Al Gore’s new book had a problem – no big hurricanes since Katrina to put in the book to look “threatening” to the USA. Any imagined link between hurricanes and global warming has evaporated.

Solution: the artists airbrush.

Ryan Maue, hurricane expert from Florida State University writes:

Anthony,

Not a lot of hurricanes here

The cover opens and closes half and half — so you only see one hurricane…as in the press release photo or the one on  Amazon.

But this is the real picture sequence from the book which I looked at Borders today and took cell-phone pictures, original (before the retouching by some “artist”) Note all of the Arctic ice and the size of the Florida Peninsula…

and the final product:

Now with 4 scary hurricanes - hey where's the ice?

WUWT?

A midget Southern Hemisphere cyclone is off the coast of Florida, another hurricane is sitting on the equator off the coast of Peru — and the Arctic Ice is gone (perhaps it is summer) and the Florida Peninsula is half gone

There are other differences I am sure you can find — but the hurricanes are just nonsense…

Ryan

Here’s the book cover:

Nonsense? No more like scaremongering, especially when it has been shown time and again that there is no hurricane to global warming linkage, and we are at a 30 year low.

Mr. Gore, you are a charlatan.

I always have to chuckle when somebody uses the phrase denier/delayer to label somebody for even the slightest transgression on climate /action/justice/activism/alarmism/pick a word.

Briefly, this appeared on Google News:

click for full screen cap

That was the original title of the piece. Somebody must have complained, because it didn’t last long: Look what The Guardian changed the title to:

click for the Guardian story

Whether the hopes are fading or in “tatters”, it seems that the hope and climate change movement is falling apart.

Rajendra Pachauri, IPCC Chairman

From the :

India ‘arrogant’ to deny global warming link to melting glaciers

IPCC chairman Rajendra Pachauri accuses Indian environment ministry of ‘arrogance’ for its report claiming there is no evidence that climate change has shrunk Himalayan glaciers

The Himalayas. The IPCC has warned that Himalayan glaciers are receding faster than in any other part of the world and could “disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner”. Photograph: Frederic Soltan/© Frederic Soltan/Corbis

A leading climate scientist today accused the Indian environment ministry of “arrogance” after the release of a government report claiming that there is no evidence climate change has caused “abnormal” shrinking of Himalayan glaciers.

Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister, released the controversial report in Delhi, saying it would “challenge the conventional wisdom” about melting ice in the mountains.

Two years ago, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the UN agency which evaluates the risk from global warming, warned the glaciers were receding faster than in any other part of the world and could “disappear altogether by 2035 if not sooner”.

Today Ramesh denied any such risk existed: “There is no conclusive scientific evidence to link global warming with what is happening in the Himalayan glaciers.” The minister added although some glaciers are receding they were doing so at a rate that was not “historically alarming”.

However, Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the IPCC, told the Guardian: “We have a very clear idea of what is happening. I don’t know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement.”

read the entire article at the Guardian here

It seems difficult to figure out just what the Boxer-Kerry bill is these days. If nothing else, its a sloppy rush job, beyond that, is it climate, or something else? How much will it cost? Only the shadow knows.

Photo by Chris Kleponis. NWF

From Wall Street Journal Blogs Environmental Capital:

By Keith Johnson

Okay, so Sen. Barbara Boxer has moved the energy and climate bill out of the Environment and Public Works Committee and onto the Senate floor. That doesn’t get the bill any closer to garnering 60 votes, but as Sen. Boxer said, it can’t get 60 votes while stuck in committee, either.

The chairwoman of the environment committee defended her decision to pass the bill despite a Republican boycott; usually, Senate panels require at least a token presence of the minority party. Rules do allow for a simple majority vote, rules that “are there to be used when the Majority feels it is in the best interest of their states and of the nation to act,” Sen. Boxer said.

The GOP wants to see more economic analysis of the impacts of the bill, which would create a cap-and-trade program, but Sen. Boxer said another report by the Environmental Protection Agency would be “duplicative and a waste of taxpayer dollars.” The EPA did sort of analyze the current Kerry-Boxer bill, but it largely cribbed from an earlier analysis of a similar House bill.

One interesting thing: Climate change and global warming does seem to be slipping down the list of Democratic talking points. Sen. Boxer said the bill “addresses a crucial issue of our time.”

What would that be? Turns out there’s several—but saving the planet from climate catastrophe isn’t one of them. The bill will “move us away from foreign oil imports that cost Americans one billion dollars a day, it will protect our children from pollution, create millions of clean energy jobs, and stimulate billions of dollars of private investment,” Sen. Boxer said.

PRESS RELEASE Contact:

Christine Hall, 202.331.2258

U. S. Chamber Caves to Special Interests on Energy-Rationing Legislation

CEI Invites Small Businesses to Join With CEI to Fight Kerry-Graham

Washington, D.C., November 4, 2009 – The Competitive Enterprise Institute responded today to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s announcement that it will now support energy-rationing legislation by calling on small businesses to drop their Chamber membership and join CEI in fighting this catastrophic legislation.

In a November 3 letter to Senators Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) and James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Chairman and Ranking Member, respectively, of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, the Chamber announced that it would now support legislation based on a recent New York Times op-ed by Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

“It appears that the Chamber has caved under enormous pressure from some of its biggest member companies. They have reluctantly enlisted in the effort to reward these big special interests with gigantic windfall profits at the expense of consumers and small businesses,” said Myron Ebell, CEI Director of Energy and Global Warming Policy.

“We invite small businesses whose interests are no longer being well-represented by the Chamber on this critical issue to drop their membership in the U.S. Chamber and join us at CEI in fighting against all energy-rationing legislation, even so-called compromises that only partly wreck the economy. We welcome their support. We will not capitulate,” said Ebell.

“In its letter, the Chamber repeatedly cites the Oct. 14 Kerry-Graham op­-ed in The New York Times as the reason for cuddling up to cap-and-trade,” noted CEI Senior Fellow Marlo Lewis. “But the Kerry-Graham column was a hopelessly confused muddle.”  (Dr. Lewis explains why it is a muddle here.)

• To support CEI’s efforts to defend consumers from needless energy taxes, visit CEI.org/support, or contact Al Canata.

• Read more on energy policy and global warming at Globalwarming.org

###

Sen. Barbara Boxer went ahead with the markup hearing on her global warming bill this morning despite the absence of all but one Republican (George Voinovich). She sat alone during markup doing nothing for 15 minutes. Michelle Malkin obtained photos. See below.

More photos below

See the rest of them here

US puts climate debate on hold for five weeks despite plea by Merkel

• Senate delay means no bill likely before Copenhagen
• German leader makes historic Congress address
• UN Chief says deal in Copenhagen not likely either (VOA News)

Merkel delivers remarks to a joint session of Congress on Capitol Hill, Washington DC, USA, 03 Nov 2009. Photograph: Rainer Jensen/EPA

Chancellor of Germany Angela

by Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington and Damian Carrington in UK

International negotiators lost one of the key elements to a successful deal on global warming today after Democratic leaders in the US Congress ruled out passing a climate change law before 2010. In the latest obstacle on the road to the UN summit in Copenhagen next month, Senate leaders ordered a five-week pause to review the costs of the legislation.

The delay, which would push a Senate vote on a climate change bill into next year, frustrates a last-minute push by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and the UN secretary general, Ban Ki-moon, to get America to commit itself at home to cut greenhouse gas emissions before the Copenhagen meeting. World leaders – and US officials – have repeatedly said US legislation is crucial to a deal on global warming.

Merkel used a historic address to a joint session of Congress today to urge America to act on climate change, stating that success at Copenhagen rested on the willingness of all countries to accept binding reductions in carbon emissions.

