It is rare that any newly popularized book on climate gets resounding acclaim by those mavericks at Principia Scientific International (PSI). But Rupert Darwall’s ‘The Age of Global Warming’ is one such case. Darwall earns his three PSI cheers for taking a leaf out of their book and extolling Karl Popper’s more traditional scientific method above the politicized ‘post normal’ science that outgoing U.S. President Eisenhower warned us about in 1961.

And perhaps prominent figures in the climate skeptic community will wonder why such a tome from the ‘lukewarmist’ stable of Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) should find PSI’s approval. Certainly it is true that in the heated climate debate there are three sides at war: the ‘alarmists’; the ‘lukewarmists’ and those ‘deniers’ of the greenhouse gas effect (GHE) assembled at PSI.

For those uninitiated on the finer points of this scientific schism we can simply say that the alarmists have long preached that humans are dangerously warming the planet thanks to industrial carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions;  the ‘lukewarmists’ disagree but concede CO2 must cause some warming, while the ‘deniers’ (Principia Scientific International) say there is no such GHE whatsoever because CO2 can only cool not warm.

It is true PSI may be congratulating Darwall in haste as we have only had those pre-publication excerpts to go on. He may well have passages inside his book proclaiming the glib but never proven Lawson mantra of “some” warming.  But there is no doubt that PSI will congratulate anyone who also champions the openness and rigor of the traditional scientific method as extolled by Karl Popper.

Perhaps without even knowing it Darwall and his colleagues at the GWPF are taking their tentative first steps towards seeing there is not a shred of real world evidence for their “some warming” claims. Dare we say it, perhaps they might even countenance applying Popperian principles to their beloved GHE and see no gas (apart from water vapor) can “trap” heat or act “like a blanket.”

So, dear reader, judge for yourself. Below we showcase an excerpt from Darwall’s book. To those who follow PSI publications they will instantly recognize Darwall’s words echo the writing of PSI Chairman, Dr. Tim Ball and essays by John O’Sullivan that pinpoint how, in the 1950’s, the American Meteorological Society proclaimed the GHE was bogus because all the infrared radiation assumed to be absorbed by CO2 is already absorbed by water vapor. Nonetheless, this anti-Popperian junk science was dusted down and re-packaged as “the greenhouse effect of gases and clouds” by an unscrupulous James Hansen in the 1980’s.

Rupert Darwall: The First Warmist * 
Financial Post, 13 March 2013

Unlike the blanket TV coverage NASA climate scientist James Hansen generated at his 1988 appearance before Congress, there were no cameras when British prime minister Margaret Thatcher addressed the Royal Society on 27th September 1988. Told that the prime minister’s speech was going to be on climate change, the BBC decided it wouldn’t make the TV news.

The speech had been a long time in the making. Flying back from visiting French president François Mitterrand in Paris in May 1984, Thatcher asked her officials if any of them had any new policy ideas for the forthcoming Group of Seven (G7) summit in London. Sir Crispin Tickell, then a deputy-undersecretary at the Foreign Office, suggested climate change and how it might figure in the G7 agenda. The next day, Tickell was summoned to Number 10 to brief the prime minister. The eventual result was to make environmental problems a specific item, and a statement in the London G7 communiqué duly referred to the international dimension of environmental problems and the role of environmental factors, including climate change. Environment ministers were instructed to report back to the G7 meeting at Bonn the following year, and duly did so.

Tickell’s interest in climate change dated from the mid 1970s. Influenced by reading Hubert Lamb’s book Climate History and the Modern World, Tickell took the opportunity of a one-year fellowship at Harvard to study the relationship between climate change and world affairs and wrote a book on the subject in 1977. By 1987, Tickell had been appointed Britain’s ambassador to the United Nations and informally was acting as Thatcher’s envoy on global warming, his position at the UN making him privy to gossip from other nations.

On two occasions, Thatcher recalled him from New York to brief her.

Tickell was always struck by her determined approach; in the world of politics, Thatcher was a woman in a man’s world and someone with scientific training in a non-scientific world. To meet the test, you had to know what you were talking about; if she challenged you, you needed to be sure of your ground; she could be remarkably vigorous, Tickell found. The prime minister wanted the government to grasp the importance of global warming.

