-
ICMag and The Vault are running a NEW contest! You can check it here. Prizes are seeds & forum premium access. Come join in!
climate change
- Thread starter sickhaze
- Start date
how so?
the seas rise 5m there will be millions of people trying to be safe in ' your ' spot.
think zombies eating your pets.
you could though, make bank with scavenging submerged contraband/valuables.
the seas rise 5m there will be millions of people trying to be safe in ' your ' spot.
think zombies eating your pets.
you could though, make bank with scavenging submerged contraband/valuables.
THE PDO
Some have questioned the role of the sun and oceans in multi-decadal climate changes. You will hear them use La Ninas to explain away cool years and can’t wait for the New Year’s day to end when El Nino’s develop to predict the year will be the warmest ever.
They will never admit to the multidecadal cycles in the oceans as these might explain some or most of the warming they want you to believe are the result to your driving SUVs and the burning coal and oil. While Joe Bastardi and I readily admit man has an affect on our climate through factors like urbanization, land use changes, the addition of aerosols and maybe even gases, we believe natural factors can’t be neglected. We use them in our forecasting. Let’s look at one of these natural drivers, the PDO today.
The "Pacific Decadal Oscillation" (PDO) is a long-lived El Niño-like pattern of Pacific climate variability according to scientists at JISAO at the University of Washington.
“While the two climate oscillations have similar spatial climate fingerprints, they have very different behavior in time. Fisheries scientist Steven Hare coined the term "Pacific Decadal Oscillation" (PDO) in 1996 while researching connections between Alaska salmon production cycles and Pacific climate (his dissertation topic with advisor Robert Francis).
Two main characteristics distinguish PDO from El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO): first, 20th century PDO "events" persisted for 20-to-30 years, while typical ENSO events persisted for 6 to 18 months; second, the climatic fingerprints of the PDO are most visible in the North Pacific/North American sector, while secondary signatures exist in the tropics - the opposite is true for ENSO.
Several independent studies find evidence for just two full PDO cycles in the past century: "cool" PDO regimes prevailed from 1890-1924 and again from 1947-1976, while "warm" PDO regimes dominated from 1925-1946 and from 1977 through (at least) the mid-1990's. Shoshiro Minobe has shown that 20th century PDO fluctuations were most energetic in two general periodicities, one from 15-to-25 years, and the other from 50-to-70 years.”
The PDO index is derived as the leading PC of monthly SST anomalies in the North Pacific Ocean. It was found while researchers at the University of Washington were trying to find reasons why salmon fisheries exhibited a distinct multidecadal behavior.
The landmark paper can be found: Mantua, N.J. and S.R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J.M. Wallace, and R.C. Francis,1997: A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 78, pp 1069-1079.
Their abstract:
“Evidence gleaned from the instrumental record of climate data identifies a robust, recurring pattern of ocean-atmosphere climate variability centered over the mid-latitude Pacific basin. Over the past century, the amplitude of this climate pattern has varied irregularly at interannual-to-interdecadal time scales. There is evidence of reversals in the prevailing polarity of the oscillation occurring around 1925, 1947, and 1977; the last two reversals correspond with dramatic shifts in salmon production regimes in the North Pacific Ocean. This climate pattern also affects coastal sea and continental surface air temperatures, as well as streamflow in major west coast river systems, from Alaska to California.”
“The ENSO and PDO climate patterns are clearly related, both spatially and temporally, to the extent that the PDO may be viewed as ENSO-like interdecadal climate variability (Tanimoto et al. 1993; ZWB). While it may be tempting to interpret interdecadal climatic shifts as responses to individual (tropical) ENSO events, it seems equally conceivable that the state of the interdecadal PDO constrains the envelope of interannual ENSO variability.”
The authors made no claim as to which (PDO or ENSO) was the chicken and which the egg.
“The ENSO and PDO climate patterns are clearly related, both spatially and temporally, to the extent that the PDO may be viewed as ENSO-like interdecadal climate variability (Tanimoto et al. 1993; ZWB). While it may be tempting to interpret interdecadal climatic shifts as responses to individual (tropical) ENSO events, it seems equally conceivable that the state of the interdecadal PDO constrains the envelope of interannual ENSO variability.”
Indeed you can see clearly the similarity of the ENSO and the PDO in ‘ocean temperature distribution’ in the two positive PDO Index and El Nino and negative PDO and La Nina.
The temperature correlations over land are almost identical.
You can see support for the paper’s findings of the Great Pacific Climate Shift in 1977. You can find support for the flip back in 1999 as Dr. Don Easterbrook found and published and posted on.
for the graphs: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/THE_PDO(1).pdf
During the positive phase see the dominance of more frequent, stronger, longer La Ninas and the positive PDO mode, more frequent, stronger and longer El Ninos.
The PDO is a very useful tool for forecasters. With other ‘teleconnections’ like the AMO, ENSO, QBO, IOD, WP, EPO, solar, we have a good basis for skillful seasonal prediction. There are more tools that help intraseasonally.
Modelers and warmists will never admit to the PDO existence or importance as it would provide an alternative reason for the warming during the period from 1977 to 1998. They have staked out the position that the warming entirely man-made, to keep their gravy train of funding going. They do the same for solar. Mann’s recent claim that man’s induced warming is 20 times more important than solar is laughable.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/THE_PDO(1).pdf
Some have questioned the role of the sun and oceans in multi-decadal climate changes. You will hear them use La Ninas to explain away cool years and can’t wait for the New Year’s day to end when El Nino’s develop to predict the year will be the warmest ever.
They will never admit to the multidecadal cycles in the oceans as these might explain some or most of the warming they want you to believe are the result to your driving SUVs and the burning coal and oil. While Joe Bastardi and I readily admit man has an affect on our climate through factors like urbanization, land use changes, the addition of aerosols and maybe even gases, we believe natural factors can’t be neglected. We use them in our forecasting. Let’s look at one of these natural drivers, the PDO today.
The "Pacific Decadal Oscillation" (PDO) is a long-lived El Niño-like pattern of Pacific climate variability according to scientists at JISAO at the University of Washington.
“While the two climate oscillations have similar spatial climate fingerprints, they have very different behavior in time. Fisheries scientist Steven Hare coined the term "Pacific Decadal Oscillation" (PDO) in 1996 while researching connections between Alaska salmon production cycles and Pacific climate (his dissertation topic with advisor Robert Francis).
Two main characteristics distinguish PDO from El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO): first, 20th century PDO "events" persisted for 20-to-30 years, while typical ENSO events persisted for 6 to 18 months; second, the climatic fingerprints of the PDO are most visible in the North Pacific/North American sector, while secondary signatures exist in the tropics - the opposite is true for ENSO.
Several independent studies find evidence for just two full PDO cycles in the past century: "cool" PDO regimes prevailed from 1890-1924 and again from 1947-1976, while "warm" PDO regimes dominated from 1925-1946 and from 1977 through (at least) the mid-1990's. Shoshiro Minobe has shown that 20th century PDO fluctuations were most energetic in two general periodicities, one from 15-to-25 years, and the other from 50-to-70 years.”
The PDO index is derived as the leading PC of monthly SST anomalies in the North Pacific Ocean. It was found while researchers at the University of Washington were trying to find reasons why salmon fisheries exhibited a distinct multidecadal behavior.
The landmark paper can be found: Mantua, N.J. and S.R. Hare, Y. Zhang, J.M. Wallace, and R.C. Francis,1997: A Pacific interdecadal climate oscillation with impacts on salmon production. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 78, pp 1069-1079.
Their abstract:
“Evidence gleaned from the instrumental record of climate data identifies a robust, recurring pattern of ocean-atmosphere climate variability centered over the mid-latitude Pacific basin. Over the past century, the amplitude of this climate pattern has varied irregularly at interannual-to-interdecadal time scales. There is evidence of reversals in the prevailing polarity of the oscillation occurring around 1925, 1947, and 1977; the last two reversals correspond with dramatic shifts in salmon production regimes in the North Pacific Ocean. This climate pattern also affects coastal sea and continental surface air temperatures, as well as streamflow in major west coast river systems, from Alaska to California.”
“The ENSO and PDO climate patterns are clearly related, both spatially and temporally, to the extent that the PDO may be viewed as ENSO-like interdecadal climate variability (Tanimoto et al. 1993; ZWB). While it may be tempting to interpret interdecadal climatic shifts as responses to individual (tropical) ENSO events, it seems equally conceivable that the state of the interdecadal PDO constrains the envelope of interannual ENSO variability.”
The authors made no claim as to which (PDO or ENSO) was the chicken and which the egg.
“The ENSO and PDO climate patterns are clearly related, both spatially and temporally, to the extent that the PDO may be viewed as ENSO-like interdecadal climate variability (Tanimoto et al. 1993; ZWB). While it may be tempting to interpret interdecadal climatic shifts as responses to individual (tropical) ENSO events, it seems equally conceivable that the state of the interdecadal PDO constrains the envelope of interannual ENSO variability.”
Indeed you can see clearly the similarity of the ENSO and the PDO in ‘ocean temperature distribution’ in the two positive PDO Index and El Nino and negative PDO and La Nina.
The temperature correlations over land are almost identical.
You can see support for the paper’s findings of the Great Pacific Climate Shift in 1977. You can find support for the flip back in 1999 as Dr. Don Easterbrook found and published and posted on.
for the graphs: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/THE_PDO(1).pdf
During the positive phase see the dominance of more frequent, stronger, longer La Ninas and the positive PDO mode, more frequent, stronger and longer El Ninos.
The PDO is a very useful tool for forecasters. With other ‘teleconnections’ like the AMO, ENSO, QBO, IOD, WP, EPO, solar, we have a good basis for skillful seasonal prediction. There are more tools that help intraseasonally.
Modelers and warmists will never admit to the PDO existence or importance as it would provide an alternative reason for the warming during the period from 1977 to 1998. They have staked out the position that the warming entirely man-made, to keep their gravy train of funding going. They do the same for solar. Mann’s recent claim that man’s induced warming is 20 times more important than solar is laughable.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/THE_PDO(1).pdf
Genghis Kush
Active member
"According to U.S. scientists, that heat is being “buried” in the oceans by El Nino-like phenomena known as Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), creating a “false pause” in climate change. The chickens will eventually come home to roost, because the heat is predicted to release rapidly in coming years as the PDO and AMO are expected to eventually switch from their current negative phase to a positive one and signs are currently there that it could be already happening.
What exactly will happen when the heat is released is still up in the air, but a new paper published in the journal Nature, says there is an 85 percent chance the “pause” phase will end within the next five years, and will be followed by a “burst of warming” likely made up of about 10 years of warm ocean oscillations.
The rate of warming would be about twice the background rate for at least five years and potentially longer, with the majority of warming expected to happen in the Arctic, where results could be devastating."
There actually is a conspiracy surrounding climate change, and it's not what you'll hear from most conspiracy theorists: between 2003 and 2010, more than $7 billion were spent by conservative billionaires to fund anti-AGW organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Follow the money, indeed.
What exactly will happen when the heat is released is still up in the air, but a new paper published in the journal Nature, says there is an 85 percent chance the “pause” phase will end within the next five years, and will be followed by a “burst of warming” likely made up of about 10 years of warm ocean oscillations.
The rate of warming would be about twice the background rate for at least five years and potentially longer, with the majority of warming expected to happen in the Arctic, where results could be devastating."