The first German leader to ever address both houses of Congress, Merkel said a deal was comparable in importance to the tearing down of the Berlin wall 20 years ago. “We need the readiness of all countries to accept internationally binding obligations,” she said to loud applause from Democrats. Republicans largely sat in silence. “There is no doubt about it. In December, the world will look to us: the Europeans and the Americans. I am convinced once we … show ourselves ready to adopt binding agreements we will also be able to persuade China and India.”

Merkel also raised her concerns with Barack Obama in a visit to the White House earlier today. He told reporters: “Chancellor Merkel has been an extraordinary leader on the issue of climate change. And the US, Germany, and countries around the world are all beginning to recognise why it is so important that we work in common to stem the potential catastrophe that could result if we see global warming continuing unabated.”

Read the complete article here

h/t to Dr. Benny Peiser

Since I’m not legally allowed to show the American Physical Society logo (they complained last time) this will have to do:

A GAGGLE IS NOT A CONSENSUS

You have recently received a letter from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), purporting to convey a “consensus” of the scientific community that immediate and drastic action is needed to avert a climatic catastrophe.

We do not seek to make the scientific arguments here (we did that in an earlier letter, sent a couple of months ago), but simply to note that the claim of consensus is fake, designed to stampede you into actions that will cripple our economy, and which you will regret for many years. There is no consensus, and even if there were, consensus is not the test of scientific validity. Theories that disagree with the facts are wrong, consensus or no.

We know of no evidence that any of the “leaders” of the scientific community who signed the letter to you ever asked their memberships for their opinions, before claiming to represent them on this important matter.

We also note that the American Physical Society (APS, and we are physicists) did not sign the letter, though the scientific issues at stake are fundamentally matters of applied physics. You can do physics without climatology, but you can’t do climatology without physics.

The APS is at this moment reviewing its stance on so-called global warming, having received a petition from its membership to do so. That petition was signed by 160 distinguished members and fellows of the Society, including one Nobelist and 12 members of the National Academies. Indeed a score of the signers are Members and Fellows of the AAAS, none of whom were consulted before the AAAS letter to you.

Professor Hal Lewis, University of California, Santa Barbara

Professor Fred Singer, University of Virginia

Professor Will Happer, Princeton University

Professor Larry Gould, University of Hartford

Dr. Roger Cohen, retired Manager, Strategic Planning, ExxonMobil

List of 160 signers of the APS petition available at http://tinyurl.com/lg266u

Regarding the National Policy Statement on Climate Change of the APS Council: An Open Letter to the Council of the American Physical Society

As physicists who are familiar with the science issues, and as current and past members of the American Physical Society, we the undersigned urge the Council to revise its current statement* on climate change as follows, so as to more accurately represent the current state of the science:

Greenhouse gas emissions, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, accompany human industrial and agricultural activity. While substantial concern has been expressed that emissions may cause significant climate change, measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today. In addition, there is an extensive scientific literature that examines beneficial effects of increased levels of carbon dioxide for both plants and animals.

Studies of a variety of natural processes, including ocean cycles and solar variability, indicate that they can account for variations in the Earth’s climate on the time scale of decades and centuries. Current climate models appear insufficiently reliable to properly account for natural and anthropogenic contributions to past climate change, much less project future climate.

The APS supports an objective scientific effort to understand the effects of all processes – natural and human –on the Earth’s climate and the biosphere’s response to climate change, and promotes technological options for meeting challenges of future climate changes, regardless of cause.

* The statement of the APS Council, adopted on November 18, 2007 is as follows:

“Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

Because the complexity of the climate makes accurate prediction difficult, the APS urges an enhanced effort to understand the effects of human activity on the Earth’s climate, and to provide the technological options for meeting the climate challenge in the near and longer terms. The APS also urges governments, universities, national laboratories and its membership to support policies and actions that will reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.”

— APS News; January 2008 (Volume 17, Number 1)

SIGNATURES:

Harold M. Agnew President, General Atomics Corporation (1979 -1984) White House Science Councilor (1982 -1989) Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory (1970 -1979)

E.O. Lawrence Award 1966, Enrico Fermi Award 1978, Los Alamos Medal (with H.A. Bethe) 2001 Member National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering; Fellow APS, AAAS

Sol Aisenberg President, International Technology Group Formerly Staff Member, MIT; Lecturer, Harvard Medical School; Visiting Research Professor, Boston University

Ralph B. Alexander Former Associate Professor of Physics Wayne State University President, R.B. Alexander & Associates Technology and market analysis in environmentally friendly materials and coatings Author, Global Warming False Alarm (Canterbury)

Moorad Alexanian Professor of Physics and Physical Oceanography University of North Carolina -Wilmington Member Mexican Academy of Sciences, American Scientific Affiliation

Louis J. Allamandola Director, Astrochemistry Laboratory NASA Ames Research Center Fellow APS, AAAS Member ACS, American Astronomical Society, International Astronomical Union

James L. Allen Engineer/Scientist International Space Station Program The Boeing Company (retired)

Arthur G. Anderson Vice President and former Director of Research IBM (retired) Member National Academy of Engineering, Fellow APS, Fellow IEEE

Eva Andrei Professor of Physics Rutgers University Fellow APS

Robert H. Austin Professor of Physics Princeton University Fellow APS, AAAS; APS Council: 1991-1994, 2007-2010 Member National Academy of Sciences, American Association of Arts and Sciences

David A. Bahr Associate Professor and Chair Department of Physics Bemidji State University

Franco Battaglia Professor of Chemical Physics and Environmental Chemistry University of Modena, Italy Life Member APS

David J. Benard Aerospace Scientist (retired) Co-Inventor of the Chemical Oxygen-Iodine Laser

Lev I. Berger President California Institute of Electronics and Materials Science Author, Semiconductor Materials; and Material and Device Characterization Measurements (CRC Press)

Stuart B. Berger Research Fellow and Divisional Time-to-Market Manager Xerox Corporation (retired)

Ami E. Berkowitz Emeritus Professor of Physics University of California at San Diego Fellow APS

Barry L. Berman Columbian Professor and Chair Physics Department The George Washington University Fellow APS

Edwin X. Berry Atmospheric Physicist, Climate Physics, LLC Certified Consulting Meteorologist #180 Member American Meteorological Society

Frances M. Berting Northern New Mexico Citizens Advisory Board and Committee (2000-present) Los Alamos County Council (2001-2008) Formerly Materials Scientist, Hanford (DOE), Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Westinghouse, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

Vladislav A. Bevc Associate Professor, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey (retired); Formerly Member of the Technical Staff, The Aerospace Corporation; Physicist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Visiting Fellow, Hoover Institution (Stanford University) Senior Member IEEE

Clifford Bruce Bigham Atomic Energy of Canada, Ltd. (retired) Senior Member APS, Sustaining Member CAP

Arie Bodek George E. Pake Professor of Physics University of Rochester Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky Prize in Experimental Particle Physics (APS) 2004 Fellow APS

John W. Boring Professor Emeritus of Engineering Physics University of Virginia

Lowell S. Brown Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Washington Scientific Staff Member, Los Alamos National Laboratory Fellow APS, AAAS

Daniel M. Bubb Associate Professor and Chair Department of Physics Rutgers University -Camden

Timothy D. Calvin President, Bearfoot Corporation (retired) Fabricated rubber products for the DOD, shoe and automobile industries Member ACS

William J. Camp Emeritus Director: Computation, Information, and Mathematics Sandia National Laboratories Co-founder, IUPAP Commission C-20, The Commission on Computational Physics Nova Award for Invention of the Cray XT3 Computer Architecture (Lockheed Martin Corporation) Fellow APS, Member IEEE Computer Society

Mark L. Campbell Professor, Department of Chemistry United States Naval Academy Life Member APS

Gregory H. Canavan Senior Fellow and Scientific Advisor, Los Alamos National Laboratory Fellow APS

Jack G. Castle Senior Scientist Sandia National Laboratories (retired) Fellow and Life Member APS

Joseph F. Chiang Professor and Former Chairman Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry State University of New York, Oneonta Life Member APS

