Cold Wave to Lash Kingdom of Saudi
Arabia with Snow & Wind: Saudi Arabia warning to wear clothes
Bitterly cold weather accompanied by wind, sub-zero temperatures and
snow is expected to hit the KSA (Kingdom of Saudi Arabia) on Wednesday
and last until Sunday, the Presidency of Meteorology and Environmental
Protection (PME) said on Monday.
Dr. Abdusamatov
Read more at http://investmentwatchblog.com/saudia-arabia-freezes-panic-grain-buying-in-russia/#XygoSGM7USjokfkY.99
BIG GREEN MONEY vs. actual scientists, in their OWN words:
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor
receiving
any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain
skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman
in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who
has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most
preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When
people
come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and
scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an
award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen
to
others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel
Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by
people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia
at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported
International Year of the
Planet.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect
because
they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at
scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor
Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of
the National Autonomous University of Mexico
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem
there
is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global
warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg
of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will
virtually
have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as
clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – .
Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment
[comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” -
Climate
statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics
of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's
Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of
Monthly Weather Review.
“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to
understand
that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?"
- Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the
2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer
reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I
quickly
found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be
useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” -
Meteorologist
Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to
become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly
(from
promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers
ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space
Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous
nonsense…The
present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a
pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an
ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor
Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast
group, has more than 150 published articles.
“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or
another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global
warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and
developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko,
vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu
University in Japan.
“The [global warming]
scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that
generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the
Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department
at the University of La Plata.
“Climate is not responding to greenhouse
gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact
increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation.”Prof
Christopher de Freitas, of the University of Auckland, NZ said there was no
evidence to suggest carbon dioxide was the major driver of climate change (see
http://canadafreepress.com/ind...
“I appreciate the
opportunity to add my name to those who disagree that global warming is man
made,”
John Theon wrote to the Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works
Committee on January 15, 2009. “I was, in effect, Hansen’s supervisor because I
had to justify his funding, allocate his resources, and evaluate his results,” Theon is former
Chief of the Climate Processes Research Program at NASA Headquarters and former
Chief of the Atmospheric Dynamics & Radiation Branch. [1]
Mr. Theon also noted in a Jan. 28, 2008 report that computer models used to determine future climate are not
scientific, in part, because researchers resist “making their work transparent
so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists.” This violates
a fundamental tenet of the scientific principle. J. Scott Armstrong, founder of the
“International Journal of Forecasting,” confirmed Theon’s statement, noting,
"The computer models underpinning the work of many scientific institutions
concerned with global warming are fundamentally flawed,” and Theon and
Armstrong both noted the 1995 IPPC report contained only opinions, no scientific forecasts, and revealed an audit of the
procedures used to come to their conclusion "clearly violated 72 scientific principles
of forecasting," with the forecasts following this one simply again
repeating the same procedural errors. (Apparently, it was not only the French
nobility of the 1700s of whom it might be said “they learned nothing, and they
forgot nothing.)”
“Unfortunately, climate
science has become political science…: “It is tragic that some perhaps
well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have
whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomenon which is statistically
questionable at best.”” Award-winning Princeton physicist Dr. Robert Austin,
member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, speaking to Senate minority
staff March 2, 2009.
Dr. Anastasios
Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said the global temperature “has
flattened and is actually going down. We are seeing a new shift toward cooler
temperatures that will last for probably about three decades.”
“The
recent ‘panic’ to control GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions and billions of
dollars being dedicated for the task has me deeply concerned that the U.S. and
other countries are spending precious global funds to stop global warming, when
it is primarily being driven by natural forcing mechanisms.” - Dr.
Diane Douglas, a climatologist who has worked for the Department of Energy
“I am appalled
at the state of discord in the field of climate science . . . There is no
observational evidence that the addition of anthropogenic greenhouse gas
emissions have caused any temperature perturbations in the atmosphere.”
— Award-winning
atmospheric scientist Dr. George T. Wolff, a former member of the EPA’s Science
Advisory Board who served on a committee of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
“The sky is not burning, and to claim that it
is amounts to journalistic malpractice . . . The press only promotes the global
warming alarmists and ignores or minimizes those of us who are skeptical.” — Dr. Mark L. Campbell, a
professor of chemistry at the U.S. Naval Academy.