There actually is a conspiracy surrounding climate change, and it's not what you'll hear from most conspiracy theorists: between 2003 and 2010, more than $7 billion were spent by conservative billionaires to fund anti-AGW organizations such as the Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Follow the money, indeed.
thank you ghengis, i've had a sense of this from what i've read
this is the mainstream science, and just because many on IC here seem to think anything mainstream is crap
well, it's not, it could be wrong but the pacific temps are telling a very ominous story
and not to mention pacific trade winds, which have been at highers speeds over a similar period of time
what we know from the archeo-climate record is that change can be spectacular, not a gentle ramp up, but 1 big f'ing step
'Global Warming': A Lie Aimed At Destroying Civilization
An Interview with Zbigniew Jaworowski by Mariusz Bober.(January 2010)
Multi-disciplinary scientist Zbigniew Jaworowski, has researched the atmospheric pollution of glaciers and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere for many years, and is the author of numerous publications on climate change. He serves as the Polish representative in the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and is a member of the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a group of scientists who are sceptical of global warming. In this interview, initially published December 12, before the failure of the Copenhagen Climate summit, by the Polish daily Our Journal, he talks with reporter Mariusz Bober.
'Climategate'
MB: What do you have to say about the recently leaked e-mail correspondence of scientists specializing in the problem of global warming who have promoted the theory that man-made carbon dioxide causes global warming? Are they perpetrating a big lie?
Jaworowski: The e-mails were released on November 17 by some honest scientists working probably in the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), at the University of East Anglia in England, and for this they should be rewarded. It is noteworthy that, on December 1, the director of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, was suspended, pending the outcome of the investigation in this case. For now, the investigation is by the university authorities, but soon it will probably also be by the prosecutor.
In the United States, a group of Senators has called for a Congressional investigation, and the University of Pennsylvania has already begun an investigation of Michael Mann, another professor implicated in this affair, who is the creator of the famous "hockey stick" curve, which purports to show that man has caused a big and sudden increase in temperature.
The "Climategate" affair, as it is nicknamed, also revealed something else: The enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world, Wikipedia, in the wholesale falsification of past climatic trends. No wonder that now, Wikipedia, together with green organizations, is condemning, as a criminal act, the disclosure of base scientific misbehavior, and says that climatic science remains as strong as before, that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is superb, including its head, and lists a litany of persons and institutions expressing the same opinion.
But with many millions of "Climategate" entries on the Internet, on search engines like Google, it is now impossible to sweep the affair under the carpet, even for the entities standing behind it, which are much more powerful than Wikipedia.
Brazen Fraud
MB: This means that the scientists who are responsible for research in this field, lied to frighten people about a coming apocalypse? Why?
Jaworowski: Indeed, these researchers are guilty of brazen fraud, bringing us into a trap, which has dire consequences. For many years they have been incredibly confident, ignoring any criticism of their arguments. But they had the overwhelming support of the United Nations, and specifically the IPCC, the United Nations group charged with examining the impact of human activities on climate change, which takes the lead in all this confusion. The IPCC thesis is based on research from the CRU. Scientists from the University of East Anglia have at their disposal enormous sums of money and political support. In practice, they simply obey the dictates of the United Nations, which is promoting the global warming initiative, in order to suppress the development of industry, which they claim is destroying the Biosphere of the Earth.
MB: And does industry have this bad effect?
Jaworowski: Of course not. In fact, the truth is that the richer a country, and the more industrialized, the better that country takes care of the environment. The anti-industry propaganda is aimed at the destruction of our civilization! Representatives of the UN, such as Maurice Strong, a former advisor to the former [UN] Secretary-General Kofi Annan, has stated this openly. It was Strong who organized and chaired the UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, where he said that to save the Earth, you must destroy modern industrial civilization. He was also the founder of the Kyoto Protocol. So this is an open conspiracy, involving the people of the United Nations, aimed at influencing the government of each country.
MB: You mean by forcing them to reduce CO2 emissions?
Jaworowski: Yes, precisely. Paragraphs 36 and 38 of the draft treaty prepared for climate summit in Copenhagen called for a world governmental body, which would monitor all activity on the planet in terms of CO2 emissions. Therefore, what is planned is an incredible transfer of money worldwide over the next decades, from the pockets of all the world's taxpayers into the coffers of the financiers and the so-called green industries. These companies promote clean energy production at the expense of fossil fuels, although such energy is several times more expensive than using current methods— nuclear and coal — to generate electricity.
MB: Is Copenhagen planned to be another step in this scenario?
Jaworowski: Copenhagen has laid a very dangerous trap, more threatening than anything so far. So far, Poland is obliged by 2020 to institute a further 20% reduction in CO2 emissions. According to the consulting firm Ernst & Young, this requirement would mean a decline in GDP of $503 billion! That is, it would reduce Poland's GDP to a level of about half the GDP for the year 2007! You can imagine how this would drastically reduce the standard of living of the Poles. Yet today, battles are under way to limit budgetary expenditures! Meanwhile, the UN wants us to institute "reductions" that will cost us half a trillion dollars!
MB: What are the top decision makers preparing in Copenhagen?
Jaworowski: Even more harmful "treatment." There were more than 180 pages of draft minutes at the beginning of the conference with different versions of restrictions of CO2 emissions by 2050. Some involve cutting even to 95% of the 1990 levels. This would mean that in the next few years we would have to reduce emissions by 5% per year! This would be the greatest revolution in history, as 86% of energy in the world is currently produced from fossil fuels. If such drastic restrictions were introduced, it would risk the destruction of our civilization, just as advocated by the guru Maurice Strong and other like-minded environmentalists and many representatives of the Western establishment. In this way, humanity was declared to be a fictitious enemy, or a cancer of the Earth, with which Club of Rome (the influential umbrella organization of businessmen, scientists, and politicians, which has ambitions to control global politics) had proposed for decades to fight bravely, sacrificing our present and future prosperity.
Benefits Of Warming
MB: Is it illusory that global warming is really the enemy?
Jaworowski: Of course. The climate of the 20th Century has warmed from natural causes and this is beneficial: More water is evaporated from the ocean, vegetation has better conditions for growth, there is reduced soil desertification, and animals thrive. In the years 1982-2003, in the countries around the Sahara — Mauritania, Mali, and Chad — cover crop increased by 50%. The largest increases have occurred in Niger, where trees have again begun to grow, which had died as a result of previous droughts. For many centuries, the planet was not as green as it is today. NASA satellite measurements show that over the past 18 years, global biomass production increased by about 6%. And the largest increase (42%) occurred in the Amazon rainforest.
MB: Does this mean that glaciers do not melt and do not raise sea levels?
Jaworowski: The "disastrous rise" of the ocean is another myth. Glaciers began to melt much earlier than in the 20th Century, as the Earth began to exit from the Little Ice Age, which lasted from 1350 to 1880. Modern glaciers began melting in about 1750. Records show that before this date, the Alpine glaciers flowed down into the valleys, destroying entire villages and fields, inundating them with rocky moraine debris and ice. Processions of priests came out to the glaciers, praying for a halt of the ramming ice. Maximum warming occurred in the 1930s (at least in the United States, where the hottest year was 1934, and which has the best network of temperature measurements), and the glaciers began to melt faster than they had previously. In the past ten years, however, this process was reversed, and the climate began to cool (in the United States, between 1998 and 2008 temperatures dropped by about 1°). However, during this same time period, global emissions of carbon dioxide have increased by 34%! As you can see, there is no connection between CO2, which has been under such fierce attack, and climate change. Indeed, more than 500 million years ago, according to the geological record, CO2 was present at 23 times the levels we now have in the atmosphere, and yet, half a billion years ago, the land was covered by glaciers.
Climate change depends on many factors, and now we are fighting against only one factor, CO2, which happens to be negligible.
MB: So the obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as prescribed by the Kyoto Protocol did not yield any results?
Jaworowski: Of course not. What's more, despite the fact that it committed the 185 countries that have adopted this document, to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% (compared to 1990 levels), in fact, industrial CO2 emissions released to the atmosphere had increased worldwide by 38% by 2004! In the EU countries, emissions increased by nearly 7% in that time period. By contrast, Poland since 1990 reduced its CO2 emissions by 18% — that's 32% of what emissions were in the year 1988! Nevertheless, Brussels asks us to reduce CO2 emissions by a further 20%. This would be a disaster for Polish industry economically.
MB: But in many countries, including in Western Europe, there have been extreme weather events in recent years.
Jaworowski: It is proven that these storms did not result from global warming. In Poland, you can see that we have not experienced a greater number of storms or floods, when one takes into account the observations conducted in Krakow since the 19th Century, when there were more storms than at present. Perhaps today, these storms seem more devastating, because we have recorded all the material losses, but that's because our cities are more complex, and, generally, we have generated more wealth. In addition, many buildings were situated in areas that storms and tornadoes pass through (the latter mostly in America). For this reason, insurance companies incur greater losses, but we must remember that, with the development of towns and villages, they are also experiencing increased revenue. So do not worry about the results of insurance companies.
MB: Why, then, did the governments of 185 countries agreed to introduce draconian restrictions on their economy, if there were no reasonable grounds to do so?
Jaworowski: This question should be properly addressed to sociologists or politicians. It seems to me that the Polish government is aware of this problem, and this makes for a difficult diplomatic situation. I do not think the Polish delegation in Copenhagen could simply say that the fight against global warming is just plain wrong, and therefore we will not accept any obligations to reduce CO2 emissions. But I hope that it will try to soften the economic disaster, from the position of the hard-core greens leading to economic disaster.
The CO2 Emissions Hoax
MB: But won't the e-mail disclosures of the fraud by researchers from England and the U.S. about the alleged effects that human-emitted CO2 have on climate change, make it absurd to call for further reductions in CO2?
Jaworowski: I hope that the publicity of these emails will change the attitude of politicians participating in the conference. That is precisely the conclusion reached by the Australian authorities, who on December 1, the day that the head of the CRU, Phil Jones, was suspended from his functions as the director, announced that they withdrew from the mechanism of CO2 emissions trading. Indeed, the emissions trading boils down to the transfer of enormous sums of money which will benefit the financiers and governments of some countries. Therefore, probably, some of them enthusiastically support reductions in CO2 emissions. But those who reap the most benefits are the companies that use so-called clean-energy technologies such as wind turbines to produce electricity. They benefit from tax incentives, and thus, taxpayers are financing them, even if the windmills do not produce the projected amount of energy. It is true that windmill construction is less expensive than, say, nuclear or coal power stations, but the current generated by windmills is several times more expensive. Well, according to various estimates, wind turbines produce electricity only one-fifth of their lifetime; energy companies cannot afford such downtime, and therefore must use electricity from other sources as back up.
MB: How is it possible that for at least the last 20 years, the fiction of human-CO2 emissions causing global warming has been allowed to exist?