Roger W. Cohen Manager, Strategic Planning and Programs ExxonMobil Corporation (retired) Otto Schade Prize (Society for Information Display) 2006 Fellow APS

Barry D. Crane Project Director Institute for Defense Analyses Life Member APS

Steven R. Cranmer Astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics Karen Harvey Prize (AAS) 2006 Associate Editor, Journal of Geophysical Research: Space Physics Member: American Astronomical Society, American Geophysical Union

J. F. Cuderman Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff Sandia National Laboratories (retired), Life Member APS

Jerry M. Cuttler President, Cuttler and Associates, Inc. Engineering, consulting, and licensing services for the nuclear power industry President, Canadian Nuclear Society 1995-1996 Fellow Canadian Nuclear Society, Member American Nuclear Society

James H. Degnan Principal Physicist Directed Energy Directorate Air Force Research Laboratory Fellow APS

Joseph G. Depp Founding President and CEO, Accuray Incorporated (retired) Stereotactic radiosurgery technology Founding President and CEO, PsiStar Incorporated Life Member APS

Riccardo DeSalvo Senior Scientist Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory (LIGO) California Institute of Technology Member ASME

James A. Deye Nuclear and Medical physicist Life Member APS

Eugene H. Dirk APS Division of Astrophysics, and Division of Computational Physics Topical Groups on Gravity, and Precision Measurement and Fundamental Constants

David H. Douglass Professor of Physics University of Rochester Fellow APS

Paul J. Drallos President and CEO, Plasma Dynamics Corporation (retired) Kinetic & fluid dynamic computer simulation services

Murray Dryer Emeritus Scientist Space Weather Prediction Center (retired), NWS National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Member American Astronomical Society, American Geophysical Union, AIAA

William T. Duffy Jr. Professor Emeritus of Physics Santa Clara University

David F. Edwards Physicist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (retired) Formerly Los Alamos National Laboratory; Professor of Physics and Electrical Engineering, Colorado State University; Lincoln Laboratory, MIT

Albert G. Engelhardt President and CEO, Enfitek, Inc. Environmental control and security systems Senior Life Member IEEE

James E. Enstrom Research Professor Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center University of California at Los Angeles Life Member APS

Jens G. Feder Professor of Physics of Geological Processes University of Oslo Fellow APS

Douglas E. Fields Associate Professor Department of Physics and Astronomy University of New Mexico

Michael M. Fitelson Chief Scientist, Micro-Systems Enablers Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems

Harold K. Forsen Senior Vice President, Bechtel Corporation (retired) Governing Board, National Research Council (1994-2003) Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering (1995-2003) Arthur Holly Compton Award (ANS) 1972 Member National Academy of Engineering; Fellow APS, ANS, American Academy of Arts and Sciences

Bruce L. Freeman Senior Experimental Physicist, Ktech Corporation Formerly Professor of Nuclear Engineering, Texas A&M Coauthor Explosively Driven Pulsed Power (Springer);

Explosive Pulsed Power (Imperial College) Member IEEE Plasma Sciences, Directed Energy Professional Society

Peter D. Friedman Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering University of Massachusetts Dartmouth Member American Geophysical Union, ASME, American Nuclear Society

Michael H. Frese Designer/Developer of Multiphysics

Simulation Codes and Applications Founder and Managing Member of NumerEx, LLC Member SIAM, IEEE Ian J. Fritz Research Physicist, Sandia National Laboratories (retired) R&D 100 Award 1991 Basic Energy Sciences Sustained Outstanding Achievement Award (DOE) 1993 Lockheed Martin NOVA Award 2001

Rodger L. Gamblin Managing Director Corona Color, LLC

John C. Garth Research Physicist Air Force Research Laboratory (retired) Member ANS, ASTM, American Association of Physicists in Medicine, Computational Medical Physics Working Group

G. Roger Gathers Senior Scientist, M. H. Chew and Associates Physicist, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1967-1993) Author, Selected Topics in Shock Wave Physics and

Equation of State Modeling (World Scientific Publishing)

Gary J. Gerardi Professor, Department of Chemistry and Physics William Paterson University

Ivar Giaever Institute Professor, School of Engineering and School of Science Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Nobel Prize in Physics 1973 Member National Academy of Science, National Academy of Engineering; Fellow APS

George T. Gillies Research Professor, School of Engineering and Applied Science; and Research Professor, Department of Physics University of Virginia Clinical Professor, Department of Neurosurgery, Virginia Commonwealth University Fellow APS

Damon Giovanielli President, Sumner Associates scientific consultants Former Division Leader, Physics Division Los Alamos National Laboratory LANL staff member, program and line manager (1972-1993) Fellow AAAS

Albert Gold Associate Dean of Engineering and Applied Sciences Harvard University (retired)

Ronald B. Goldfarb National Institute of Standards and Technology Life Member APS

Laurence I. Gould Professor of Physics University of Hartford Member Executive Board of the New England Section of the APS Chairman (2004), New England Section APS

Paul M. Grant EPRI Science Fellow (retired) IBM Research Staff Member Emeritus Senior Life Fellow APS

Howard D. Greyber University of Pennsylvania (retired) Formerly Princeton University, LLNL Theory Group, Northeastern University Member American Astronomical Society, Fellow Royal Astronomical Society

Ronald J. Gripshover Senior Research Physicist Naval Surface Weapons Center (retired)

Mike Gruntman Professor of Astronautics University of Southern California Author, Blazing the Trail. The Early History of Spacecraft and Rocketry (AIAA) Luigi G. Napolitano Book Award (International Academy of Astronautics) 2006 Member American Geophysical Union, Associate Fellow AIAA

George Hacken Senior Director, Safety-Critical Systems New York City Transit Authority Formerly Senior Member of the Technical Staff, GEC-Marconi Aerospace Chair, New York Chapter, IEEE Computer Society Member AMS, SIAM, ANS, AIAA, New York Academy of Sciences

David S. Hacker Senior Staff Research Engineer Amoco Corporation (retired) Associate Professor of Chemical Engineering, University of Illinois, Chicago Circle (1965-1981) Fellow AIChE

Sultan Hameed Professor of Atmospheric Science School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences Stony Brook University, New York

William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University Fellow APS, AAAS Member National Academy of Sciences

Howard C. Hayden Emeritus Professor of Physics University of Connecticut Editor, The Energy Advocate Author, A Primer on CO2 and Climate (Vales Lake)

Dennis B. Hayes Research Physicist Los Alamos, Sandia, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories President, Lockheed Martin Nevada Technologies, Inc. (retired) Fellow APS

Jack M. Hollander Professor Emeritus of Energy and Resources, University of California, Berkeley Vice-President Emeritus, The Ohio State University First Head, Energy and Environment Division, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Fellow APS, AAAS

David B. Holtkamp Scientific Staff Member, Physics Division Los Alamos National Laboratory

John C. Ingraham Scientific Staff Member, retired Los Alamos National Laboratory Member American Geophysical Union

Helen Jackson Research Physicist, Air Force Research Laboratory Wright Laboratory Member Materials Research Society, IEEE

H. Richard Johnson Co-Founder and Former CEO Watkins-Johnson Company (retired) Member National Academy of Engineering, Life Fellow IEEE

James R. Johnson 3M Company (retired) Member Carlton Society (3M Hall of Fame) Member National Academy of Engineering

O’Dean Judd LANL Fellow Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired) Technical Advisor and Consultant Fellow APS, IEEE, AAAS

Andrew Kaldor Distinguished Scientific Advisor Manager of Breakthrough Research ExxonMobil Corporation (retired) Fellow AAAS, Member ACS

Alexander E. Kaplan Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering The Johns Hopkins University Max Born Award (Optical Society of America) 2005 Alexander von Humboldt Award (von Humboldt Foundation) 1996 Fellow OSA

Thomas J. Karr Director in the Advanced Concepts & Technology Division Northrop Grumman Electronic Systems Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1984-1996) Editor, Applied Optics (1991-1994) Member OSA, AAAS; Senior Member IEEE

