Weather Channel Founder: Life on Earth getting better – Al Gore is “guilty of scientific fraud”

Greenhouse Gases are making Our Lives Wonderful

By John Coleman, Meteorologist, founder of the Weather Channel

After more than two decades of study I am convinced that life here on Earth has been getting better and better for the billions of we people who make this little blue marble our beloved home.

The “tons and tons of carbon we are spewing into the atmosphere every day” as Al Gore puts it are actually a good thing. In his rants that the Earth will become uninhabitable former Vice President Gore is referring the carbon dioxide gas being released into the atmosphere as we power our civilization with fossil fuels. However, it turns out that as the “greenhouse gasses” we release combine with nature’s carbon dioxide to make the planet greener and greener.

GREENER EARTH

Yes, the increased carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere causes our forests and grasslands to spread out and grow bigger and stronger and the CO2 also causes our food crops to grow faster and better increasing the food supply for people and animals. And these gasses are also warming the planet a little bit decreasing the impact of winter’s deep freezes, ice storms and blizzards. As a result life is better for all of the people and animals living on Earth, and it particularly better for the billions of people in live primitive lives in the undeveloped third world.

There are at least three reasons.

GLOBAL WARMING IN SCHOOL

First of all, for at least 20 years ALL of our schools and our Universities have taught the students that carbon dioxide is pollutant and powerful greenhouse gas. Every person has been taught that as a result of our use of fossil fuels which exhaust carbon dioxide into the atmosphere our climate is going to become unlivable. How did this become the accepted position in our schools? Well it started as it became the position of the United States Government thanks to the work of Senator Al Gore who had written a book about the threat of global warming and used it to get elected to the United States Senate. There he pushed his theory through Congress.


A must read: Polar Bears: Outstanding Survivors of Climate Change


There was no organized opposition to his campaign and only a few lonesome skeptics tried but failed to be heard in opposition. Scientific papers supporting this theory were widely published in scientific journals. With a powerful Democrat politician advancing the theory and over 90% of college professors Democrats, the tendency was to accept the theory. First thing we knew the theory was in all the text books and presented as a fact in every class room. So classroom teachers and College Professors had accepted the theory about CO2 being a super “greenhouse gas” the Algorian position was totally accepted in the educational system. It would have been very difficult for a teacher or professor to look into an opposing position and very few did.

SORRY I WAS WRONG

Second, saying I was wrong and I have changed my mind is a very rare event. Only the strongest persons can do it. I only know of a couple of professors who have had the strength to look into the climate change frenzy theories skeptically and come to the conclusion that they are scientifically unproven and then ventured into the skeptics papers and articles and seen the light. I suspect there are dozens or even hundreds of others who have seen the light but don’t have the strength to say so. To face your wife, your boss, your friends, your former students and say I was wrong and have changed my mind takes far more strength than most people possess.

MONEY

Third, the power of money keeps the Algorian climate change theory firmly in place. Money is the second most powerful force in our civilization and our government now supports climate change with about 20 billion dollars a year. Dozens of Universities depend on that money. Research organizations are also heavily dependent. Everyone on the faculties and staffs have to toe the line without reservation. This process funds dozens of supportive research papers a year. Those papers lead to web posts and journal articles. Those articles lead to news stories in papers, on websites and on TV and Radio stations. This keeps the Algorian frenzy about the supposed climate threats in everyone’s mind.

ENDANGERMENT FINDING

I am in contact with a large skeptical group of Ph.D. climate scientists, attorneys, researchers and other well educated students of science such as me. We all devote a great deal of time each week to try to reach the public and elected officials on climate change. We are pleased that the President withdrew from the Paris Climate Accord. We want very much to overturn the Environmental Protection Agency Endangerment Finding that classifies Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant. There are numerous meetings being held, contacts being made, petitions filed, letters written and legal actions being undertaken or considered. My heroes at Heartland Institute continue their intense efforts to organize and support our activities. I wish I could shout it out in the halls of the Washington swamp, GREENHOUSE GAS IS MAKING OUR LIVES WONDERFUL.

GREEN EARTH

I hasten to add in closing, I am an environmentalist. I ask for no compromise in our efforts to provide an Earth of clean air and clean water. Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. It is invisible (it is not responsible for any haze in the air), it is odorless and tasteless. Scientists and engineers have done wonders in the last 20 years to clean our fossil fuels and the internal combustion engines and power plants they fuel. Our air is the cleanest it has been in a century. Solar and wind energy is still far from the task of powering our civilization. We would have to give up our cell phones, computers, airplanes, air conditioning and heating to live without fossil fuels at this time. Science breakthroughs come along every year. I predict that in 40 years we will be able to shut down our power plants and retire the internal combustion engines. That will be a great day.

While most of the media is busy bashing President Trump and all that, quietly important bureaucratic changes that will impact future Federal Government policies are underway. There is exciting new news from the Environmental Protection Agency, the agency that essentially validated the global warming/climate change frenzy during the last eight years as it classified carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as a result of man-kinds use of fossil fuels as a pollutant. Scientific America published a little seen report on the EPA activities. That article was write from an Algorian point of view. I have cut those biased bits from it so I can share the important news from we climate skeptics. Here is the edited article:

Climate skeptics may soon join a key science advisory panel at U.S. EPA.

A number of people who reject the findings of mainstream climate science are being considered by the Trump administration for spots on EPA’s Science Advisory Board, a voluntary but influential panel that reviews science used in environmental regulations.

The selection of any of those researchers would be the beginning of a very different advisory board that would bear the hallmark of the Trump administration’s position on climate change, said Steve Milloy, an attorney and longtime EPA foe who worked on President Trump’s transition team for the agency.

Heartland Institute spokesman Jim Lakely said in an email: “We applaud any effort by Administrator Pruitt to bring qualified non-alarmist scientists onto the EPA’s advisory boards. There is a vigorous debate over the causes and consequences of climate change, and it’s vital that EPA acknowledge that fact and have a more balanced approach to the agency’s rule-making.”

The deadline for public comment expired Sept. 28. After that, EPA boss Pruitt has final approval on the candidates. The board has 48 member slots, 15 of which expire at the end of the month. It’s not clear how many positions will be filled.

