Meat The Truth

Uma verdade mais que inconveniente

Sinopse: Documentário que retrata as conseqüências do consumo da carne principalmente em relação ao meio ambiente, apontando a pecuária como o principal agravante do Aquecimento Global, até mesmo mais responsável pela devastação ambiental do que todos os meios de transporte do planeta juntos, segundo dados do IPCC (Painel Intergovernamental sobre Mudanças Climáticas). É uma resposta ao documentário “An Inconvenient Truth” (Uma Verdade Incoveniente), protagonizado por Al Gore, que trata de muitas causas do Aquecimento Global, mas que deixa a questão da pecuária de lado (por motivos políticos). Também aborda questões sócio-político-econômicas como a questão alimentar e surpreende quando prova que a pecuária é responsável direta pela fome no planeta. Assista e se surpreenda com o que somos capazes de prevenir apenas transformando nossos hábitos alimentares, mesmo que não completamente.


Avatar e Mensagens Subliminares

Blog A Nova Ordem Mundial

Alex Jones fez ontem uma avaliação do filme Avatar, o último filme de James Cameron, no qual os humanos, no ano 2154, após terem destruído quase toda a natureza do planeta terra, partem para o planeta (na realidade uma lua) chamado pandora, no qual os seres nativos seguem uma religião de adoração da natureza nos moldes da “religião” de Gaia.
Eu ví o filme semana passada. O filme em 3D é realmente um show de efeitos especiais, com um visual alucinante. Ao fim do filme, não pude deixar de comentar com os meus amigos a forte mensagem propagandista do filme, que mostra a adoração da natureza e o ambientalismo, a religião de adoração do planeta que os seres nativos seguem, juntamente com a mensagem da ameaça destrutiva que os seres humanos representam.

Por outro lado, o filme tem uma mensagem anti-imperialista e anti-militar, que vejo com bons olhos. Veja abaixo a avaliação de Alex Jones do filme Avatar.

Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

  • Data for vital ‘hockey stick graph’ has gone missing
  • There has been no global warming since 1995
  • Warming periods have happened before – but NOT due to man-made changes

Data: Professor Phil Jones admitted his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’

Professor Phil Jones

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.

Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.

The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions.

Following the leak of the emails, Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics.

Discussing the interview, the BBC’s environmental analyst Roger Harrabin said he had spoken to colleagues of Professor Jones who had told him that his strengths included integrity and doggedness but not record-keeping and office tidying.

Mr Harrabin, who conducted the interview for the BBC’s website, said the professor had been collating tens of thousands of pieces of data from around the world to produce a coherent record of temperature change.

That material has been used to produce the ‘hockey stick graph’ which is relatively flat for centuries before rising steeply in recent decades.

According to Mr Harrabin, colleagues of Professor Jones said ‘his office is piled high with paper, fragments from over the years, tens of thousands of pieces of paper, and they suspect what happened was he took in the raw data to a central database and then let the pieces of paper go because he never realised that 20 years later he would be held to account over them’.

Asked by Mr Harrabin about these issues, Professor Jones admitted the lack of organisation in the system had contributed to his reluctance to share data with critics, which he regretted.

But he denied he had cheated over the data or unfairly influenced the scientific process, and said he still believed recent temperature rises were predominantly man-made.

Asked about whether he lost track of data, Professor Jones said: ‘There is some truth in that. We do have a trail of where the weather stations have come from but it’s probably not as good as it should be.

‘There’s a continual updating of the dataset. Keeping track of everything is difficult. Some countries will do lots of checking on their data then issue improved data, so it can be very difficult. We have improved but we have to improve more.’

He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.

He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

And he said that the debate over whether the world could have been even warmer than now during the medieval period, when there is evidence of high temperatures in northern countries, was far from settled.

Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries.

But climate change advocates have dismissed this as false or only applying to the northern part of the world.

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: ‘There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

‘For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

‘Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.’

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.

Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled ‘until recently – and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend’.

Mr Harrabin told Radio 4’s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.

But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’.

He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.

He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

Climategate: O sequestro do Movimento Ecologista e sua Reconquista.

Na fonte: ClimateGate:El Secuestro del Movimiento Ecologista y su Reconquista.

Tradução Livre por arauto do futuro.

Uma mensagem para os ecologistas e ativistas dos direitos humanos. Vocês que tem observado, com crescente sentido de inquietude, as formas nas que este mundo tem sido saqueado na perseguição do “bilhete verde”. Vocês que tem observado, com crescente preocupação, as maneiras que tratamos ao planeta que habitamos e deixamos de herança.

Esta não é uma mensagem divisora, mas sim de cooperação e unidade. Esta é uma mensagem de esperança e potenciação. Porém, requer olhar a uma verdade verdadeiramente incômoda: VOSSO MOVIMENTO HÁ SIDO USURPADO PELOS MESMISSÍMOS INTERESSES CONTRA OS QUAIS ACREDITAVAS QUE ESTAVAS LUTANDO.

Olhavas com esperança e entusiasmo enquanto vossa causa, vosso movimento, vossa mensagem começava a estender-se e a ser acolhida pelos meios corporativos. A idéias pelas que havias  lutado tanto tempo para ser escutadas foram, por fim, discutidas a nível nacional e internacional.  Porém, olhavas com crescente descontentamento, enquanto a mensagem ia sendo simplificado. Primeiro se converteu em slogan, logo em marca, até ficar em nada mais que uma etiqueta adjunta aos produtos de consumo.  As idéias pelas que uma vez lutastes, agora os estava sendo revendidas, por lucro.

Olhastes com crescente inquietude enquanto a mensagem se repetia qual loro sem argumento, levado mais como outra moda em lugar de uma compreensão de algo que proviesse da convicção. Estivestes em desacordo quando os slogans, e logo a ciência, se iam rebaixando intelectualmente. Até que o dióxido de carbono se converteu no foco e causa política, Imediatamente convertendo-se o CO2, na unica causa.

Sabíeis que ol “Gurú do CO2”, Al Gore, não era cientista, mas  sim político. Sabíeis que o movimiento estava sendo tomado por uma causa que não era vossa própria, mas sim uma que contava com crenças que vocês não compartilham e para propor soluções que vocês não queriam. Até que as soluções que exigistes nem sequer eram soluções, mas sim novos impostos e novos mercados que unicamente serviam para forrar os mesmos bolsinhos de sempre. Soubestes que algo ia mal quando a confabulação do sistema de compra-venda de cotas de CO2 (Cap & Trade) foi encarregado a Kenneth Lay, o mesmo arquiteto da bolha ENRON que arrebentou três meses depois do 11 de Setembro de 2001. Ou quando vistes a Goldman Sachsauto posicionar-se para cavalgar sobre a nova bolha do comércio do CO2. Ou quando o empuxo total do movimento se converteu somente em formas de ganhar e gastar dinheiro ou em arrecadar fundos para os mais ricos, impedindo ao mesmo tempo o desenvolvimento dos países pobres.

Vosso movimento havia sido seqüestrado. Ficou claro quando lestes o livro da elite Club de Roma de 1991, “A Primeira Revolução Global”, que diz: “Ao buscar um inimigo comum, pelo qual nos possamos unir contra,  nos ocorreu a idéia de que a poluição, a ameaça do aquecimento global, a escassez de agua, a fome, miséria e coisas deste estilo, se ajustassem a nosso projeto para o governo global e uma Nova Ordem Mundial.”

Mais claro todavia quando olhastes a lista de membros do Club de Roma e aprendestes acerca da eugenia e os laços de união entre Rockefeller e o Instituto Wilheim Kaiser e a prática da cripto-eugenesia. E o definitivo foi, quando se descobriu, em sete laboratórios europeus distintos, vacinas intencionalmente contaminadas pela farmacêutica Baxter, enquanto hoje mesmo vosso Governo obriga a “grupos de risco” a vacinar-se.  Ainda assim, queríeis acreditar que havia alguma base de verdade, algo verídico e valioso neste seqüestro do movimento meio-ambiental.

Porém, a finais de Novembro se enfumaça o que restava de dúvida no escândalo “ClimateGate” de  vazamento de informação privilegiada da Unidade para a Investigação do Clima(CRU). Documentos internos e correios  eletrônicos, expondo as mentiras, manipulação e fraude pós os estudos manipulados que validaram a ciência oficial do aquecimento e o suposto iminente desastre climatológico causado pelo CO2. Agora sabemos que manipularam seus próprios modelos de clima, admitindo que os resultados estavam sendo ajustados arbitrariamente. Além do mais, se estavam ajustando os valores para estar em conformidade com os desejos dos cientistas e não com a realidade. Agora sabemos que tanto os processos como os resultados de exame de homólogos estavam sendo pervertidos para excluir àqueles exocientistas que criticavam seus achados. Agora, sabemos que aqueles cientistas corruptos expressaram suas dúvidas sobre a confiabilidade da ciência que, sem querer, publicamente afirmavam  estar trucando . Agora sabemos, em resumo, que estavam mentindo.

De momento se desconhece o que se desprenderá de tudo isto. Porém, é evidente que o desprendimento será substancial. Contudo, com esta crise, vem uma oportunidade. Uma oportunidade para RECOBRAR O MOVIMENTO QUE OS FINANCEIROS OS TENHAM ROUBADO. Todos juntos podereis exigir uma completa e independente investigação a todos os investigadores cujo trabalho estava implicado no escândalo da CRU. Podereis exigir uma re-avaliação completa de todos esses estudos e conclusões e toda política pública que tenha sido baseada nestes. Podereis exigir novas normas de transparência de cientistas cujo labor esteja financiado por fundos públicos ou cujo trabalho afete a política pública. Em outras palavras, podereisreafirmar que nenhuma causa é digna de apoio quando usa do engano para sua propagação. Ainda mais importante, podereis recuperar VOSSO  movimento meio-ambiental.