Jonathan Katz Professor of Physics Washington University

William E. Keller Leader, Low Temperature Physics Group 1971-1985 Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired) Fellow APS

John M. Kennel Autonetics Division, Boeing North American (retired) Formerly Electronics Division, Northrop Grumman Corporation Member AAAS, AIAA

Paul I. Kingsbury Manager, Physical Properties Research Department Corning Inc. (retired)

Robert S. Knox Professor of Physics Emeritus University of Rochester Member APS Council (1985-1988) Fellow APS

M. Kristiansen C.B.Thornton/P.W.Horn Professor Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering Texas Tech University Fellow APS, IEEE

Moyses Kuchnir Applied Scientist Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (retired) Life Member APS, Member IEEE, AAAS

Joseph A. Kunc Professor, Physics and Astronomy University of Southern California Fellow APS

Robert E. LeLevier Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (1951-1957) Physics Department, RAND Corp (1957-1971) R&D Associates (1971-1983) Eos Technologies, Inc. (1983-1993)

Paul L. La Celle Professor, Department of Biomedical Engineering Former Chair, Department of Biophysics University of Rochester Alexander von Humboldt Senior Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Biophysics, Frankfort

Robert E. Levine Industrial and Defense Physics and Engineering (retired) Member ACM, IEEE

Harold W. Lewis Professor of Physics Emeritus University of California at Santa Barbara Chairman, Defense Science Board Panel on Nuclear Winter Chairman, APS Reactor Safety Study Fellow APS, AAAS

John D. Lindl James Clerk Maxwell Prize for Plasma Physics (APS) 2007 Fellow APS, AAAS

Xavier Llobet Research Associate Ecole Polytechnique Federale de Lausanne

Gabriel G. Lombardi Senior Scientist, Phase Coherence, Inc. National Research Council Associate (NIST, 1980-82) Life Member APS, Member OSA

Michael D. Lubin Colonel, United States Air Force (retired)

Alfred U. MacRae President, MacRae Technologies Member National Academy of Engineering, Fellow APS, IEEE

Phillip W. Mange Associate Superintendent, Space Science Division Scientific Consultant to the Director of Research, Naval Research Laboratory (retired)

John E. Mansfield Vice Chairman Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board

Kristanka Marinova Department of Chemical Engineering Faculty of Chemistry Sofia University

Joseph Maserjian Senior Research Scientist, California Institute of Technology Jet Propulsion Laboratory (retired)

John H. McAdoo Aerospace Physicist Member IEEE, AAAS

Thomas A. McClelland Vice President, Commercial Products Frequency Electronics, Inc.

Harold Mirels Principal Scientist, The Aerospace Corporation (retired) Fellow APS, AIAA Member National Academy of Engineering

Jim Mitroy Lecturer in Physics, School of Engineering and Information Technology Charles Darwin University, Australia

Michael Monce Professor of Physics, Astronomy, and Geophysics Connecticut College Member AAPT, American Geophysical Union

Nasif Nahle Scientific Research Director Biology Cabinet, Mexico Member AAAS, New York Academy of Sciences

Rodney W. Nichols President and CEO, New York Academy of Sciences (1992-2001) Vice President and Executive Vice President, The Rockefeller University (1970-1990) Secretary of Defense Medal for Distinguished Meritorious Civilian Service (1970) Fellow AAAS, New York Academy of Sciences

Gordon C. Oehler Senior Fellow, Potomac Institute for Policy Studies Working Group Chairman, Congressional Commission on the Strategic Posture of the United States. Corporate Vice President for Corporate Development, SAIC (1998-2004) National Intelligence Officer for Science, Technology and Proliferation (1989-1992)

William P. Oliver Professor of Physics Tufts University Life Member APS

Frank R. Paolini Adjunct Professor of Physics University of Connecticut at Stamford (retired) Senior Member APS, Member IEEE

Daniel N. Payton III Senior Scientist, SAIC (1992-present) Eos Technologies (1984-1992) Technical Director of Nuclear Technology Air Force Weapons Laboratory (1976-1984)

Erik M. Pell Xerox Corporation (retired) Author: From Dreams to Riches – The Story of Xerography (Carlson) Edward Goodrich Acheson Medal (Electrochemical Society) 1986 President, Electrochemical Society (1980-1981) Fellow APS, Honorary Member ECS, Senior Member IEEE

Thomas E. Phipps, Jr. Physicist (retired) Operations Evaluation Group, MIT US Naval Ordnance Laboratory Senior Member APS

Donald Rapp Chief Technologist, Mechanical and Chemical Systems, Jet Propulsion Laboratory (retired) Professor of Physics and Environmental Engineering, University of Texas (1973-1979) Author, “Assessing Climate Change” and “Ice Ages and Interglacials” (Springer-Verlag) Fellow APS

Ned S. Rasor Consulting Physicist Formerly President and CEO, Rasor Associates, Inc. Member IEEE, AIAA

Richard T. Rauch NASA Stennis Space Center Life Member APS, Associate Fellow AIAA

John E. Rhoads Professor of Physics Midwestern State University (retired) Member SPE

Harry I. Ringermacher Sr. Research Physicist General Electric Global Research Center AIP “History of Physics in Industry” Participant at GE Sir William Herschel Medal (American Academy of Thermology) Copper Black Award (American Mensa) 2003 and 2007

Stanley Robertson Emeritus Professor of Physics Southwestern Oklahoma State University

Berol Robinson Principal Scientific Officer UNESCO (retired) Member AAPT, AAAS, Association des Écologistes Pour le Nucléaire

Daniel J. Rogers Staff Scientist Applied Information Sciences Department Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory Member OSA

Robert C. Rohr Reactor Physicist Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory (retired) Former Adjunct Professor of Nuclear Engineering, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute

Kelly R. Roos Professor of Physics Bradley University

Isaac C. Sanchez William J. Murray, Jr. Chair in Engineering and Associate Chair Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Texas at Austin

U.S. Department of Commerce Medals 1980, 1983 Edward U. Condon Award (NIST) 1983; SPE International Research Award 1996 Member National Academy of Engineering, Fellow APS

Raymond E. Sarwinski President, Cryogenic Designs, Inc. Life Member APS

Nicola Scafetta Research Scientist, Physics Department, Duke University Member American Geophysical Union

Mark D. Semon Professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy Bates College Member American Academy of Forensic Scientists, American College of Forensic Examiners

Thomas P. Sheahen President/ CEO, Western Technology, Inc. (energy sciences consulting) Member AAAS; APS Congressional Science Fellowship (1977-78) Author, Introduction to High Temperature Superconductivity (Springer)

Arnold J. Sierk Technical Staff Member Theoretical Division Los Alamos National Laboratory Fellow APS

Joseph Silverman Professor Emeritus of Nuclear Engineering, Department of Materials Science and Engineering University of Maryland Fellow APS, ANS

S. Fred Singer Professor of Environmental Sciences Emeritus University of Virginia First Director of the National Weather Satellite Service Fellow APS, AAAS, American Geophysical Union

Frans W. Sluijter Professor, Department of Applied Physics Eindhoven University of Technology Former Chair, Plasma Physics Division, European Physics Society Former Vice President, International Union of Pure and Applied Physics Member Dutch Physical Society, Institute of Physics UK

John R. Smith Project Physicist, Experimental High Energy Physics Department of Physics University of California, Davis Life Member APS

Hermann Statz Raytheon Corporation (retired) Microwave Pioneer Award (IEEE) 2004 Fellow APS

Nick Steph Chair, Department of Physics Franklin College Member AAPT, ACS

Peter Stilbs Professor of Physical Chemistry Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Stockholm, Sweden Life Member APS

Norman D. Stockwell Senior Project Engineer, TRW (retired) Former Member of the Technical Staff, The Aerospace Corporation Life Member APS, Member AAAS

