GLOBAL WARMING AND CLIMATE FORCING

[Norm Kalmanovitch] Since there is no time value given for forcing, this energy transfer will continue to occur day after day year after year as long as the CO2 remains at the doubled level. In one year this will equate to 1.90°C of temperature increase. In 100 years this will equate to 190°C increase which would fry everything on the Earth.

Since the geological record shows that in the 79million years of the Cretaceous Period when dinosaurs flourished, this did not happen even though CO2 was at levels between two and five times our current level throughout the entire Cretaceous.

This is not "rocket science" just simple high school physics and math, and it is curious how NASA with its actual 'Rocket Scientists" allowed one of its own members to publish such a ridiculous concept as a "peer reviewed" paper and start the whole fraudulent climate change issue.

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: So You Want Clivve Spash's Old Job?

Well, according to CSIRO, the following characteristic would be desirable in the scholar selected to replace Clive Spash:

Demonstrated capacity to conceive and lead scientific investigations in socially or politically sensitive circumstances

Is that Australian-speak for "won't question the merits of cap and trade"? ;-) Sorry, couldn't resist.

IPCC Amazongate: “A Complete Load Of Porkies” Indeed « The Unbearable Nakedness of CLIMATE CHANGE

It is hard not to notice that Nepstad et al 1999 were concerned about deforestation and fires possibly exarcebated by severe droughts, whilst Rowell and Moore, and the IPCC authors and reviewers, completely turned the cards around, pushing hard on the climatic side first.

That is not the first time I have seen “Chinese whispers” at play in the IPCC AR4…

C3: Extreme Warming In U.S. - Research Finds The Warming Extremes Well Before The 20th & 21st Centuries

The huge continental mass of the U.S. continues to exhibit significant cooling in the present. The proclaimed, "unprecedented" CO2-caused warming still does not exceed past known warm temperatures of the central United States and Canada.

Findings - Corporate Money to Pay for Scientific Research? Get Over It - NYTimes.com

But I don’t doubt that Mr. Gore and Dr. Pachauri would be preaching against fossil fuels even if there were no money in it for them, just as I don’t doubt that skeptics would be opposing them for no pay. Why are journalists and ethics boards so quick to assume that money, particularly corporate money, is the first factor to look at when evaluating someone’s work?

Who’s Conflicted Now? - TierneyLab Blog - NYTimes.com

I’ve previously wondered why so many on the green side of the climate debate were so willing to play the conflict-of-interest card, as Dr. Pachauri was doing quite recently himself. It struck me as a risky political strategy — because there seemed to me to be more money to be made on the green side — as well a needless diversion from the scientific debate. So while I see some justice in this argument coming back to bite Dr. Pachauri, I still wish both sides — and the journalists who cover any kind of scientific dispute — would pay less attention to money.