Agora, podereis voltar a concentra-vos nas questões sérias que devem ser perguntadas. Como a engenharia genética, onde organismos híbridos de desenho ambicioso estão sendo liberados na biosfera, em um gigante experimento incontrolado que ameaça ao mesmissímo genoma da vida sobre este planeta. Podereis voltar a examinar os muitos problemas meio-ambientais que tenham sido esquecidos em nome do CO2. Podereis examinar as agências reguladoras que estão controladas pelas mesmissímas corporações que supostamente tem que vigiar. Podereis centrar no uranio empobrecido, nos derrames de resíduos tóxicos, o desmatamento das florestas,   todos os demais assuntos que sabéis uma vez eram do mandato do VERDADEIRO movimento meio-ambiental. Ademais, podereis investigar, com “CIÊNCIA COM CONSCIÊNCIA”, as verdadeiras causas CÓSMICAS das alterações climáticas, que os cientistas da elite de hoje intentam esconder detrás de uma cortina de fumaça do CO2.

Ou, podereis comodamente, cair na política partidista. Podereis decidir que tudo bem mentir  sempre e quando apóiem a nossa parte. Podereis defender as atuações censuráveis de Al Gore e dos investigadores do CRU e agrupa-los em torno da bandeia verde que desde muito tempo foi capturada pelo INIMIGO. É uma simples decisão a tomar, porém, uma que devereis tomar com rapidez e virulência, antes de que tudo volte ao “negócio como sempre”.  Estamos em uma encruzilhada de caminhos na historia.  E não nos equivoquemos, que a historia será o juiz final de nossas ações.

E, a cada um lhe deixo, com uma simples pergunta:

¿Em que lado da historia, queres estar… TÚ?

P:D: Cada palavra ou frase em negrito a coloco com a intenção de que a busques na Internet por tua conta.

Noticia Relacionada:

Fonte: StarViewerTeam 2009 & Corbertt Report.

Jesse Ventura ex-Governador do Minnesota desmonta a farsa do Aquecimento Global – ‘Conspiracy Theory’

Posted on Dezembro 18, 2009 by ovigia

Jesse Ventura ex-Governador do Minnesota tem agora uma série de reportagens de investigação que visam tentar esclarecer ou fazer alguma luz sobre alguns assuntos designados por aqueles que os querem desacreditar como Teorias da Conspiração.

Este ex-Navy SEAL, ex-lutador de Wrestling e ex-político resolveu abordar numa nova série de televisão em formato tipo reportagens de investigação, diversos temas nossos conhecidos, tendo já ido para o ar três episódios desta série que se designa por CONSPIRACY THEORY WITH JESSE VENTURA e é uma produção da

Entre os temas abordados nos seus três primeiros episódios encontram-se o projecto militar HAARP capaz de alterar a atmosfera e o clima bem como o pensamento de todos nós e até provocar tremores e terra entre outros, no segundo episódio tratou do tema dos atentados do 11Set2001 e no episódio de ontem o terceiro, foi sobre o AGW, Aquecimento Global supostamente de origem antropogénica, sobre o qual Alex Jones tem um interessante artigo no seu site.

Para darem olhada aos seguintes episódios vão até ao site do projecto, caso queiram fazer o seu download através de torrents, aqui estão eles, para darem uma olhada primeiro vão até ao youtube.

Ficção científica

Ficção científica

Se calhar não é novidade a história dos e-mails roubados à Universidade de East Anglia. A instituição em causa possui um importante centro de estudos climatológicos e a correspondência em causa, trocada ao longo de duas décadas entre proeminentes cientistas do ramo, revelou que, além de tentarem destruir a reputação de colegas discordantes e bloquear a publicação dos respectivos trabalhos, os cientistas distorcem, escondem, esquecem e aldrabam informação alusiva às mudanças climáticas. E tudo isto para “demonstrar” que as ditas mudanças seguem o sentido do “aquecimento global” e que este se deve à acção do homem.

Se calhar, para muitos a história é mesmo novidade. Embora, no mínimo, os e-mails insinuem a forte possibilidade de a lengalenga em volta do clima constituir uma desmesurada fraude, a verdade é que os “media” não lhes têm dedicado um milésimo da atenção merecida, por exemplo, pelo “documentário” de Al Gore, um projecto com o rigor científico de Marte Ataca!. Os media nacionais, então, não dedicam aos e-mails atenção nenhuma, enquanto Marte Ataca!, perdão, Uma Verdade Inconveniente continua em exibição nas escolas a título de evangelho.

Claro que a indiferença com que a imprensa procura enterrar o escândalo é compreensível: deve ser embaraçoso admitir um logro que se divulga há anos. Aliás, se formos justos compreendemos a indiferença de todos, incluindo da comunidade científica “oficial”, que arrisca perder os abundantes financiamentos, e da classe política, que apanhada algures no meio dos negócios e da histeria ergueu o “aquecimento global” a centro da sua retórica. A partir de determinada aceleração, o avião não pode interromper a descolagem. Principalmente se o avião levanta rumo à Dinamarca, onde decorrerá a Cimeira de Copenhaga.

Para um evento devotado à influência do homem no clima, de facto não conviria à Cimeira admitir a forte suspeita de que tal influência é nula ou quase. A solução passa por fingir o oposto e prosseguir os trabalhos na presunção de que o mundo, o autêntico e não o do catastrofismo ambiental, está à beira do fim. Assim, durante os próximos dias, sumidades e estadistas vários arriscam discutir de cara séria uma calamidade imaginária, mais ou menos como se o planeta se mobilizasse para inventariar os estragos dos marcianos, enfrentar a ameaça dos marcianos e impor medidas ruinosas a pretexto dos marcianos. Até prova em contrário, os marcianos não existem. Além de perigosa, a Cimeira de Copenhaga será hilariante

por Alberto Gonçalves in D.N.

Cows, not cars, to blame for most of Brazil’s greenhouse gases

Cows, not cars, to blame for most of Brazil’s greenhouse gases

When most people think of the cause of greenhouse gases, they see images of factories and cars belching carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.

In Brazil, the blame is being put on cows and the ranchers who raise them.

According to a study by Brazilian university researchers published by the newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo, the cattle-farming sector accounted for one billion tones of Brazil’s greenhouse gases in 2005, or half of the country’s total.

The slash-and-burn deforestation of vast areas of the Amazon to make short-lived pastures is the worst contributor, followed by the methane released by cow burps and farts.

The figures could be still worse than that report suggests, though. Its data are based on immediate greenhouse gas releases — and not the gases derived from rotting vegetation.

So what do the researchers suggest could be done so Brazil can reach its target of carbon reductions?

Being scientists, they see technological answers, particularly by way of genetically altering Brazil’s bovines so more cows can be squeezed into a pasture, reducing the amount of land needed — and cutting back on the 300 kilos of carbon currently emitted to produce just one kilo of beef.

In this blog, reporters and editors for global news wire AFP blog about the news they report and the challenges they face covering events from Baghdad to Beijing, the White House to Darfur. Marc Burleigh is AFP Latin America correspondent, based in Sao Paolo.

The Climate Pool

ClimateGate Just Got Much, Much Bigger

By Christopher C. Horner

Over at Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo has posted an item on a “Russian Bombshell” highly relevant to the ClimateGate scandal. The Russian media first posted the story and now some Brits are loving it.


The long and the short of it is best summarized by the Telegraph’s James Dellingpole: “What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.”

That is, we have yet further evidence that the data is being cooked to make the long-running claim of an increase in global temperatures, and now to diminish the apparent cooling of said temps. As the gang at EU referendum tout, “it is in Soviet Union that the CRU, NOAA, NASA show the greatest warming.”

Around the world temperature stations have been widely decommissioned in rural and higher elevations, and we see an over-emphasis on increasingly urbanized (and therefore warmer) stations in the curious selection process as to what temperatures should count, and how much. The latter point references the fact that the data is then adjusted, and we are also seeing an increase in adjusting urbanized (that is, artificially warm) temperature records not down, but upward.

Excerpted in pertinent part, Joe Writes:

On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. …The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations. …

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The reason this cherry-picking is relevant — as is the apparent similar gamesmanship being played with other countries examined in recent days including China and New Zealand — because our NOAA compiles the global dataset and the rest work from it. So when CRU claimed that it “lost” its raw data, what they’re saying is the claim to have lost which stations they chose from NOAA’s compilation, making it impossible for those who wish to check it to discern how they got the answer they did.

If it is what it appears to be, and my dozen years working with these people and the past few weeks peeking further inside thanks to ClimateGate tell me that it is, then this is root-cause corruption.

Meanwhile, they are scrambling madly to stitch up an agreement in Copenhagen politically committing the U.S. to the long-desired wealth-transfer. The question is which moves faster, the collapse of the increasingly likely scientific fraud, or the global governance set.


Climate fraud Climategate

Thanx to wearechangechicago for their booksigning confrontation with AL WHORE I mean gore.. Climate Fraud insight, the falsehood of global warming and climate change as promoted by the establishment is so obvious. Expect more restrictive green laws and regulations regardless of all the fraud evidence. Please forgive the fast subtitles I had to do alotof trimming to not go over the 11 min mark. Also, If you dont get the beginning , it’s about how powerful our Sun truly is 1 second of output from the Sun could power mankind for 13 billion yrs! To see these power hungry elitists pushing their climate fraud is laughable like they have control over nature. The tiniest variation of the Sun’s output is going to effect our climate in many ways moreso than mankind can do in 100,000 yrs 

Here’s a (partial) list of the specific glaciers that are growing:

    Ålfotbreen Glacier
    Briksdalsbreen Glacier
    Nigardsbreen Glacier
    Hardangerjøkulen Glacier
    Hansebreen Glacier
    Jostefonn Glacier
    Engabreen glacier (The Engabreen glacier
    is the second largest glacier in Norway. It is a
    part (a glacial tongue) of the Svartisen glacier,
    which has steadily increased in mass since the
    1960s when heavier winter precipitation set in.)
  • Norway’s glaciers growing at record pace. The face of the Briksdal glacier,
    an off-shoot of the largest glacier in Norway and mainland Europe, is growing by an
    average 7.2 inches (18 cm) per day. (From the Norwegian daily Bergens Tidende.)