Here are some of the skeptical nominees under consideration:

JOE D'ALEO

Joseph D’Aleo, a certified consultant meteorologist and co-founder of the Weather Channel: He has run climate skeptic websites and has appeared as a speaker at Heartland conferences. D’Aleo said his priority on the board would be attacking the endangerment finding, the legally binding document that holds that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases harm human health and must be regulated by the executive branch. He said he wants to challenge the finding because it could otherwise be used later to build back Obama-era environmental regulations.
“We’re going to push for reconsideration, start from scratch and put together the best science,” he said. “If CO2 is not a serious pollutant, let’s focus the attention of the EPA on other issues.”

edwin berry

Edwin Berry, a meteorologist and atmospheric scientist: He has funded his own climate research and says human carbon dioxide emissions do not cause climate change. He has compared those who believe in human-caused climate change to “Aztecs who believed they could make rain by cutting out beating hearts and rolling decapitated heads down temple steps.” On his Twitter account, he has called Islam “a death cult” [that]  has encouraged motorists to drive into protesters. Berry, who confirmed that he and a number of other skeptics were nominated by Heartland, said he wants to use his position on the board to show that humans barely contribute to atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, which he claimed are mostly driven by natural factors. “Let’s get over this whole thing about climate change being an important thing, because in fact we humans have a negligible impact on climate,” he said. “And if we had the Paris Agreement and everything else, it wouldn’t do any good anyway.”

alan carlin

Alan Carlin, a retired EPA employee who is affiliated with Heartland: He fought the agency’s crafting of the endangerment finding. Carlin, an economist, was at the center of a political firestorm under Obama after he produced a widely criticized 93-page report comprising cherry-picked scientific data and blog entries concluding that regulating carbon dioxide was “the worst mistake that EPA has ever made.”

kevin dayaraatna

Kevin Dayaratna, a statistician at the conservative Heritage Foundation: His report was cited by Trump as a reason to withdraw from the Paris climate accord. It claimed that the agreement could shrink U.S. gross domestic product by $2.5 trillion within two decades (though Trump stated the impact as coming within a decade). The report was criticized by some as being misleading, because that amount is less than 1 percent of the aggregate GDP over that period and the report did not account for the cost of taking no climate change action. Dayaratna was invited to attend Trump’s withdrawal announcement in June in the White House Rose Garden.

graig idso

Craig Idso, a senior fellow at the Heartland Institute: He has researched the benefits of atmospheric carbon dioxide. His work has centered on highlighting how increased carbon dioxide will benefit plants.

Paul Driessen

Paul Driessen, a senior policy adviser at the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, a libertarian environmental think tank: His organization handed out leaflets at a climate protest this year in Washington, D.C., that said, “CO2 is not the ‘control knob’ of the climate.” He also co-founded Climate Exit, or “Clexit,” which criticized the science behind the Paris climate agreement and holds that spiking levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide benefit the Earth. “The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade,” the group stated in its founding statement. “Man does not and cannot control the climate.”

Gordon Fulks

Gordon Fulks, a physicist and adviser to the Cascade Policy Institute, an Oregon-based libertarian think tank: He has denied that net sea ice melt is occurring and that the Earth is warming. He has said those who express concern about climate change are like a “societal pathogen that virulently spreads misinformation in tiny packages like a virus.”
Anthony Lupo, another founding member of Clexit: He has received support from the Heartland Institute and helped in the unsuccessful fight against the endangerment finding in court.

Leighton Steward,

Leighton Steward, a former energy company executive and a founder of groups that promote the rise of carbon dioxide as a benefit: He has also encouraged the United States to drop out of the Paris climate accord and says that natural warming is raising the temperature of the Earth.

David R. Legates

David Legates, a professor of climatology at the University of Delaware: He has denied that human-caused climate change could have catastrophic consequences and has co-authored climate research claiming polar bears are not harmed by human-caused climate change that was quietly funded, at least in part, by Koch Industries Inc.

Republican lawmakers and other conservatives have long wanted to revamp the board.

Pruitt seems determined to leave his mark on EPA’s advisory boards. In April, EPA dismissed about half of the 18 members of its Board of Scientific Counselors. That board is largely tasked with technical and management reviews of EPA research programs.

…..

Since Joe D’Aleo was a key employee of mine when I was on “Good Morning, America” and when we founded The Weather Channel, I am very excited that he is included in this group.  He is a Meteorological power house.  Yeah.

Read much more here: https://johncolemanblog.com/

Advertisements

137 thoughts on “Weather Channel Founder: Life on Earth getting better – Al Gore is “guilty of scientific fraud”

  1. The rent seekers and true believers will vehemently denounce all the advisors as purveyors of doubleplus ungood crimethink.

    • Well some of the above are funded by organisations ultimately funded by fossil fuel producers…

      e.g. David Legates ‘has co-authored climate research claiming polar bears are not harmed by human-caused climate change that was quietly funded, at least in part, by Koch Industries Inc’

      Polar Bears depend on arctic sea ice and that sea ice has certianly declined: there are verifiable decreases in Hudson Bay polar bears and on denning success around Svalbard as a result.

      so has he been funded by fossil fuels to reach an erroneous conclusion?

      The other experts you cite all look as if they are contradicting climate points for which there is extensive observed scientific evidence

      Finally, Al Gore has zero influence outside the US… yet the UK, Germany, all of europe pretty much, India and China all subscribe to the science of AGW and teach it in schools… how come?

      (You were warned to stop posting Funding fallacies,why not address the topic itself instead?) MOD

      • Give us a link to those ‘verifiable decreases’ griff.

        A RECENT one, not something 5 or 6 years out of date.

      • In Griff’s world, if even one penny of your funding comes from someone he’s been told is bad, then your research is untrustworthy.
        On the other hand, anyone who’s being paid by government is pure as the driven snow and would never, ever, falsify their data.

      • So in your fantasy world, polar bears [A) hibernated throughout B) went extinct and then reappeared, C) were abducted by aliens and then brought back] throughout the entire Holocene climate optimum and other multi-century scale climate excursions when the Arctic was completely ice free during the summer?

        I wish this site had smarter trolls…shrug*

      • Don’t worry, AGW is also taught in USA public schools. Unfortunately for our children, elementary school teachers are not the sharpest tools in the shed.

      • But since the research of, inter alia Dr. Susan Crockford has demonstrated that Legates is, in fact, correct, then he must not have been paid to reach an erroneous conclusion.

      • Griff

        virtually everything you have, or are likely to have including technology, transport, health, welfare, heating, cooling and lighting etc. is thanks to fossil fuel.

        So what’s wrong with fossil fuel supporters financing research? They haven’t done you any harm.

        And the only observable evidence of increased atmospheric CO2 is positive. Anything else is just ghost stories for the weak minded and gullible.

      • Fossil fuel producers produce reliable, cheap, productive and society-enriching energy (which governments then tax to the max.) Fossil fuel producers are heroes, and should be applauded.

      • That’s right, when Al Gore was vice president, there were at least 7500 polar bears on the planet. Today only 25000 remain..

      • Generation Investment Management was co founded by Gore and has headquarters in both the U.K. And New York.

        Enough with your conspiracy theory nonsense

      • “The other experts you cite all look as if they are contradicting climate points for which there is extensive observed scientific evidence”

        Evidence which you are NEVER able to produce.

        Your mindless yapping is NOT evidence griff.