Thomas F. Stratton Fellow, Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired) Fellow APS

William R. Stratton Scientific Staff Member Los Alamos National Laboratory (retired) Member AEC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safety Chair ANS Nuclear Reactor Accident Study Fellow ANS

Szymon Suckewer Professor of School of Engineering & Applied Sciences Director of Plasma Science & Technology Program Princeton University Fellow APS, OSA

Ronald M. Sundelin Associate Director, DOE Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (retired) Commonwealth Professor Emeritus of Physics, Virginia Tech Fellow APS

Andrei Szilagyi Formerly Chief Scientist, Aura Systems, Inc. Chief Technologist, Radiant Technology Corporation Chief Scientist, NanoMuscle Inc. Member MRS, Electrochemical Society, TMS – The Minerals, Metals, and Materials Society

Willard L. Talbert Scientific Consultant (1993-present) Scientific Staff Member, Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1976-1993 (retired) Professor of Physics, Iowa State University (1961-1976) Fellow APS

Lu Ting Professor Emeritus of Mathematics Courant Institute of Mathematical Sciences, New York University Lead Author, Vortex Dominated Flows (Applied Mathematical Sciences, Springer) Member SIAM, AIAA, AAM

Frank J. Tipler Professor of Mathematical Physics Tulane University Coauthor, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (Oxford University Press)

Salvatore Torquato Professor of Chemistry and the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science, Materials Institute and Applied & Computational Mathematics Princeton University 2009 APS David Alder Lectureship Award in the Field of Material Physics Fellow APS

Rusty S. Towell Professor of Physics Abilene Christian University Member IEEE

Edward S. Troy Principal Engineer Aerospace Consulting Wireless, RF, microwave, analog/DSP, and GPS circuits and systems Member IEEE

William B. Walters Professor of Chemistry and Biochemistry, University of Maryland John Simon Guggenheim Fellow (1986) ACS Award in Nuclear Chemistry (2001) Alexander von Humboldt Senior Fellow, University of Mainz (2002) Life Member APS, Member ACS

Samuel A. Werner Curators’ Professor Emeritus The University of Missouri Guest Researcher, NIST Fellow APS, AAAS

Bruce J. West Adjunct Professor of Physics Duke University Fellow APS

Peter J. Wojtowicz Group Head, Senior Member Technical Staff (retired) RCA Labs, GE, Sarnoff Corporation Fellow APS

Ya-Hong Xie Professor of Materials Science and Engineering University of California at Los Angeles Senior Member IEEE, Member Materials Research Society

M. John Yoder Principal Physicist The MITRE Corporation Life Member APS

Claude Zeller Principal Fellow Pitney Bowles Inc. Member IEEE

Martin V. Zombeck Physicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (retired) Author, Handbook of Space Astronomy and Astrophysics (Cambridge University Press) Coauthor, High Resolution X-Ray Spectroscopy of Cosmic Plasmas (Cambridge University Press)

Oregon’s biggest problem used to be logging jobs lost from spotted owl lawsuits.

A new sort problem is developing. Green jobs and green programs are going off the rails. Portland recently passed a draconian “Climate Action Plan to reduce CO2 emissions by 80% that has little chance of succeeding by its 2050 deadline.

Read the story from the Oregonian here

The latest news is that the Green Tax breaks aren’t what they were promised to be and taxpayers are getting hosed for a cost 40 times what was voted on:

State lowballed cost of green tax breaks

State officials deliberately underestimated the cost of Gov. Ted Kulongoski’s plan to lure green energy companies to Oregon with big taxpayer subsidies, resulting in a program that cost 40 times more than unsuspecting lawmakers were told, an investigation by The Oregonian shows.

It gets worse. Now tax breaks are being sold in Oregon for less than they are worth.

Read about it here in the Register Guard

The tax credits can be sold, enriching companies that have nothing to do with renewable energy, and the swelling program is a drain on state revenue, critics say.

Here are some examples:

• Peak Sun Silicon, of Millersburg, sold a $3.25 million tax credit to US Bank for $2.18 million.
• Peak Sun also sold a $5.85 million tax credit to two companies: Nordstrom for $2.85 million and Standard Insurance for $2 million.
• Solaicx, of Portland, sold a $9.04 million tax credit to US Bank for $6.05 million.
• SolarWorld, of Hillsboro, sold an $11 million tax credit to Wal-Mart for $7.37 million.
• SolarWorld also sold a $10.96 million tax credit to Flir Systems, of Portland, for $7.34 million.

THE nation’s peak science agency has tried to gag the publication of a paper by one of its senior environmental economists attacking the Rudd government’s climate change policies.

The paper, by the CSIRO’s Clive Spash, argues the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is an ineffective way to cut emissions, and instead direct legislation or a tax on carbon is needed.

The paper was accepted for publication by the journal New Political Economy after being internationally peer-reviewed.

But Dr Spash told the Australia New Zealand Society for Ecological Economics conference that the CSIRO had since June tried to block its publication.

In the paper, Dr Spash argues the economic theory underpinning emissions trading schemes is “far removed” from the reality of permit markets. “While carbon trading and offset schemes seem set to spread, they so far appear ineffective in terms of actually reducing GHGs (greenhouse gases),” he says. “Despite this apparent failure, ETS remain politically popular amongst the industrialised polluters.

“The public appearance is that action is being undertaken. The reality is that GHGs are increasing and society is avoiding the need for substantive proposals to address the problem of behavioural and structural change.”

Dr Spash said trading schemes did not efficiently allocate emission cuts because their design was manipulated by vested interests. For example, in Australia, large polluters would be compensated with free permits while smaller, more competitive firms would have to buy theirs at auction. The schemes were also flawed because: global warming was caused by gases other than carbon; emissions were difficult to measure; carbon offsets bought from other countries were of dubious value; and the schemes “crowded out” voluntary action by individuals. He concludes that more direct measures, such as a carbon tax, regulations or new infrastructure would be simpler, more effective and less open to manipulation.

Dr Spash could not be contacted by The Australian.

However, his presentation to the ANZSEE conference in Darwin last Wednesday stated: “The CSIRO is currently maintaining they have the right to ban the written version of this paper from publication by myself as a representative of the organisation and by myself as a private citizen.”

Dr Spash said CSIRO managers had written to the journal’s editor demanding the paper not be published.

CSIRO spokesman Huw Morgan said the publication of Dr Spash’s paper was an internal matter and was being reviewed by the chief executive’s office.

Read the complete article here at the Australian

Roger Pielke Jr. has an interesting discussion of it also, with some conclusions that blow CSIRO’s defense out of the water.

This is a surprise from Newsweek. Some recent examples of green subsidy: Fisker Automotive will receive a $529 million subsidy from the US government to build hybrid cars for the US market in California. This follows a previous subsidy award of $465 million to Tesla Motors to build electric cars. Both awards were made on the recommendation of former vice-president Al Gore. Don’t get me wrong, I’m an electric car fan, I drive one myself. But such projects should succeed or fail on their own merit and without public funds in my opinion.

The Dark Side of Green

Climate change is the greatest new public-spending project in decades. Each year as much as $100 billion is spent by governments and consumers around the world on green subsidies designed to encourage wind, solar, and other -renewable-energy markets. The goals are worthy: reduce emissions, promote new sources of energy, and help create jobs in a growing industry.

Yet this epic effort of lawmaking and spending has, naturally, also created an epic scramble for subsidies and regulatory favors. Witness the 1,150 lobbying groups that spent more than $20 million to lobby the U.S. Congress as it was writing the Clean Energy bill (which would create a $60 billion annual market for emission permits by 2012). Government has often had a hand in jump–starting a new -industry—both the computer chip and the Internet got their start in American defense research. But it’s hard to think of any non-military industry that has been so completely and utterly driven by regulation and subsidies from the start.