    Click here to see mass balance of Norwegian glaciers:

    Choose “English” (at top of the page), choose “Water,”
    then “Hydrology,” then “Glaciers and Snow” from the menu.
    You’ll see a list of all significant glaciers in Norway.
    (Thanks to Leif-K. Hansen for this info.)

    Helm Glacier
    Place Glacier
    Glaciers growing on Canada’s tallest mountain
    17 Nov 08 – The ice-covered peak of Yukon’s soaring Mount Logan
    may be due for an official re-measurement after readings that suggest
    this country’s superlative summit has experienced a growth spurt.
    See Glaciers growing on Canada’s tallest mountain
  • France
    Mt. Blanc
    Antizana 15 Alpha Glacier
  • Italy
    Winter snows did not all melt on Italy’s Presena Glacier this summer
    10 Nov 09 – ‘Their massive base depth last season meant it didn’t all melt
    over the summer so they have nearly a metre and a half of snow on the glacier
    ski area already.” (The second story of this kind in two years.)
    See Winter snows did not all melt on Italy’s Presena Glacier this summer
    Silvretta Glacier
    Maali Glacier (This glacier is surging.)
  • GREENLAND See Greenland Icecap Growing Thicker
    Greenland glacier advancing 7.2 miles per year!
    The BBC recently ran
    a documentary, The Big Chill, saying that we could be on the verge of an ice
    age. Britain could be heading towards an Alaskan-type climate within a decade,
    say scientists, because the Gulf Stream is being gradually cut off. The Gulf
    Stream keeps temperatures unusually high for such a northerly latitude.One of Greenland’s largest glaciers has already doubled its rate of advance,
    moving forward at the rate of 12 kilometers (7.2 miles) per year. To see a
    transcript of the documentary,
    go to
    Greenland Ice Sheet Growing Thicker
    4 Nov 05 – After gathering data for more than ten years, a team of
    Norwegian-led scientists has found that the Greenland Ice Sheet is
    actually growing thicker at its interior.
    See Greenland Ice Sheet Growing Thicker
  • All 48 glaciers in the Southern Alps have grown during the past year.
    The growth is at the head of the glaciers, high in the mountains, where they
    gained more ice than they lost. Noticeable growth should be seen at the
    foot of the Fox and Franz Josef glaciers within two to three years.(27 May 2003)
    Fox, Franz Josef glaciers defy trend – New Zealand’s two best-known
    glaciers are still on the march
    – 31 Jan 07 – See Franz Josef Glacier
    Argentina’s Perito Moreno Glacier (the largest glacier in Patagonia)
    is advancing at the rate of 7 feet per day. The 250 km² ice formation,
    30 km long, is one of 48 glaciers fed by the Southern Patagonian Ice
    Field. This ice field, located in the Andes system shared with Chile,
    is the world’s third largest reserve of fresh water.

    – Chile’s Pio XI Glacier (the largest glacier in the southern hemisphere)
    is also growing.

    – Colorado (scroll down to see AP article)
    – Washington (Mount St. Helens, Mt. Rainier* and Mt. Shuksan
    – California (Mount Shasta – scroll down for info)
    – Montana (scroll down for info)
    – Glacier Peak, WA (scroll down for info
    – Alaska (Mt. McKinley and Hubbard).

  • Antarctic ice grows to record levels
    13 Sep 07 – While the Antarctic Peninsula area has warmed
    in recent years and ice near it diminished during the Southern
    Hemisphere summer, the interior of Antarctica has been colder
    and ice elsewhere has been more extensive and longer lasting,
    See Antarctic ice grows to record levels
Oops – West Antarctic Ice Sheet
not losing ice as fast as we thought

20 Oct 09 — New measurements by
GPS Network suggest the rate of ice
loss of the West Antarctic ice sheet
has been slightly overestimated.
See Oops – West Antarctic Ice Sheet not losing ice as fast as we thought
  • Antarctica’s Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf is growing
    7 Dec 05 – Scientists Joughin and Bamber re-evaluated the mass balances
    of the ice in Antarctica. “It is clear from the results of this study that the
    Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf is not rapidly, or even slowly, wasting away.
    Quite to the contrary, it is growing.”
    See Antarctica’s Filchner-Ronne Ice Shelf growing
  • Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back
    19 Feb 08 – A Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly
    a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and
    buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.
    See Most snow cover since 1966

Alaska’s Hubbard Glacier advancing 7 feet per day!
10 May 09 – This from climatologist Cliff Harris of the Coeur d’Alene Press.
It’s possible that the glacier could close the fjord by later this summer if the
current rate speeds up, says Harris.
See Alaska’s Hubbard Glacier advancing 7 feet per day!

Glaciers growing on Glacier Peak, WA
16 Oct 08 – Email from reader
Before I moved to CO in 2005 it was obvious that the glaciers and snow
had receded and rock was visible in areas all the way to the peak. The glaciers
and snow are back now … completely covered in white from top to bottom,
and this is after the “warm” summer months here in the PNW.
See Glaciers growing on Glacier Peak, WA

Glaciers in Norway Growing Again
Scandinavian nation reverses trend, mirrors 
results in Alaska, elsewhere, reports the Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate.
See Glaciers in Norway Growing Again

Glaciers in western Himalayas thickening and expanding
Arctic ice cover above it’s 30-year average
23 Nov 08 – A study published by the American Meteorological Society
found that glaciers are only shrinking in the eastern Himalayas. Further
west, in the Hindu Kush and the Karakoram, glaciers are “thickening
and expanding”.
See Glaciers in western Himalayas thickening and expanding
Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years
16 Oct 08 – High snowfall and cold weather to blame leading
to the increase in glacial mass.
See Alaskan Glaciers Grow for First Time in 250 years

Growing Alaskan glaciers the start of a new Little Ice Age?

14 Oct 08 – “Never before in the history of a research project dating back
to 1946 had the Juneau Icefield witnessed the kind of snow buildup that
came this year. It was similar on a lot of other glaciers too.
See Growing Alaskan glaciers the start of a new Little Ice Age?
Himalayan Glaciers Not Shrinking
Glacial Experts Question Theory of Global Warming

15 Feb 07 – See Himalayan Glaciers Not Shrinking

Many people have asked why some glaciers in South America are melting.
I think it is perfectly understandable. Remember, we have had two of the
strongest El Ninos on record during the past 21 years. During an El Nino,
a narrow band of the Pacific Ocean warms by as much as 14 degrees. This
band of warm water travels east essentially along the equator until it slams
into South America.

It seems logical that the increased rainfall caused by El Nino, plus the
warmer winds blowing across the warmer water, could hasten glacial melt.
But let me say it again. I do not believe that this is caused by humans, I think
it is caused by the El Nino phenomenon, which is caused by underwater
volcanism, which is increasing due to the ice-age cycle.

With this said, let me point out many glaciers in South America remain
stable, and some – including the Pio XI Glacier and the Perito Moreno
Glacier – are growing. The Pio XI Glacier is the largest glacier in the
southern hemisphere. The Moreno Glacier is the largest glacier in Patagonia.

I find it curious that news reports do not mention these two glaciers.

* * *

Contrary to previous reports, Arctic ice did not thin during the 1990s, say
researchers at the Department of Oceanography at Göteborg University in
Göteborg, Sweden.


Alaska Glacier Surges -17 Mar 06
McGinnis Glacier

Look at what’s happening on Mt. Baker, in Washington State.
(Mt. Baker is near Mt. Shukson, where glaciers are now growing.)

This is a photo of my friend Jim Terrell taken on
Mt. Baker, Washington. Jim is more than six feet
tall. See the black line about six feet above his head?
That’s where the snow from the winter of 1998/99
stopped melting. Above that, is snow that never
melted from the winter of 1999/2000. Why isn’t
the media reporting this sort of thing?
Photo by Mazz Terrell
19 July 2000


See also Growing_Glaciers
See also Greenland Icecap Growing Thicker
and Antarctic Icecap Growing Thicker

Global Warming – Doomsday Called Off…

Blogger proves NASA wrong on climate change:…

Next Decade ‘may see no warming’:…

World leaders need to remain alert to latest scientific thought on climate change:….

Global Warming Risks Incorrect:…

Major New Theory Proposed to Explain Global Warming:

Melting Glaciers DO NOT Prove GW claims:

Global warming/Kilimanjaro:………

Global Warming Consensus?

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming:

NASA’s Chief Questions Need to Combat Global Warming:…

Scientific Smackdown:

Why I am an Anthropogenic Global Warming Sceptic: Michael Hammer

Posted by Michael Hammer, September 21st, 2009 

I HAVE been asked several times ‘why am I so sceptical of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis’?  There are many reasons, some of which I have documented in previous articles at this weblog, but these have relied on sometimes complex calculations which I admit can be difficult to appreciate.  So I would like to outline here a few of my reasons based only on simple consistency with the AGW proponents’ own data.

1.  The AGW movement claims there has been a global temperature rise of 0.5C over the last 60 years and that this is due to increasing CO2.  Both AGW proponents and sceptics accept that the relationship between energy retained and CO2 concentration is logarithmic (a constant increase in retained energy for each doubling of CO2).  The AGW movement data also shows that since 1900 CO2 has risen by very close to half a doubling  over this 60 year period.

IPCC have claimed in their 4th assessment report (summary for policy makers), that the most likely temperature rise by 2070, when CO2 will have risen by a further half doubling to twice the level in 1900, is a further 3C rise  (page 12).  Why would the first half doubling give 0.5C rise while the second half doubling gives 3C or 6 times as much rise?

2.  One claim I have heard is that it takes the climate a long time to respond to the change in CO2 concentration and we have not yet seen the entire rise from the first half doubling.  The same IPCC 4th assessment report (page 12, 13 and 14) indicates that if CO2 were stabilised at the current level, the temperature would rise by a further 0.2C over 2 decades stabilising at 0.7C above the 1900 level.