Jaworowski: The best answer to this question is my story. For many years, I analyzed the results of measurements of CO2 concentrations in ice cores, in which the gas is trapped, as it were. The whole global warming hysteria is based on this ice core work. In the last century, since the 1960s, I organized 10 trips to 17 different glaciers, collecting data on the impact of manmade emissions — mainly heavy metals from industry — on the environment. However, I learned how this climate ideology functioned, when my wife and I spent eight years in Norway. After arriving there, I worked at the University of Oslo, but eventually became employed at the Norwegian Polar Institute. After some time, the Ministry of Environment asked the Institute to examine the implications of global warming due to human activities, for the Norwegian part of the Arctic (including Svalbard). I began to investigate the question of whether any warming had actually occurred in this part of the Arctic. After conducting research, I came to the conclusion that there is no reason to believe so, because the temperature measurements carried out in this part of the world for nearly 100 years showed no signs of warming. The deeper I analyzed the problem, the more it convinced me that there is no man-made global warming, and CO2 does not noticeably cause the process of warming.
In this regard, my colleagues and I have shown that extrapolating the atmospheric measurements of CO2 from the gas measured in polar ice cores was an exaggeration of the results, and even, manipulation. The ice itself, we found, is not a suitable material for assessing the chemical composition of the former ancient atmosphere. This is because it is not a closed system in which nothing happens, but conversely, several physical and chemical processes are going on in the ice. These lead to loss of CO2 from air bubbles trapped in ice. All the cores themselves are cracked, and extremely contaminated with heavy metals from the drilling fluid which penetrates into their interior.
For example, in the ice core from Vostok Station, Antarctica — which is a very foundation stone of the man-made warming hysteria — inside its parts, taken from the depths of 1,850 meters in the glacier, the concentration of lead is 6,800 times higher than in the surface snow at Vostok Station, and the concentration of zinc from the depth of 851 meters is 600,000 times higher. So, the whole hypothesis of humans heating up the climate is based on faulty material like this.
Big Money Trumps Science
MB: Can you describe the results of these tests?
Jaworowski: We wrote two reports and a few articles on the subject. Here I see an analogy to the e-mail disclosures released by honest researchers at the University of East Anglia on climate warming. Following the publication of the results of our study, the scientific director of the Norwegian Polar Institute called me for an interview and said that our publications were not a way of gaining research contracts in Norway! In consequence, he did not renew my contract — I was being discriminated against. I stayed for a time dependent on my wife's salary. I understood then, that it was an important objective of the operation of the Polar Institute to gain research grants from the Ministry of Environment, whose raison d'être was based on finding proof of human pollution.
MB: So, you are saying that any scientist who does not comply with the global warming ideology imposed on universities, will fall victim?
Jaworowski: Yes. If politicians are funding the studies, on the one hand, scientists rejoice because science requires big money. But, on the other had, such research cannot freely flourish by listening to, and obeying political orders.
MB: Where did you next find a job?
Jaworowski: I moved some time later to Japan, where I worked at the National Institute for Polar Research in Tokyo. There I wrote the research results about the CO2 content in glaciers.
MB: You are not afraid of revenge from the "warming" lobby?
Jaworowski: Now I am 82 years old, and the financial consequences of the views which I preach are not of importance to me. But among researchers who share my views, there are not many younger scientists, especially those who have families dependent on them, who can afford to support such views. And besides, when I was younger, I did some research that concluded that man does pollute the world.
MB: What was that?
Jaworowski: In the late 1960s, I examined a small Polish glacier over Morskie Oko (a lake in the Tatra Mountains in southern Poland) for the presence of heavy metal compounds. This glacier contains about 100 annual layers of ice, so you can use it as a basis to explore of what was happening in the atmosphere in this area over the last century. My research showed that in this — seemingly — clean place, the concentration of lead rose as much as 12-fold in recent years.
MB: Was this study incorrect?
Jaworowski: It was correct, but at the time, I did not know that such results cannot be generalized. Meanwhile, on the basis of these studies, in an article in the scientific journal Nature, I stated that the concentration of lead in Europe had increased 12-fold. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), then asked me to carry out further research, for which I got — in the 1970s — $1.3 million. These funds financed ten of these glacier expeditions. Then, I performed the world's first pollution survey of glaciers in the last several hundred years, looking at heavy metals deposited on 17 glaciers between Spitsbergen and Antarctica. And, it was after I analyzed these results, that I realized that such high concentrations of lead on our local glacier over Morskie Oko were unique.
MB: Why?
Jaworowski: Because, for decades, cars emitting lead were allowed free access to this beautiful lake. . . . There was no evidence of such an increase in concentrations of heavy metals on the other glaciers. Conversely, in the 20th Century, some heavy metals were bound to fall with a little volcanic activity until 1963. The highest concentrations of heavy metals, we found not on the European glaciers in the Alps and Norway, but at the equator — Glacier Stanley in Ruwenzori Mountains, Africa , and in the Peruvian Andes, far from any industrial centers.
In cooperation with the EPA, I also made the first examination of the level of lead in human bones over the past 1,800 years, to see if it had changed. (I got special permission to collect the bones from the Polish church buildings from Fr. Card. Stefan Wyszynski, the Primate of Poland.) Then I carried out similar studies, covering the period of the last 5,000 years, in France, Peru, and Georgia. It turned out that the European population was heavily contaminated with lead throughout the Middle Ages, until the very end of the 19th Century. Only in the 20th Century, did the lead level among the Polish population fall by a hundred times, compared with the people buried in past ages.
For example, in human bones entombed in St. Mary's Church in Krakow, and two monasteries near this city, the lead levels ranged up to 92 micrograms of lead per gram of bone in the 11th Century, to 373 micrograms in the 17th Century, and 231 micrograms in the 19th Century. Then, in the bones of 42 persons from the same region, who died in the 20th Century, the lead content dropped to an average level of 5.4 micrograms of lead per gram of bone, only twice as high as the average level of 2.8 micrograms in 18 skeletons of inhabitants of the cave some 70 km west of Krakow, living 1,800 years earlier.
The lead levels which my French colleagues and I found in people buried in the 14th-16th centuries inside the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris reached up to 280 micrograms of lead per gram of bone, whereas in the Bronze Age (ca. 3,000 B.C.) the average lead level was 15 micrograms per gram of bone, almost the same as in the recent Parisians.
Later, a similar phenomenon was detected in the United States, Japan, and other countries. The biosphere and humankind are not so polluted as green chemiophobia made us to believe.
The Enviro-Thought Police
MB: From what you have said, it can be inferred that the lobby of radical environmentalists and industry for what's called clean energy has a greater influence than, say, lobbyists for energy companies operating on fossil fuels. It's hard to believe, however, by observing the power of the latter. . . .
Jaworowski: Here again, I use an example from my own experience. After I moved back from Japan, I worked for some time at the Norwegian Institute of Energy. At that time, we decided to see if the research on CO2 in the ice of Greenland and Antarctica was conducted properly. For half a year, I drafted a proposal for our research project. Our institute sent the proposal to 15 different potential sponsors, mainly companies operating oil and gas reserves. We held a seminar for them, which . . . was attended by, among others, a representative of one company, perhaps Statoil. This person heard what we said, and then told us that he liked our project, and his group would like to finance these studies, despite the costs amounting to $2 million.
Note, however, that after the company had consulted with the government, probably with the Environment Ministry, these "consultants" decided that this project would be "immoral." At the time, the Prime Minister of Norway was Mme. Gro Harlem Brundtland. She is now the UN special climate envoy. During the UN General Assembly session in May 2007, Brundtland declared that
"it's completely immoral, even to question the UN's scientific consensus" (on man-made global warming).
Climatic morality sounds like a Norwegian specialty.
MB: What did this mean?
Jaworowski: The Statoil representative said that, if his company had funded such research, that would be used against them by their competitors, and the company would be penalized much more than it costs to finance our research. Thus ended our project. . . .
MB: So you think that industrial civilization does not pollute the environment?
Jaworowski: Nature produces toxic substances, and often, these are many times greater in scale than those produced by the entire world's industry. For example, take the scare story of the accumulation of mercury in fish. Meanwhile, studies have shown that for centuries there has been a lot of mercury in the seas.
Such examples could be multiplied. However, we see that the terrible 20th Century, with all its dirty industry, has brought us two "horrible" things: an average of a doubled life expectancy in Poland, compared with that of 1900. Also that Poles, French, other Europeans, North and South Americans, and other peoples, since the 20th Century, have been less contaminated with lead than were our ancestors going back to the Middle Ages.
MB: How so? Precisely because of industry? After all, industry does emit a lot of harmful chemicals and we still have problems with the elimination of the effects of industrial pollution.
Jaworowski: The idea is that, already by the 10th Century, people in Europe ate from tin dishes. Meanwhile, the tin used in their manufacture of these dishes included up to 20% lead. If someone ate some sour foods, such as vinegar-based, then the acid reacted with lead, and a sweet lead acetate was created and consumed during a meal. In this way the compounds of the metal are dispatched in human organisms. There are many other similar examples of household, not environmental, sources of pandemic lead contaminations in the decades before the 20th Century.
In the 20th Century, thanks to the development of science and industry, we started to use porcelain, glass, and stainless steel in the kitchen, thus eliminating from our lives many sources of lead contamination. Among them the least important of the contaminants eliminated was the lead contained in gasoline. Just when we started to use leaded gasoline in the 1920s, the lead level in population dropped back to near pre-historic levels.
After 'Climategate'
MB: Let us return to the issue today, the fight against CO2 as the alleged perpetrator of the alleged global warming. What will be the outcome of this fight?
Jaworowski: Maybe, Climategate, the recently disclosed affair of hiding and manipulating the real data on the alleged global warming, will have the effect of cleansing science and policy, and protecting civilization from catastrophe.
MB: Since there is so much data to disprove theories that blame man-made CO2 emissions for global warming, why aren't these theories simply thrown into the trash? Are universities, politicians, and some businesses so blinded by ideology, that they "squeeze" or knowingly lie to the public. If so, why? For a small group of people to profit at the expense of the majority?
Jaworowski: There are many intertwining reasons. The least important may be that a professor, for example, can ensure that he gets contracts and grants for research "on demand" — although personally he may not like it — so that his institute has the funding to maintain itself. If you confirm the expectations of the grant sponsors, you get further grants. And you do so, especially if you know that if reliable studies show that the expected results are wrong, that you would get no further grants.
MB: Does anyone in Copenhagen have enough courage to just throw into the trash the plans for draconian restrictions on CO2 emissions?
Jaworowski: Let's hope the politicians will open their eyes, and that "Climategate" will help in this. On the other hand, it will be difficult to limit the desire to use global warming ideology to increase revenue for some and to create a world government. Already in the 1960s, a report of a U.S. study group was created, composed of scientists, which was to present a forecast for world development. They looked at the coming period of peace, in which there would be no great war. The group's "Report from Iron Mountain," proposed a number of substitutes for war. One of them was to create a "fictitious enemy of the world" and have it be a matter of climate. In subsequent years, the proposal became almost pathological, or criminal, in nature. The Club of Rome held that "Earth has cancer; the cancer is man." Humanity as a whole has become a "fictitious enemy of the planet." That favourite of the environmentalists, Jacques Y. Cousteau, said that to maintain balance on Earth, every year 123 million people should be "removed." Such statements, unfortunately, multiplied. UN representatives want to reduce the number of people on Earth to 1 billion or less.
MB: Where do such inhuman ideas come from?