        And your comments re polar bears, roflmao.. YOU WOULDN’T HAVE A CLUE

      • ‘You were warned to stop posting Funding fallacies,why not address the topic itself instead?’ MOD

        He can’t address anything until the talking points are fed to him. Please don’t give him the credit for independent thought.

      • there are verifiable decreases in Hudson Bay polar bears

        What a crock! Complete nonsense.

        Churchill, Manitoba is on the shore of Hudson’s Bay. Just search about the polar bear population there and how it’s increased 500% over the past few decades.

      • Griff,

        “Polar Bears depend on arctic sea ice and that sea ice has certianly declined: there are verifiable decreases in Hudson Bay polar bears and on denning success around Svalbard as a result.”

        This is a flat out lie, as you’ve been repeatedly shown the facts, which is that polar bears don’t rely on sea ice floes in summer but on landfast shore ice in spring. Their dens are on land, usually in snow, but they can also den in caves or the earth, so sea ice again has no effect. You won’t “verify” these lies because you can’t.

        And in any case, sea ice extent has little to nothing to do with man-made CO2.

      • Polar Bears survived the MWP, when there was a lot less ice in the Arctic. They are currently at the maximum population level that the land can support. Polar Bears are fine.

      • Andrew,

        We now know that they had already started evolving before the Eemian interglacial, so they survived it, too. And the Holocene Climatic Optimum, the Egyptian, Minoan and Roman Warm Periods.

        As noted, the ice they need is shorefast, upon which ringed seals build their snow lairs, and maintain holes through the ice down into the water. The seal pups in spring break the long winter fast of the mama polar bears with their new, hungry cubs.

        Polar bears can take or leave hunting on sea ice floes, are capable of swimming long distances and can find plenty of food on land during the summer if need be. They can kill and eat anything that their ancestral grizzlies can, despite their rapidly evolving special dentition.

      • You are mistaken. His “Inconvenient Truth” became part of the curriculum in England during The Blair Patsy years and in spite of a court case which disclosed umpteen serious flaws in his disney epic and a subsequent judgment which stipulated that the Gorathon movie MUST be accompanied by a further video outlining those ahem, “errors” nothing whatsoever has been done to change what is being inflicted on our impressionable young. Our young are now unquestioning fools taught what to think not how to think, indoctrinated to conform not to question and become cannon fodder for the plethora of pointless but suspiciously well funded very left of center activist groups about which they know diddlysquat and honestly do not care either as long as they can “belong” get to go on pointless marches wear a mask and a black teeshirt and hey it might get them laid, spots b.o. and all!

      • Griff!
        Do we need to ask Susan Crockford what she still thinks of your idiotic polar scare stories? Isn’t it enough that the ice is coming back? Why does your Socialist utopia require that everyone be cold and hungry and poor? Move to Venezuela and get a rescue bear. The polar bears are fat and happy up North but maybe you can get a black bear from a circus and some white paint, if you can find anything to buy in the stores in your workers paradise. Lol!

      • How come you Leftists only get fussed at on (supposedly) conservative websites (for giving your opinion) and we get instantly banned on lefty websites when we give ours? Just curious.

      • “The whole world’s turning into burning ball of fire.
        Polar bears drown, drown, drown as the oceans gettin’ higher
        The world on fire
        The world on fire”

        To the tune of Johny Cash’s “Ring of Fire”
        Lyrics: Paul Shanklin
        Watch the video on YouTube.

      • More lies, you slandering little propagandist?

        You STILL believe your scientific and engineering knowledge surpasses 90$ of the professionals on WUWT and are in a position to post attacks designed to damage their professional credibility, despite being no more than a project manager for a bank?

        If it wasn’t so funny, it would be tragic.

        Now go and apologise to Dr. Crockford.

        And after that Willie Soon.

  2. The worm is turning.

    The Honourable Tony Abbott MP, Former Prime Minister of Australia gave a speech to the GWPF roundly condemning climate hysteria, which included:

    “The modern world, after all, is not the product of a successful search for consensus. It’s what’s emerged from centuries of critical enquiry and hard clash. Without the constant curiosity and endless questioning that has driven our scientists and engineers, and the constant striving for improvement that’s long guided our planners and policy makers, there’d be no cures for disease, no labour-saving appliances, no sanitation, no urban improvement, no votes for women, no respect for minorities; in other words, no modern world.

    That may not actually bother some green activists whose ideal is an Amish existence, [My emphasis] only without reference to God. But it should bother anyone and everyone who wants longer, safer, more comfortable and more prosperous lives.

    Beware the pronouncement, “the science is settled”. It’s the spirit of the Inquisition, the thought-police down the ages. Almost as bad is the claim that “99 per cent of scientists believe” as if scientific truth is determined by votes rather than facts.

    There are laws of physics; there are objective facts; there are moral and ethical truths. But there is almost nothing important where no further enquiry is needed. What the “science is settled” brigade want is to close down investigation by equating questioning with superstition. It’s an aspect of the wider weakening of the Western mind which poses such dangers to the world’s future.”

    That’s some public statement from someone who will probably be running for PM of Australia again.

    • Most of those accepting the science of climate change and backing renewables as a solution are wanting a highly technical and industrial society, as we have now – it is just that they don’t see coal plants (etc) as being at all necessary or desirable in delivering that. In fact they are the ones developing new technologies and materials and cleaning up pollution…

      • As always, when Griff doesn’t have the data, he just makes it up.
        The quotes by leading lights of the CAGW movement, wanting to destroy western industrial society have been provided many times.

      • What are you saying? That renewables will turn the global climate back to that of 1950 and it will never change again?

        “it is just that they don’t see coal plants (etc) as being at all necessary or desirable in delivering that.” Some people don’t ‘see’ a spherical Earth as being real either.

        “In fact they are the ones developing new technologies and materials and cleaning up pollution” What are you talking about again? Who is developing what technology and cleaning up what pollution?

      • “backing renewables as a solution ” require so much scientific illiteracy (or vested interest in these, despite knowing it will never be a solution) that it surely include some people wanting everything and the opposite at the same time. You are proof of that.
        However, most of those don’t want anything industrial or chemical, fight against GMO, cellphone antennas, electrical fields, vaccines, nanostuff, don’t trust expert of highly technical ware (adhere to conspiracy theories according to which those expert are sold out to lobbies) etc. Don’t they? This hardly fit to my definition of “highly technical and industrial society”, but surely you have a different definition, were “highly technical and industrial society” means some natural growing all-i-want-happen the “avatar” (film) way.

      • Griff,

        utter rubbish, they want the destruction of Capitalism

        “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution.”

        Christiana Figueres

        And the alternatives? Socialism, Fascism or Communism.

        Wake up man!

      • “Most of those” very same people, while well intentioned, are scientifically ignorant. They hear some pundit state “All we need to do is bell the cat!”, and they march off in a frenzy proclaiming to have a solution, “Simply bell the cat.”
        Sadly few if any have any understanding of what they are saying or have no clue as to how to accomplish any of it. Worse yet they have identified a non-problem, and determined the wrong culprit. IMHO it is because it is all they can think of. Toss another virgin into the volcano…

      • The kind of advanced, non-polluting, renewable power generation that has been so successful in South Australia?