Ministers were called to Number 10 for briefings by climate scientists. “You are to listen, not to speak,” the prime minister told them. Returning to England for his summer holiday in 1988, Tickell called on Thatcher and suggested she make a major speech on global warming. She thought the Royal Society would be the perfect forum for it. She spent two weekends working on the draft with George Guise, one of her policy advisors.

In the speech, Thatcher addressed the society as a scientist and a fellow who happened to be prime minister. Environment policy was her main subject. Action to cut power station emissions and reduce acid rain was being undertaken “at great and necessary expense,” she said, building up to her main theme. “The health of the economy and the health of the environment are totally dependent on each other,” implicitly rejecting the view of conventional economics of there being a trade-off between resources used for environmental protection which couldn’t be used to raise output or increase consumption. It was also clear that the G7’s endorsement of sustainable development had not been an oversight or meant to be taken lightly, as far as she was concerned. “The government espouses the concept of sustainable economic development,” she stated, although the new policy had not been discussed collectively by ministers beforehand or with Nigel Lawson, the chancellor of the exchequer.

Thatcher concluded her speech by referring to one of the most famous events in the Royal Society’s history, when in 1919 Arthur Eddington displayed the photographic plates taken during the total eclipse of the Sun earlier that year. The eclipse enabled Eddington to record whether light from distant stars was bent by the sun’s gravity and verify a prediction of Einstein’s theory of relativity.

Cambridge philosopher Alfred Whitehead witnessed Eddington’s demonstration. The scene, tense as a Greek drama, he wrote, was played out beneath the portrait of Isaac Newton, the society’s 12th president, “to remind us that the greatest of scientific generalizations was now, after more than two centuries, to receive its first modification.” In Vienna, reports of it thrilled the 17-year-old Karl Popper. What particularly impressed Popper was the risk implied by Einstein’s theory, that light from distant stars would be deflected by the Sun’s mass, because it could be subjected to a definitive test: “If observation shows that the predicted effect is definitely absent, then the theory is simply refuted. The theory is incompatible with certain possible results of observation — in fact with results which everybody before Einstein would have expected.” These considerations led Popper to argue that the criterion for assessing the scientific status of a theory should be its capacity to generate predictions that could, in principle, be refuted by empirical evidence, what Popper called its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.

Every “good” scientific theory is a prohibition. The more a theory forbids, the better it is. Scientists should therefore devise tests designed to yield evidence that the theory prohibits, rather than search for what the theory confirms. If we look for them, Popper argued, it is easy to find confirmations for nearly every theory. “Only a theory which asserts or implies that certain conceivable events will not, in fact, happen is testable,” Popper explained in a lecture in 1963. “The test consists in trying to bring about, with all the means we can muster, precisely these events which the theory tells us cannot occur.”

In 1988, proponents of global warming did not provide a similar black and white predictive test of the key proposition of global warming: the degree of warming with increasing levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is therefore incapable of being falsified. The issue is not the capacity of carbon dioxide to absorb radiation in a test tube, which had first been demonstrated by John Tyndall in 1859, but the effect of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases on the temperature of the atmosphere. An answer can only be derived from empirical observation.

Scientists Roger Revelle and Hans Suess’s characterization of mankind carrying out a large-scale geophysical experiment, further illustrates global warming’s weakness as a scientific statement and its strength as a political idea. While prejudging the results of an experiment constitutes bad science, the proposition simultaneously generates powerful calls to halt the experiment before it is concluded. Yet questioning the science would inevitably be seen as weakening the political will to act. It created a symbiotic dependence between science and politics that marks 1988 as a turning point in the history of science and the start of a new chapter in the affairs of mankind.

Two years later, Mrs. Thatcher would address the UN: “We must have continued economic growth in order to generate the wealth required to pay for the protection of the environment,” she told the General Assembly, “But it must be growth which does not plunder the planet today and leave our children to deal with the consequences tomorrow.”
In the past growth happened. Now it had to be the right sort.

*Excerpt from “The Age of Global Warming: A History,” published this month by Quartet Books, London.

As climatologists increasingly, albeit grudgingly, concede climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide approaches zero John Elliston publishes a telling paper on the UN’s disastrously wrong definition of a “Greenhouse Effect.” Aussie geoscientist Elliston, pulls no punches with a new study published this week (March 19,2013) by Principia Scientific International (PSI). [1]

In no uncertain terms, Elliston, author of several peer-reviewed papers, concludes that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on a definition of the “Greenhouse Effect” (AR4,page 946) which is “plain wrong.”