If the current temperature rise is not yet at the equilibrium level then for the business as usual scenario the temperature rise by 2070 will also not be at the equilibrium level.  Yet the IPCC data suggests the equilibrium rise from the first half doubling is not even one quarter of the less than equilibrium rise from the second half doubling.  To me this is illogical.

3.   IPCC claim an increase in retained energy of around 3.7 watts/sqM for each doubling of CO2 (1.66 watts/sqM for the current rise page 4).  They admit this is much too small to result in a 3+ degree temperature rise.  The large temperature rise is based on claims of very large net positive feedback in the climate system.

Yet, every natural stable system I can think of exhibits net negative feedback.   Indeed the terms stability and negative feedback are synonymous since negative feedback is what causes stability.  By contrast, positive feedback causes instability (such as tipping points where a large change in output occurs for a small change in input).   Stability does not mean zero change, it means the response to changes in input are small enough and sufficiently controlled so as to not cause system destruction or runaway.  If you want to argue that the climate system is not stable then I would why it has remained conducive to continued life on this planet for billions of years.  This is despite all the change in CO2 levels, volcanic eruptions, changes in solar output and orbital changes over the millennia.  To me, that is a very good definition of climate stability.

4.  The AGW modellers claim cloud feedback is positive.   AGW advocates seem to divide clouds into two categories, low clouds and high clouds.  Every report I have read acknowledges that low clouds cause cooling.  With regard to high clouds there is some dispute but the AGW modellers claim they cause warming.  Further they claim a warming planet results in a bias away from low clouds and towards high clouds thus exacerbating  warming, hence contributing to positive feedback.

At the same time they claim constant relative humidity in their models.  This means that as the temperature rises, more water must be evaporating.  Now unless we want to predict that the amount of water in the atmosphere is going to continuously rise until the oceans are suspended over our heads, more evaporation must imply more precipitation ie: more rain.  However, rain only comes from low clouds not high clouds, so more rain means more low cloud mass not less low cloud mass.  This contradicts the previous position.  If the claim is that both increase, then that means significantly more cloud mass in total.  Clouds are the biggest contributor to Earth’s albedo (the fraction of incoming solar energy reflected back out to space).  Rising total cloudiness means increasing albedo and the albedo is very strongly cooling.  The albedo already causes 100 watts/sqM to be reflected away from Earth.  To cancel out the entire impact claimed by IPCC for doubling CO2 only requires an increase in cloudiness from 60% to 62.4%.

An increase in temperature, leading to more evaporation, in turn leading to more cloudiness which reduces the solar input to Earth thus reducing temperatures is a description of negative feedback not positive feedback.

5.  The claimed “proof” of positive feedback is a model prediction of a hot spot in the tropics at mid troposphere levels.  However all the experimental evidence from many, many measurements has failed to find any evidence of such a hot spot.  In science, a clear prediction that is falsified experimentally means the underlying hypothesis on which the prediction is based is wrong.

6.  The reports documenting man’s CO2 emission use some scarily large numbers but these have to be viewed in the light of the overall system size.  For example, a million dollars is an extremely large amount of money for a private individual but it is almost petty cash for a government.  If we want to put the numbers into perspective we need to relate them to the size of the system.  Why not express CO2 quantities in terms of how many PPM 1 year’s emissions will raise or lower the atmospheric CO2 level (if all of it stayed in the atmosphere).  We could call that PPM equivalents.

In those terms, human emissions amount to about 2.7 PPM equivalents.  Now NASA have published a diagram showing annual CO2 transfers for the planet.  This shows terrestrial plants absorbing about 61 PPM equivalents.  We know that both rising CO2 and rising temperature favour faster plant growth.  That’s why horticulturalists artificially raise CO2 levels in glass houses to about 1000 PPM.  It is also why plants grow faster in the tropics than in cooler locations on earth.  More to the point, a recent study showed average plant growth has accelerated by about 6% over the last 30 years.  A 6% increase in plant growth means a 6% increase in absorbed CO2, from 61PPM equivalents to 64.7 PPM equivalents.  This means that human emissions have increased by 2.7 PPM equivalents but plants have increased their absorption by an extra 3.7 PPM equivalents over the same period.  The increased plant growth is consuming more than 100% of human emissions.  Is there another (natural) factor contributing to CO2 increases?

This response, more CO2 leading to faster plant growth which in turn consumes more CO2 is another example of the widespread bias towards negative feedback I alluded to earlier.   Apart from which, is increased plant growth and thus agricultural productivity bad?  I would have thought it was highly desirable.

7.  The AGW hypothesis is based on temperature rises between about 1975 and 1998 or about 25 years worth of data.  This is claimed to be definitive yet the last 10 years worth of data shows falling global temperatures.  This is claimed to be a short term aberration and of no consequence.  I do not see how 25 years can be considered definitive beyond dispute while 10 years of data is a short term aberration, too short to be significant.  I would have thought at least a 10:1 ratio would be necessary to make such a claim.

8.  If I adopt this 10:1 ratio by looking at the last 100 years worth of data I find 1910-1940 temperatures rising while CO2 was not.  1940 to 1975 temperatures falling while CO2 rising, 1975 to 1998 temperatures rising while CO2 rising and 1998 to 2009 temperatures falling while CO2 rising.   Three quarters of the period shows no correlation or negative correlation with CO2 and only one quarter shows positive correlation.  I do not understand how one can claim a hypothesis proven when ¾ of the data set disagrees with it.  To me it is the clearest proof that the hypothesis is wrong.

9.  For the last 10 years the global temperature data shows either no atmospheric temperature rise or indeed a falling global temperature.  Recently this has been claimed to be due to a combination of a quiet sun and changes in ocean circulation superimposed on the underlying warming trend.  The further claim is that when these effects reverse, warming will start again with a vengeance.

If these natural processes can cancel out the impact of AGW then they are as powerful as AGW.  If they can overwhelm the impact of AGW to cause cooling they are more powerful, yet IPCC and other AGW proponents have claimed in previous assessment reports that solar influences are only a minor contributor compared to CO2.

The  sun was unusually active during the latter half of the 20th century in contrast to its current inactivity and the ocean circulation was the opposite of what is now happening.  Thus the natural effects claimed to be causing cooling now would have been causing warming in the late 20th century.  If these natural effects are as large as the AGW impact then they would have caused half the observed 20th century warming.  If the natural effects now outweigh the AGW impact to cause cooling then they would have been responsible for more than half the observed 20th century warming.

This is not only in contradiction of the earlier IPCC claims, it also means that the actual impact of CO2 increases since 1900 is much less than the claimed 0.5C.  At most 0.25C and possibly much less even than that.

If in fact the temperature returns to the long term average over the next few years (as seems to be increasingly likely), it suggests that these natural processes were responsible for essentially all the observed temperature changes over the 20th century with negligible impact from CO2 changes.

10.  I have looked at the raw temperature record for the USA (USHCN data) and the Bureau of Meteorology data for Victoria, Australia.  Both show fluctuations of temperature with time but zero underlying trend for the last century.  By contrast, the official IPCC endorsed data shows a strong underlying upwards trend.  When I investigate why the difference, I find that the raw data has been adjusted for several supposed factors and every one of these adjustments created a warming trend.  This implies that the claimed warming trend is due to the adjustments, not the raw data.  In any less controversial scientific issue, such a result would be viewed with the greatest possible scepticism and would be extremely unlikely to be accepted.

When I examine the raw temperature data record for cities compared with nearby suburban or rural areas, I  find an extremely high signature of urban heat island effect.  Yet the people doing the temperature adjustments claim that urban heat island effects are negligible and do not require correction.  This is despite the fact that a significant proportion of the measurement stations are in cities.

Such a clear factor not corrected for while other more subtle claimed factors are corrected casts further doubt on the correction protocol.  If there is an upwards bias in the corrections, it means the claimed warming trend is exaggerated and may in fact not exist at all.

11.  The mainstream media keep reporting that the current situation is increasingly dire and is much worse than even the previous pessimistic projections.  When I examine this statement I find that previous projections predicted rapid atmospheric warming during the last 10 years whereas in fact we have had cooling.  They predicted rapid increase in rate of rise of sea level when in fact the rate of sea level rise has recently declined.  They predicted a very rapid increase in Arctic summer sea ice loss whereas in fact, for the last 2 years, it has been increasing.  They predicted a rapid rise in hurricane incidence and severity when in fact there has been a decline.  To me the media’s many claims are not supportable.  I also consider it to be beyond simple error.  At best it is unpardonable gross carelessness in checking the data they are reporting and at worst it is deliberate bias in reporting.

12.  More recently, in response to the data showing no warming for the last 10 years, I have seen new claims that global land temperatures are now deemed irrelevant.  The newly discovered measure of importance is the rise in ocean temperature, since it is now claimed that this is by far the largest planetary heat sink.  If that claim is true, it makes all the previous data claiming to show strong global warming over the period 1975 to 1998 also irrelevant.  To suggest that from 1975 to 1998, the energy went into warming the land and air and then abruptly in 1998 it stopped doing that and the heat instead went into heating the oceans is, to me, completely absurd.  Nature simply does not work that way.  It is like claiming you put the kettle on, for the first minute the energy goes into heating the water and then abruptly it stops heating the water and starts heating the room instead.

13.  Looking further at the claim of warming ocean temperatures.  Late last century it was realised that the method of measuring ocean temperatures was extremely inaccurate and unreliable.  To overcome that, a sophisticated, global system of buoys was designed and implemented at very considerable cost and effort.  These buoys repeatedly dive down to measure temperatures  and then resurface to report back findings  This network is called the Argo network and it became operational in 2003.  Since becoming operational, it has shown ocean cooling.  Yet the scientists who claim ongoing ocean warming exclude the Argo data and the satellite data instead relying entirely on the earlier poor reliability methods.

