Report this

01

Report this

01

Report this

10

“It is shown that [Smith's] attempt to refute the criticism of Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2007, 2009) on the so-called greenhouse effect is rather fruitless.”

Report this

10

Report this

10

Gore’s researcher-written tome is long on spin and short on balance. The anti-denier words loom large. The list of consulted scientists goes for pages. By implication, the words are objective and reflect the scientific consensus. Convenient that there have been no new nuclear power plants for may years and the expertise to build them is limited. Convenient that nuclear happens to be a softly mentioned option. Convenient that economists think we need to charge for the perceived negative externalities of carbon. Convenient that any talk of negative externalities of nuclear are missing from the book. Convenient that Gore plays down the threat of nuclear weapon proliferation by countries with nuclear energy capacity. Curious that he talks of a well organised propaganda machine to discredit global warming by big oil.

So, in what appears on the surface a masterful execution corporate strategy, it looks like pro-nuclear interests have captured key members of the IPCC, climate science, and big science publishers as well as the environmental movement. A small blip in global temperature is spun as the end of civilization as we know it. We are destroying the earth for our children. Carbon is the enemy. We must reduce it by 40% urgently. We must raise the cost of carbon. We must create an international anti-carbon fund. We must pledge billions of dollars to developing nations. We must invest in clean renewable energy sources. We must do more research.

But there is only one “clean” energy source that can deliver “clean” energy in large amounts soon – nuclear. (See Prof Barry Brooks on http://bravenewclimate.com/ for example.)

So the environmental movement has been captured to push the world towards using a megabillion dollar international anti-carbon fund to pay for nuclear power stations in developing countries. Brilliant!

Wake up world, before we really ruin the earth with nuclear waste or armageddon. (Those who haven’t seen it need to see the movie “The Corporation” http://www.thecorporation.com/)

Report this

10

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,581093,00.html?test=latestnews

Build-A-Bear is a very popular toy maker but now has branched off into AGW advocacy with a web site that ends up having Santa Clause tell children that Christmas may be cancelled this year because of global warming.

Of course they claim completely innocent intent.

Be sure to check out the embedded links.

Report this

00

FWIW, I have been reading Kiehl/Trenberth Global Energy Budget paper, on which is central to the IPCCs radiative equilibrium diagram. I can find nowhere that they contemplate the possibility of earth-generated thermal pollution described by Nordell.

Personally, I prefer the historical perspective that a complex system with negative feedbacks will always tend toward the mean in the long-term.

Report this

00

Surely some simple physics experiments can/have been done to test the radiative greenhouse effect.

blouis79,

I think the Earth is doing that experiment every day with the rather spectacular result that the theory fails. Is this not Joanne’s entire thesis?

CO2 continues to increase yet the Earth does not warm as a result.

Report this

10

Report this

20