The definition and the accompanying diagrams below are the centerpiece of global warming science: the UN IPCC Assessment Report of 2007.

Elliston’s18-page analysis,‘Why not tell people about the disastrously wrong definition of “Greenhouse Effect” in IPCC Assessment Report 4,2007?’ pulls apart the IPCC’s iconic diagram (AR4, page 115) to reveal fundamental errors (shown below). The cartoon-like diagram is simplified to illustrate the flaws in their “Greenhouse Effect” concept.

Elliston found: “The statement in the definition that downward atmospheric radiation from the cold upper atmosphere “trap(s) heat” in the surface-troposphere system to result in higher temperatures and global warming is untrue.”

He goes on to clarify, “The idea that back-radiation or radiant heat from the very cold upper atmosphere results in increasing the temperature of the warmer air below contravenes at least two elementary laws of physics (Second Law of Thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann Law).”

As Elliston indisputably points out, “cold things like the exceedingly cold upper atmosphere cannot radiate heat to result in warming much hotter air near the ground that is the climate we live in.”

Scientists, like other professionals, are increasingly aware that the UN, man-made global warming and forced mass human sterilization have long been lumped together in the name of “sustainable development.” That there is growing concern about this cannot be dismissed as mere conspiracy theorizing – it is based in fact. Indeed, no less than 178 nations gathered in 1992 at Rio de Janeiro at the first ever UN Conference on Sustainability and the Environment and rubberstamped the UN’s proposals on this.

 

More than 20 years on and the scientific arguments appear irredeemably tainted by politics. In this article we address some of the key issues and present the basic facts hoping it may serve as a guide for more informed rational discussion.

In essence,Agenda 21 is a UN program that references fears about our global environment as the rationale to advance three key UN policy documents: the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests; and Agenda 21. Here the United Nations defines Agenda 21:

“Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.”

Not only is Agenda 21 of increasing concern to libertarians and many civil rights supporters it is having an impact in the scientific community as well. In 2009, as Lord Christopher Monckton revealed, global warming science had become the chosen vehicle to compel nations to cede their democratic sovereignty to the UN. Monckton warned that nowhere does the UN refer to the words “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” and independent scientists saw little, if any, merit in those scientific arguments that were touted as the catalyst for wholesale reforms of our modern industrial lifestyle.

New leaked emails from ‘Climategate 3’ (March 13, 2013) prove Dr. Don Keiller, an undisputed expert in Environmental Plant Physiology, was rebuffed and scorned by climatologists when contacting them to advise that tree ring data was unreliable for global temperature reconstruction.

The revelations are affirmed by Principia Scientific International, one of several bodies in possession of the password to all the remaining emails on the server of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), University of East Anglia, released yesterday.

The leaker of the thousands of emails from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia has done it again. This time ‘Mr FOIA’ (Freedom of Information Act) has issued a password to a select group with express instructions to make use of this latest hoard of taxpayer-funded government science correspondence that corrupt officials at the university worked so hard to suppress from FOIA requests. PSI is in possession of the password and will be publishing further analysis in due course. It also appears Tom Nelson was one of the first to also receive the notice.

One of the first very signficant finds are emails proving that climatologists deliberately allowed the publication of bogus science papers that claimed to prove tree ring data showed modern temperatures to be dangerously warm. A top expert in tree rings who pointed out the errors was snubbed and ignored in correspondence with Professor Phil Jones, the head of Britain’s Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia.

The world is a very confusing unpredictable place. Humans have, from the very beginning tried to create some sort of order and means of reducing its uncertainty.

They began by trying to find ways of ensuring the continuation of the regularities of the daily appearance of the sun, and of the annual cycle of the seasons. The responsible Gods had to be propitiated by sacrifice and ritual. The beginnings of this process are described in “The Golden Bough”¹ .

The rituals that developed are still in existence in the form of daily prayers and annual holidays for Easter and Christmas, absorbed by more recent religions.

By the time of the Middle Ages it was believed that the world was basically static and unchanging, apart from any deviation which could be blamed on the Gods and solved by prayer or sacrifice.