The same scientific community which claimed a method was inaccurate and unreliable, designed and implemented  a new high accuracy measurement system, are now rejecting the new high accuracy data in favour of the older data they themselves viewed as unreliable.  How can that be justified?  Why is the data from the older less reliable method correct, while results from the new, high accuracy methodology are wrong?  What does that say about the scientists who designed the Argo system but apparently don’t trust its output?  To me it suggests selecting data to prove a favoured hypothesis, commonly called cherry picking.

Some sites are talking about “correcting” the Argo data.  Why should a carefully thought out, brand new, high accuracy system already require adjustment to its outputs?  Was a mistake made in the design?  Why are the proposed adjustments again in the direction of exacerbating the claimed warming?  When the raw data contradicts the hypothesis yet the “adjustments and corrections” all reverse that result so as to support the championed hypothesis, it’s time to start worrying.

14.  What mankind is doing by consuming fossil fuels is recycling CO2 that used to be in the atmosphere but got trapped in the distant past.  Is there a “correct” level of CO2?  What I have read suggests that the Earth was a more verdant place before the CO2 got locked up in fossil fuels.  Would the Earth be more or less pleasant a place if the carbon currently locked up in fossil fuels were again available to the biosphere.  Not just for humans but for all living things, plants and animals.  Surely we should consider that before we pick some arbitrary recent point in time and declare that the CO2 level at that time is the ideal to be maintained at all costs.

FROM a slightly different but related perspective, I see the AGW story continuously changing.  When one measure no longer trends the wanted way, a change is made to a new measure (change from surface to ocean temperatures and ocean acidity).  In one report, an effect is claimed to be negligible when that suits the hypothesis yet the same measure is later used as a reason to explain away embarrassing trends (Solar influence and ocean currents).  All the observed effects are very moderate (less than 0.5C) if present at all yet hysteria is generated on the basis of hypothesised extreme future outcomes (up to 6C rise and 10 meter sea level rises).  Outcomes far enough in the future so as to be un-testable yet close enough to impact people being born today.  Claims based on abstract models that fail even short term validation tests.   As a practicing scientist, I have seen this scenario more than once before, changing benchmarks and indicative parameters, rewriting predictions and predicted causes after the event, excusing erroneous predictions.  These are clear signs of propping up a false hypothesis.

There does seem to be clear evidence that temperature changed several times over the 20th century both up and down.  There is far less evidence for any underlying upwards trend due to CO2 and many reasons to question the data analysis that tries to demonstrate such a trend.

One of the arguments I often hear is “well even if AGW is not absolutely proven we should take action just in case its correct” – the precautionary principle.  I see two reasons to disagree with that.

Firstly, if rising CO2 should bring about some warming it is by no means certain that this would be catastrophically bad or for that matter whether it would be bad at all.  It seems quite likely to me that the cure would be worse than the disease.

Secondly, and to me much more importantly, there is another issue we need to consider and that is the law of unintended consequences.  Briefly this states that whenever you take action there will always be consequences you did not consider in advance and did not intend.  Since there are many more ways to be wrong than to be right there is a better than 50:50 chance that these consequences will be bad.  If the original action is based on a false premise it greatly increases the risk of bad unintended consequences.  The precautionary principle is based on the belief that there is no down side to taking action.  The law of unintended consequences tells us that there is always a down side and the cost versus benefit always needs to be carefully evaluated before acting.

We are already seeing some very bad unintended consequences of the action taken so far over global warming.  The government driven initiative to use less fossil fuel by diluting it with ethanol is causing massive forest clearing the Amazon basin (to grow the ethanol feedstock) and is very significantly raising food prices causing even worse starvation in 3rd world countries.  Terrible as it is, this has not greatly impacted on western society but the next phase most certainly will.

There is another very serious unintended consequence that I would like to raise here; one that concerns me very deeply.  When I listen to the public AGW debate  I hear very high profile politicians and prominent public figures calling for people who openly disagree with AGW to be put on trial for treason.  I hear many cases of people losing their jobs because of voicing sceptical opinions.  I hear prominent global warming advocates refusing to enter into debates or trying to avoid debates by claiming the science is settled, and by claiming we do not have time, we have only weeks to act.  I hear AGW advocates resorting to personal attacks against people who disagree rather than addressing the technical issues they raise.

I hear AGW proponents claiming to be the under funded underdogs, fighting to protect the planet against greedy capitalists, yet the reality is their funding is at least 1000 times greater than the sceptics funding.  I see many reports of scientists refusing to release their workings, thus preventing review of their methodology, despite the fact that their work was funded by public money.

I see how the established media abandons balance in reporting by strongly favouring proponents of AGW, ignoring or denigrating sceptics and forcing most onto blog sites like this one.  I hear some environmental groups and activists publicly claim that its OK and even necessary to exaggerate the threat so as to get the public to engage. I see the courts condoning acts of vandalism and even violence against essential public infrastructure.  I see high profile public figures supporting such acts and claiming them to be reasonable and justified.

In short I see our society abandoning some of our most vital democratic freedoms over this hysteria:  Free speech, impartial enforcement of the law, balance in reporting, freedom of information.  These are freedoms our forebears gave their lives to bequeath to us, they are our most valuable inheritance and we seem to be throwing them away over an unproven hysterical hypothesis.

More recently I have read articles from England advocating individual ration cards for petrol, heating oil, gas, electricity.  Is water and food next?  War time austerity as an ongoing future way of life?  A return to the agrarian poverty of the middle ages?  I note the new film “Not evil just wrong” has had to be distributed via the internet rather than traditional media.  One step from distribution through an underground network?  Will that apply to all future sceptical writing?   What about other writing contrary to the popular opinion of the day?

These are the issues that differentiate between a free democracy and a totalitarian regime and the further one goes down this path the harder it is to pull back.  History has shown us that the disease is far easier to acquire than to get rid of.


Notes and Links

Michael Hammer graduated with a Bachelor of Engineering Science and Master of Engineering Science from Melbourne University.  Since 1976 he has been working in the field of spectroscopy with the last 25 years devoted to full time research for a large multinational spectroscopy company.

To read more from Mr Hammer click here and scroll down:

“Não existe aquecimento global”, diz representante da OMM na América do Sul

Por Carlos Madeiro
Especial para o UOL Ciência e Saúde

Com 40 anos de experiência em estudos do clima no planeta, o meteorologista da Universidade Federal de Alagoas Luiz Carlos Molion apresenta ao mundo o discurso inverso ao apresentado pela maioria dos climatologistas. Representante dos países da América do Sul na Comissão de Climatologia da Organização Meteorológica Mundial (OMM), Molion assegura que o homem e suas emissões na atmosfera são incapazes de causar um aquecimento global. Ele também diz que há manipulação dos dados da temperatura terrestre e garante: a Terra vai esfriar nos próximos 22 anos.

Em entrevista ao UOL, Molion foi irônico ao ser questionado sobre uma possível ida a Copenhague: “perder meu tempo?” Segundo ele, somente o Brasil, dentre os países emergentes, dá importância à conferência da ONU. O metereologista defende que a discussão deixou de ser científica para se tornar política e econômica, e que as potências mundiais estariam preocupadas em frear a evolução dos países em desenvolvimento.

UOL: Enquanto todos os países discutem formas de reduzir a emissão de gases na atmosfera para conter o aquecimento global, o senhor afirma que a Terra está esfriando. Por quê?

Luiz Carlos Molion: Essas variações não são cíclicas, mas são repetitivas. O certo é que quem comanda o clima global não é o CO2. Pelo contrário! Ele é uma resposta. Isso já foi mostrado por vários experimentos. Se não é o CO2, o que controla o clima? O sol, que é a fonte principal de energia para todo sistema climático. E há um período de 90 anos, aproximadamente, em que ele passa de atividade máxima para mínima. Registros de atividade solar, da época de Galileu, mostram que, por exemplo, o sol esteve em baixa atividade em 1820, no final do século 19 e no inicio do século 20. Agora o sol deve repetir esse pico, passando os próximos 22, 24 anos, com baixa atividade.

UOL: Isso vai diminuir a temperatura da Terra?

Molion: Vai diminuir a radiação que chega e isso vai contribuir para diminuir a temperatura global. Mas tem outro fator interno que vai reduzir o clima global: os oceanos e a grande quantidade de calor armazenada neles. Hoje em dia, existem boias que têm a capacidade de mergulhar até 2.000 metros de profundidade e se deslocar com as correntes. Elas vão registrando temperatura, salinidade, e fazem uma amostragem. Essas boias indicam que os oceanos estão perdendo calor. Como eles constituem 71% da superfície terrestre, claro que têm um papel importante no clima da Terra. O [oceano] Pacífico representa 35% da superfície, e ele tem dado mostras de que está se resfriando desde 1999, 2000. Da última vez que ele ficou frio na região tropical foi entre 1947 e 1976. Portanto, permaneceu 30 anos resfriado.

UOL: Esse resfriamento vai se repetir, então, nos próximos anos?

Molion: Naquela época houve redução de temperatura, e houve a coincidência da segunda Guerra Mundial, quando a globalização começou pra valer. Para produzir, os países tinham que consumir mais petróleo e carvão, e as emissões de carbono se intensificaram. Mas durante 30 anos houve resfriamento e se falava até em uma nova era glacial. Depois, por coincidência, na metade de 1976 o oceano ficou quente e houve um aquecimento da temperatura global. Surgiram então umas pessoas – algumas das que falavam da nova era glacial – que disseram que estava ocorrendo um aquecimento e que o homem era responsável por isso.

UOL: O senhor diz que o Pacífico esfriou, mas as temperaturas médias Terra estão maiores, segundo a maioria dos estudos apresentados.

Molion: Depende de como se mede.

UOL: Mede-se errado hoje?

Molion: Não é um problema de medir, em si, mas as estações estão sendo utilizadas, infelizmente, com um viés de que há aquecimento.

UOL: O senhor está afirmando que há direcionamento?

Molion: Há. Há umas seis semanas, hackers entraram nos computadores da East Anglia, na Inglaterra, que é um braço direto do IPCC [Painel Intergovernamental sobre Mudança Climática], e eles baixaram mais de mil e-mails. Alguns deles são comprometedores. Manipularam uma série para que, ao invés de mostrar um resfriamento, mostrassem um aquecimento.