Jaworowski: It has its roots in Malthus, the British clergyman [Rev. Thomas Malthus], who, in 1798, formulated the false theory that while populations of the world would increase in geometric proportions, the food resources available to them would increase only arithmetically. Malthus interpreted overpopulation as an evil that would reduce the amount of food available per person, and he failed to take into account the technological advances in agriculture and food production. His drastic recommendations from 212 years ago are still being used, and are the basis of the Malthusianism of the Club of Rome and the green ideology. I wish to add that after the November outbreak of "Climategate", in December 2009, the former chief economic advisor of [Russian] President [Vladimir] Putin, now the director of the prestigious Institute of Economic Analyses in Moscow, Dr. Andrei Illarionov, disclosed the mechanism of falsifying the global climate trends and constructing the infamous hockey curves of temperature. The Russians transferred to the CRU center at East Anglia University all the temperature data for the years 1860-2005, from their 476 meteorological stations covering about 20% of the land surface of the globe. From among these Russian stations, the CRU workers selected the data from only 121 stations, in such a way that in the years 1965-2005, the CRU made the temperature higher, and in the years 1860-1960 lower than the real temperature. Thus they created a false increasing temperature trend of 0.67°C. Almost an exactly similar falsification of Australian temperature data by CRU and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Global Historical Climate Network (NOAA/GHNC), was disclosed in December by Dr. W. Eschenbach. In this case, the temperature trend was "corrected" to be 2.5°C higher. This illustrates how credulous the public and politicians have been for decades. They were falsely made to believe that they were well informed, with 90% certainty and full scientific consensus! "Climategate" might become a catharsis, a bitter medicine, that will free science and the public from the gloomy climatic phantom, save the world from global economic disaster, and allow us to enjoy the golden gift of nature: our Modern Warm Period. Let it last long.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/cycles/alie.htm
An Interview with Zbigniew Jaworowski by Mariusz Bober.(January 2010)
Multi-disciplinary scientist Zbigniew Jaworowski, has researched the atmospheric pollution of glaciers and CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere for many years, and is the author of numerous publications on climate change. He serves as the Polish representative in the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation, and is a member of the Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), a group of scientists who are sceptical of global warming. In this interview, initially published December 12, before the failure of the Copenhagen Climate summit, by the Polish daily Our Journal, he talks with reporter Mariusz Bober.
'Climategate'
MB: What do you have to say about the recently leaked e-mail correspondence of scientists specializing in the problem of global warming who have promoted the theory that man-made carbon dioxide causes global warming? Are they perpetrating a big lie?
Jaworowski: The e-mails were released on November 17 by some honest scientists working probably in the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), at the University of East Anglia in England, and for this they should be rewarded. It is noteworthy that, on December 1, the director of the CRU, Professor Phil Jones, was suspended, pending the outcome of the investigation in this case. For now, the investigation is by the university authorities, but soon it will probably also be by the prosecutor.
In the United States, a group of Senators has called for a Congressional investigation, and the University of Pennsylvania has already begun an investigation of Michael Mann, another professor implicated in this affair, who is the creator of the famous "hockey stick" curve, which purports to show that man has caused a big and sudden increase in temperature.
The "Climategate" affair, as it is nicknamed, also revealed something else: The enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world, Wikipedia, in the wholesale falsification of past climatic trends. No wonder that now, Wikipedia, together with green organizations, is condemning, as a criminal act, the disclosure of base scientific misbehavior, and says that climatic science remains as strong as before, that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is superb, including its head, and lists a litany of persons and institutions expressing the same opinion.
But with many millions of "Climategate" entries on the Internet, on search engines like Google, it is now impossible to sweep the affair under the carpet, even for the entities standing behind it, which are much more powerful than Wikipedia.
Brazen Fraud
MB: This means that the scientists who are responsible for research in this field, lied to frighten people about a coming apocalypse? Why?
Jaworowski: Indeed, these researchers are guilty of brazen fraud, bringing us into a trap, which has dire consequences. For many years they have been incredibly confident, ignoring any criticism of their arguments. But they had the overwhelming support of the United Nations, and specifically the IPCC, the United Nations group charged with examining the impact of human activities on climate change, which takes the lead in all this confusion. The IPCC thesis is based on research from the CRU. Scientists from the University of East Anglia have at their disposal enormous sums of money and political support. In practice, they simply obey the dictates of the United Nations, which is promoting the global warming initiative, in order to suppress the development of industry, which they claim is destroying the Biosphere of the Earth.
MB: And does industry have this bad effect?
Jaworowski: Of course not. In fact, the truth is that the richer a country, and the more industrialized, the better that country takes care of the environment. The anti-industry propaganda is aimed at the destruction of our civilization! Representatives of the UN, such as Maurice Strong, a former advisor to the former [UN] Secretary-General Kofi Annan, has stated this openly. It was Strong who organized and chaired the UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, where he said that to save the Earth, you must destroy modern industrial civilization. He was also the founder of the Kyoto Protocol. So this is an open conspiracy, involving the people of the United Nations, aimed at influencing the government of each country.
MB: You mean by forcing them to reduce CO2 emissions?
Jaworowski: Yes, precisely. Paragraphs 36 and 38 of the draft treaty prepared for climate summit in Copenhagen called for a world governmental body, which would monitor all activity on the planet in terms of CO2 emissions. Therefore, what is planned is an incredible transfer of money worldwide over the next decades, from the pockets of all the world's taxpayers into the coffers of the financiers and the so-called green industries. These companies promote clean energy production at the expense of fossil fuels, although such energy is several times more expensive than using current methods— nuclear and coal — to generate electricity.
MB: Is Copenhagen planned to be another step in this scenario?
Jaworowski: Copenhagen has laid a very dangerous trap, more threatening than anything so far. So far, Poland is obliged by 2020 to institute a further 20% reduction in CO2 emissions. According to the consulting firm Ernst & Young, this requirement would mean a decline in GDP of $503 billion! That is, it would reduce Poland's GDP to a level of about half the GDP for the year 2007! You can imagine how this would drastically reduce the standard of living of the Poles. Yet today, battles are under way to limit budgetary expenditures! Meanwhile, the UN wants us to institute "reductions" that will cost us half a trillion dollars!
MB: What are the top decision makers preparing in Copenhagen?
Jaworowski: Even more harmful "treatment." There were more than 180 pages of draft minutes at the beginning of the conference with different versions of restrictions of CO2 emissions by 2050. Some involve cutting even to 95% of the 1990 levels. This would mean that in the next few years we would have to reduce emissions by 5% per year! This would be the greatest revolution in history, as 86% of energy in the world is currently produced from fossil fuels. If such drastic restrictions were introduced, it would risk the destruction of our civilization, just as advocated by the guru Maurice Strong and other like-minded environmentalists and many representatives of the Western establishment. In this way, humanity was declared to be a fictitious enemy, or a cancer of the Earth, with which Club of Rome (the influential umbrella organization of businessmen, scientists, and politicians, which has ambitions to control global politics) had proposed for decades to fight bravely, sacrificing our present and future prosperity.
Benefits Of Warming
MB: Is it illusory that global warming is really the enemy?
Jaworowski: Of course. The climate of the 20th Century has warmed from natural causes and this is beneficial: More water is evaporated from the ocean, vegetation has better conditions for growth, there is reduced soil desertification, and animals thrive. In the years 1982-2003, in the countries around the Sahara — Mauritania, Mali, and Chad — cover crop increased by 50%. The largest increases have occurred in Niger, where trees have again begun to grow, which had died as a result of previous droughts. For many centuries, the planet was not as green as it is today. NASA satellite measurements show that over the past 18 years, global biomass production increased by about 6%. And the largest increase (42%) occurred in the Amazon rainforest.
MB: Does this mean that glaciers do not melt and do not raise sea levels?
Jaworowski: The "disastrous rise" of the ocean is another myth. Glaciers began to melt much earlier than in the 20th Century, as the Earth began to exit from the Little Ice Age, which lasted from 1350 to 1880. Modern glaciers began melting in about 1750. Records show that before this date, the Alpine glaciers flowed down into the valleys, destroying entire villages and fields, inundating them with rocky moraine debris and ice. Processions of priests came out to the glaciers, praying for a halt of the ramming ice. Maximum warming occurred in the 1930s (at least in the United States, where the hottest year was 1934, and which has the best network of temperature measurements), and the glaciers began to melt faster than they had previously. In the past ten years, however, this process was reversed, and the climate began to cool (in the United States, between 1998 and 2008 temperatures dropped by about 1°). However, during this same time period, global emissions of carbon dioxide have increased by 34%! As you can see, there is no connection between CO2, which has been under such fierce attack, and climate change. Indeed, more than 500 million years ago, according to the geological record, CO2 was present at 23 times the levels we now have in the atmosphere, and yet, half a billion years ago, the land was covered by glaciers.
Climate change depends on many factors, and now we are fighting against only one factor, CO2, which happens to be negligible.
MB: So the obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as prescribed by the Kyoto Protocol did not yield any results?
Jaworowski: Of course not. What's more, despite the fact that it committed the 185 countries that have adopted this document, to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% (compared to 1990 levels), in fact, industrial CO2 emissions released to the atmosphere had increased worldwide by 38% by 2004! In the EU countries, emissions increased by nearly 7% in that time period. By contrast, Poland since 1990 reduced its CO2 emissions by 18% — that's 32% of what emissions were in the year 1988! Nevertheless, Brussels asks us to reduce CO2 emissions by a further 20%. This would be a disaster for Polish industry economically.
MB: But in many countries, including in Western Europe, there have been extreme weather events in recent years.
Jaworowski: It is proven that these storms did not result from global warming. In Poland, you can see that we have not experienced a greater number of storms or floods, when one takes into account the observations conducted in Krakow since the 19th Century, when there were more storms than at present. Perhaps today, these storms seem more devastating, because we have recorded all the material losses, but that's because our cities are more complex, and, generally, we have generated more wealth. In addition, many buildings were situated in areas that storms and tornadoes pass through (the latter mostly in America). For this reason, insurance companies incur greater losses, but we must remember that, with the development of towns and villages, they are also experiencing increased revenue. So do not worry about the results of insurance companies.
MB: Why, then, did the governments of 185 countries agreed to introduce draconian restrictions on their economy, if there were no reasonable grounds to do so?
Jaworowski: This question should be properly addressed to sociologists or politicians. It seems to me that the Polish government is aware of this problem, and this makes for a difficult diplomatic situation. I do not think the Polish delegation in Copenhagen could simply say that the fight against global warming is just plain wrong, and therefore we will not accept any obligations to reduce CO2 emissions. But I hope that it will try to soften the economic disaster, from the position of the hard-core greens leading to economic disaster.
The CO2 Emissions Hoax
MB: But won't the e-mail disclosures of the fraud by researchers from England and the U.S. about the alleged effects that human-emitted CO2 have on climate change, make it absurd to call for further reductions in CO2?
Jaworowski: I hope that the publicity of these emails will change the attitude of politicians participating in the conference. That is precisely the conclusion reached by the Australian authorities, who on December 1, the day that the head of the CRU, Phil Jones, was suspended from his functions as the director, announced that they withdrew from the mechanism of CO2 emissions trading. Indeed, the emissions trading boils down to the transfer of enormous sums of money which will benefit the financiers and governments of some countries. Therefore, probably, some of them enthusiastically support reductions in CO2 emissions. But those who reap the most benefits are the companies that use so-called clean-energy technologies such as wind turbines to produce electricity. They benefit from tax incentives, and thus, taxpayers are financing them, even if the windmills do not produce the projected amount of energy. It is true that windmill construction is less expensive than, say, nuclear or coal power stations, but the current generated by windmills is several times more expensive. Well, according to various estimates, wind turbines produce electricity only one-fifth of their lifetime; energy companies cannot afford such downtime, and therefore must use electricity from other sources as back up.