The beginnings of modern science came with Kepler, Galileo and Newton who found that the behaviour of solid bodies could be predicted successfully by a fairly simple mathematical model. In order to do this Newton had to invent friction and gravity. It became possible to predict the movements of the planets as well as solid objects on the earth. The principle of mathematical models took hold to the extent that it was believed that the entire universe resembled a huge clock operated by mathematical formulae.

The complacency was disturbed by Einstein’s theory of relativity and by Planck’s quantum theory, but the idea has survived even the discovery of evolution, and the structure of atoms, ..

Science depends on measurement and all measurement inevitably involves inaccuracy. It was only in early 20^th century that inaccuracy itself became subject to mathematical models. It is unfortunate that so many people who make use of them do not take care that their measurements comply with the assumptions of the model used.

The scientific study of the climate began, as with other disciplines, by the measurement of its properties. The science of meteorology is today amongst the most successful of all scientific institutions in its ability to measure and forecast local climate anywhere on the globe.

By comparison with other scientific disciplines it is faced with serious handicaps. Science demands that an experimental determination cannot be accepted unless it can be repeated, to an agreed level of accuracy, by an independent observer. Climate observations cannot be verified in this way. In addition, instruments, procedures, supervision, location are not standardised and the qualifications or the identity of the observer is often unknown. Recently the observer may just be automatic.

There are four key points that together invalidate any argument that changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide can alter the climate:

1. All heat has to be generated. (This is surely self-evident.)

2. All heat by itself always flows from hot to cold and never vice-versa (The irrefutable 2^nd law of thermodynamics.)

3. It is impossible to trap heat. (High temperatures can be generated in an oven or in a greenhouse, but only remain so long as heat is being generated.)

4. It therefore follows that all talk of ‘Man-made Global Warming’ has no basis in reality. For no gases generate heat, nor can they trap heat, least of all Carbon Dioxide.

The cornerstone of climate alarmism is that ‘Greenhouse Gases,’ in particular Carbon Dioxide, are susceptible to the infrared radiation that is emitted from the Earth and Oceans. I quote here from an email from my colleague Max Potter, an ardent warmist.

This light (from the sun) is mainly absorbed by land, sea etc and converted to heat. When the energy is reradiated it is emitted as much lower frequency infrared (below or lower frequency than red). It is this infrared radiation that is absorbed by the “greenhouse gases” (including water vapour), which warm the atmosphere.

That is correct. In layman’s language that means that the molecules of CO2 are warmed by this infrared. The Warmists then argue that there has been an increase in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere caused by the burning of hydrocarbons. That is also correct. In percentage terms that can be construed as a big increase, but in fact it only seems big because the amount is still only a trace – less than 0.04{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the gases in the atmosphere.

However they argue further as follows – I quote again from this email from a colleague – that Carbon Dioxide traps heat. Here is how my colleague argues: 

You ask: “If a Carbon Dioxide molecule traps heat, how long is that  heat trapped? Permanently? If not permanently, then how long?”Heat (vibrational energy) is continually being exchanged between molecules of gas as they collide. If there are more CO2 molecules they will absorb more infrared radiation and share it with all the other molecules, whether they are CO2, O2 or N2 thus warming the atmosphere,
i.e. “trapping heat”.

All the best, Max Potter

Can you see the fallacy in his argument? Or rather can you see how he has in fact conceded that there is no such thing as trapped heat? The warm molecules instantly pass their warmth to cooler molecules, thus vindicating the 2^nd law of thermodynamics, as heat by itself always flows from hot to cold. The fact that there may be a few more molecules makes no difference whatsoever. The heat is not trapped but is instantly passed on and on to cooler molecules.

Investors in wind farms around British and Danish coasts are facing financial ruin as a new study from the University of Olso affirms a catastrophic design oversight. Newly identifed flaws mean that all windmills currently in operation are in real danger of snapping like matchwood during severe storms. 

Because of the stringent censorship policy of Anthony Watts his award-winning WUWT science blog is not a place  you will find articles skeptical of the so-called greenhouse gas theory (GHE). In keeping with that ethos Willis Eschenbach’s recent guest article for Watts provides another defense of what critics say is pseudo-science.  Nonetheless, adverse comments there soon began to fly, which was unusual coming from loyal WUWT readers. Below is an edited version of Joe Postma’s impassioned refutation of that Eschenbach  piece. If only Mr. Eschenbach and Mr. Watts would engage Postma and other GHE critics in debate. There is no doubt WUWT readers have a growing appetite for it.

