AGW Canceled

History?  What history?

History? What history?

New York conference expected to draw
up to 1,000 scientists and experts
Global warming crisis “cancelled” by new scientific discoveries

The organizers of a March 2008 conference that brought together more than 500 scientists, economists, and other experts on global warming today unveiled plans to hold a second conference on March 8-10, 2009, once again in New York City

The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change will serve as a platform for scientists and policy analysts from around the world who question the theory of man-made climate change. This year’s theme, “Global Warming Crisis: Cancelled,” calls attention to new research findings that contradict the conclusions of the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report.

…The 2008 conference featured presentations by more than 100 prominent scientists and economists from the U.S. and around the world, including Dr. Robert Balling (Arizona State University), Dr. Stanley Goldenberg (NOAA), Dr. William Gray (Colorado State University), Dr. Yuri Izrael (IPCC), Dr. Patrick Michaels (University of Virginia), Dr. Paul Reiter (Institut Pasteur, Paris), Dr. S. Fred Singer (Science and Environmental Policy Project), Dr. Willie Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), and Dr. Roy Spencer (NASA).

Doug Ross @ Journal story: Global Warming “crisis” officially canceled


Gore Admits: Sign Flipped In Misbehaving AGW Model

Aw, shucks.  Arctic icecap extent is up 31.3% over last year this time.  Yet carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has continued to increase.  Stop fighting it.  Throwing Jim Hansen under the bus, Al Gore stated today that “It’s no wonder the model doesn’t work.  Goofy Hansen got a sign wrong.  I warned him to be careful.  We should have been concerned all along about the REVERSE greenhouse effect; it all makes sense now.  Carbon dioxide is the same dangerous atmospheric pollutant we have always known it was.   And global freezing is a fate far, far worse, planned for us by carbon dioxide, than some balmy global warming which would only enhance the food supply.”

“Be sure to pick up some carbon credits, if you want to stay warm,” says Al.

Reverse Greenhouse Effect Takes Over

Reverse Greenhouse Effect Takes Over

Story here: Ice Reality Check

Dalton Minimum (at least) LOCKED

Be sure to purchase your carbon credits. They are going to come in handy, or much better. Bid them through the roof. They may save your life.

When Earth is REALLY COLD, you will need carbon credits to purchase energy, since we have added no nuclear sources, due to the abnormal, high intelligence of Barack Obama and colleague greens.

And Earth is going to get REALLY COLD. So cold that growing season will be significantly shortened.

(Have scientists been doing much research on cold weather crops? Maybe more on carbon sequestration, you think? Where is the socialist government money put down?)

How are you going to get heating oil? Cuba and China are slant-drilling everything under Florida. (You know how careful and environmental sensitive those socialist governments are (melamine); spills are far less likely than if greedy capitalists were drilling). How are you going to get power from coal-fired plants that weren’t ever built, due to the horrible threat of global warming (the ultimate, most exquisite irony ever realized in human history).

How are you going to get food? Transportation will be limited, and extremely expensive, for whatever crops can be grown in two weeks to a month shorter summer. Depending on the location (latitude), growing season is a significant consideration.

You have too much food, you have too much energy, anyway. You deserve a good 20 to 50 year cold spell; maybe you will lose some weight. If you are already underweight, good luck. Why are you not donating carbon credits to Africa? China?

I hate to be an alarmist – or should I say I hate to be a historian. (Some alarmists consider history; others do not).

Cycle Not

Cycle Not

Surviving the junk, subprime mortgage debacle designed by American socialists (who forced bankers to write preposterously, ridiculously bad nothing down, no credit check, no income check mortgages under penalty of law and tireless harrassment) may turn out worse than you expected. Your socialist government has now palpably screwed both energy and finance; what can they screw next? Have you been hoping they are screwed out? (hint: no).

The GOOD NEWS: A Maunder Event is not yet assured; but stay tuned. (Check your history).

The REALLY GOOD NEWS: You can do something about it, in the next 18 days.