      • Hot Scot

        I don’t know a nation more dedicated to a comfortable lifestyle than the Germans and they are going for it… no enemies of capitalism, industry or technology there. Happy to have new renewables industries exporting to (e.g.) India.

        The idea that renewables/fighting climate change must have us all living in yurts or that it some socialist plot is just nonsense.

        Argue with the science, criticise the cost or effectiveness of renewables by all means… but no need to rope climate science and renewables into some imaginary scenario based on right wing politics

      • Yes my Lutrinate friend… like the Chinese, cancelling coal plants, shutting them and blocking new plans for them.

      • What have I made up Mark?

        Is the Indian govt installing 175GW of renewables by 2022 to provide power, or return all India to a peasant economy?

        (yes, I know what you’ll say to that: but please at least show your workings)

        climate science is based on CO2 increase = global temp increase. No political motive, reason, etc involved.

        renewables = need to reduce CO2.

        No political, leftist, decivilisation involved.

      • RW

        Renewables slow the rate of warming to something our agriculture, environment and civilisation can probably handle.

        The climate will keep changing… all we are doing is slowing a trend we caused.

      • Akat – yes, the renewables which WILL be successful in SA.

        The blackout was caused by severe weather… it would have happened if the fossil fuel plant was still running and it would not have happened if the trip for the wind farms had not been mismanaged. In Europe they solved that problem in 2008.

      • Griff you are fundamentally wrong. I lived and worked in their (most of those accepting) world for over 30 years. They love technology only so long as they can use it to advance their agenda. They hate that those opposing their world view also has access to such technology. They want to end for all time the use of fossil fuels while at the same time opposing nuclear and hydroelectric and do not have a clue that solar and wind can’t provide the necessary energy to bring billions out of poverty as fossil fuels certainly have done. They don’t even falsely believe that we can have a “highly technical and industrial society” because as useful idiots they don’t have a clue what it takes to do that or as most of their leaders desire they want to destroy capitalism once and for all. Capitalism, which made “highly technical and industrial society” possible and has raised the standard of living for more people than all other economic systems combined. They are indeed the ultimate fascists. As elites they believe everyone else should be tightly regulated. Remember Fascism is National Socialism, where large mega corporations and big government in close partnership decide everything for everyone.

      • It is sheer lunacy, fantastic, magical thinking (or lack thereof) to imagine that industrial society can be powered by wind and solar:

        To say nothing of fossil fuels consumed in transportation, which would require titanic amounts of electricity to replace, while making moving goods and people much less efficient.

      • “Renewables slow the rate of warming to something our agriculture, environment and civilisation can probably handle.”

        Renewables have absolutely ZERO effect on warming.

        You made the comment.

        Now BACK IT UP or STOP LYING.

      • “like the Chinese, cancelling coal plants, shutting them and blocking new plans for them”

        Always the deception from you, isn’t it griff

        They have over-built their electricity supply system and the economic downturn means that can call a halt for now..

        You KNOW that.. yet you still push the lies.

        They are however, helping to build HUNDREDS of coal fired power stations around the world.

      • Most of those accepting catastrophic anthropogenic global warming demand a magical fairy box that will cure all ills and create energy out of nothing for free. In order to create said magical fairy box, they are prepared to take more money by taxation from all the people who cannot afford fancy accounting techniques. That is to say, they will take money from hard working families who can least afford it. Of course, most of the tax take is being creamed off to line the pockets of those who can already afford the fancy accounting techniques.

      • We invented and used the tech for cleanup long before clownish trolls like Griff went on any payroll. We defeated the power shortage which is back now, thanks to the likes of Griff. Can’t wait for more…..

      • That’s an assumption. Many of the key players in the beginning held disdain towards humanity and industrialization.

      • I am sure that Griff still believes what his HS Science Teacher told him to believe, ….. that the Brontosaurus was an extremely large “plant eating” dinosaur that went extinct millions of years ago.

        And one thing i have noticed about Griffy is that he has a “one-track-mind” and never forgets, ….. even though he has surely been told hundreds of times to …….. Forget Extinct: The Brontosaurus Never Even Existed

        And like dozens n’ dozens of other scientific facts, Griffy averts his eyes and his mind to anything contrary to the “junk science” that he was initially told to believe …… and he still has all of his plastic figures and colored pictures of a Brontosaurus …… which is “proof enough” to him that they once existed.

      • Samuel,

        Brontosaurus has made a comeback. Even paleontology is never settled.

        A specimen-level phylogenetic analysis and taxonomic revision of Diplodocidae (Dinosauria, Sauropoda)

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4393826/

        This 2015 analysis proposes Brontosaurus as a genus separate from Apatosaurus, containing three species: B. excelsus, B. yahnahpin and B. parvus. This resurrection of the genus has been generally accepted.

      • blockquote>“Samuel,

        Brontosaurus has made a comeback. Even paleontology is never settled.

        Willy Pete, ……. don’t be mimicking PC paleontological “trash” to me. You can’t force a “comeback” for something that never had any place to comeback from simply because it was never there to begin with.

        Now iffen you want to change your stated “claim” to say …. “the name Brontosaurus has made a comeback”, ……. then I’ll have no objections to that.

        But the originally named Brontosaurus fossil, with the skull of a different species of dinosaur placed upon it, ……. was no less of an intentional “scientific hoax” for attainment of fame and publicity …. than was the announced discovery of the Piltdown Man, ….. to wit:

        The Piltdown Man was a paleoanthropological hoax in which bone fragments were presented as the fossilised remains of a previously unknown early human.

        In 1912, the amateur archaeologist Charles Dawson claimed that he had discovered the “missing link” between ape and man.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

      • And to wit, Willy Pete.

        Now a new study suggests resurrecting (the name) Brontosaurus. It turns out the original Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus fossils appear different enough to belong to separate groups after all.

        “Generally, Brontosaurus can be distinguished from Apatosaurus most easily by its neck, which is higher and less wide,” says lead study author Emanuel Tschopp, a vertebrate paleontologist at the New University of Lisbon in Portugal. “So although both are very massive and robust animals, Apatosaurus is even more extreme than Brontosaurus.”
        https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-brontosaurus-is-back1/

    • ” the renewables which WILL be successful in SA.”

      roflmao

      So long as they have MASSIVE coal and gas fired backup.

      Government is ordering the gas fire plants to stay on line,, and subsidising their gas.. DOH !!

      Way to make cheap electricity… NOT !!