 

 

Dr. Pierre R. Latour, noted for his engineering prowess in helping design and develop the docking system for NASA’s Apollo space mission, turns film critic to lambast the latest film sold in the name of junk science. Latour’s eagle eye has landed on the new science-free climate movie: “Greedy Lying Bastards” (PG-13, 90 min) that trumpets alarmist fears over man-made global warming in the shrillest and most despairing tones.

Here is Dr. Latour’s round up:

If you find any physics linking CO₂ to temperature here, please advise.

If you discover ways to earn a living from global warming hysteria, you are smart.

If you discover glacial cycles have a period of about 100,000 years with an interglacial period of about 15,000, your discovery has been made already.

If you realize Chicago is covered by an ice sheet >1 mile thick 85{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of the time, you get it.

If you realize humanity prospers during interglacials, not glacials, you get it.

If you discover Earth’s temperature has stabilized at a local high since 1998, you can expect it to begin cooling soon. Maybe -15C. Because a new glacial has begun.

If you accept Lucy walked around Kenya 3 million years ago, you can conclude your ancestors survived 3,000,000/100,000 = 30 glacials.

Her ancestors appeared about 7 million years ago so they survived 4,000,000/100,000 = 40 more glacials. 30 + 40 = 70.

If you have enough faith in current humanity to believe we will survive at least one more = 100,000 years, year 102,013, you are a Greedy Lying Bastard, like me, with a new movie named after you.

Remedy? Invest in property near the Equator. This is not good or bad news, it’s just news.

Don’t be provocative. Have a fabulous day. Breathe your CO₂ easy.

 

 

In what is an exotic yet contentious subject, Stephen Crothers used a recent science conference in Albuquerque, New Mexico to deliver a robust attack on the cornerstone of modern cosmology. Crothers, who was forced to quit his PhD studies because he questioned ‘Big Bang’ physics offers an entertaining and compelling argument for his position.

This addresses the Big Question that has long perplexed scientists: what is the true driving force behind our Universe? But from the early 20^th Century a consensus was established around the ideas of Albert Einstein whose Theories of Relativity seemed so compelling. But in the new millenium the debate is once again hotting up. Opponents of such problematic ideas as Dark matter and Dark energy are espousing the notion of plasma cosmology (also known as the Electric Universe theory), and it is here where Crothers has taken center stage.

Crothers and others say there is increasing evidence to believe there are no isolated islands in the universe. They say all objects in space, from subatomic particles to galactic clusters, are connected by manifestations of the electric force acting in real time.

In this two part video presentation (part one, part two) we see that not only is the concept of an electric universe, its driving forces, and electro-magnetic mechanical properties far more readily understood than those of ‘Big Bang’ physics, picking holes in Black Holes is a lot of fun, too. As Crothers quips during his presentation, “When quantum physicists don’t understand things, they postulate a new particle.”

Critics of the greenhouse gas theory and it’s supposed role in climate change have presented a fresh analysis of a CIA report that suggests climatologists created a false scientific basis to link global warming to levels of carbon dioxide. An assumption that wrongly fixed cloud cover as a constant factor encouraged scientists to incorrectly assume changes in CO2 rather than changes in cloud cover determine temperatures.

Researchers at Principia Scientific International have put under the microscope an important but widely overlooked 1970’s U.S. government climate report by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). ‘A Study of Climatological Research as it Pertains to Intelligence Problems’ offers a wealth of evidence to prove the greenhouse gas effect (GHE) was disregarded by the best brains in climatology and the document shows no indication as to why the GHE was trumpeted as the accepted ‘theory’ on climate a mere half dozen years later. The CIA in-depth study dates from August 1974 and was uncovered by Maurizio Morabito in 2009 and despite tens of thousands of words not one mention is made anywhere of a supposed greenhouse gas effect. [1]

The CIA study was regarded by the U.S. Government as a highly accurate appraisal of the best peer-reviewed climate science of the day on concerns of global cooling. This document starkly contradicts a report by Peterson, Connolley and Fleck who misused the American Meteorological Society (AMS) in September 2008 to paint a different picture about global warming. [2]

Independent climate analysts crunch the numbers to prove that hurricanes are a more powerful driver of climate than so-called greenhouse gases. Dr. Pierre R Latour, a leading industry expert in thermodynamics, has peer-reviewed the latest newsletter from long-time climate skeptic, Dr. Vincent Gray and affirmed Gray’s calculations to be correct.