Here’s the story: Errors in IPCC climate science David Archibald’s elegant illustration of how late and weak solar cycle 24 is proving

Kyoto, Montreal, Whatever: Bullcrap

By government order, based on the Montreal Protocol (and as it turns out, nothing in particular), the cost of asthma inhalers is going up, to save the ozone layer. Many asthmatics won’t use their inhalers as much, or when the need is indicated. Actually, a great many won’t. Some asthmatics won’t have inhalers. Unfortunately, this will mean death for some asthmatics. But it saves the ozone layer.

Asthma inhalers go green but also cost more green
Oakland Tribune February 9, 2008 Barbara Anderson

Asthma inhalers are going green.

And users are seeing red over paying more for the new, environmentally friendly devices.

But like it or not, asthmatics who carry inhalers containing albuterol, a quick-acting drug that opens airways, will be switched to new inhalers soon — if they havent already — that are free of chlorofluorocarbons, an ozone-depleting propellant.

The old devices — called CFC inhalers — will be banned for use in the United States on Dec. 31.

Pharmacists say its increasingly difficult to order CFC inhalers. Manufacturers began phasing them out a year or two ago for inhalers that contain hydrofluoroalkane, or HFA, a more ozone-friendly propellant.

The new inhalers are as effective as the old ones, pharmacists and doctors say. But they’re more expensive and operating them requires some getting used to.

Overall, prices of the new inhalers are higher because there are no generic versions, said Nancy Asai, a pharmacist in Fresno. And that means higher insurance co-payments for the brand-name drugs. The new inhalers typically cost from $45 to $65, Asai said.

One brand of inhaler, ProAir HFA, is available for about $30 at some discount pharmacies. But the old generic albuterol inhalers cost less than that.

The hope is prices for the new inhalers will drop, Asai said.

David Harvey, 40, a Fresno radio salesman, paid about $25 for his albuterol inhaler a year ago. Today, he pays about $45 for the drug.

The government ban on CFC inhalers is in response to the 1987 Montreal Protocol, an international pact that called for the elimination of ozone-depleting chemicals.

The new inhalers are good for the environment, said Dr. Richard DeMera, a Fresno allergist. We needed to do this, he said. But patients are having to pay a higher co-pay for their inhalers.

Yes, many asthmatics won’t use their inhalers as much. It should save the ozone. We all must make sacrifices.

But wait; real scientific results say that there is no strong reason to have banned CFCs in the first place:

Ozone hole theory faces lab problems

Luboš Motl the reference frame September 29, 2007

. . . Even though this should have been a good enough reason to make lab experiments with all these compounds, NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory apparently did these experiments only recently. Their experiments were probably not trivial and required some low-temperature engineering. What is their result for the rate of photolysis of Cl₂O₂?

It is almost ten times smaller than needed for the existing ozone hole theories.

That’s a huge problem. But only Markus Rex of Potsdam was brave enough to look at the ozone depletion theory with these new data. A lot of things have obviously changed. A dramatic conclusion is that

At least 60% of observed ozone depletion is due to an unknown mechanism.

At least all quantitative features of the models – that have been considered a part of the “scientific consensus” – suddenly become uncertain again. One modest implication is that we certainly no longer know which molecules are actually important for ozone depletion and whether most of this process is due to completely different reasons, perhaps unrelated to chlorine and bromine. . . .

Shades of global warming! Computer models – phoney computer models – have supplanted empirical science. Bogus theory comes from computer. Is there Latin for it? Don’t get me wrong. I am against unnecessary pollution as much as anybody. But $billions and $billions have been spent replacing CFC with vastly more expensive refrigerants or propellants, for no good reason. Are we really going to take random action to ban this chemical and that byproduct, regardless of human need; regardless of impact, regardless of the cost, and imagine that the requirement has a scientific purpose; that the cost is scientifically justified?

What do we really have against asthmatics? What do we really have against energy?