MB: How is it possible that for at least the last 20 years, the fiction of human-CO2 emissions causing global warming has been allowed to exist?
Jaworowski: The best answer to this question is my story. For many years, I analyzed the results of measurements of CO2 concentrations in ice cores, in which the gas is trapped, as it were. The whole global warming hysteria is based on this ice core work. In the last century, since the 1960s, I organized 10 trips to 17 different glaciers, collecting data on the impact of manmade emissions — mainly heavy metals from industry — on the environment. However, I learned how this climate ideology functioned, when my wife and I spent eight years in Norway. After arriving there, I worked at the University of Oslo, but eventually became employed at the Norwegian Polar Institute. After some time, the Ministry of Environment asked the Institute to examine the implications of global warming due to human activities, for the Norwegian part of the Arctic (including Svalbard). I began to investigate the question of whether any warming had actually occurred in this part of the Arctic. After conducting research, I came to the conclusion that there is no reason to believe so, because the temperature measurements carried out in this part of the world for nearly 100 years showed no signs of warming. The deeper I analyzed the problem, the more it convinced me that there is no man-made global warming, and CO2 does not noticeably cause the process of warming.
In this regard, my colleagues and I have shown that extrapolating the atmospheric measurements of CO2 from the gas measured in polar ice cores was an exaggeration of the results, and even, manipulation. The ice itself, we found, is not a suitable material for assessing the chemical composition of the former ancient atmosphere. This is because it is not a closed system in which nothing happens, but conversely, several physical and chemical processes are going on in the ice. These lead to loss of CO2 from air bubbles trapped in ice. All the cores themselves are cracked, and extremely contaminated with heavy metals from the drilling fluid which penetrates into their interior.
For example, in the ice core from Vostok Station, Antarctica — which is a very foundation stone of the man-made warming hysteria — inside its parts, taken from the depths of 1,850 meters in the glacier, the concentration of lead is 6,800 times higher than in the surface snow at Vostok Station, and the concentration of zinc from the depth of 851 meters is 600,000 times higher. So, the whole hypothesis of humans heating up the climate is based on faulty material like this.
Big Money Trumps Science
MB: Can you describe the results of these tests?
Jaworowski: We wrote two reports and a few articles on the subject. Here I see an analogy to the e-mail disclosures released by honest researchers at the University of East Anglia on climate warming. Following the publication of the results of our study, the scientific director of the Norwegian Polar Institute called me for an interview and said that our publications were not a way of gaining research contracts in Norway! In consequence, he did not renew my contract — I was being discriminated against. I stayed for a time dependent on my wife's salary. I understood then, that it was an important objective of the operation of the Polar Institute to gain research grants from the Ministry of Environment, whose raison d'être was based on finding proof of human pollution.
MB: So, you are saying that any scientist who does not comply with the global warming ideology imposed on universities, will fall victim?
Jaworowski: Yes. If politicians are funding the studies, on the one hand, scientists rejoice because science requires big money. But, on the other had, such research cannot freely flourish by listening to, and obeying political orders.
MB: Where did you next find a job?
Jaworowski: I moved some time later to Japan, where I worked at the National Institute for Polar Research in Tokyo. There I wrote the research results about the CO2 content in glaciers.
MB: You are not afraid of revenge from the "warming" lobby?
Jaworowski: Now I am 82 years old, and the financial consequences of the views which I preach are not of importance to me. But among researchers who share my views, there are not many younger scientists, especially those who have families dependent on them, who can afford to support such views. And besides, when I was younger, I did some research that concluded that man does pollute the world.
MB: What was that?
Jaworowski: In the late 1960s, I examined a small Polish glacier over Morskie Oko (a lake in the Tatra Mountains in southern Poland) for the presence of heavy metal compounds. This glacier contains about 100 annual layers of ice, so you can use it as a basis to explore of what was happening in the atmosphere in this area over the last century. My research showed that in this — seemingly — clean place, the concentration of lead rose as much as 12-fold in recent years.
MB: Was this study incorrect?
Jaworowski: It was correct, but at the time, I did not know that such results cannot be generalized. Meanwhile, on the basis of these studies, in an article in the scientific journal Nature, I stated that the concentration of lead in Europe had increased 12-fold. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), then asked me to carry out further research, for which I got — in the 1970s — $1.3 million. These funds financed ten of these glacier expeditions. Then, I performed the world's first pollution survey of glaciers in the last several hundred years, looking at heavy metals deposited on 17 glaciers between Spitsbergen and Antarctica. And, it was after I analyzed these results, that I realized that such high concentrations of lead on our local glacier over Morskie Oko were unique.
MB: Why?
Jaworowski: Because, for decades, cars emitting lead were allowed free access to this beautiful lake. . . . There was no evidence of such an increase in concentrations of heavy metals on the other glaciers. Conversely, in the 20th Century, some heavy metals were bound to fall with a little volcanic activity until 1963. The highest concentrations of heavy metals, we found not on the European glaciers in the Alps and Norway, but at the equator — Glacier Stanley in Ruwenzori Mountains, Africa , and in the Peruvian Andes, far from any industrial centers.
In cooperation with the EPA, I also made the first examination of the level of lead in human bones over the past 1,800 years, to see if it had changed. (I got special permission to collect the bones from the Polish church buildings from Fr. Card. Stefan Wyszynski, the Primate of Poland.) Then I carried out similar studies, covering the period of the last 5,000 years, in France, Peru, and Georgia. It turned out that the European population was heavily contaminated with lead throughout the Middle Ages, until the very end of the 19th Century. Only in the 20th Century, did the lead level among the Polish population fall by a hundred times, compared with the people buried in past ages.
For example, in human bones entombed in St. Mary's Church in Krakow, and two monasteries near this city, the lead levels ranged up to 92 micrograms of lead per gram of bone in the 11th Century, to 373 micrograms in the 17th Century, and 231 micrograms in the 19th Century. Then, in the bones of 42 persons from the same region, who died in the 20th Century, the lead content dropped to an average level of 5.4 micrograms of lead per gram of bone, only twice as high as the average level of 2.8 micrograms in 18 skeletons of inhabitants of the cave some 70 km west of Krakow, living 1,800 years earlier.
The lead levels which my French colleagues and I found in people buried in the 14th-16th centuries inside the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris reached up to 280 micrograms of lead per gram of bone, whereas in the Bronze Age (ca. 3,000 B.C.) the average lead level was 15 micrograms per gram of bone, almost the same as in the recent Parisians.
Later, a similar phenomenon was detected in the United States, Japan, and other countries. The biosphere and humankind are not so polluted as green chemiophobia made us to believe.
The Enviro-Thought Police
MB: From what you have said, it can be inferred that the lobby of radical environmentalists and industry for what's called clean energy has a greater influence than, say, lobbyists for energy companies operating on fossil fuels. It's hard to believe, however, by observing the power of the latter. . . .
Jaworowski: Here again, I use an example from my own experience. After I moved back from Japan, I worked for some time at the Norwegian Institute of Energy. At that time, we decided to see if the research on CO2 in the ice of Greenland and Antarctica was conducted properly. For half a year, I drafted a proposal for our research project. Our institute sent the proposal to 15 different potential sponsors, mainly companies operating oil and gas reserves. We held a seminar for them, which . . . was attended by, among others, a representative of one company, perhaps Statoil. This person heard what we said, and then told us that he liked our project, and his group would like to finance these studies, despite the costs amounting to $2 million.
Note, however, that after the company had consulted with the government, probably with the Environment Ministry, these "consultants" decided that this project would be "immoral." At the time, the Prime Minister of Norway was Mme. Gro Harlem Brundtland. She is now the UN special climate envoy. During the UN General Assembly session in May 2007, Brundtland declared that
"it's completely immoral, even to question the UN's scientific consensus" (on man-made global warming).
Climatic morality sounds like a Norwegian specialty.
MB: What did this mean?
Jaworowski: The Statoil representative said that, if his company had funded such research, that would be used against them by their competitors, and the company would be penalized much more than it costs to finance our research. Thus ended our project. . . .
MB: So you think that industrial civilization does not pollute the environment?
Jaworowski: Nature produces toxic substances, and often, these are many times greater in scale than those produced by the entire world's industry. For example, take the scare story of the accumulation of mercury in fish. Meanwhile, studies have shown that for centuries there has been a lot of mercury in the seas.
Such examples could be multiplied. However, we see that the terrible 20th Century, with all its dirty industry, has brought us two "horrible" things: an average of a doubled life expectancy in Poland, compared with that of 1900. Also that Poles, French, other Europeans, North and South Americans, and other peoples, since the 20th Century, have been less contaminated with lead than were our ancestors going back to the Middle Ages.
MB: How so? Precisely because of industry? After all, industry does emit a lot of harmful chemicals and we still have problems with the elimination of the effects of industrial pollution.
Jaworowski: The idea is that, already by the 10th Century, people in Europe ate from tin dishes. Meanwhile, the tin used in their manufacture of these dishes included up to 20% lead. If someone ate some sour foods, such as vinegar-based, then the acid reacted with lead, and a sweet lead acetate was created and consumed during a meal. In this way the compounds of the metal are dispatched in human organisms. There are many other similar examples of household, not environmental, sources of pandemic lead contaminations in the decades before the 20th Century.
In the 20th Century, thanks to the development of science and industry, we started to use porcelain, glass, and stainless steel in the kitchen, thus eliminating from our lives many sources of lead contamination. Among them the least important of the contaminants eliminated was the lead contained in gasoline. Just when we started to use leaded gasoline in the 1920s, the lead level in population dropped back to near pre-historic levels.
After 'Climategate'
MB: Let us return to the issue today, the fight against CO2 as the alleged perpetrator of the alleged global warming. What will be the outcome of this fight?
Jaworowski: Maybe, Climategate, the recently disclosed affair of hiding and manipulating the real data on the alleged global warming, will have the effect of cleansing science and policy, and protecting civilization from catastrophe.
MB: Since there is so much data to disprove theories that blame man-made CO2 emissions for global warming, why aren't these theories simply thrown into the trash? Are universities, politicians, and some businesses so blinded by ideology, that they "squeeze" or knowingly lie to the public. If so, why? For a small group of people to profit at the expense of the majority?
Jaworowski: There are many intertwining reasons. The least important may be that a professor, for example, can ensure that he gets contracts and grants for research "on demand" — although personally he may not like it — so that his institute has the funding to maintain itself. If you confirm the expectations of the grant sponsors, you get further grants. And you do so, especially if you know that if reliable studies show that the expected results are wrong, that you would get no further grants.
MB: Does anyone in Copenhagen have enough courage to just throw into the trash the plans for draconian restrictions on CO2 emissions?