“The cause of these global changes is
fundamentally due to the sun and its effect on the Earth as it moves about in
its orbit, not from man-made activities.” — Retired NASA
atmospheric scientist Dr. William W. Vaughan, recipient of the NASA Exceptional
Service Medal
“The most recent global
warming that began in 1977 is over, and the Earth has entered a new phase of
global cooling." Don Easterbrook, professor of geology at Western
Washington University in Bellingham, He also notes a switch in Pacific Ocean currents "assures
about three decades of global cooling. New solar data showing unusual absence
of sun spots and changes in the sun’s magnetic field suggest ... the present
episode of global cooling may be more severe than the cooling of 1945 to 1977.”
Climatologist Joe
D’Aleo of the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment
Project, says new data "show that in five of the last seven
decades since World War II, including this one, global temperatures have cooled
while carbon dioxide has continued to rise….The data suggest cooling not
warming in Earth's future."
Other scientists, for
whom I do not have quotes, but who feel that global warming doubtful enough to
have spoken at 2009 International Conference on Climate Change: Syun Akasofu,
U. of Alaska, Fairbanks, J. Scott Armstrong, U. of Pennsylvania, Dennis Avery,
Hudson Inst., Joseph L. Bast, Heartland Inst., Robert Bradley, Inst. for Energy
Research, Yoron Brock, Ayn Rand Inst., Frank Clemente, Penn State Univ.,
William Cotton, Colorado State Univ., Jo D’Aleo, Int’l Climate and
Environmental Change Assessment Project, David Douglas, Univ. of Rochester,
Terry Dunleavy, In’tl Science Climate Coalition, Myron Ebell, Competitive Enterprise
Inst., Christopher Essex, Univ. of Western Ontario, David Evans, Science Speak
(scientific modeling company), Michael Foss, Univ. of Texas, Fred Goldberg,
Royal School of Technology, Sweden, Laurence Gould, Univ. of Hartford, Kesten
Green, Univ. of Connecticut, Craig Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide
and Global Change, Richard Keen, Univ. of Colorado, William Kininmonth, former
head of the Australian National Climate Centre, Craig Loehle, Nat’l Council for
Air and Stream Improvement, Antony Lupo, U. of Missouri, Ross McKitrick, U. of
Guelph, Canada, Kevin Murphy, U. of Chicago, Joanne Nova, Author, the Skeptics
Handbook, Jim O’Brien, Florida State, Benny Peiser, Liverpool John Moores
University, UK., ,Tom Segalstad, Univ. of Oslo, Norway, George Taylor, Oregon
State Univ., jan Veizer, U. of Ottawa, Canada, and Anthony Watts of
www.surfacestations.org. About the
only consensus I see is that the scientific community does not buy into Al Gore’s global warming circus.
Czech
President Vaclav Klaus, hero of the Czechoslovakian Velvet Revolution against
communism, and whose country held the rotating presidency of the European Union
in the past, stated “I don't think that
there is any global warming,…I don't see the statistical data for that"
and added "Environmentalism and the global warming alarmism is challenging
our freedom…."[2] Klaus
also notes that, just like the communists under whom he was imprisoned, global
warming alarmists won’t listen to the other side, and that the warmers really
only have one goal in mind, stating It is evident
that the environmentalists don't want to change the climate," he said.
"They want to change our behavior...to control and manipulate us”… and
adding that “The environmentalists speak about saving the planet. We have to
ask -- From what? And from whom?" think I know [those answers] for sure.
We have to save the planet, and us, from them."[3]
Klaus also noted that “there is no fixed
and stable relationship between measured temperature and CO2 emissions, and
that global warming politicians have “succeeded in creating incentives which
led to the rise of a very powerful [profit] seeking group,” where “These people
are interested in either temperature, CO2, competing scientific hypotheses and
their testing, nor in freedom or markets. They are interested in their business
and their profits – made with the help of politicians,” which profit is to be made by trading
licenses to emit carbon dioxide and constructing unproductive alternative
energy industries that can only generate electricity with a lot of tax dollar
support. [4]
Finally, Lawrence Solomon, columnist for the Canadian
National Post, has a collection of interviews with many of the world’s most
prominent scientists who oppose global warming in The Deniers.