It’s a genetic defect that not only guarantees great waste, but opens the door to manipulation and often demonstrably contravenes the objectives that climate policy is supposed to achieve. Thanks to effective lobbying by American and European farmers, the more cost–efficient and environmentally effective Brazilian sugar-cane ethanol is locked out of U.S. and EU markets. Even within Europe, most countries have their own “technical standard” for biofuels to better keep out competing products—even if they are cheaper or produce a greater cut in emissions. Because the subsidies are tied to feedstocks, there is zero incentive to develop better technology.

Both the International Energy Agency and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have asked Germany to end its ludicrous solar subsidies that will total $115.5 billion by 2013.

Read the article The Dark Side of Green at newsweek.com

From Ohio State University, an explanation for the existence of bloggers like Joe Romm and why many moderate scientists don’t speak out. There’s even “fake data” involved.

I’ve seen this phenomenon of extreme views being the most vocal in my own hometown of Chico, where a small vocal group of people often hold sway of the city council because they are the ones that show up up regularly to protest, well, just about anything. The council, seeing this regular vocal feedback, erroneously concludes that the view accurately represents the majority of city residents. The result is a train wreck, and the council sits there scratching their heads wondering why after making such decisions, they get their ears burned off by people unhappy with the decision. Bottom line, we all need to be more active in the public input process if we want decisions to be accurately reflected.

The key is that the extremists have to believe that more people share their views than actually do, the research found.

Kimberly Rios Morrison

The results may offer one possible explanation for our fractured political climate in the United States, where extreme liberal and conservative opinions often seem to dominate.

“When people with extreme views have this false sense that they are in the majority, they are more willing to express themselves,” said Kimberly Rios Morrison, co-author of the study and assistant professor of communication at Ohio State University.

How do people with extreme views believe they are in the majority?  This can happen in groups that tend to lean moderately in one direction on an issue.  Those that take the extreme version of their group’s viewpoint may believe that they actually represent the true views of their group, Morrison said.

One example is views about alcohol use among college students.

In a series of studies, Morrison and her co-author found that college students who were extremely pro-alcohol were more likely to express their opinions than others, even though most students surveyed were moderate in their views about alcohol use.

“Students who were stridently pro-alcohol tended to think that their opinion was much more popular than it actually was,” she said.  “They seemed to buy into the stereotype that college students are very comfortable with alcohol use.”

Morrison conducted the study with Dale Miller of Stanford University.  Their research appeared in a recent issue of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

The studies were done at Stanford University, which had a policy of prohibiting alcohol usage in common areas of all freshman dorms.  In the first study, 37 students were asked to rate their own views about this policy on a scale from 1 (very strongly opposed) to 9 (very strongly in favor).

The average student’s views were near the mid-point of the scale — but most rated the typical Stanford student as more pro-alcohol than themselves.

“There’s this stereotype that college students are very pro-alcohol, and even most college students believe it,” Morrison said.  “Most students think of themselves as less pro-alcohol than average.”

In the next two studies, students again rated themselves on similar scales that revealed how pro-alcohol they were.  They were then asked how willing they would be to discuss their views on alcohol use with other Stanford students.

In general, students who were the most pro-alcohol were the most likely to say they wanted to express their views, compared to those with moderate or anti-alcohol views.

However, in one study the researchers added a twist: they gave participants fake data which indicated that other Stanford students held relatively conservative, anti-alcohol views.

When extremely pro-alcohol students viewed this data, they were less likely to say they were willing to discuss alcohol usage with their fellow students.

“It is only when they have this sense that they are in the majority that extremely pro-alcohol students are more willing to express their views on the issue,” Morrison said.

However, students who had more extreme anti-alcohol views were not more likely to want to express their views, even when they saw the data that suggested a majority of their fellow students agreed with them.

“Their views that they are in the minority may be so deeply entrenched that it is difficult to change just based on our one experiment,” she said.  “In addition, they don’t have the experience expressing their opinions on the subject like the pro-alcohol extremists do, so they may not feel as comfortable.”

This finding shows that not all extremists are more willing to share their opinions – only those who hold more extreme versions of the group’s actual views.

These results have implications for how Americans view the political opinions of their communities and their political parties, Morrison said.

Take as an example a community that tends to be moderate politically, but leans slightly liberal.

People with more extreme liberal views in the community may be more likely than others to attend publicly visible protests and display bumper stickers espousing their liberal views, because they think the community supports them.

“Everyone else sees these extreme opinions being expressed on a regular basis and they may eventually come to believe their community is more liberal than it actually is,” Morrison said.  “The same process could occur in moderately conservative communities.

“You have a cycle that feeds on itself: the more you hear these extremists expressing their opinions, the more you are going to believe that those extreme beliefs are normal for your community.”

A similar process may occur in groups such as political parties.  Moderately conservative people who belong to the Republican Party, for example, may believe that people with extremely conservative views represent their party, because those are the opinions they hear most often.  However, that may not be true.

Morrison said when she and her colleagues were thinking about doing this study, they had in mind the phrase about the “silent majority” in the United States, which was popularized by President Richard Nixon and his vice-president, Spiro Agnew.  They referred to the silent majority as the people who supported the war in Vietnam, but who were overshadowed by the “vocal minority” against the war.

While there may not be one monolithic silent majority in the United States, Morrison said this study suggests that the minority may indeed be more vocal in some cases.

#

WUWT readers and many others at other websites responded strongly to my post:

Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty in Copenhagen, Claims British Lord Monckton

Lord Monckton giving a presentation - photo by Derek Warnecke

Now the full video of the speech is available of Lord Christopher Monckton speaking on October 14th, 2009 at a climate skeptic event sponsored by the Minnesota Free Market Institute. As an added bonus, we have the Powerpoint presentation used. Unlike Al Gore’s presentations, Monckton’s presentations are not “secret” and are available to the public. Also I have a link to the draft Climate Change Treaty here

See the video below.

Here is the full video of  Lord Monckton’s speech. It is one hour and 35 minutes long.

Monckton’s Powerpoint presentation used at that speech is available in PDF format here (warning large download 17.5 MB)

Reposted from comments on the new Urban Future thread here

Originally from the blog Fightin’ Words

Above: Obama’s last visit to Copenhagen didn’t work out so well for the USA.

The Minnesota Free Market Institute hosted an event at Bethel University in St. Paul on Wednesday evening. Keynote speaker Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, gave a scathing and lengthy presentation, complete with detailed charts, graphs, facts, and figures which culminated in the utter decimation of both the pop culture concept of global warming and the credible threat of any significant anthropomorphic climate change.

A detailed summary of Monckton’s presentation will be available here once compiled. However, a segment of his remarks justify immediate publication. If credible, the concern Monckton speaks to may well prove the single most important issue facing the American nation, bigger than health care, bigger than cap and trade, and worth every citizen’s focused attention.

Here were Monckton’s closing remarks, as dictated from my audio recording:

At [the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference in] Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed. Your president will sign it. Most of the third world countries will sign it, because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regime from the European Union will rubber stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

I read that treaty. And what it says is this, that a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity. The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third world countries, in satisfication of what is called, coyly, “climate debt” – because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t. We’ve been screwing up the climate and they haven’t. And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement.

How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it.

[laughter]

And the trouble is this; if that treaty is signed, if your Constitution says that it takes precedence over your Constitution (sic), and you can’t resign from that treaty unless you get agreement from all the other state parties – And because you’ll be the biggest paying country, they’re not going to let you out of it.

So, thank you, America. You were the beacon of freedom to the world. It is a privilege merely to stand on this soil of freedom while it is still free. But, in the next few weeks, unless you stop it, your president will sign your freedom, your democracy, and your humanity away forever. And neither you nor any subsequent government you may elect will have any power whatsoever to take it back. That is how serious it is. I’ve read the treaty. I’ve seen this stuff about [world] government and climate debt and enforcement. They are going to do this to you whether you like it or not.

