German Physicists Trash Global Warming “Theory” | CLIMATEGATE

guest article by John O’Sullivan

For any non-scientist interested in the climate debate, there is nothing better than a ready primer to guide you through the complexities of atmospheric physics – the “hardest” science of climatology. Here we outline the essential points made by Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, a respected German physicist, that counter the bogus theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

Before going further, it’s worth bearing in mind that no climatologist ever completed any university course in climatology–that’s how new this branch of science really is. Like any new science the fall-back position of a cornered AGW proponent is the dreaded “appeal to authority” where the flustered debater, out of his or her depth, will say, “Well, professor so-and-so says it’s true – so it must be true.” Don’t fall for that proxy tree-ring counter’s gambit any longer. Here is the finest shredding of junk science you will ever read.

Note that the article above now has 370 Diggs: German Physicists Trash Global Warming Theory

The Arctic Oscillation Index goes strongly negative « Watts Up With That?

In the last month, the Arctic Oscillation Index (AO) has gone strongly negative. You can see that it headed to its negative peak right about the time the Copenhagen Climate Conference started, so it is no wonder that they ironically experienced cold and snow there. It is also a setup for the record snow and cold Canada and the USA has seen recently.

Reader’s query: Are fossil fuels dangerously polluting? | The SPPI Blog

The correct scientific approach is to evaluate deaths and serious injuries or illnesses (known to statisticians as KSI) per GWh of electricity generated, for all methods of generation. Nuclear electricity is the safest, followed by natural gas, followed by oil, followed by coal, followed by hydro-power (dams have a habit of bursting and killing thousands: it has happened more than once). All of these methods of generation are a great deal safer than not having the electricity. The biggest single factor in determining life-expectancy in poor nations is the amount of fossil fuels they burn. The more they burn, the more prosperous they become, and the less poverty and early death there is. This is because fossil-fueled electricity is nearly always the cheapest on the market, and is relatively low-tech, and is therefore very suitable for poorer countries that do not have the scientific or technical infrastructure to run nuclear reactors, for instance.

We are agreed, I think, that carbon dioxide is not any kind of pollutant. It is a harmless trace gas, necessary to all life on Earth, that has been present in relatively recent geological time at 20 times its present concentration. Going very much farther back, CO2 once occupied one-third of the entire atmosphere. Its warming effect has been severely exaggerated by the UN’s climate panel and by the quite small clique of climate scientists on whose calculations it is willing to rely. – Monckton of Brenchley

Warmist foghorn George Monbiot admits that Warmism is really about changing people

It is just another variation on the old and arrogant Leftist aim of creating "a new Soviet man". Warmists and Leftists both hate the world they live in -- particularly its people. They are misanthropes. Monbiot's own headline on the article below reads: "This is bigger than climate change. It is a battle to redefine humanity"

Global warming debate Part 4: A climate scientist responds to tipping points

Tom: But 'tipping points' are constantly used by activists for emission reductions to spur us to change--all the headlines about One Week to Save the Planet come from your colleagues and sympathizers, and are specifically meant to rush us into action. However, as we know from ice cores from Greenland, for example, conditions there are more stable than this talk would suggest--the ice cap survived conditions much warmer than today, and warmer than even pessimistic predictions of global warming in the future. Worse, it seems that these tipping points appear in the press every time someone argues for waiting for better data. And yet it doesn't seem to me that the data we have is either very good or even supportive of tipping points at all.