    • He has no hope of ever being PM again – simply not PM material (although the last few we have had aren’t either). Point is he has the advantage of having nothing to lose so he can create such a huge point of difference that it at least gets headlines. He has been pilloried of course with our Public Broadcaster (ABC) actually editorialising during the news last night in saying that he was the most destructive PM in recent history. (Very short memories at the ABC.
      His comments are not a disgrace but the ABC editorialising during the news certainly is.

      • I suspect his speech will be ignored by many Aussies. But I think the point is, they won’t by many politicians across the planet who are also of a like mind but scared to come forward.

        Many in opposition are waiting for the next key to the door, and the public is getting increasingly pi**ed off with an AGW meme that has failed to manifest itself in over 4 years.

        I don’t think his speech was directed at the Aussies, otherwise, why would he make it to the GWPF?

    • Griff says: “…In fact they are the ones developing new technologies and materials and cleaning up pollution…..”.

      Poor Griff, so delusional. His beloved solar panels leave behind toxic pollution……
      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/449026/solar-panel-waste-environmental-threat-clean-energy.

      Toxic waste, if I recall, is produced at the raw material mining, manufacturing and end-of-life stages of solar panels. The more Griff and his ilk want to scale them up, the more the toxic pollution they generate will pile up. If fossil fuels are horribly evil because of the pollution, then so are solar panels.

      Secondly, seeing not-exactly-true science being taught in schools today isn’t exactly new. In elementary school, I was taught that Pluto was one of the full-fledged planets in our solar system when we studied it. It wasn’t until decades later, as an adult, that I found out that this wasn’t actually true — astronomers had downgraded it to the status of a dwarf planet in 2006 when they found other objects like it out there.

      http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/08/060824-pluto-planet.html.

      Third, Griff should consider himself fortunate that Anthony and CTM don’t have a policy requiring that all scientific claims being made here must have at least one link to support them. Griff would have so many snips one could probably fill a grain silo with them.

      • Astronomers also learned that Pluto was much smaller than originally thought, when telescopes couldn’t distinguish it from its tidally-locked moon Charon. Had it been discovered in 1980 rather than 1930, it would not have been rated as a planet.

  3. The second illustration in the article appears to be a Mercator projection (or something related). It dramatically overemphasizes the frozen arctic and antarctic wastes.

    The map understates the amount of green and especially the increase in green.

    Things are a lot better than they look at first blush. Technological change is also contributing to everyone’s improved well being. We are approaching an Earthly paradise. For those who think things were better before we emerged from the caves, I would point them to a cartoon that shows two cave men talking.

    Something’s just not right – our air is clean, our water is pure, we all get plenty of exercise, everything we eat is organic and free-range, and yet nobody lives past thirty. link

  4. “Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant. It is invisible (it is not responsible for any haze in the air), it is odorless and tasteless.”

    It is really unfortunate that CO2 got labeled a pollutant and that definitely has to be reversed because that is a direct falsehood. The masses equate CO2 ‘pollution’ with soot and air pollution, which are totally separate things.

    If academia, media and lawmakers can’t get that fact straight, not to mention continuously calling the CO2 gas ‘Carbon’, then what right do they have in formulating pubic policy. It is time for some honest scientific dialogue on these matters without the academic and political interference that tries to shut down any honest debate about such a complex subject as weather and climate on planet Earth.

    • The media and academia constantly conflating carbon dioxide gas with “carbon” is particularly annoying. Carbon is a chemical element, which is extremely abundant on earth, and practically all molecules in living organisms which are not water contain carbon atoms. It is the ability of carbon atoms to form four covalent bonds with other atoms (including carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, hydrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur) in billions of combinations (including DNA, which codifies the life program of living organisms) which enables life on earth to thrive in its amazing diversity.

      It is true that the combustion of carbon from coal, oil, or natural gas is a reaction of carbon with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, but then cellular respiration in plants, animals, and the human body uses the same reaction to generate energy for all living organisms, and we all exhale carbon dioxide as part of the basic energy-producing process of life.

      Carbon dioxide is also a necessary raw material for photosynthesis, the process by which green plants use sunlight and water to produce all the food on earth for animals and people. If there was no carbon dioxide on earth, all life on earth would die of starvation.

      Even when considering carbon dioxide emissions from combustion of fossil fuels, conflating carbon dioxide with “carbon” causes mathematical confusion to the uneducated. Combustion of 12 grams of carbon atoms (from coal, oil, natural gas, or sugar) results in 44 grams of carbon dioxide gas. So, if one person talks about the emission a tonne of carbon dioxide, and another about burning a tonne of “carbon”, there is a factor of 44/12 = 3.67 between them, and they hope that the uneducated masses can’t tell the difference.

    • Earthling2; conflating CO2 with ‘carbon pollution’ is not accidental. Just like conflating AGW with global warming was not accidental.

      • Rhoda R – I didn’t say it was accidental, I said it was unfortunate. And it is, and I said it is also a falsehood that CO2 is labeled a pollutant. Of course it was a deliberate act by the Obama administration to do so, but it will be undone just as the war on coal will be over tomorrow. Reversing the endangerment policy on CO2 will probably do more to win over alarmists to common sense since labelling CO2 or ‘Carbon’ as a pollutant is crazy. Carbon and CO2 is the foundation of life on the good Earth.

        Now if you would have said I was advocating Pubic Policy, well, that was just sticky fingers/keys, and of course meant Public. Relax…we are on the same side..I think.

      • Earthling2, I thought Rhoda R was adding to your statement, not correcting it.

        ( and I am not chastising you – I’m reassuring you)

        Willhaas, great comment!

        SR

    • If CO2 is a pollutant because it is a so called greenhouse gas then H2O should also be labeled a polutant because it is a stronger IR absorber then CO2. In the city where I live, at times H2O becomes so concentrated in the atmosphere that it condenses out as a liquid. The city knows about the occourance of this liquified greenhouse gas and has installed a network of pipes to channel the liquified greenhouse gas away. In my neighborhood the liquid flows in to a chanel and then is pumped up into another chanel and finally dumped just outside of the city limits. The pool of liquified greenhouse gas dumped by the city of just enormous and can even be seen from space. Greenhouse gas is allowed to evaporate into the atmosphere. The amount of greenhouse gas caused by humans all over the world is trivial compared to the amount of greenhouse gas that evaporates from this pool each year yet the EPA has done nothing to stop it. The EPA should first concentrate on the largest sources of greenhouse gas first. They need to completely clean up the pool that exists just beyond the city limits of the city where I live.

  5. The observations clearly show that the last 4 decades of weather/climate have featured the best conditions for life on this greening planet in at least the last 1,000 years(since the last time it was this warm). Dial in the additional beneficial CO2 and it’s been even better.

    Warming the highest latitudes the most(coldest places) has decreased the meridional temperature gradient. Meteorology 101 tells us that this should DECREASE many measures of extreme weather. Observations have solidly confirmed this. The atmosphere does not have to work as hard to balance the temperature differential between very warm tropics and the less cold high latitudes.