But I think it is here, here in your great nation, which I so love and I so admire – it is here that perhaps, at this eleventh hour, at the fifty-ninth minute and fifty-ninth second, you will rise up and you will stop your president from signing that dreadful treaty, that purposeless treaty. For there is no problem with climate and, even if there were, an economic treaty does nothing to [help] it.

So I end by saying to you the words that Winston Churchill addressed to your president in the darkest hour before the dawn of freedom in the Second World War. He quoted from your great poet Longfellow:

Sail on, O Ship of State!
Sail on, O Union, strong and great!
Humanity with all its fears,
With all the hopes of future years,
Is hanging breathless on thy fate!

Lord Monckton giving a presentation - photo by Derek Warnecke

Lord Monckton received a standing ovation and took a series of questions from members of the audience. Among those questions were these relevent to the forthcoming Copenhagen treaty:

Question: The current administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has shown little regard for the will of the people. They’re trying to pass a serious government agenda, and serious taxation and burdens on future generations. And there seems to be little to stop them. How do you propose we stop Obama from doing this, because I see no way to stop him from signing anything in Copenhagen. I believe that’s his agenda and he’ll do it.

I don’t minimize the difficulty. But on this subject – I don’t really do politics, because it’s not right. In the end, your politics is for you. The correct procedure is for you to get onto your representatives, both in the US Senate where the bill has yet to go through (you can try and stop that) and in [the House], and get them to demand their right of audience (which they all have) with the president and tell him about this treaty. There are many very powerful people in this room, wealthy people, influential people. Get onto the media, tell them about this treaty. If they go to www.wattsupwiththat.com, they will find (if they look carefully enough) a copy of that treaty, because I arranged for it to be posted there not so long ago. Let them read it, and let the press tell the people that their democracy is about to be taken away for no good purpose, at least [with] no scientific basis [in reference to climate change]. Tell the press to say this. Tell the press to say that, even if there is a problem [with climate change], you don’t want your democracy taken away. It really is as simple as that.

[Update: this section on a question from an attendee to the presentation has been removed from this WUWT article because even though Monckton clearly refuted it, it is turning into a debate over presidential eligibility that I don't want at WUWT. If you want to see it and discuss it. Do it at the original blog entry Fightin' Words - Anthony]

Regardless of whether global warming is taking place or caused to any degree by human activity, we do not want a global government empowered to tax Americans without elected representation or anything analogous to constitutional protections. The Founding Fathers would roll over in their graves if they knew their progeny allowed a foreign power such authority, effectively undoing their every effort in an act of Anti-American Revolution. If that is our imminent course, we need to put all else on hold and focus on stopping it. If American sovereignty is ceded, all other debate is irrelevant.

Edited to add @ 8:31 am:

Skimming through the treaty, I came across verification of Monckton’s assessment of the new entity’s purpose:

38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:

World Government (heading added)
a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.

To Redistribute Wealth (heading added)
b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows: (a) an Adaptation window, (b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts [read: the "climate debt" Monckton refers to], including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components, © a Technology window; (d) a Mitigation window; and (e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions.

With Enforcement Authority (heading added)
c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include: (a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation; (b) a long-term REDD process; © a short-term technology action plan; (d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and (e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries. The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange [read; enforcement].

UPDATE: Thanks to WUWT reader “Michael” who post the URL on another unrelated thread, we now have video of Lord Monckton’s presentation:

We’ve all seen John Kerry’s claims that global warming is now a “national security issue”. Kerry’s new TV commercial says: “Scientists and military experts agree: The next global hot spot won’t be a spot at all,” the TV ad warns, showing an image of the planet. “Global warming threatens our security.”

The atmosphere is threatening us, let's shoot missiles at it!

They don’t seem to think so in Australia.

AUSTRALIAN DEFENCE MINISTRY UNCONVINCED BY CLIMATE DATA

ABC News, 9 October 2009
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/10/09/2709035.htm?section=justin

By Margot O’Neill for Lateline

The science of climate change is too doubtful to dramatically change Australia’s national defence plans, according to a key adviser on the Australian Defence Force’s recent White Paper.

While the white paper acknowledges for the first time climate change is a potential security risk, it says large-scale strategic consequences of climate change are not likely to be felt before 2030.

A key adviser on the white paper, Professor Ross Babbage, says he is not convinced that climate change exists at all.

“The data on what’s really happening in climate change was looked at pretty closely and the main judgment reached was that it was pretty uncertain – it wasn’t clear exactly what was going on,” he said.

“When you look at that data, it really does suggest that there hasn’t been a major change in the last decade or so and certainly no major increase.
“So the sort of judgments that were required have to be fairly open at this stage.”

However Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has frequently put forward the opposite view, and other security analysts believe Defence should not be debating the basic science of global warming.

Anthony Bergin, from the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, says the ADF’s judgement goes against most scientific conclusions.

“There was no supporting evidence presented in the Defence White Paper for the judgement that there would be no strategic impacts of climate change for 30 years,” he said.

“It seems to run counter to most of the scientific judgements that are now concluding that impact of climate change is indeed faster and more severe than previous estimates.”

Overseas preparations

In the US and the UK, security agencies and the military are providing resources to prepare for potential new climate conflicts over water, food and refugees as well as increasingly frequent natural disasters.

They are also moving to ensure defence equipment will function in more extreme weather conditions.

Sydney University’s Professor Alan Dupont says the CIA in the US had the right approach.

“They accepted the scientific forecasts of the IPCC as their starting point because they thought they were not qualified to contest the scientific issues. And I would have thought the same applied to our own defence department.”

At the internationally respected Royal United Services Institute in London, Dr Tobias Feakin, the director of national security says the Australian white paper is out of step.

“Climate change is already happening, so to press pause on considering it as a strategic issue, I think, could be a mistake,” he said.

“The time cycles for buying equipment rotate in about 20-year cycles so you need to begin to make the decisions now to purchase the kinds of equipment that you’ll need for climate change world.

“So to not actually acknowledge the kind of changes that we will be seeing then, I think will be quite short-sighted.”
‘Cautious approach’

Because of long lead times and high expense, Professor Babbage says Defence moves cautiously when it comes to adopting new planning scenarios.

“At this stage there isn’t really the case to fundamentally change the direction of the Defence Force as a consequence of what we are so far seeing in terms of climate change, given the uncertainties that we still see in the data sets.

Professor Babbage says Defence considered a variety of climate scenarios and judged Australia’s current defence capabilities and force structure would cope.

He points out that Prime Minister Rudd, as chairman of the National Security Council, signed off on the white paper’s conclusions.

Copyright 2009, ABC

EDITOR’S NOTE: The Australian Government’s Defence White Paper is available at <http://www.defence.gov.au/whitepaper/docs/defence_white_paper_2009.pdf>

United Nations Climate Change Science Compendium - click for PDF

WUWT readers may recall that Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit blog discovery of  UNEP’s use of a Wikipedia “hockey Stick” graphic by “Hanno”, was the subject of last week’s blog postings.

The Yamal data hockey stick  controversy overshadowed it, and much of the focus has been there recently.

The discovery of a Wikipedia graphic in the UNEP Climate Change Science Compendium must have been embarrassing as  it shows the sort of sloppy science that is going into “official” publications.

In this case, the United Nations simply grabbed an image from Wikipedia that supported the view they wanted to sell. The problem with the graph in the upper right of page 5 of the UNEP report is that it itself has not been peer reviewed nor has it originated from a peer reviewed publication, having its inception at Wikipedia.

And then there’s the problem of the citation as  “Hanno 2009” who (up until this story broke) was an anonymous Wikipedia contributor.

Yet UNEP cited the graph as if it was a published and peer reviewed work as “Hanno 2009″.

UNEP report original page5 - click for larger image

Here’s my screencap of the page from the UNEP Climate Change Science Compendium report from last week

In this case, the United Nations simply grabbed an image from Wikipedia that supported the view they wanted to sell.

The hockey stick, based on tree ring proxies has met an inconveniently timed death it seems.