Jaworowski: Let's hope the politicians will open their eyes, and that "Climategate" will help in this. On the other hand, it will be difficult to limit the desire to use global warming ideology to increase revenue for some and to create a world government. Already in the 1960s, a report of a U.S. study group was created, composed of scientists, which was to present a forecast for world development. They looked at the coming period of peace, in which there would be no great war. The group's "Report from Iron Mountain," proposed a number of substitutes for war. One of them was to create a "fictitious enemy of the world" and have it be a matter of climate. In subsequent years, the proposal became almost pathological, or criminal, in nature. The Club of Rome held that "Earth has cancer; the cancer is man." Humanity as a whole has become a "fictitious enemy of the planet." That favourite of the environmentalists, Jacques Y. Cousteau, said that to maintain balance on Earth, every year 123 million people should be "removed." Such statements, unfortunately, multiplied. UN representatives want to reduce the number of people on Earth to 1 billion or less.
MB: Where do such inhuman ideas come from?
Jaworowski: It has its roots in Malthus, the British clergyman [Rev. Thomas Malthus], who, in 1798, formulated the false theory that while populations of the world would increase in geometric proportions, the food resources available to them would increase only arithmetically. Malthus interpreted overpopulation as an evil that would reduce the amount of food available per person, and he failed to take into account the technological advances in agriculture and food production. His drastic recommendations from 212 years ago are still being used, and are the basis of the Malthusianism of the Club of Rome and the green ideology. I wish to add that after the November outbreak of "Climategate", in December 2009, the former chief economic advisor of [Russian] President [Vladimir] Putin, now the director of the prestigious Institute of Economic Analyses in Moscow, Dr. Andrei Illarionov, disclosed the mechanism of falsifying the global climate trends and constructing the infamous hockey curves of temperature. The Russians transferred to the CRU center at East Anglia University all the temperature data for the years 1860-2005, from their 476 meteorological stations covering about 20% of the land surface of the globe. From among these Russian stations, the CRU workers selected the data from only 121 stations, in such a way that in the years 1965-2005, the CRU made the temperature higher, and in the years 1860-1960 lower than the real temperature. Thus they created a false increasing temperature trend of 0.67°C. Almost an exactly similar falsification of Australian temperature data by CRU and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/Global Historical Climate Network (NOAA/GHNC), was disclosed in December by Dr. W. Eschenbach. In this case, the temperature trend was "corrected" to be 2.5°C higher. This illustrates how credulous the public and politicians have been for decades. They were falsely made to believe that they were well informed, with 90% certainty and full scientific consensus! "Climategate" might become a catharsis, a bitter medicine, that will free science and the public from the gloomy climatic phantom, save the world from global economic disaster, and allow us to enjoy the golden gift of nature: our Modern Warm Period. Let it last long.
http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/cycles/alie.htm
Genghis Kush
Active member
Jaworowski was a radiologist(a medical doctor) not a climate scientist and his views are rejected by the scientific community. Increases in CO2 and CH4 concentrations in the Vostok core are similar for the last two glacial-interglacial transitions, even though only the most recent transition is located in the brittle zone. Such evidence argues that the atmospheric trace-gas signal is not strongly affected by the presence of the brittle zone.
It should come as no surprise that Jaworowski’s theories were not published in a scientific journal, but in 21st Century, a magazine published by Lyndon LaRouche, renowned for his belief in various right wing conspiracy theories. The journal also printed an article written by Jaworowski titled "The Truth about Chernobyl", which claimed that fears about radiation illness were unfounded!!
Lyndon LaRouche is a right wing fascist
Curriculum Vitae of Zbigniew Jaworowski
Past chairman of UNSCEAR
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski was born on 17 October 1927 in Krakow, Poland. He graduated as a physician in 1952 at the Medical Academy in Krakow. In 1963 He received Ph.D in natural sciences (in Polish: doktor nauk przyrodniczych), and in 1967 DSc in natural sciences (in Polish: doktor habilitowany nauk przyrodniczych). He became a docent in 1967 and in 1977 became a full professor. Since 1958 he is married to Zofia Kielan-Jaworowska, who is a professor emeritus of paleontology at the University of Oslo and at the Institute of Paleobiology of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw; she is a full member of the Polish Academy of Sciences. They have one son, Mariusz.
Between 1951 and 1952 Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski worked as an assistant at the Institute of Physiological Chemistry of the Medical Academy in Krakow, studying chemical carcinogenesis. Between 1953 and 1958 He worked as a radiotherapeutist at the Oncological Institute in Gliwice. In 1957 and 1958 he served as a medical doctor of the Polish International Geophysical Year Expedition to Spitsbergen, where he studied radioactivity of precipitation and concentration of CO2 in the air. Between 1958 and 1970 Jaworowski worked in the Institute of Nuclear Research in Warsaw as a head of the Laboratory of Radiotoxicology. In 1960/1961 he worked at the Department of Physics of the Research Cancer Institute in London as a stipendiary of International Atomic Energy Agency measuring content of 210Pb in bones of British population and in hair of Polish uranium miners. Between 1970 and 1987 Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski worked in the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw as the head of the Department of Radiation Hygiene. Between 1982 and 1984 he worked in the Centre d'Etude Nucleaires in Fontenay-aux-Roses near Paris as a guest professor. In 1987-1988 Professor Jaworowski worked at the Biophysical Group of the Institute of Physics, University of Oslo. In 1988-1990 he worked at the Norwegian Polar Research Institute in Oslo. Between 1990 and 1991 Zbigniew Jaworowski worked for six months as a visiting professor at the National Institute for Polar Research in Tokyo. Between 1991 and 1993 he was working in the Institute for Energy Technology at Kjeller near Oslo. Since 1993 he is working at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, now as the chairman of the Scientific Council.
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski studied: (1) internal contamination of man and animals with radionuclides; (2) development of analytical methods for detection of pollutants in the human body and environment; (3) metabolism of radionuclides; (4) biological effects of ionizing radiation; (5) impact of nuclear war on population; (6) remedial measures in nuclear emergencies; (7) environmental levels and migration of radionuclides and heavy metals; (8) relation between pollutants in the environment and in man; (9) historical monitoring of radionuclides and heavy metals in man - the first discovery that lead level in human bones was much higher between 11th and 19th century than now; (10) historical monitoring of radionuclides and heavy metals in environment; (11) vertical distribution of natural radionuclides, fission products and heavy metals in the troposphere and stratosphere; (12) determination of natural radionuclides, fission products and heavy metals in contemporary and pre-industrial ice from glaciers in both hemispheres, for studying the geographical distribution, temporal changes and flux of natural and man-made pollutants in the global atmosphere; (13) regional and global impact of pollution caused by coal burning; (14) validity of polar ice core records of greenhouse gases for reconstruction of the composition of the ancient atmosphere.
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski was a principal investigator of three research projects of the US Environmental Protection Agency, and four research projects of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski organized 10 expeditions to the polar and high altitude temperate glaciers (Spitsbergen, Alaska, Northern Norway - Svartisen, Southern Norway - Jotunheimen, Alps, Tatra Mountains, Himalayas, Ruwenzori in East Africa, Peruvian Andes and Antarctica. Their aim was to measure, for the first time, by means of radioactive tracers (natural 210Pb, and 137Cs from nuclear tests) the mass of stable heavy metals and activity of natural radionuclides entering the global atmosphere from natural and man-made sources. An additional result of these studies was measuring (for the first time) the mass of global annual atmospheric precipitation.
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski is (or was) a member of: (1) Polish Society of Radiation Research, (2) Polish Society of Medical Physics, (3) Commission of Radiobiology of the Committee of Medical Physics of the Polish Academy of Sciences, (4) Polish Commission of Nuclear Safety - until 1980), (5) Polish Society of Polar Research, (6) Polish National Council for Environmental Protection - until 1987, (7) Committee of the Basic Medical Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences - until 1987, (8) Health Physics Society (USA) - until 1987, (9) Founding member of the International Society for Trace Element Research in Humans, (10) Commission of Radiological Protection of (Polish) National Council of Atomic Energy (1984-1988 chairman) - until 1989, (11) Norwegian Physical Society.
Since 1973 Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski is a member of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR); in the years 1978-1979 he was the vice-chairman, and 1980-1982 the chairman of this Committee.
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski was participant or chairman of about 20 Advisory Groups of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP).
In 1986 Professor Jaworowski was a member of the Polish Governmental Commission on the Effects of Chernobyl Accident. He advised the Government to use stable iodine to protect Polish children against radioiodines from the burning Soviet nuclear reactor.
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski published 196 scientific papers, 4 books and participated in writing and editing 10 published scientific documents of UNSCEAR, IAEA and UNEP. Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski published about 60 articles in Polish newspapers and popular science magazines.
http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/jawcv.html
die hard.
Past chairman of UNSCEAR
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski was born on 17 October 1927 in Krakow, Poland. He graduated as a physician in 1952 at the Medical Academy in Krakow. In 1963 He received Ph.D in natural sciences (in Polish: doktor nauk przyrodniczych), and in 1967 DSc in natural sciences (in Polish: doktor habilitowany nauk przyrodniczych). He became a docent in 1967 and in 1977 became a full professor. Since 1958 he is married to Zofia Kielan-Jaworowska, who is a professor emeritus of paleontology at the University of Oslo and at the Institute of Paleobiology of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Warsaw; she is a full member of the Polish Academy of Sciences. They have one son, Mariusz.
Between 1951 and 1952 Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski worked as an assistant at the Institute of Physiological Chemistry of the Medical Academy in Krakow, studying chemical carcinogenesis. Between 1953 and 1958 He worked as a radiotherapeutist at the Oncological Institute in Gliwice. In 1957 and 1958 he served as a medical doctor of the Polish International Geophysical Year Expedition to Spitsbergen, where he studied radioactivity of precipitation and concentration of CO2 in the air. Between 1958 and 1970 Jaworowski worked in the Institute of Nuclear Research in Warsaw as a head of the Laboratory of Radiotoxicology. In 1960/1961 he worked at the Department of Physics of the Research Cancer Institute in London as a stipendiary of International Atomic Energy Agency measuring content of 210Pb in bones of British population and in hair of Polish uranium miners. Between 1970 and 1987 Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski worked in the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw as the head of the Department of Radiation Hygiene. Between 1982 and 1984 he worked in the Centre d'Etude Nucleaires in Fontenay-aux-Roses near Paris as a guest professor. In 1987-1988 Professor Jaworowski worked at the Biophysical Group of the Institute of Physics, University of Oslo. In 1988-1990 he worked at the Norwegian Polar Research Institute in Oslo. Between 1990 and 1991 Zbigniew Jaworowski worked for six months as a visiting professor at the National Institute for Polar Research in Tokyo. Between 1991 and 1993 he was working in the Institute for Energy Technology at Kjeller near Oslo. Since 1993 he is working at the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, now as the chairman of the Scientific Council.
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski studied: (1) internal contamination of man and animals with radionuclides; (2) development of analytical methods for detection of pollutants in the human body and environment; (3) metabolism of radionuclides; (4) biological effects of ionizing radiation; (5) impact of nuclear war on population; (6) remedial measures in nuclear emergencies; (7) environmental levels and migration of radionuclides and heavy metals; (8) relation between pollutants in the environment and in man; (9) historical monitoring of radionuclides and heavy metals in man - the first discovery that lead level in human bones was much higher between 11th and 19th century than now; (10) historical monitoring of radionuclides and heavy metals in environment; (11) vertical distribution of natural radionuclides, fission products and heavy metals in the troposphere and stratosphere; (12) determination of natural radionuclides, fission products and heavy metals in contemporary and pre-industrial ice from glaciers in both hemispheres, for studying the geographical distribution, temporal changes and flux of natural and man-made pollutants in the global atmosphere; (13) regional and global impact of pollution caused by coal burning; (14) validity of polar ice core records of greenhouse gases for reconstruction of the composition of the ancient atmosphere.