UOL: Então o senhor garante existir uma manipulação?

Molion: Se você não quiser usar um termo tão forte, digamos que eles são ajustados para mostrar um aquecimento, que não é verdadeiro.

UOL: Se há tantos dados técnicos, por que essa discussão de aquecimento global? Os governos têm conhecimento disso ou eles também são enganados?

Molion: Essa é a grande dúvida. Na verdade, o aquecimento não é mais um assunto científico, embora alguns cientistas se engajem nisso. Ele passou a ser uma plataforma política e econômica. Da maneira como vejo, reduzir as emissões é reduzir a geração da energia elétrica, que é a base do desenvolvimento em qualquer lugar do mundo. Como existem países que têm a sua matriz calcada nos combustíveis fósseis, não há como diminuir a geração de energia elétrica sem reduzir a produção.

UOL: Isso traria um reflexo maior aos países ricos ou pobres?

Molion: O efeito maior seria aos países em desenvolvimento, certamente. Os desenvolvidos já têm uma estabilidade e podem reduzir marginalmente, por exemplo, melhorando o consumo dos aparelhos elétricos. Mas o aumento populacional vai exigir maior consumo. Se minha visão estiver correta, os paises fora dos trópicos vão sofrer um resfriamento global. E vão ter que consumir mais energia para não morrer de frio. E isso atinge todos os países desenvolvidos.

UOL: O senhor, então, contesta qualquer influência do homem na mudança de temperatura da Terra?

Molion: Os fluxos naturais dos oceanos, polos, vulcões e vegetação somam 200 bilhões de emissões por ano. A incerteza que temos desse número é de 40 bilhões para cima ou para baixo. O homem coloca apenas 6 bilhões, portanto a emissões humanas representam 3%. Se nessa conferência conseguirem reduzir a emissão pela metade, o que são 3 bilhões de toneladas em meio a 200 bilhões?Não vai mudar absolutamente nada no clima.

UOL: O senhor defende, então, que o Brasil não deveria assinar esse novo protocolo?

Molion: Dos quatro do bloco do BRIC (Brasil, Rússia, Índia e China), o Brasil é o único que aceita as coisas, que “abana o rabo” para essas questões. A Rússia não está nem aí, a China vai assinar por aparência. No Brasil, a maior parte das nossas emissões vem da queimadas, que significa a destruição das florestas. Tomara que nessa conferência saia alguma coisa boa para reduzir a destruição das florestas.

UOL: Mas a redução de emissões não traria nenhum benefício à humanidade?

Molion: A mídia coloca o CO2 como vilão, como um poluente, e não é. Ele é o gás da vida. Está provado que quando você dobra o CO2, a produção das plantas aumenta. Eu concordo que combustíveis fósseis sejam poluentes. Mas não por conta do CO2, e sim por causa dos outros constituintes, como o enxofre, por exemplo. Quando liberado, ele se combina com a umidade do ar e se transforma em gotícula de ácido sulfúrico e as pessoas inalam isso. Aí vêm os problemas pulmonares.

UOL: Se não há mecanismos capazes de medir a temperatura média da Terra, como o senhor prova que a temperatura está baixando?

Molion: A gente vê o resfriamento com invernos mais frios, geadas mais fortes, tardias e antecipadas. Veja o que aconteceu este ano no Canadá. Eles plantaram em abril, como sempre, e em 10 de junho houve uma geada severa que matou tudo e eles tiveram que replantar. Mas era fim da primavera, inicio de verão, e deveria ser quente. O Brasil sofre a mesma coisa. Em 1947, última vez que passamos por uma situação dessas, a frequência de geadas foi tão grande que acabou com a plantação de café no Paraná.

UOL: E quanto ao derretimento das geleiras?

Molion: Essa afirmação é fantasiosa. Na realidade, o que derrete é o gelo flutuante. E ele não aumenta o nível do mar.

UOL: Mas o mar não está avançando?

Molion: Não está. Há uma foto feita por desbravadores da Austrália em 1841 de uma marca onde estava o nível do mar, e hoje ela está no mesmo nível. Existem os lugares onde o mar avança e outros onde ele retrocede, mas não tem relação com a temperatura global.

UOL: O senhor viu algum avanço com o Protoclo de Kyoto?

Molion: Nenhum. Entre 2002 e 2008, se propunham a reduzir em 5,2% as emissões e até agora as emissões continuam aumentando. Na Europa não houve redução nenhuma. Virou discursos de políticos que querem ser amigos do ambiente e ao mesmo tempo fazer crer que países subdesenvolvidos ou emergentes vão contribuir com um aquecimento. Considero como uma atitude neocolonialista.

UOL: O que a convenção de Copenhague poderia discutir de útil para o meio ambiente?

Molion: Certamente não seriam as emissões. Carbono não controla o clima. O que poderia ser discutido seria: melhorar as condições de prever os eventos, como grandes tempestades, furacões, secas; e buscar produzir adaptações do ser humano a isso, como produções de plantas que se adaptassem ao sertão nordestino, como menor necessidade de água. E com isso, reduzir as desigualdades sociais do mundo.

UOL: O senhor se sente uma voz solitária nesse discurso contra o aquecimento global?

Molion: Aqui no Brasil há algumas, e é crescente o número de pessoas contra o aquecimento global. O que posso dizer é que sou pioneiro. Um problema é que quem não é a favor do aquecimento global sofre retaliações, têm seus projetos reprovados e seus artigos não são aceitos para publicação. E eles [governos] estão prejudicando a Nação, a sociedade, e não a minha pessoa.

fonte: UOl

Quem financia a Greenpeace?

Greenpeace financiado pela elite mafiosa eugenista corporativa

Créditos de: A Tribuna

Pesquisando algo mais sobre a conspiração climática, o ”Climategate” encontrei essa interessante informação que o mínimo nos faz pensar sobre o que é realmente nobre e o que é obscuro em nossa ilusória realidade ditada pelas mídias corporativas mundiais. A lista abaixo contém os nomes dos patrocinadores do movimento ambiental Greenpeace.
A presença de doadores como a familia Rockefeller entre os nomes da lista nos faz pensar o que realmente tem de sério e correto nessa ONG.

Segue abaixo a lista:

Funding From Foundations. Corporations Total Donated

Turner Foundation $1,390,000 [1996 – 2001]
Rockefeller Brothers Fund $1,080,000 [1997 – 2005]
John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation $841,365 [1997 – 2002]
V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation $456,000 [2002 – 2003]
David & Lucile Packard Foundation $450,000 [2000 – 2000]
Blue Moon Fund $370,000 [1998 – 2002]
Trust for Mutual Understanding $316,000 [1995 – 2004]
Marisla Foundation $250,000 [2001 – 2004]
Charles Stewart Mott Foundation $249,000 [1999 – 2002]
Wallace Global Fund $245,000 [1999 – 2002]
Wilburforce Foundation $226,900 [2000 – 2005]
Scherman Foundation $200,000 [2001 – 2005]
Lannan Foundation $200,000 [1995 – 1996]
Joyce Foundation $200,000 [1993 – 1997]
Nathan Cummings Foundation $152,000 [1990 – 2003]
Columbia Foundation $150,000 [2000 – 2001]
Rex Foundation $116,796 [1984 – 1995]
Firedoll Foundation $115,000 [2000 – 2005]
Panaphil Foundation $115,000 [1998 – 2005]
Rockefeller Family Fund $115,000 [2002 – 2005]
Winslow Foundation $115,000 [2000 – 2006]
Ploughshares Foundation $104,000 [1998 – 2005]
Brainerd Foundation $100,000 [2000 – 2001]
Harold K. Hochschild Foundation $100,000 [1995 – 2001]
Westwind Foundation $87,250 [2001 – 2003]
Capital Group Companies Charitable Foundation $86,000 [1999 – 2006]
John Merck Fund $80,000 [2000 – 2002]
Catharine Hawkins Foundation $77,000 [2000 – 2006]
Holborn Foundation $75,000 [1999 – 2006]
Public Welfare Foundation $75,000 [1994 – 1994]
Clarence E. Heller Charitable Foundation $75,000 [2000 – 2000]
Compton Foundation $72,500 [2000 – 2004]
Pond Foundation $72,000 [2000 – 2002]
Prentice Foundation $69,500 [2000 – 2005]
CGMK Foundation $65,000 [2001 – 2006]
Lynn R. & Karl E. Prickett Fund $64,832 [1999 – 2004]
L.C. & Margaret Walker Foundation $63,846 [2001 – 2004]
Brownington Foundation $62,000 [1999 – 2004]
Beldon Fund $60,000 [1995 – 2000]
Makray Family Foundation $59,000 [2000 – 2006]
New York Community Trust $55,950 [1997 – 2001]
Ruth Covo Family Foundation $53,000 [1998 – 2005]
Mertz Gilmore Foundation $50,000 [1998 – 1998]
Nightingale Code Foundation $44,832 [2000 – 2000]
Monterey Fund $41,400 [1998 – 2005]
Bauman Family Foundation $40,000 [2003 – 2003]
David L. Klein, Jr. Foundation $40,000 [1999 – 2000]
Butler Family Fund $40,000 [2006 – 2006]
Adam Richter Charitable Trust $36,000 [1998 – 2004]
Benjamin J. Rosenthal Foundation $35,000 [1998 – 2004]
Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund $35,000 [2004 – 2004]
Messengers of Healing Winds Foundation $32,500 [1998 – 2004]
California Community Foundation $31,690 [2000 – 2005]
Max & Anna Levinson Foundation $31,000 [2000 – 2006]

A lista pode ser encontrada nesse link:

In Fim dos Tempos

Comprar e vender direitos para poluir o ambiente tornou-se banal

Lurdes Ferreira

Um parque eólico na China pode estar ligado às metas de emissões de dióxido de carbono em Portugal? Sim. O sistema internacional do comércio de carbono, impulsionado pelo Protocolo de Quioto e que é parte fundamental das contas para a Cimeira de Copenhaga, tem tanto de global como de complexo, sobretudo em termos de regulação.