    The 1 deg. C warmer atmosphere is capable of holding 4% more moisture. If half of that is from humans, that is 2%. This would mean that Harvey might have produced an additional inch of rain from the human caused portion of warming. That is the authentic science based on the physical laws of the atmosphere.

    What has become unprecedented, is not the extreme weather events but the twisting of extreme weather events, similar to extreme weather events that have happened before into 1 in 1,000 year events or worse.

    How many people use historical weather records to search for similar events or understand the physics of the atmosphere?

    That’s why highjacking climate science and weather has been so effective.

    https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-high-and-low-temperatures

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state_temperature_extremes

    http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hdsc/record_precip/record_precip_us.html

    http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/texas/article/After-35-years-Alvin-still-holds-U-S-record-for-5644837.php

    https://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/mwr/050/mwr-050-11-0589a.pdf

    http://www.mercurynews.com/2014/01/25/california-drought-past-dry-periods-have-lasted-more-than-200-years-scientists-say/

    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

    http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/

  6. Re: Edwin Berry: “On his Twitter account, he has called Islam “a death cult” and has encouraged motorists to drive into protesters”. Seriously?

  7. If there was anything good that came out of the EPA’s CO2 pollution finding, it’s that it made many scientists with myself included, actually stop and take a look at the climate change debate. It’s like if your local paper printed that black is actually white, pragmatic people might take a moment to question the credibility of the newspaper.

  8. [SNIP – you’ve posted this same comment three times now in different threads – now it’s just trolling for traffic – Anthony]

  9. …I hasten to add in closing, I am an environmentalist. I ask for no compromise in our efforts to provide an Earth of clean air and clean water….

    That’s a shame. I DO ask for compromises. It seems to me that asking for an absolute makes for horrendously unbalanced and costly activities. I ask for ADEQUATELY clean air and water, with the minimum of pollution consistent with cheap and abundant supply of services such as power, water, transport and sewerage.

  10. Our government has identified a problem. This is one of the consequences of that “problem”:

    http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsituation/csdb/en/

    To help solve it, our government is causing this(from corn grown for ethanol):

    http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/08/03/541222717/the-gulf-of-mexicos-dead-zone-is-the-biggest-ever-seen

    And this(water used for ethanol):

    https://www.technologyreview.com/s/413002/measuring-corn-ethanols-thirst-for-water/

    http://www.kansascity.com/news/state/kansas/article28640722.html

  11. By an odd coincidence, not only is the increased CO2 benefiting us, but even better, the use of fossil fuels largely responsible for that increase is what has allowed man to raise his standard of living immensely. So it’s a double-whammy effect. It is also an effect the humanity-hating Warmunists are trying to put a stop to.

  12. “Climate skeptics may soon join a key science advisory panel at U.S. EPA.”
    Strange that not one of them shown as being under consideration is female. At least you have a non-white contender.

  13. from the article: “On his Twitter account, he has called Islam “a death cult” and has encouraged motorists to drive into protesters.”

    I think the above could have been worded a lot better. The way it is, you would think Edwin Berry is the one encouraging motorists to drive into protesters.

    And there is this:

    From the article: Carlin, an economist, was at the center of a political firestorm under Obama after he produced a widely criticized 93-page report comprising cherry-picked scientific data and blog entries concluding that regulating carbon dioxide was “the worst mistake that EPA has ever made.”

    Cherry-picked scientific data and blog entries? It sounds like an Alarmists snuck in there and wrote that entry.

    And what was the point of this gem:

    From the article: “David Legates, a professor of climatology at the University of Delaware: He has denied that human-caused climate change could have catastrophic consequences and has co-authored climate research claiming polar bears are not harmed by human-caused climate change that was quietly funded, at least in part, by Koch Industries Inc.”

    What’s the author trying to do, give Griff ammunition?

  14. Is this paragraph conveying Edwin Berry’s intended meaning:

    “On his Twitter account, he has called Islam “a death cult” and has encouraged motorists to drive into protesters”

    This is a disturbing comment if correct

    • I would like to see how the actual tweet was phrased.

      Fundamentalist Islamist are basically a death cult.

      And they have used vehicles in terrorist attacks.

      I suspect that is what Edwin was trying to say….. ie the facts.

  15. May I respectfully suggest that we all ignore Griff. I know that he will not go away but to be reincarnated as someone else. But at least the discussion will stay true.

    • Roger
      October 10, 2017 at 10:44 am: Agree 100%. Griff generates to much wind in all ways except it generates no power or light. Like her science. Ignore the troll.

    • Or you could make an attempt to counter the information I present with evidence and figures.

      Like nankerphelge below. Or David Middleton.

      • “Or you could make an attempt to counter the information I present with evidence and figures.”

        ALL the lies you post have been debunked with evidence from published scientific and engineering papers as opposed to the Guardian, H-Post etc MSM – time and time and time again.

        But you come back a week or two later and re-post them, totally unaltered – time and time and time again.

        You are uneducable, incorrigible and a pathological liar to boot.

        But then, that’s what you’re paid to do, isn’t it?

        Oh, and then there was a post of yours as egriff in the Guardian CIF blogs where you boasted about “tweaking the tails of the den1ers on den1alist blogs”, wasn’t there?

        You’re a remarkably mendacious little creature.

  16. I Hope that Judith Curry is also on the list. As the lawyers among us say “Res ipso loquitor.” Sorry but I don’t know how to change that into something along the lines of “Her integrity speaks for itself.” Any Latin pedants out there? ;-)

    • “Res ipso loquitor.” (Latin for “the thing speaks for itself”) is a doctrine that infers negligence from the very nature of an accident or injury in the absence of direct evidence on how any defendant behaved. In other words, ‘Judith Curry speaks for herself’ and would make a very fine candidate as a science advisory panel member at U.S. EPA. We should therefore nominate Dr. Judith Curry to this position.

    • I absolutely do not. She knows full well that all the warming in the US is due to data tampering yet to this day panders to temperature adjustment apologists on her blog.

    • >>
      “Her integrity speaks for itself.” Any Latin pedants out there?
      <<

      Try: “Sua integritas pro ipso loquitur.”

      Integritas is a feminine nominative noun so the adjective (for his, her, it) suus must match in case, gender, number, etc.
      pro is the preposition “for” and takes a noun in the ablative case, thus ipse inflects to ipso.
      Non linking Latin verbs usually appear at the end of the sentence. Loquitur is in the third person present singular form and means he,she,it speaks.

      Of course, this is a literal translation, and may not reflect actual Latin usage. Latin idioms are not always literal translations in English. (Google translate doesn’t know what to do with this sentence, so use it with caution.)

      Jim

  17. This is extremely exciting news! So important. Big fan of Ed Berry for years. Glad to become aware of some new-to-me faces/forces. I hate to think where we would be if HRC won. This is HUGE! Very appreciative that skeptics are coming forward en masse. THANK YOU!