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski was a principal investigator of three research projects of the US Environmental Protection Agency, and four research projects of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski organized 10 expeditions to the polar and high altitude temperate glaciers (Spitsbergen, Alaska, Northern Norway - Svartisen, Southern Norway - Jotunheimen, Alps, Tatra Mountains, Himalayas, Ruwenzori in East Africa, Peruvian Andes and Antarctica. Their aim was to measure, for the first time, by means of radioactive tracers (natural 210Pb, and 137Cs from nuclear tests) the mass of stable heavy metals and activity of natural radionuclides entering the global atmosphere from natural and man-made sources. An additional result of these studies was measuring (for the first time) the mass of global annual atmospheric precipitation.
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski is (or was) a member of: (1) Polish Society of Radiation Research, (2) Polish Society of Medical Physics, (3) Commission of Radiobiology of the Committee of Medical Physics of the Polish Academy of Sciences, (4) Polish Commission of Nuclear Safety - until 1980), (5) Polish Society of Polar Research, (6) Polish National Council for Environmental Protection - until 1987, (7) Committee of the Basic Medical Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences - until 1987, (8) Health Physics Society (USA) - until 1987, (9) Founding member of the International Society for Trace Element Research in Humans, (10) Commission of Radiological Protection of (Polish) National Council of Atomic Energy (1984-1988 chairman) - until 1989, (11) Norwegian Physical Society.
Since 1973 Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski is a member of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR); in the years 1978-1979 he was the vice-chairman, and 1980-1982 the chairman of this Committee.
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski was participant or chairman of about 20 Advisory Groups of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and of the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP).
In 1986 Professor Jaworowski was a member of the Polish Governmental Commission on the Effects of Chernobyl Accident. He advised the Government to use stable iodine to protect Polish children against radioiodines from the burning Soviet nuclear reactor.
Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski published 196 scientific papers, 4 books and participated in writing and editing 10 published scientific documents of UNSCEAR, IAEA and UNEP. Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski published about 60 articles in Polish newspapers and popular science magazines.
http://www.angelfire.com/mo/radioadaptive/jawcv.html
die hard.
Genghis Kush
Active member
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR);
Zbigniew Jaworowski was a Polish physician specializing in radiology whose theories are pushed by right wing propagandists backed by corporate powers.
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR);
Zbigniew Jaworowski was a Polish physician specializing in radiology whose theories are pushed by right wing propagandists backed by corporate powers.
I agree, these reports are completely unscear.
United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR);
Zbigniew Jaworowski was a Polish physician specializing in radiology whose theories are pushed by right wing propagandists backed by corporate powers.
suppose you stop chuckling long enough to post your credentials.
i have no problem with great minds across many disciplines...and his politiks and nationality are not the issue...well, not for me at least.
also, for me to have presented misinformation, there would have to have been information (unabridged, unfudged, unaltered, unadjusted) raw.
now it's been established that the UN IPCC report was based on faulty evidence...uh, not just faulty...contrived evidence.
so what you've used all along in your examination of the information is contaminated by someone who got money from the UN and private parties....and you've the nerve to suggest that
Jaworowski is a shill of big oil and right wing interests?
extraordinary claim, even from a stoner on a pot site.
Genghis Kush
Active member
mis·in·for·ma·tion
/ˌmisinfərˈmāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: misinformation
false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jaworowski was a cold war era soviet union researcher. His theories on climate are outdated and discredited by modern research.
"now it's been established that the UN IPCC report was based on faulty evidence...uh, not just faulty...contrived evidence."
that is false:
factcheck.org
"The InterAcademy Council is a group made up of major science academies from around the globe — including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences — that provides advice to international bodies such as the United Nations. Its 2010 report did find problems with the methods and structure in U.N. climate reports. But Smith was cherry-picking. The council’s general assessment was that “[t]he Committee found that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall.”
"so what you've used all along in your examination of the information is contaminated by someone who got money from the UN and private parties"
What I've used to examine the information? You mean the critical thinking skills that you seem to lack?
Your information is coming from people who don't want regulation on their polluting industries.
You seem unable to grasp that.
/ˌmisinfərˈmāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: misinformation
false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jaworowski was a cold war era soviet union researcher. His theories on climate are outdated and discredited by modern research.
"now it's been established that the UN IPCC report was based on faulty evidence...uh, not just faulty...contrived evidence."
that is false:
factcheck.org
"The InterAcademy Council is a group made up of major science academies from around the globe — including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences — that provides advice to international bodies such as the United Nations. Its 2010 report did find problems with the methods and structure in U.N. climate reports. But Smith was cherry-picking. The council’s general assessment was that “[t]he Committee found that the IPCC assessment process has been successful overall.”
"so what you've used all along in your examination of the information is contaminated by someone who got money from the UN and private parties"
What I've used to examine the information? You mean the critical thinking skills that you seem to lack?
Your information is coming from people who don't want regulation on their polluting industries.
You seem unable to grasp that.
Last edited:
Genghis Kush
Active member
factcheck.org
"Sen. Rick Santorum in September criticized the oft-cited fact that 97 percent of scientists agree that human activity is primarily responsible for warming, saying that figure is “bogus” and comes from a single study. Several surveys involving thousands of researchers have all found that the level of consensus is about 97 percent.
The 97 percent number comes from several distinct sources. The first was a 2009 survey published in the American Geophysical Union’s Eos magazine. A year later, another study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found a similar result.
Most recently, a 2013 paper published in the journal Environmental Research Letters analyzed 11,944 journal article abstracts published from 1991 to 2011 that matched the search terms “global climate change” or “global warming.” From that list of papers, the study authors identified which ones expressed a position on anthropogenic — human-caused — global warming. Of the 4,014 papers that took a position, 97.1 percent endorsed the idea that humans are causing global warming. A second analysis in that same study asked 8,547 authors to rate their papers. Did they think their papers endorsed the consensus on warming? A total of 1,189 scientists responded, rating 2,142 individual papers. The results: 97.2 percent of the papers endorsed the consensus that humans are causing global warming.
"
"Sen. Rick Santorum in September criticized the oft-cited fact that 97 percent of scientists agree that human activity is primarily responsible for warming, saying that figure is “bogus” and comes from a single study. Several surveys involving thousands of researchers have all found that the level of consensus is about 97 percent.
The 97 percent number comes from several distinct sources. The first was a 2009 survey published in the American Geophysical Union’s Eos magazine. A year later, another study published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found a similar result.
Most recently, a 2013 paper published in the journal Environmental Research Letters analyzed 11,944 journal article abstracts published from 1991 to 2011 that matched the search terms “global climate change” or “global warming.” From that list of papers, the study authors identified which ones expressed a position on anthropogenic — human-caused — global warming. Of the 4,014 papers that took a position, 97.1 percent endorsed the idea that humans are causing global warming. A second analysis in that same study asked 8,547 authors to rate their papers. Did they think their papers endorsed the consensus on warming? A total of 1,189 scientists responded, rating 2,142 individual papers. The results: 97.2 percent of the papers endorsed the consensus that humans are causing global warming.
"
Genghis Kush
Active member
"claims that “we are building an entire agenda on falsified data” has no basis in evidence. Even as these claims of data manipulation have resurfaced, there is now a general consensus that 2014 was likely the hottest single year since temperature record-keeping began. This same conclusion has been reached by NOAA and NASA, the Japan Meteorological Agency, and the World Meteorological Organization. According to NASA, nine of the 10 warmest years have all occurred since 2000, with 1998 the lone exception."
Genghis Kush
Active member
"According to the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fifth assessment report that was released in 2013, it is “extremely likely” (meaning between 95 percent and 100 percent certain), that human activities caused more than half of the observed global warming between 1951 to 2010. In its summary for policymakers, the IPCC stated, “The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period.” In other words, the best guess is that humans have caused essentially all of the warming that has occurred."
Genghis Kush
Active member
‘
Genghis Kush
Active member
http://popular-archaeology.com/issu...astern-roman-empire-and-growth-of-arab-empire
"New 'Little Ice Age' coincides with fall of Eastern Roman Empire and growth of Arab Empire"
here a link to an interesting article on how climate change has affected human history
"New 'Little Ice Age' coincides with fall of Eastern Roman Empire and growth of Arab Empire"
here a link to an interesting article on how climate change has affected human history
The Profiteers of Doom Were Wrong About Climate
More than a century from now, on current trends, today’s concentration of CO2 in the air will have doubled. How much warming will that cause? The official prediction, 1.5-4.5 Celsius degrees per CO2 doubling, is proving a substantial exaggeration.
Professor William Happer of Princeton, one of the world’s foremost physicists, says computer models of climate rely on the assumption of the CO2’s direct warming effect that is about a factor two higher, owing to incorrect representation of the microphysical interactions of CO2 molecules with other infrared photons.
As if that were not bad enough, the official story is that feedbacks triggered by direct warming roughly triple it, causing not 1 but 3 degrees’ warming per CO2 doubling. Here, too, the official story is a significant exaggeration, as Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, the world’s most knowledgeable climatologist, has demonstrated.
The wild exaggerations of both the direct CO2 warming and the supposedly more serious knock-on warming are rooted in an untruth: the falsehood that scientists know enough about how clouds form, how thunderstorms work, how air and ocean currents flow, how ice sheets behave, how soot in the air behaves.
In truth, we do not understand climate enough to make even an uneducated guess about how much global warming our adding CO2 to the air will cause. Other things being equal, we will cause some warming, but – on measurements to date – not much.
The national science academies and the UN’s climate panel have profitably contrived what the late Stephen Schneider called “scary scenarios” on the basis of inadequate knowledge. Etatiste politicians and bureaucrats have gone along with them.
A quarter of a century has passed since the panel first predicted how fast the world would warm. Measurements since then show the predictions were much overblown. But don’t take it from us. Ask any climatologist the following ten killer questions.
1: Where has the warming that the surface thermometer datasets now say has occurred in the past 18 years come from?
The official theory is that photons interacting with CO2 molecules in the upper air give off heat that warms that air, which warms the lower air, which warms the surface.
Yet the two satellite datasets show no global warming of the lower air for almost 19 of the 21 years of annual UN global-warming conferences. Even if CO2 had warmed the upper air as predicted (and the satellites show it has not), that warming could not have reached the surface through lower air that has not warmed. If the surface has warmed in the past couple of decades, as the surface datasets now pretend, CO2 cannot have been the cause.
In 2006 the late Professor Robert Carter, a down-to-earth geologist who considered global warming a non-problem, wrote in the Daily Telegraph that in eight full years (1998-2005), the Hadley Centre’s global temperature dataset showed no global warming at all.
Yet that dataset, which, like all the surface datasets, was recently adjusted to deliver the global warming that measurements did not show, now indicates a warming trend over those same eight years at a rate equivalent to more than 1.5 degrees/century.
2: Why, two years ago, did every surface temperature dataset agree with the satellites that there had been no global warming this millennium, and why, though the two satellites continue to show little or no warming, was every surface dataset altered in the two years preceding the Paris climate conference in a manner calculated to show significant warming?
3: Why do all the datasets, surface as well as satellite, show a lot less warming than predicted?
