findings of historical temperatures and co2 rather than the product of poor proxies and manipulated data. The real world tells those of us with ears to hear that the climate is highly variable within variable limits and we are near a high temperature (for recent times) limit. The more extreme the temperature, the greater and more varied the atmospheric response.

That the atmosphere has endured far higher temperatures without a runaway reaction is indisputable. That co2 levels have been far higher when the temperature has been far lower is indisputable. That co2 levels have risen as temperature fell and vice-versa is indisputable. Attempting to link co2 as causal to temperature is only feasible using ice cores, warped science and time travel. It makes one wonder why co2 was nominated as the bad guy in the models in the first place, it has never historically (including ice cores) controlled temperature. Myopia? So we are trying to solve a non-existent problem, runaway global warming with a consistently ludicrous proposition, control of anthropogenic gas production. The downside of attempting this control apart from the detrimental effect on civilization is the unknown response of the climate to the abrupt withdrawal of a carbon source. Co2 at the maximum quantities humans can release can never increase co2 levels above 600 ppm. While this level is desirable it is unlikely we will ever achieve let alone sustain it, unless we find another energy source that can benefit us by releasing co2 in the way fossil fuels have.
-----------

Without Kyoto we wouldn't have carbon credits, and the gold-rush for CCs is maintaining the Kyoto momentum.
What were Strong's motives in creating Kyoto? We know he favors population reduction. After contraception, the speediest methods of population reduction are war, disease and Kyoto. He is also a gold digger, capitalizing on situations that run close to if not past the boundaries of law and fairness. Could Kyoto have been a contrivance to generate money harvesting opportunities? I would bet he has heavy investments in China and/or India. Money would appear to be his first lust, his contract was not renewed following the UN oil for food scandal of 2003. As people die because of Kyoto, that would satisfy another apparent desire, getting people off the planet. The oil for food scandal propped up Saddam's regime, another remorseless people remover. Al's close association with Strong leads me to ask why the organ grinder didn't get a nobel mantel piece while the monkey did.
Judge for yourself. Articles:
LifeSite 2004: Maurice Strong's Yellow Brick Road to Global Governance [Character assessment]
CFP 2005: Maurice Strong, Cordex, Oil For Food, Tongsun Park
NRO 2006: Strong Implications [Fairly comprehensive]
Bio up to 2005:
Suppressive Person Defense League (dedicated to the defense of Scientology's victims): Association with cranks.
Any follow up seems to have died a death, I guess being rich and knowing the right people has its advantages.
----------------

Let's face facts. The planet has immense reserves of co2 gas under pressure that have yet to see the light of day and emits it continuously in varying amounts, mostly under water. That is additional co2 being added to the circulation. The planet has the occasional super eruption and the oceans the occasional super burp but apart from that, seepage in volcanic and tectonically active and inactive areas on land and in oceans accounts in human terms for an endless supply. The volume being released into oceans makes the human contribution totally irrelevant. The ocean holds it in solution at a level determined by sea temperature versus air temperature and the pressure of co2 in each medium. It loses it by emission to the air and by biological and chemical processes. Colder water holds more co2. Remove atmospheric co2 and the oceans will rapidly restore it. Tail chasing. We are led to believe by anxious Al et al that humans are solely responsible for co2 levels. For such increasing levels of co2 to be maintained requires strong participation by the sea because biomass is increasingly absorbing it from the air. Increasing co2 means increasing biomass. The fact that natural co2 levels have risen continuously regardless of us may well point to increasing volcanic and tectonic activity. This must mainly be under water amongst the estimated 3 million plus volcanoes and the globe-encircling trenches where the planet is exhibiting expansion. As well a lot of the co2 rising from the ocean was probably absorbed during the three minima, beginning about 1650, about 1770, and 1800/1850 and earlier cold spells, got carried around by the conveyor and is increasingly being reintroduced to the air. The sea is warmer and El Nino seems to be becoming the norm in line with the solar cycles, meaning more co2 released, and warmer seas cause ice to melt which reintroduces its co2 to the air and sea.
----------------

Coral seems quite content in the cool one kilometer deep stand found by Aussie scientists. In its present form it has been around for 250 million years and seen massive sea level, current and temperature variation as well as climate change, and took it in its stride. Coral is made of bullets! But it isn’t immune to poisoning, sudden temperature change, fishermen or tourists.
-----------

From GISS, on ozone as it was understood in 2001. If current thinking on ozone bears up, some adjustments are needed.
-----------

Recommended, not to let Prof Pielke's site be forgotten as he has retired from posting. Co2 is virtually irrelevant even at double today's level. Water did it. (Ably assisted by synchronized currents.)

Treading on the toes of my next entry, I can’t find any research on the effect of reducing co2 on biomass.