  18. “There are at least three reasons…”

    Regarding the enhanced anthropogenic effect, I’ve been saying this for decades. The more energy is absorbed by the atmosphere, the more energy the atmosphere emits, both back to the surface and out into space. There’s nothing special about the geometry requiring this since energy is primarily absorbed by the atmosphere from the surface and emitted both back to the surface and out into space across twice the area over which the energy was absorbed.

    This limits feedback to 1 W/m^2 per W/m^2 of forcing. If 1 W/m^2 more is arriving (post albedo) and the surface is emitting 2 W/m^2 more, all of which is being absorbed by the atmosphere (maximum possible feedback case), 1 W/m^2 is returned to the surface and 1 W/m^2 is emitted into space. The 2 W/m^2 emitted by the surface is offset by the 1 W/m^2 arriving plus the 1 W/m^2 of ‘feedback’ returned by the atmosphere while the remaining W/m^2 emitted into space offsets the arriving power. Everything is in balance.

    Some might claim that the system is also in balance if the surface is emitting 3 W/m^2, all is absorbed by the atmosphere and 2/3 of this is returned to the surface. The counter argument is that on average, half of what the atmosphere absorbs must already be emitted into space to achieve balance and the remainder must be returned to the surface and added to solar input to offset surface emissions. The atmosphere already contains CO2, H2O and other GHG’s, so why would adding a little more CO2 change this ratio whose short term monthly averages can be measured and varies by less than +/-5% around a 50/50 split. Note that this far more certain than the +/-50% uncertainty the IPCC puts on the climate sensitivity.

    The counter argument for ‘albedo’ feedback is that considering 2/3 of the planet is covered by clouds, even if all the ice disappeared, it wouldn’t add up to enough new energy to make up for the global average increase in surface emissions required to support just the nominal sensitivity to doubling CO2 claimed by the IPCC.

    Starting from 288K, adding 2 W/m^2 to the emissions and converting back to a temperature is a little less than 288.4K. The IPCC lower limit on the sensitivity is 0.4C per W/m^2 and since the case of maximum possible feedback is less than that, the entire range of sensitivity claimed by the IPCC is falsified. Oops, considering all the uncertainty baked into their presumptions, it’s still not enough on the low side to cover the maximum theoretical effect from 100% positive feedback! No wonder compromise is impossible and a ‘consensus’ needed to be fabricated around the bogus claims …

    • One researcher has found that the original calculations of the climate sensivity of CO2 ignore the fact that a doubling of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause a slight decrease in the dry lapse rate, enough to decrease the climate sensivity of CO2 by more than a factor of 20. They like to assume that H2O provides a positive feedback because warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere and H2O is the primary greenhouse gas. But H2O is also a primary coolant in the atmosphere as evidenced by the fact aht the wet lapse rate is considerably less than the dry lapse rate. So the net H2O beedback effect must be negative. The fact that the radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed anywhere in the solar system would imply that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero. If CO2 really affected climate then one would expect that the increase in CO2 over the past 30 years would have caused at least a measureable increase in the dry lapse rate in the troposphere but that has not happened. Adding CO2 to the atmosphere is hhving no real effect on the insulating properties of the atmosphere.

      • Willhaas,

        Another way to understand the net impact from water is to consider the planet with and without it.

        With water, the average temperature is about 288K corresponding to 1.6 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of incident solar energy.

        Without water, there would be no snow, ice or clouds (negative feedback like effects from dynamic reflection) and the albedo would be the same as the Moon at about 0.11. The total solar input would be 304 W/m^2, rather than the 240 W/m^ it is with water.

        Without water and the effects of clouds, ice and water vapor, the ‘amplification’ factor would only be about 1.3, rather then 1.6, all of which comes from the radiative GHG effect from gases other than water. The resulting surface emissions would be 1.3*304 = 395 W/m^2, corresponding to a surface temperature of about 289K, thus the NET effect of water is about zero (or even slight cooling) since the cooling that arises from increased reflection from clouds and ice is almost exactly offset by the warming arising from clouds and water vapor.

        The point is not that the radiative GHG effect from CO2 is bogus, in fact, the radiative effect is the ONLY effect GHG’s have, but that the idea of enhancement by water vapor is the bogus argument.

  19. Environment without compromise? That’s where this problem stands. And stopping ICEs in 40 years won’t result in the environmental panacea he promises.

  20. Hey Griff
    “….I don’t know a nation more dedicated to a comfortable lifestyle than the Germans and they are going for it… no enemies of capitalism, industry or technology there. Happy to have new renewables industries exporting to (e.g.) India…”.
    Germany’s main sources of power as at 2015 are
    24.0% Lignite.
    18.2% Hard coal.
    14.1% Nuclear.
    12.0% Onshore wind.
    8.8% Natural gas.
    6.8% Biomass.
    5.9% Solar.
    3.0% Hydro.
    + Others
    I am sure you are aware that Lignite is oh gee Brown Coal. Germany actually is the 4th largest producer of Coal Fired Power.
    Now that is leadership by example for you Griff.

    • Over 50% fossil fuel, which might not include power bought from generators outside the country burning yet more evil hydrocarbons.

    • The 14% Nuclear is supposed to be shutdown by 2022, along with 25% of the Coal fired power stations by 2020 and 50% by 2030. I can’t read German but have yet to see any credible plan of how they are going to do that?

      I suspect they were relying on a steep price on carbon emissions to drive the changeover but with the collapse of Europe’s Emissions Trading Scheme emitters can buy carbon credits for peanuts.

      All I can see is popcorn futures in Germany going up for the next few years.

      • answer: just google “Nord Stream”. Gas. russian gas, direct to Germany, bypassing Ukraine, Poland, etc.

    • 35% renewable electricity in first half 2017.

      situation changes rapidly… no use quoting stuff not from current year any more.

      and Germany is intent on removing all that coal, brown or hard… they are just arguing over when to do it: many vested interests e.g. unions in power companies.

  21. “… saying I was wrong and I have changed my mind is a very rare event. Only the strongest persons can do it.”
    That is why resolving this destructive paradigm requires finding ways the alarmists are RIGHT. They are RIGHT that pollution matters, and they and RIGHT that we need to sequester carbon in soils. That is called “organic matter” and it improves fertility, nutrient content and water retention–in way; that benefit the biosphere and the economy.

    • Being trained in soil science, I agree. But it is being done as modern techniques spread. Including no-till drilling using a non-spray weed germination-inhibiting method. Hippy types, however, are just not on the same planet, quite useless by any comparison.