O organismo das Nações Unidas responsável pela gestão dos créditos de carbono acaba de suspender, à beira do arranque da conferência, a aprovação de novos parques eólicos para a China, financiados com o dinheiro dos países ricos, que procuram compensar as suas emissões de CO2, através do mecanismo de desenvolvimento limpo, um instrumento previsto no Protocolo de Quioto para investimentos nos países em desenvolvimento.

Os chineses têm sido os grandes beneficiários deste instrumento, com investimentos que se estimam superiores a mil milhões de dólares. Quanto a Portugal, subscreveu em 2007, através do Fundo Português de Carbono, uma participação de 15 milhões de dólares no Asia Pacific Carbon Fund, do Banco Asiático de Desenvolvimento, vocacionado para este tipo de projectos.

A decisão ora tomada pelas Nações Unidas surge num oportuno momento de pressão negocial. As autoridades de Pequim são acusadas de reduzirem intencionalmente os subsídios estatais, de modo a que estes projectos sejam financiados pela comunidade internacional.

É devido a casos como este que não se calam as vozes dos que pensam que o problema climático se transformou num negócio de compra e venda de direitos de emissões. James Hansen, o cientista a quem se atribui o mérito de ter posto o mundo preocupado com as alterações climáticas, criticava há alguns dis o modelo de direitos de poluir praticado nos últimos anos. “Temos os países desenvolvidos que querem continuar a manter mais ou menos o seu negócio e os países em desenvolvimento que querem dinheiro, conseguindo-o através das compensações [vendidas nos mercados de carbono]”, dizia este especialista, que gostaria de ver taxas de carbono sobre o consumo de combustível no lugar de um mercado de licenças.

Transacções duplicam

Até que ponto o mercado ajuda a reduzir as emissões ou serve apenas para gerar e fazer girar dinheiro? Ricardo Moita, presidente executivo da Ecoprogresso, a consultora portuguesa especializada em alterações climáticas e gestão de carbono, está mais próximo do actual modelo. “É uma questão de racionalidade financeira. Não há uma redução directa das emissões, mas, se a gestão do processo for bem feita, baixamos o risco e, ao baixá-lo, libertamos mais dinheiro para a economia, que pode ser convertido em investimento em tecnologias limpas.”

O último relatório anual do Banco Mundial sobre o mercado de carbono indica que este transaccionou 86 mil milhões de euros em 2008, para um total de 4800 milhões de toneladas de CO2, o que equivale a cerca de 150 vezes o tecto anual de emissões previstas entre 2008 e 2012 para o conjunto das empresas portuguesas integradas no Comércio Europeu de Licenças de Emissões (CELE). Foi praticamente o dobro de um ano antes, tanto em valor como em volume.

Neste bolo cabem os mercados regionais de licenças (UE, EUA e Austrália), com domínio evidente do europeu, que pesa mais de 72 por cento do total. Também cabem os negócios feitos ao abrigo dos instrumentos de mercado de Quioto visando os países em desenvolvimento e de transição para a economia de mercado (Leste europeu) e cabe ainda uma fatia residual do mercado voluntário de empresas e particulares.

Apesar desta expansão global, o relatório sublinha a existência de problemas que já não são novos, a começar pela dependência do mercado em relação ao factor (risco) político, que se tem traduzido numa volatilidade dos preços, sobretudo nos projectos de compensação com os países em desenvolvimento. Os analistas não duvidam de que a incerteza quanto à política para o pós-2012 tem sido negativa para a evolução dos preços. Seguem-se as dificuldades regulatórias no circuito administrativo, com atrasos no registo, aprovação e verificação de projectos, o que resultou em quebras substanciais entre 30 por cento em volume a 50 por cento em valor. Ainda na fase inicial, foi a falta de dados fiáveis que levou ao colapso dos preços, em 2006, quando o mercado se deparou com licenças em excesso.

Ricardo Moita admite que o mercado “tem muitas volatilidades” típicas dos mercados de matérias-primas, como o petróleo e o gás natural e no qual o carbono se inclui, mas espera que tenda para uma maior profissionalização, responsabilização e regulação no futuro. O caminho tem sido de correcção e aperfeiçoamento nos últimos anos, defende, e a entrada gradual do sistema de leilões, em detrimento das licenças gratuitas, deverá ser um factor de eficiência, uma expectativa que é partilhada por muitos especialistas.

PCP contra “privatização da atmosfera”, pede ao Governo ruptura com comércio de emissões


O PCP alertou hoje para o que disse ser a “privatização da atmosfera” que afirma estar a ser preparada na cimeira de Copenhaga, exortando o governo português a assumir uma ruptura com o actual modelo naquele encontro mundial.

Para os comunistas, o que estará em cima da mesa na conferência de Copenhaga será “um aprofundamento” dos mecanismos previstos no protocolo de Quioto, “mercantilizando o ambiente e colocando a capacidade da Terra de reciclar carbono nas mãos das mesmas corporações que estão a delapidar recursos e a degradar o ambiente”, apontou Vladimiro Vale, da Comissão Política do Comité Central, em conferência de imprensa na sede do PCP.

Em causa está, proseguiu, uma “política de privatização da atmosfera e de transferência de custos e responsabilidades para os povos do mundo”.

O PCP concorda com a limitação das emissões de gases, mas condena a “especulação e a transferência de custos”.

“O essencial é não existir a possibilidade de transacção do direito a poluir. Obviamente isso significará a especulação e a concentração dessa capacidade de poluir num determinado conjunto de países, corporações ou empresas”, defendeu o deputado comunista Miguel Tiago, para quem está em causa uma “privatização encapotada da atmosfera”.

Para os comunistas, a criação do comércio do carbono visa “tornar-se numa máquina bilionária de geração de activos financeiros fictícios” ou no que dizem ser um “novo monstro financeiro”, que, a curto prazo, poderá representar um mercado de mais de 700 mil milhões de dólares.

O modelo de transferência de custos já provou que não funciona, acrescenta o PCP.

“Desde 2005, a União Europeia tem em funcionamento o chamado esquema europeu de transacções. A experiência mostra que não só não assegurou uma redução [de emissões de gases com efeitos de estufa], o que denota a sua ineficácia, como possibilitou um aumento das emissões, daí a sua perversidade”, exemplificou o eurodeputado comunista João Ferreira.

O PCP reclama que o governo português assuma “uma atitude que coloque a necessidade de uma ruptura com o actual paradigma de desenvolvimento, que sacrifica os recursos naturais e a força do trabalho humano à crescente acumulação do lucro e da riqueza produzida”.

Os comunistas acusam o governo PS de seguir uma política que mercantiliza o ambiente e desinveste na conservação da natureza, com medidas como a política de privatização da água e a colocação do ordenamento do território “sob a direcção de grupos económicos e de interesses privados”, referem.

O PCP defende a diminuição da dependência face aos combustíveis fósseis, através do aumento da eficiência energética, a protecção da produção local e redução da amplitude dos ciclos de produção e consumo, a travagem do comércio mundial e a protecção dos ecossistemas naturais.


Exmo Sr Ministro do Ambiente, do Ordenamento do Território e do Desenvolvimento Regional, Eng Francisco Nunes Correia,

Na União Europeia (UE) há decisões cruciais sobre o cultivo de plantas transgénicas (GM) que estão a ser tomadas até ao Verão. Estas decisões trazem implicações profundas para a nossa alimentação, saúde e ambiente.
A Comissão Europeia propôs que a Áustria, França, Grécia e Hungria fossem obrigadas a cancelar as moratórias que têm em vigor contra o cultivo do milho MON 810 da Monsanto, a única variedade GM autorizada até agora para cultivo em toda a UE.

A votação relativa à Àustria e à Hungria já teve lugar a 2 de Março de 2009, e a proposta da Comissão foi sonoramente rejeitada. Porque o Sr Ministro soube ouvir a vontade dos portugueses e também votou contra a Comissão e a favor do direito dos Estados Membros a proibir os transgénicos, merece sinceros parabéns. Espera-se a mesma atitude firme aquando da votação sobre a França e a Grécia.

A Comissão Europeia também pretende a aprovação do cultivo de mais duas variedades de milho transgénico (o Bt11 da Syngenta e o 1507 da Pioneer). Isto seria a primeira aprovação de transgénicos para cultivo na UE desde 1998.

No entanto, e considerando que,há cada vez mais provas científicas que demonstram o carácter instável e as consequências negativas inesperadas dos transgénicos para a saúde e o ambiente;

  • as variedades Bt11 e 1507 que estão a votação são altamente controversas – existe demasiada ignorância e incerteza científica relativamente à sua real segurança para a saúde e o ambiente mas, por outro lado, sabe-se que produzem uma toxina Bt com impacto directo em organismos não-alvo (como certos insectos benéficos) e ainda que têm resistência a um herbicida que vai em breve ser retirado do mercado, de acordo com regras da própria UE;
  • a experiência já acumulada e os casos concretos já registados mostram que o cultivo de transgénicos põe em causa a agricultura convencional e biológica e – em Portugal em particular – a legislação em vigor efectivamente conduz a que o poluidor nunca pague pela poluição causada, nem reponha a situação pré-poluição;
  • a posição dos europeus em geral – e dos portugueses em particular – relativamente aos transgénicos é esmagadoramente céptica, ainda mais quando se verifica que o anunciado “direito à escolha” não passa de uma miragem, quer para consumidores quer para agricultores;
  • em Dezembro de 2007 todos os 27 Estados Membros unanimemente exigiram uma revisão geral do actual sistema de aprovações, nomeadamente no que toca à avaliação de risco (que neste momento atravessa grande crise de credibilidade) e à necessidade de considerar as implicações sócio-económicas e as características agro-ecológicas específicas de cada região;
  • as actuais propostas da Comissão Europeia para aprovar mais duas variedades para cultivo e impedir os Estados Membros de suspender as autorizações nos seus territórios se colocam claramente a contra corrente desse mandato político e democrático;

Venho por este meio pedir com o maior empenho que vote resolutamente contra as propostas da Comissão Europeia. Solicito também que o Sr Ministro anuncie publicamente e desde já a sua posição sobre estas votações decisivas.