Yet another
scientist calling Gore’s bluff is Bob Carter, of the Marine Geophysical
Laboratory, James Cook Univ., Australia, who noted that “the northern
temperature index attained its highest values in the early 15th C.,
and that the 20th C. warming cycle has so far only equaled the
secondary warm peak that occurred late in the 15th C.” Carter does
not pull his punches about Gore’s junk science: “The man is an embarrassment to
U.S. science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel
unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk
science.” Further, as Dr. Philip Stott, professor of biogeography at Univ. of
London, notes, in the scientific method does not progress by consensus, even if
Gore had one, which he does not. [5]
For example, 100 years ago, 95% of scientists believed in eugenics, which is
not the case today. Rather the scientific method advances by falsification and
paradigm shifts. The Ph.Ds speaking out
above are just a tiny fraction of the scientists speaking out against Al Gore
and his global warming circus, as you will see below. [6] Meanwhile,
if Al Gore is claiming a “consensus,” why relatively few other Americans agree
with him, as shown below from a poll reported in an April, 2009 Agora email? By
Al Gore’s logic, if the below is true, shouldn’t be abandon global warming
precisely because there is no
consensus, as seen here?
[1] Mr. Theon also noted
the reliance on computer models is woefully lacking, Theon declared “climate
models are useless.” “My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is
that the models do not realistically simulate the climate system because there
are many very important sub-grid scale processes that the models either
replicate poorly or completely omit,” Theon explained. “Furthermore, some
scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results. In doing
so, they neither explain what they have modified in the observations, nor
explain how they did it. They have resisted making their work transparent so
that it can be replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly
contrary to how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification
for using climate model forecasts to determine public policy,”
he added.
[2]
http://www.newsmax.com/insidec...
[3]
http://www.onenewsnow.com/Cult...
[4] From
NewsMax.com email,
15 March, 2009. Other comments from Klaus at the Second International
Conference on Climate Change last week in New York, March, 2009: “The believers
in this hypothesis are not able to explain why the global temperature increased
from 1918 to 1940, decreased from 1940 to 1976, increased from 1976 to 1998 and
decreased from 1998 to the present, irrespective of the fact that people have
been adding increasing amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere”; The global warming
debate “has not made any detectable progress and the much needed, long overdue
exchange of views has not yet started. All we see and hear are uninspiring
monologues”; and “It reminds me of the frustration people like me felt in the
Communist era. Whatever you said, any convincing and well prepared arguments
you used, any relevant data you assembled — no reaction. It all fell into
emptiness. Nobody listened. “They didn't even try to argue back. They
considered you a naive, uninformed and confused person, an eccentric, a
complainer, someone not able to accept their only truth. It is very similar
now.”
[5] A list of 400 prominent
scientists across the world who don’t agree with anthropogenic global warming
may be found at
http://epw.senate.gov/public/i....
Perhaps Mr. Gore ought to take a glance at this link. This is in contrast to
the non-scientist, Barack Obama, who has stated there are few challenges “more
urgent than combating climate change”
http://www.boston.com/news/pol...
[6] Speaking of facts, Al
Gore didn’t even get the facts on his summer, 2007 Live Earth concert right. He
was quoted as saying “Live Earth is officially the largest global entertainment
event in history,” while in fact Nielsen reported Live Earth on July 7, 2007
averaged 2.7 million viewers, putting it behind America’s Funniest Home Videos
and putting the broadcaster, NBC, dead last among the four major U.S. TV
networks for that time slot (World Magazine, p. 10, July 21, 2007)
UK http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetec…
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/06/acid-oceans-why-should-we-care.html
http://youtu.be/Xzw1dZNWiL8
Stock.. have you seen it yet?
http://youtu.be/eIZTMVNBjc4
NOTE ABOVE IS TRAILER ONLY
Arctic Ice Coverage Has Dropped 40 Percent, Arctic Amplification Effect Taking Hold; via @AGreenRoad
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2013/12/arctic-ice-coverage-has-dropped-40.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Another article from an ENENEWSer
A moneymaker that fell through due to the facts: ice is NOT melting at the rate HOPED for by those intending to profit from it.When mainstrem media & corporate mouthpieces like the UN & all the think tanks try to confuse you on a topic, know in your heart that it is entirely a scam. The energy companies, mining companies as well as those companies that meant to profit by making the necessary equipment needed to traverse the Arctic are now admitting that ice is increasing there not decreasing. And only admitting it becasue they lost their new moneymaker. They helped spread the news that ice was melting in order to convince mining & energy companies et al to invest in the Arctic. It was a sales pitch noting more.
"Predictions of increased ship traffic in the wake of diminished Arctic sea ice Arctic waters may have been premature, said Malte Humpert, executive director of the Arctic Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank.
"I think 2014 kind of shows that development and Arctic shipping may be further off than we might have thought a few years ago, that the ice is not melting as quickly as previously predicted," Humpert said.
"More ice formed in 2014, and the nature of shipping changed."
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/business/ice-not-melting-fewer-ships-sailing-in-arctic-287613991.html