  22. At first the AGW conjecture seems quite plausable but upon closer inspection I find that it is based on only partial science and cannot be defended. The AGW conjecture is based on a radiant greenhouse effect caused by trace gases in the Earth’s atmosphere with LWIR absorption bands. One major problem is that these so called greenhouse gases do not trap heat because good absorbers are also good radiators. It would be the non greenhouse gases that are more likely to trap heat because they are such poor radiators to space. The primary transfer on energy in the Earth’s atmosphere is not by LWIR radiation as the AGW conjecture would have one believe. A real greenhouse is not kept warm because of the action of LWIR absorbing gases . Instead a real greenhouse is kept warm because the glass limits cooling by convection. It is a convective greenhouse effect. There is no radiative greenhouse effect that keeps a greenhouse warm. So too on earth. Gravity and the heat capacity of the atmosphere as well as the depth of the troposphere act to provide a convective greenhouse effect athe keeps the surface of the Earth roughly on average 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be. 33 degrees C is the abount derived from first principals and 33 degrees C is what has been observed. A radiant greenhouse effect has not been observed in a real greenhouse, on Earth, or anywhere in the solar system. The radiant greenhouse effect is fiction. Hence tha AGW conjecture is fiction.

    • Wilhaas, I will add that there is a radiant energy affect that warms greenhouses – short wave radiation received from the sun. It is the sun that warms greenhouses, and it is primarily clouds that reduce that warming.

      Applying this well-known situation to the world as a whole – It is the sun that warms the Earth, and clouds reduce that warming.

      SR

  23. I am happy to see changes to the EPA, however as so many of the candidates are associated with the Heartland Institute, and with one with the study quietly funded by the Koch Brothers, I wonder if this list does not play directly into the hands of the Algorians. I would like to see the changes, but the candidate pool is so stacked it will be hard to maintain the air of credibility. Will a list like this backfire?

  24. John, you say “I predict that in 40 years we will be able to shut down our power plants and retire the internal combustion engines. That will be a great day.”

    I fail to see why that will be a good day. More CO2=Better Life

  25. It is heart-warming to see the drainage work in progress, quietly under all the media squawk.
    A new paper on real physics of the atmosphere:
    A Novel Investigation about the Thermal Behaviour of Gases under the
    Influence of IR-Radiation: A Further Argument against the Greenhouse Thesis
    Thomas Allmendinger

    I think it may prove to be a companion to The Berthold-Klein ;Mylar Balloon’ paper, and Prof Robert Wood’s refutation of Arrhenius c.1904-6.

  26. “On his Twitter account, he has called Islam “a death cult” [that] has encouraged motorists to drive into protesters”
    WTF? Why would you bring religion into this?
    Maybe it’s time to for me to find another website that isn’t at least overtly racist.
    Disappointed!

  27. I think there’s a missing word (“joined”) in the head post about Berry below:

    “And if we had [joined] the Paris Agreement and everything else, it wouldn’t do any good anyway.”

  28. Griff
    “Renewables slow the rate of warming to something our agriculture, environment and civilisation can probably handle.”
    Really Griff?
    As far as Agriculture is concerned, until you have at least a Nurserymans Certification, please stop making stuff up.
    I suggest you read Hartmann/Kester/Davies Plant Propagation.
    And please, as noted above, make a claim, show your work. Links etc.
    Take care

      • Griff, from that link
        “The results were synthesized from an ensemble of 30 simulations produced by six global crop models driven by climate data from five different global climate models under a “business-as-usual” greenhouse gases emissions scenario, whereby concentrations of carbon dioxide double by the year 2080 compared with 2000. Two sets of crop experiments were conducted: one which considered the effects of both atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and their associated climatic changes, and one in which only the associated climatic conditions were taken into account, which meant keeping carbon dioxide concentrations at 2000 levels.”

        So they ran computer simulations, called them experiments, and published without actual field trials.

        I don’t doubt that they are sincere in their method, but then they end with stating

        “There is also a need for research that explores the impact of elevated carbon dioxide levels on crop nutrition, which wasn’t investigated in this study.”

        Which is something they can’t do on a computer. I’d have more faith in their report if they had actually done field trials, and had product to handle and test.

        But 8/10 for finding a relevant link.

        Take care

      • Oh for crying out loud, Griff! That study uses 30 ‘simulations’. Why bother with that when you can look in an *actual* greenhouse – one fitted with a CO2 generator – and see the effects first-hand? Possibly because the answer will be different to the one the authors want? Sorry mate, there are no (real world) downsides for plants when CO2 increases.

      • Griff, why do you persist in making stupid claims based on computer simulations,when I long ago gave you this website that has a lot of FIELD work showing the positive effect of CO2 on plant growth.

        Here it is:

        Plant Growth Database

        In this section of our web site we maintain an ever-expanding archive of the results of peer-reviewed scientific studies that report the growth responses of plants to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Results are tabulated according to two types of growth response (Dry Weight and Photosynthesis). To begin, click on the response you are interested in below.

        Dry Weight (Biomass)

        Photosynthesis (Net CO2 Exchange Rate)

        http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php

        Here is example for RICE,must look in the link to see the results of actual field experiments,based on changes of CO2 concentration,

        Percent Dry Weight (Biomass) Increases for 300, 600 and 900 ppm
        Increases in the Air’s CO2 Concentration:

        Oryza sativa L. (Rice)

        http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/description.php

      • Griff,

        Agricultural reality has been explained to you over and over again, but you remain impervious to education. Are you incapable of learning anything?

        More CO2 is better for C3 plants. Period. Full stop. Actually also for C4 and CAM, since they can get by with less water under richer CO2 levels.

        Nutrition does not suffer. You fail to understand even the most elementary biology and chemistry. What happens under higher CO2 levels is that carbohydrate production in plants increases, which means that the RELATIVE proportion of protein goes down. But just as much protein as before is produced. Hence, more food overall.

        If you combine more CO2 with more N in the soil, then both carbs and protein increase. The limiting factor is the amount of nitrogen, from which amino acids, thus proteins are made.

        Why is this hard for you to understand?

      • “Griff,

        Agricultural reality has been explained to you over and over again, but you remain impervious to education.”

        You’re wasting your time on that one, he is entirely impervious to information too.

        Despite being entirely free of any scientific or engineering qualifications whatsoever, he airily patronises and pooh-poohs professional scientists and engineers with a lifetime’s experience, based purely on some claptrap he read in an article in a newspaper or glossy magazine

        You can explain it, complete with chapter, verse and links to peer-reviewed scientific publications as many times as you like, he will come back a week or two later and post the same old lies from his A4 sheet of AGW activists’ propaganda yet again.

        ALL his “knowledge” comes from spurious propaganda publications like this http://grist.org/series/skeptics/ and he believes it with the fervour of a martyr being led to the stake – apart from making the odd bit of beer money from posting his propaganda too, of course.

        If he lives long enough, he will be spouting his mendacious drivel when the next Ice Age arrives and the glaciers roll over his house.

  29. You know that John Coleman is NOT a meteorologist, right, Anthony? He’s a TV weather guy who graduated in journalism …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s