It appears now that somebody at the United Nations must have gotten the message from blogland, becuase there has been a change in the graphics on page 5.

Below is page 5 as it appears in the UNEP Climate Change Science Compendium today:

It’s gone. It has been replaced with the familiar GISS land-ocean record, not quite a hockey stick, but close enough.

UNEP report page5 Revision 2 - click for larger image

You can see the GISS graph from the GISTEMP web page right here, oddly the UN used the 2005 version (citing Hansen et al 2005)  rather than the 2009 version of the graph, seen below. Might it be that pesky downturn at the end of the graph? Or maybe they are just Google challenged?

It sure would be nice if such publications could display animated GIFS, for example this one showing two different vintages of GISS data:

Click if not blinking

Maybe climate blogs can convince the UN to change their graph yet again.

Thanks to sharp eyed WUWT reader Lawrie (of Sydney Australia) for pointing out the change made to the UNEP document.

This is the draft of the Copenhagen Climate Change Treaty currently out of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change working group dated September 15th.

click for PDF document

Thanks to Alan MacRae for providing it to me. To get an idea of the kinds of things being proposed, I provide it here with some excerpts below. Readers that wish to highlight some other excerpts should do so in comments.

Page 62:

33. Each Party’s national schedule shall include:
(a) A long-term national greenhouse gas emissions limitation or reduction pathway;
(b) A country-driven nationally appropriate mitigation strategy, differentiated in terms of the ambition, timing and scope of its mitigation commitments or actions, which could be, inter alia, project-based, sectoral or economy-wide.
(c) Each Party’s nationally appropriate mitigation strategy shall include:
(i) Except for the least developed countries and small island developing States,
quantified emissions limitation or reduction commitments for 2020, consistent
with its long-term national greenhouse gas emissions limitations or reduction
pathway, subject to regular review; and
(ii) Measurable, reportable and verifiable mitigation policies and measures to meet its quantified emissions limitation or reduction commitments for 2020, as appropriate, and to support its national greenhouse gas emissions limitations or reduction pathway, subject to regular review.
34. All countries prepare low emission development strategies. Note that further paragraphs would be required to describe in more detail their function and relationship to the national schedules described above and a potential facilitative/matching platform.
35. All Parties shall develop and regularly update and submit information relating to the implementation of their nationally appropriate mitigation strategies. Such information shall be reviewed and verified according to agreed rules and guidelines.
36. All Parties, except for the least developed countries and small island developing States, shall develop and regularly update and submit a national inventory of anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of all gases not controlled by the Montreal Protocol.
37. National inventories shall be:
(a) Undertaken in accordance with the latest agreed Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories; and
(b) Submitted, reviewed and verified according to agreed frequencies, rules and guidelines.

===

Page 122, Item 17 is quite troubling.

15. [Developed country Parties [shall][should] provide support to developing country Parties, particularly those specified in Articles 4.8 and 4.9 of the Convention, in order to allow developing country Parties to address issues related to social and environmental development, economic diversification, risk assessment, modelling and insurance to prevent the adverse effects of the spillover effects.] Alternative to paragraph 15:
[In the implementation of paragraphs 11 (c)11 and 11 (d)12 above (159.1 and 159.2 in FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.1) , through the provision of financial resources, including for access, development and transfer of technology, at agreed full incremental costs in accordance with Article 4.3 of the Convention;
Recognizing that there are ways and means to reduce or avoid such impacts through careful and informed selection of policies and measures, to evaluate the effectiveness of existing tools, and to consider new ones, in order to assist developing country Parties in addressing these impacts.]
16. [Adverse economic and social consequences of response measures [shall][should] be addressed by proper economic, social and environmental actions, including promoting and supporting economic diversification and the development and dissemination of win-win technologies in the affected countries, paying particular attention to the needs and concerns of the poorest and most vulnerable developing country Parties.]
Alternative to paragraph 16:
[Adverse economic and social consequences of response measures shall be addressed by various means, including but not limited to promoting, supporting and enabling economic diversification, funding, insurance and the development, transfer and dissemination of win-win technologies in the affected countries, such as cleaner fossil fuel technologies, gas flaring reduction, and carbon capture and storage technologies.]
17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:]
(a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees;
(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures.

Guest post by Harold Ambler, TalkingAboutTheWeather.com

What started as a brouhaha in the blogosophere has turned into a minor embarrassment for the United Nations in the climate debates. As first reported on ClimateAudit.org, the origin of a graph used in last week’s UN climate report, published to coincide with the summit in New York attended by President Obama and other world leaders, was not an august team of scientists working around the clock, but rather Wikipedia.

The "Hanno" graph, from Wikipedia, used by the United Nations Climate Change Science Compendium 2009, published last week to coincide with the summit attended by President Barack Obama and other world leaders.

Perhaps equally surprising was the revelation that the graph’s author was not a climatologist, but rather an obscure Norwegian ecologist, Hanno Sandvik, who claimed no expertise regarding the data used in his graph. Misidentified in the UN report as “Hanno,” Sandvik politely distanced himself from the graph as the story unfolded. The UN report authors, meanwhile, had given a scientist they had never met or heard of the appearance of scientific legitimacy.

Was copying and pasting a Wikipedia graph drawn by a non-climatologist the best that the United Nations, with a staff of hundreds working on climate change using an annual budget in the hundreds of million dollars, could do? Evidently, it was. Sandvik himself appeared surprised.

‘My’ graph has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal since I am not a climatologist,” he wrote in an e-mail to TalkingAboutTheWeather.com. “The graph has been drawn using data that have undergone peer-review. That means that the graph is ‘mine’ only in a very restricted sense, viz. that I have drawn it – the underlying data [are] not mine, as the source provided clearly indicates. I have no qualification to judge whether the underlying data are correct or erroneous, and have never pretended to be able to do so.

This is not the first graph with a hockey-stick shape to gain notoriety. The most famous example is that of Penn State climatologist Michael Mann’s own hockey stick graph, prominently featured at the 2001 UN IPCC meeting and in its Third Assessment Report.

Michael Mann's famous hockey stick graph used by the United Nations for its Third Assessment Report in 2001 but abandoned by the Fourth Assessment Report of 2007.

That hockey stick has since been debunked by the United States Congress by the world-renowned statistics expert Edward Wegman. See the Wegman report here.

The Wegman Report was sufficiently damning that, until now, the United Nations has distanced itself from Mann’s graph, which did not appear in the Fourth Assessment Report published in 2007. From the Congressional report led by Wegman came the following conclusion:

“The [Mann] methodology puts undue emphasis on those proxies that do exhibit the hockey stick shape and this is the fundamental flaw.”

Mann has argued that it was never his intention for the flat part of the stick that he derived from proxies to be grafted onto the modern temperature record, providing the upturned blade, as though the two sets of data had the same origin. Writing on the website that he co-founded, realclimate.org, Mann wrote the following in response to earlier critiques of his methodology in 2004: “No researchers in this field have ever, to our knowledge, ‘grafted the thermometer record onto’ any reconstruction. It is somewhat disappointing to find this specious claim (which we usually find originating from industry-funded climate disinformation websites) appearing in this forum.”

Such a graft is precisely what Sandvik’s graph does, however, leading to the inevitable question: Is the United Nations an “industry-funded climate disinformation website”? Unlike Mann’s graph, which, with the use of color and error bars, at least suggests both the level of uncertainty associated with temperature proxies and shows that the sources for the temperature data is not the same during the past 1,000 years, the “Hanno” graph used by the United Nations has neither error bars nor different colors for the differently derived data. By intent or no, it is inherently misleading.

The storm over “Hanno 2009” is very likely just beginning.

—

Harold Ambler is an avowed starving artist. His first book about climate, Don’t Sell Your Coat, is due to be published in November. In the meantime he’s living hand to mouth. If you liked this article consider helping him out by hitting his tip jar. – Anthony