Why, even after the numerous questionable adjustments to the surface temperature datasets, has the rate of warming over the past quarter of a century been only one-third to one-half of the central prediction made by the UN’s climate panel in its 1990 First Assessment Report?
The startling temperature clock shows the UN panel’s 1990 predictions as orange and red zones meeting at the red needle representing its then central prediction that by now there should have been global warming equivalent to 2.8 degrees/century.
But the blue needles, representing the warming reported by the three much-altered surface tamperature datasets, show little more than half that warming. The green needles, representing the satellite datasets, show only a third of what the UN had predicted with “substantial confidence” in 1990.
4: Why is the gap between official over-prediction and observed reality getting wider?
An updated temperature clock shows the warming the UN’s panel predicted in its 2001 Third Assessment Report, compared with measured warming from then till 2015. The measured warming rate, represented by the green zone, is manifestly less than the warming rate since 1990, even though CO2 concentration has risen throughout.
5: Why is the gap between warming rates measured by satellite and surface datasets widening?
It is legitimate to infer that the surface datasets have been altered to try to bring the reported warming closer to the failed but (for now) still profitable predictions.
6: Why should anyone invest trillions on the basis of official predictions in 1990 and in 2001 that differ so greatly?
Plainly, this is not the “settled science” we were told it was.
7: Why has the observed rate of warming, on all datasets, been tumbling for decades notwithstanding predictions that it would at least remain stable?
One-third of all Man’s supposed warming influence on climate since 1750 has occurred since the late 1990s, yet satellites show scarce a flicker of global warming in close to 19 years. And the rate of warming from 1950 to the present is lower than the rate from 1950 to any previous year in the past half-century.
Not only the amount but also the pattern of warming fails to match predictions. To the nearest tenth of one per cent, there is no CO2 in the air. Yet the UN’s panel said in 2007 that CO2 would warm the upper air 6 miles above the tropical surface at twice or thrice the surface rate. That tropical mid-troposphere “hot-spot” (one of us gave it its name) was, we were told, the undeniable fingerprint of manmade global warming. The existence of the hot-spot would prove manmade warming.
8: So, where is the missing tropical upper-air hot-spot?
Satellites do not show it. Millions of measurements taken by balloon-borne radiosondes do not show it. Why, if warming is manmade, has there been very little difference between measured surface and upper-air warming rates for decades?
Just as it is officially predicted that CO2-driven warming will be greatest in the upper air, which will in turn warm the surface, so it is predicted that the near-surface air will warm the ocean surface, which will warm the deeps.
Yet measurements from more than 3600 automated buoys throughout the ocean that dive down a mile and a quarter and take detailed temperature and salinity profiles every ten days show that the deeper strata are warming faster than the near-surface strata.
9: Why, if CO2-driven warming ought to warm the surface ocean first, is the ocean warming from below? And why has the ocean been warming throughout the 11 full years of the ARGO dataset at a rate equivalent to only 1 degree every 430 years?
As Hal Doiron, a NASA thermal engineer, bluntly puts it: “When I look at the ocean I see one of the largest heat-sinks in the solar system. While the ocean endures there can’t be much manmade global warming.” And he had to get his heat calculations right or astronauts died.
Believers have silenced serious and legitimate scientific questions such as these by an organized, well-funded and remarkably vicious campaign of personal vilification against anyone who dares to ask any question, however polite or justifiable, about the Party Line. Most scientists, politicians and journalists have learned that they will have a quieter life if they just drift along with what most scientists privately concede is sheer exaggeration.
Believers also insist there is a “consensus” that manmade global warming is likely to prove dangerous.
10: Given that the authors of the largest ever survey of peer-reviewed opinion in learned papers marked only 64 of 11,944 papers, or 0.5%, as stating they agreed with the official “consensus” proposition that recent warming was mostly manmade, on what rational, evidence-based, scientific ground is it daily asserted that “97% of scientists” believe recent global warming is not only manmade but dangerous?
Millions die worldwide every year because they do not have cheap, clean, continuous, low-tech, coal-fired power. Given the growing and now flagrant discrepancies between prediction and observation that we have revealed here for the first time, the moral case for defunding the profiteers of climate doom and redeploying the money to give coal-fired light and heat to the world’s poorest people is overwhelming.
We are killing millions today with the scientifically baseless aim of saving thousands who are not at risk the day after tomorrow.
More than a century from now, on current trends, today’s concentration of CO2 in the air will have doubled. How much warming will that cause? The official prediction, 1.5-4.5 Celsius degrees per CO2 doubling, is proving a substantial exaggeration.
Professor William Happer of Princeton, one of the world’s foremost physicists, says computer models of climate rely on the assumption of the CO2’s direct warming effect that is about a factor two higher, owing to incorrect representation of the microphysical interactions of CO2 molecules with other infrared photons.
As if that were not bad enough, the official story is that feedbacks triggered by direct warming roughly triple it, causing not 1 but 3 degrees’ warming per CO2 doubling. Here, too, the official story is a significant exaggeration, as Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, the world’s most knowledgeable climatologist, has demonstrated.
The wild exaggerations of both the direct CO2 warming and the supposedly more serious knock-on warming are rooted in an untruth: the falsehood that scientists know enough about how clouds form, how thunderstorms work, how air and ocean currents flow, how ice sheets behave, how soot in the air behaves.
In truth, we do not understand climate enough to make even an uneducated guess about how much global warming our adding CO2 to the air will cause. Other things being equal, we will cause some warming, but – on measurements to date – not much.
The national science academies and the UN’s climate panel have profitably contrived what the late Stephen Schneider called “scary scenarios” on the basis of inadequate knowledge. Etatiste politicians and bureaucrats have gone along with them.
A quarter of a century has passed since the panel first predicted how fast the world would warm. Measurements since then show the predictions were much overblown. But don’t take it from us. Ask any climatologist the following ten killer questions.
1: Where has the warming that the surface thermometer datasets now say has occurred in the past 18 years come from?
The official theory is that photons interacting with CO2 molecules in the upper air give off heat that warms that air, which warms the lower air, which warms the surface.
Yet the two satellite datasets show no global warming of the lower air for almost 19 of the 21 years of annual UN global-warming conferences. Even if CO2 had warmed the upper air as predicted (and the satellites show it has not), that warming could not have reached the surface through lower air that has not warmed. If the surface has warmed in the past couple of decades, as the surface datasets now pretend, CO2 cannot have been the cause.
In 2006 the late Professor Robert Carter, a down-to-earth geologist who considered global warming a non-problem, wrote in the Daily Telegraph that in eight full years (1998-2005), the Hadley Centre’s global temperature dataset showed no global warming at all.
Yet that dataset, which, like all the surface datasets, was recently adjusted to deliver the global warming that measurements did not show, now indicates a warming trend over those same eight years at a rate equivalent to more than 1.5 degrees/century.
2: Why, two years ago, did every surface temperature dataset agree with the satellites that there had been no global warming this millennium, and why, though the two satellites continue to show little or no warming, was every surface dataset altered in the two years preceding the Paris climate conference in a manner calculated to show significant warming?
3: Why do all the datasets, surface as well as satellite, show a lot less warming than predicted?
Why, even after the numerous questionable adjustments to the surface temperature datasets, has the rate of warming over the past quarter of a century been only one-third to one-half of the central prediction made by the UN’s climate panel in its 1990 First Assessment Report?
The startling temperature clock shows the UN panel’s 1990 predictions as orange and red zones meeting at the red needle representing its then central prediction that by now there should have been global warming equivalent to 2.8 degrees/century.
But the blue needles, representing the warming reported by the three much-altered surface tamperature datasets, show little more than half that warming. The green needles, representing the satellite datasets, show only a third of what the UN had predicted with “substantial confidence” in 1990.
4: Why is the gap between official over-prediction and observed reality getting wider?
An updated temperature clock shows the warming the UN’s panel predicted in its 2001 Third Assessment Report, compared with measured warming from then till 2015. The measured warming rate, represented by the green zone, is manifestly less than the warming rate since 1990, even though CO2 concentration has risen throughout.
5: Why is the gap between warming rates measured by satellite and surface datasets widening?
It is legitimate to infer that the surface datasets have been altered to try to bring the reported warming closer to the failed but (for now) still profitable predictions.
6: Why should anyone invest trillions on the basis of official predictions in 1990 and in 2001 that differ so greatly?
Plainly, this is not the “settled science” we were told it was.
7: Why has the observed rate of warming, on all datasets, been tumbling for decades notwithstanding predictions that it would at least remain stable?
One-third of all Man’s supposed warming influence on climate since 1750 has occurred since the late 1990s, yet satellites show scarce a flicker of global warming in close to 19 years. And the rate of warming from 1950 to the present is lower than the rate from 1950 to any previous year in the past half-century.
Not only the amount but also the pattern of warming fails to match predictions. To the nearest tenth of one per cent, there is no CO2 in the air. Yet the UN’s panel said in 2007 that CO2 would warm the upper air 6 miles above the tropical surface at twice or thrice the surface rate. That tropical mid-troposphere “hot-spot” (one of us gave it its name) was, we were told, the undeniable fingerprint of manmade global warming. The existence of the hot-spot would prove manmade warming.
8: So, where is the missing tropical upper-air hot-spot?
Satellites do not show it. Millions of measurements taken by balloon-borne radiosondes do not show it. Why, if warming is manmade, has there been very little difference between measured surface and upper-air warming rates for decades?
Just as it is officially predicted that CO2-driven warming will be greatest in the upper air, which will in turn warm the surface, so it is predicted that the near-surface air will warm the ocean surface, which will warm the deeps.
Yet measurements from more than 3600 automated buoys throughout the ocean that dive down a mile and a quarter and take detailed temperature and salinity profiles every ten days show that the deeper strata are warming faster than the near-surface strata.
9: Why, if CO2-driven warming ought to warm the surface ocean first, is the ocean warming from below? And why has the ocean been warming throughout the 11 full years of the ARGO dataset at a rate equivalent to only 1 degree every 430 years?
As Hal Doiron, a NASA thermal engineer, bluntly puts it: “When I look at the ocean I see one of the largest heat-sinks in the solar system. While the ocean endures there can’t be much manmade global warming.” And he had to get his heat calculations right or astronauts died.
Believers have silenced serious and legitimate scientific questions such as these by an organized, well-funded and remarkably vicious campaign of personal vilification against anyone who dares to ask any question, however polite or justifiable, about the Party Line. Most scientists, politicians and journalists have learned that they will have a quieter life if they just drift along with what most scientists privately concede is sheer exaggeration.
Believers also insist there is a “consensus” that manmade global warming is likely to prove dangerous.
10: Given that the authors of the largest ever survey of peer-reviewed opinion in learned papers marked only 64 of 11,944 papers, or 0.5%, as stating they agreed with the official “consensus” proposition that recent warming was mostly manmade, on what rational, evidence-based, scientific ground is it daily asserted that “97% of scientists” believe recent global warming is not only manmade but dangerous?
Millions die worldwide every year because they do not have cheap, clean, continuous, low-tech, coal-fired power. Given the growing and now flagrant discrepancies between prediction and observation that we have revealed here for the first time, the moral case for defunding the profiteers of climate doom and redeploying the money to give coal-fired light and heat to the world’s poorest people is overwhelming.
We are killing millions today with the scientifically baseless aim of saving thousands who are not at risk the day after tomorrow.