Dr. Latour, who first made his name assisting in the engineering of NASA’s Apollo space mission agrees that Dr. Gray’s analysis points to the greenhouse gas effect (GHE) being trivial (if, indeed, it does exist) when compared to the actual energy manifested in hurricanes. Gray is noted as the only expert reviewer of all five reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Latour, Principia Scientific International’s (PSI) lead expert on thermodynamics affirms what other industry experts had long suspected. “We know that hurricanes can never create or consume energy. All they do is transform the energy received into the Earth’s system and move it around,” says Dr. Latour. Unlike climatologists Latour is an engineer trained to the highest standards in thermodynamics. He can’t understand why modern academics are incapable of discerning what an earlier generation of climate researchers knew to be true: carbon dioxide is just not a factor at all in the climate equation.

Dr. Pierre Latour has peer-reviewed Dr. Gray’s numbers and confirms that “This analysis supports my long held contention measuring the average temperature of the whole atmosphere is impossible. Measuring any change in that average over years or decades is even harder.” It is the overwhelming power of evaporation, condensation, rain, storms and wind energy – seen at their most dramatic in hurricanes – that tell us the hydrological cycle is the key, not any trace gas like CO2. “Water is the great leveler in the system,” Latour insists, “It all averages out if you wait long enough. Turbulent fluid flow is well known.”

Lord Nigel Lawson, Chancellor in Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher’s government in the 1980’s, issues a public statement that Sir Paul Nurse, the President of the Royal Society, is a global warming liar.

In his boldest attack yet on the frontman of Britain’s crumbling climate alarmist establishment Lord Lawson has thrown down a gauntlet that Nurse is not likely to pick up.  Lawson, former holder of the second highest office of government, has responded to Paul Nurse’s wild accusations that Lawson was cherrypicking data when he stated that global temperatures have been flatlining for 17 years. Lawson’s open letter published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation (February, 27, 2013) where Lawson is Chairman, states:

“You [Nurse] claim that I “would choose two points and say ‘look, no warming’s taking place’, knowing that all the other points that you chose in the 20 years around it would not support his case”. That is a lie.”

Sir Paul Nurse, who won the 2001 Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine, is described in the letter as more a  “shop steward for some kind of scientists’ closed shop” rather than the figurehead of Britain’s most prestigious science body.

Britain’s deeply unpopular Climate Change Act (2008) may be set for repeal as another politician joins the growing number of MP’s aghast at the damage it is having on the nation’s ailing economy.

Conservative Member of Parliament, Douglas Carswell’s mea culpa today (February 25, 2013) shows dignity and acceptance of the weight of evidence conflicting with the already scientifically dubious notion of human-caused global warming.  “My biggest regret as an MP is that I failed to oppose the 2008 Climate Change Act. It was a mistake. I am sorry,” said Carswell on his blog.

The announcement comes hot on the heels of last week’s surprise admission by Rajendra Pachuari, the UN’s head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Dr. Pachauri conceded that we are now into a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, as confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office. Even NASA’s most strident climate doomsayer, Dr. James Hansen concedes there has been “a pause” in any temperature rise.

An incredible new paper in the reputed Global and Planetary Journal using freely available government data may be about to cause an unwelcome storm for believers in the greenhouse gas theory and the ‘green’ carbon reductions industry. It’s publication is accompanied by a surge in highly-credentialed scientists joining dissenting fledgling science body, Principia Scientific International.*

Norwegian scientists led by Professor Ole Humlum of the University of Oslo analyzed measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide and compared them to temperatures with an astonishing result that throws serious doubt on claims that climate change is carbon related. If verified by other scientists Humlum’s study will confirm the findings of researchers at Principia Scientific International (PSI) who claim they have already refuted the greenhouse gas theory.

NOAA and HADCrut CO2 levels graph (click to enlarge)

The scientists investigated the phase relation (leads/lags) between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures using standard data series for the period January 1980 to December 2011. They found that changes in global atmospheric CO2 follow 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature and 9.5–10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature. The findings conflict with the consensus view concerning the greenhouse gas ‘theory’ that says the opposite should happen with temperatures supposedly being driven by any rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2 levels are up 40 percent in recent decades).