Petição contra os OGM – Transgénicos , aqui.

Water Vapor Rules the Greenhouse System

Water Vapor Rules
the Greenhouse System

Just how much of the “Greenhouse Effect” is caused by human activity?

It is about 0.28%, if water vapor is taken into account– about 5.53%, if not.

This point is so crucial to the debate over global warming that how water vapor is or isn’t factored into an analysis of Earth’s greenhouse gases makes the difference between describing a significant human contribution to the greenhouse effect, or a negligible one.

Water vapor constitutes Earth’s most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect (4). Interestingly, many “facts and figures’ regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.

Water vapor is 99.999% of natural origin. Other atmospheric greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and miscellaneous other gases (CFC’s, etc.), are also mostly of natural origin (except for the latter, which is mostly anthropogenic).

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small– perhaps undetectable– effect on global climate.

For those interested in more details a series of data sets and charts have been assembled below in a 5-step statistical synopsis.

Note that the first two steps ignore water vapor.

1. Greenhouse gas concentrations

2. Converting concentrations to contribution

3. Factoring in water vapor

4. Distinguishing natural vs man-made greenhouse gases

5. Putting it all together

Note: Calculations are expressed to 3 significant digits to reduce rounding errors, not necessarily to indicate statistical precision of the data. All charts were plotted using Lotus 1-2-3.

Caveat: This analysis is intended to provide a simplified comparison of the various man-made and natural greenhouse gases on an equal basis with each other. It does not take into account all of the complicated interactions between atmosphere, ocean, and terrestrial systems, a feat which can only be accomplished by better computer models than are currently in use.

Greenhouse Gas Concentrations:
Natural vs man-made (anthropogenic)

1. The following table was constructed from data published by the U.S. Department of Energy (1) and other sources, summarizing concentrations of the various atmospheric greenhouse gases. Because some of the concentrations are very small the numbers are stated in parts per billion. DOE chose to NOT show water vapor as a greenhouse gas!

TABLE 1. The Important Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
U.S. Department of Energy, (October, 2000) (1)

(all concentrations expressed in parts per billion) Pre-industrial baseline Natural additions Man-made additions Total (ppb) Concentration Percent of Total
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 288,000 68,520 11,880 368,400 99.438%
Methane (CH4) 848 577 320 1,745 0.471%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 285 12 15 312 0.084%
Misc. gases ( CFC’s, etc.) 25 0 2 27 0.007%
Total 289,158 69,109 12,217 370,484 100.00%

The chart at left summarizes the % of greenhouse gas concentrations in Earth’s atmosphere from Table 1. This is not a very meaningful view though because 1) the data has not been corrected for the actual Global Warming Potential (GWP) of each gas, and 2) water vapor is ignored.

But these are the numbers one would use if the goal is to exaggerate human greenhouse contributions:

Man-made and natural carbon dioxide (CO2) comprises 99.44% of all greenhouse gas concentrations (368,400 / 370,484 )–(ignoring water vapor).

Also, from Table 1 (but not shown on graph):

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 additions comprise (11,880 / 370,484) or 3.207% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).

Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases comprise (12,217 / 370,484) or 3.298% of all greenhouse gas concentrations, (ignoring water vapor).

The various greenhouse gases are not equal in their heat-retention properties though, so to remain statistically relevant % concentrations must be changed to % contribution relative to CO2. This is done in Table 2, below, through the use of GWP multipliers for each gas, derived by various researchers.

Converting greenhouse gas concentrations
to greenhouse effect contribution
(using global warming potential )

2. Using appropriate corrections for the Global Warming Potential of the respective gases provides the following more meaningful comparison of greenhouse gases, based on the conversion:

( concentration ) X ( the appropriate GWP multiplier (2) (3) of each gas relative to CO2 ) = greenhouse contribution.:

TABLE 2. Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases (except water vapor)
adjusted for heat retention characteristics, relative to CO2

This table adjusts values in Table 1 to compare greenhouse gases equally with respect to CO2. ( #’s are unit-less) Multiplier (GWP) Pre-industrial baseline(new) Natural additions (new) Man-made additions (new) Tot. Relative Contribution Percent of Total (new)
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 1 288,000 68,520 11,880 368,400 72.369%
Methane (CH4) 21 (2) 17,808 12,117 6,720 36,645 7.199%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 310 (2) 88,350 3,599 4,771 96,720 19.000%
CFC’s (and other misc. gases) see data (3) 2,500 0 4,791 7,291 1.432%
Total 396,658 84,236 28,162 509,056 100.000%

NOTE: GWP (Global Warming Potential) is used to contrast different greenhouse gases relative to CO2.

Compared to the concentration statistics in Table 1, the GWP comparison in Table 2 illustrates, among other things:

Total carbon dioxide (CO2) contributions are reduced to 72.37% of all greenhouse gases (368,400 / 509,056)– (ignoring water vapor).

Also, from Table 2 (but not shown on graph):

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions drop to (11,880 / 509,056) or 2.33% of total of all greenhouse gases, (ignoring water vapor).

Total combined anthropogenic greenhouse gases becomes (28,162 / 509,056) or 5.53% of all greenhouse gas contributions, (ignoring water vapor).

Relative to carbon dioxide the other greenhouse gases together comprise about 27.63% of the greenhouse effect (ignoring water vapor) but only about 0.56% of total greenhouse gas concentrations. Put another way, as a group methane, nitrous oxide (N2O), and CFC’s and other miscellaneous gases are about 50 times more potent than CO2 as greenhouse gases.

To properly represent the total relative impacts of Earth’s greenhouse gases Table 3 (below) factors in the effect of water vapor on the system.

Water vapor overwhelms
all other natural and man-made

3. Table 3, shows what happens when the effect of water vapor is factored in, and together with all other greenhouse gases expressed as a relative % of the total greenhouse effect.

TABLE 3. Role of Atmospheric Greenhouse Gases
(man-made and natural) as a % of Relative
Contribution to the “Greenhouse Effect”

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics Percent of Total Percent of Total –adjusted for water vapor
Water vapor —– 95.000%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 72.369% 3.618%
Methane (CH4) 7.100% 0.360%
Nitrous oxide (N2O) 19.000% 0.950%
CFC’s (and other misc. gases) 1.432% 0.072%
Total 100.000% 100.000%

As illustrated in this chart of the data in Table 3, the combined greenhouse contributions of CO2, methane, N2O and misc. gases are small compared to water vapor!

Total atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) — both man-made and natural– is only about 3.62% of the overall greenhouse effect— a big difference from the 72.37% figure in Table 2, which ignored water!

Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (4). Among climatologists this is common knowledge but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.

Conceding that it might be “a little misleading” to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating that it is “customary” to do so!

Comparing natural vs man-made concentrations
of greenhouse gases

4. Of course, even among the remaining 5% of non-water vapor greenhouse gases, humans contribute only a very small part (and human contributions to water vapor are negligible).

Constructed from data in Table 1, the charts (below) illustrate graphically how much of each greenhouse gas is natural vs how much is man-made. These allocations are used for the next and final step in this analysis– total man-made contributions to the greenhouse effect. Units are expressed to 3 significant digits in order to reduce rounding errors for those who wish to walk through the calculations, not to imply numerical precision as there is some variation among various researchers.

Putting it all together:
total human greenhouse gas contributions
add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect.

5. To finish with the math, by calculating the product of the adjusted CO2 contribution to greenhouse gases (3.618%) and % of CO2 concentration from anthropogenic (man-made) sources (3.225%), we see that only (0.03618 X 0.03225) or 0.117% of the greenhouse effect is due to atmospheric CO2 from human activity. The other greenhouse gases are similarly calculated and are summarized below.

TABLE 4a. Anthropogenic (man-made) Contribution to the “Greenhouse
Effect,” expressed as % of Total (water vapor INCLUDED)

Based on concentrations (ppb) adjusted for heat retention characteristics % of Greenhouse Effect % Natural % Man-made
Water vapor 95.000% 94.999% 0.001%
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.618% 3.502% 0.117%
Methane (CH4) 0.360% 0.294% 0.066%
Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 0.950% 0.903% 0.047%
Misc. gases ( CFC’s, etc.) 0.072% 0.025% 0.047%
Total 100.00% 99.72 0.28%

When greenhouse contributions are listed by source, the relative overwhelming component of the natural greenhouse effect, is readily apparent.

From Table 4a, both natural and man-made greenhouse contributions are illustrated in this chart, in gray and green, respectively. For clarity only the man-made (anthropogenic) contributions are labeled on the chart.

Water vapor, responsible for 95% of Earth’s greenhouse effect, is 99.999% natural (some argue, 100%). Even if we wanted to we can do nothing to change this.

Anthropogenic (man-made) CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth’s greenhouse effect, (factoring in water vapor). This is insignificant!

Adding up all anthropogenic greenhouse sources, the total human contribution to the greenhouse effect is around 0.28% (factoring in water vapor).

The Kyoto Protocol calls for mandatory carbon dioxide reductions of 30% from developed countries like the U.S. Reducing man-made CO2 emissions this much would have an undetectable effect on climate while having a devastating effect on the U.S. economy. Can you drive your car 30% less, reduce your winter heating 30%? Pay 20-50% more for everything from automobiles to zippers? And that is just a down payment, with more sacrifices to come later.

Such drastic measures, even if imposed equally on all countries around the world, would reduce total human greenhouse contributions from CO2 by about 0.035%.

This is much less than the natural variability of Earth’s climate system!

While the greenhouse reductions would exact a high human price, in terms of sacrifices to our standard of living, they would yield statistically negligible results in terms of measurable impacts to climate change. There is no expectation that any statistically significant global warming reductions would come from the Kyoto Protocol.

” There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures — one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. “

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal