Archive for the ‘scientists’ Category

Gordon Fulks and an anatomy of denial.

Fulks holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago, Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research and although a minor commentator and ‘skeptical scientist’ of AGW he does follow a certain mode of operation.

Fulks writes opinion pieces for newspapers although they tend to be restricted to Oregon. They follow a set pattern

President Barack Obama’s “climate change” speech last month reiterated his assertions that the earth is warming dangerously, that human emissions of carbon dioxide are clearly responsible and that virtually all scientists agree with him. As 115 scientists from around the world told him several years ago: “With all due respect, Mr. President, that is not true.” One was Nobel laureate in physics Ivar Giaever, a Democrat. The president now calls those who dispute his hysteria the “Flat Earth Society.”

The conspiracy theory that AGW is a hoax or at the least a political vehicle is borne out in Fulks’ opinion pieces, and that the ‘consensus’ is challenged by hundreds of scientists- which includes himself.

Because the president knows that Congress and the American people will never support carbon reduction schemes that seriously harm our economy, he is pursuing a strategy involving rhetorical subterfuges while his Environmental Protection Agency quietly moves forward with regulations.

Consequently, 11 of us filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court recently asking it to overturn the EPA’s “endangerment finding” on carbon dioxide. This is the first time that the high court has been asked to consider purely scientific arguments rather than, for instance, the EPA’s failure to follow the recommendations of its inspector general.

We prove that the EPA’s “three lines of evidence” are fatally flawed, based on multiple robust data sets, not on “expert opinion” from those paid to support the president’s position. Honest data show no unusual warming in the latter half of the 20th century and none at all for the past 15 years, despite a slow increase in carbon dioxide. The “hot spot” that must exist in the tropical troposphere for the theory to work is missing. And the climate models, for which the taxpayer has paid so dearly, are epic failures. Without global warming, carbon dioxide is clearly “not guilty.” And hence the hysteria about extreme weather caused by carbon dioxide is likewise nonsense.

An Amicus Brief- ‘friend to the court’ is  information presented by experts to the court- in this case presented to challenge the EPA’s move to define CO2 as a pollutant. The amicus brief is available via the Heartland Institute– perhaps no surprise there and features ‘experts’ who are also Heartland Institute ‘experts’ including Joseph S. D’Aleo, Dr. Timothy F. Ball, Dr. Don J. Easterbrook et al. The legal challenge is a presentation of the usual skeptical arguments. No Hot Spot, AGW based on computer models that fail and current warming is not unprecedented.

As an expert ‘friend to the court’ Gordon Fulks is presenting himself as an expert in climate science. A search reveals that he has written two peered reviewed papers – his PhD thesis [1975] and Techniques for Remote Sensing of Ionospheric Electron Density from a Spacecraft- 1981 – as well as data from prior to 1981. There is a truism that university students upon seeking work are already out of date such is the speed that new information enters science, with a 30 year gap between research into atmospheric physics and today’s climate science it seems improbable that Gordon Fulks is an expert in climate science.

Gordon Fulks presents his full expert bio via his ‘expert’ status with the Oregon thinktank Cascade Policy Institute – a right leaning, free market lobby group with wider funding links to the right wing network of thinktanks. Gordon Fulks bio is in full here– some key sentences:

Dr. Fulks’s background is similar to that of scientists promoting AGW with notable exceptions: he has never accepted ANY money to promote or oppose any theory because that is unethical, and he is considerably more experienced than most who have.

If he has not been doing research and writing peer-reviewed papers as scientists promoting AGW what has he been doing?

Dr. Fulks later worked for a think-tank in Santa Barbara, California, supporting the US Defense Nuclear Agency on nuclear weapon effects. When that agency faded away at the end of the Cold War, he supported the Department of State designing new embassies and working at the US Embassy in Moscow. More recently, he has consulted for business and government clients seeking to better understand electromagnetic phenomena, related scientific scares, and the concept of ‘acceptable risk.’

30 years on from doing research he now is a consultant-as well as writing op-eds for [at least two] regional newspapers. A background very dis-similar to research climate scientists. Part of his consultancy is presentations to ‘thinktanks’ including this piece for the Science and Public Policy Institute which is a dedicated climate denial group that draws frequently on the wisdom of Lord Monckton. In Fulks’ – Environmental Issues: What’s Real and What’s nonsense [pdf] Feb 2011- he presents a gish gallop of themes that condemn environmentalists for bio fuels and palm plantations and the destruction of rain forest, banning DDT and causing 40 million deaths [DDT became ineffective- was banned in developed countries but is used for malaria control to this day but let’s not allow facts to spoil a good polemic]- ozone depletion was natural and nothing to do with CFCs as indeed was acid rain.  All of which is a preamble to –

 brings us to the greatest environmental and scientific scam of our time: Global Warming.

With a brief mention to the letter signed by over a hundred scientists [including himself], presented as an advert by the Cato Institute to tell President  Obama how wrong he is about AGW the argument against AGW grinds to halt with ‘climategate emails’ and renewable energy.

More important, Climategate revealed that some scientists have been cheating in many different ways,
usually mixing a little truth with a whole lot of rubbish.
Because a detailed analysis is beyond what we have the time for today let me just say: Virtually
EVERYTHING Global Warming Alarmists say is wrong,  and NO ‘climate crisis’ exists.
Attempts to save the planet with bio-fuels, wind power, and solar cells are themselves substantial

To fully understand the expert opinion and detail of why Gordon Fulks believes AGW to be a hoax and scam requires reading a piece he did for the Australian No Carbon Tax Climate Sceptics Party during the August 2013 election season. After 20 or so classic denial talking points [including those cheating scientists exposed by ‘climategate’] he ends with-

Who denies that many prominent scientists oppose climate hysteria?

Gordon Fulks PhD who apparently takes no money for his opinion despite representing a couple of ‘thinktanks’ as an expert always leaves his email address with each publication- just in case, perhaps if one is being cynical, to able to accept any offer to get paid as an expert rather than doing it for free. Gordon Fulks has done little with his astrophysics PhD but is does notionally allow him to call himself an astrophysicist which he does on occasion.  Science has no political colour but scientists do and for conservative rightwing the threats and solutions to AGW can be seen as threats to the free market but the denial movement also offers a lucrative income for retired scientists especially if they can cite a PhD in a climate related subject.

The market for skeptical scientists to write op-eds, do speaking tours to the converted and making television appearances is crowded with several non scientists acting as a counter-point to Al Gore. However, Gordon Fulks PhD Astrophysicist has directed his passion in opposition to alternative energy, restrictions of the free market and the scam of AGW to defend those he thinks are victims of the dogma of Climate Change [Fulks is never shy in condemning the hysteria, hoax, religion or its high priests of ACC, especially the lying cheating ones featured in Climategate]

In an op-ed he “criticized Governor Kulongoski for forcing State Climatologist George Taylor out of his position at Oregon State University because he expressed doubts about Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)” although the facts differed in reality with George Taylor being the State University Climatologist, and the whole issue being a lot murkier. In June 2012 he championed chemist Nickolas Drapela, PhD who lost his job as a lecturer at Oregon State University because of his bizarre conspiracy laden views of AGW which he put into a slide show 4 years earlier [ yes it features Nazis and the new world order]. Despite his AGW denial his rolling contract lasted ten years and along with around 100 temporary contract staff he was laid off. The subplot appears to be the need of OSU as a research university to seek funding for research rather than lecturers.


Willie Soon

Willie Wei-Hock Soon (born 1966) is an astrophysicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics (SSP) Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Ph.D., Aerospace Engineering, University of Southern California (1991)

Soon has been at the forefront of contrarian views that have appeared both in his opinion and [unusually] in the papers he has authored.

“The evidence in my paper is consistent with the hypothesis that the Sun causes climatic change in the Arctic . . . It invalidates the hypothesis that CO2 is a major cause of observed climate change – and raises serious questions about the wisdom of imposing cap-and-trade or other policies that would cripple energy production and economic activity, in the name of ‘preventing catastrophic climate change’.”

From his Desmogblog entry.

Soon’s funding links for research with Exxon and Koch has courted controversy.

Willie Soon in his own words.

The Soon and Baliunas controversy – a review paper that set out to show natural warming and the MWP were not unusual. The study in Climate Research was in part underwritten by $53,000 from the American Petroleum Institute, the voice of the oil industry.

Following the Cook et al 2013 study suggesting 97% consensus concerning AGW Popular Technology website contacted ‘skeptics’ including Soon to demonstrate their work was mis – classified.

Soon: “I am sure that this rating of no position on AGW by CO2 is nowhere accurate nor correct. Rating our serious auditing paper from just a reading of the abstract or words contained in the title of the paper is surely a bad mistake. Specifically, anyone can easily read the statements in our paper as quoted below:

For example, Soon et al. (2001) found that the current generation of GCMs is unable to meaningfully calculate the effects that additional atmospheric carbon dioxide has on the climate. This is because of the uncertainty about the past and present climate and ignorance about relevant weather and climate processes.

Here is at least one of our positions on AGW by CO2: the main tool climate scientists used to confirm or reject their CO2-AGW hypothesis is largely not validated and hence has a very limited role for any diagnosis or even predicting real-world regional impacts for any changes in atmospheric CO2.

The paper in question – rated in the abstract as holding no opinion – reads.

Calls to list polar bears as a threatened species under the United States Endangered Species Act are based on forecasts of substantial long-term declines in their population. Nine government reports were written to help US Fish and Wildlife Service managers decide whether or not to list polar bears as a threatened species. We assessed these reports based on evidence-based (scientific) forecasting principles. None of the reports referred to sources of scientific forecasting methodology. Of the nine, Amstrup et al. [Amstrup, S. C., B. G. Marcot, D. C. Douglas. 2007. Forecasting the rangewide status of polar bears at selected times in the 21st century. Administrative Report, USGS Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK.] and Hunter et al. [Hunter, C. M., H. Caswell, M. C. Runge, S. C. Amstrup, E. V. Regehr, I. Stirling. 2007. Polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea II: Demography and population growth in relation to sea ice conditions. Administrative Report, USGS Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK.] were the most relevant to the listing decision, and we devoted our attention to them. Their forecasting procedures depended on a complex set of assumptions, including the erroneous assumption that general circulation models provide valid forecasts of summer sea ice in the regions that polar bears inhabit. Nevertheless, we audited their conditional forecasts of what would happen to the polar bear population assuming, as the authors did, that the extent of summer sea ice would decrease substantially during the coming decades. We found that Amstrup et al. properly applied 15 percent of relevant forecasting principles and Hunter et al. 10 percent. Averaging across the two papers, 46 percent of the principles were clearly contravened and 23 percent were apparently contravened. Consequently, their forecasts are unscientific and inconsequential to decision makers. We recommend that researchers apply all relevant principles properly when important public-policy decisions depend on their forecasts.

As to why an astrophysicist is able to write a paper on polar bear numbers is – in Soon’s own words-

“I don’t like to claim that I am an expert on anything, but I have enough knowledge about climate science and climate system to be able to write scientific papers and go to meetings and talk about monsoon systems and talk about any other things that you want to discuss about climate science issues. I’m as qualified as anybody that you know on this planet on this topic.”

A list of peer-reviewed papers that take a contrarian view of AGW are found here. It does not include the peculiar medical journal paper where he is the 3rd author to two physicians –

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (PDF 5.6m download of complete paper)
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, pp. 79-90, Fall 2007  Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie H. Soon

concluding with

There are no experimental data to support the hypothesis that increases in human hydrocarbon use or in atmospheric carbon dioxide and other green house gases are causing or can be expected to cause unfavorable changes in global temperatures, weather, or landscape. There is no reason to limit human production of CO2, CH4, and other minor greenhouse gases as has been proposed. We also need not worry about environmental calamities even if the current natural warming trend continues. The Earth has been much warmer during the past 3,000 years without catastrophic effects. Warmer weather extends growing seasons and generally improves the habitability of colder regions. As coal, oil, and natural gas are used to feed and lift from poverty vast numbers of people across the globe, more CO2 will be released into the atmosphere. This will help to maintain and improve the health, longevity, prosperity, and  productivity of all people. The United States and other countries need to produce more energy, not less. The most practical, economical, and environmentally sound methods available are hydrocarbon and nuclear technologies. Human use of coal, oil, and natural gas has not harmfully warmed the Earth, and the extrapolation of current trends shows that it will not do so in the foreseeable future. The CO2 produced does, however, accelerate the growth rates of plants and also permits plants to grow in drier regions. Animal life, which depends upon plants, also flourishes, and the diversity of plant and animal life is increased. Human activities are producing part of the rise in CO2 in the atmosphere. Mankind is moving the carbon in coal, oil, and natural gas from be low ground to the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living things. We are living in an increasingly lush environment of plants and animals as a result of this CO2 in crease. Our children will therefore enjoy an Earth with far more plant and animal life than that with which we now are blessed

As a peer-reviewed science paper it fails to be either novel or focused and is more an opinion piece with the usual denier talking points. It is also unusual for a scientist to put themselves in the firing line with such absolutes – other leading climate contrarians  may say one thing in public but don’t dare make such statements in their peer-reviewed work which is open to direct professional criticism. Soon’s latest studies have now extended into health and chemistry with newspaper opinion pieces-

SOON: Bad science behind Florida mercury phobia

Proposed rules could raise electricity costs while harming human health

Soon appears to be defending the coal electricity generating sector which is the main [non natural] source of mercury.




Qing-Bin Lu, Associate Professor Physics and Astronomy Department, University of Waterloo, Ontario

At Qing Bin Lu’s own webpage he offers this quote

“The younger participants in this Discussion should take note how vigorously science rejects novelty. This rejection mechanism is as necessary as the one that operates in living organisms; it prevents the birth of monsters. However, it has the additional effect of making us inherently conservative.” John C. Polanyi, Faraday Discuss., 1997, 108, page 467

Q B Lu is a man who offers a unique theory on global warming- it is manmade, it has been warming, it is not CO2 [that reached saturation some time ago, but it will start cooling because it is both solar activity and CFCs.

Dr. Lu’s newest paper “Cosmic-Ray-Driven Reaction and Greenhouse Effect of Halogenated Molecules: Culprits for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change” was published in International Journal of Modern Physics B Vol. 27 (2013) 1350073 (38 pages), available online at: ; an earlier version was published at .

So is Q B Lu a victim of an inherent conservative scientific community or simply suffering a Galileo Complex?

Qing-Bin Lu Revives Debunked Claims About Cosmic Rays and CFCs

A new paper by Qing-Bin Lu in the International Journal of Modern Physics B is gaining coverage for its claim that chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), not CO2, is causing global warming. This sensationalist headline is often repeated with little mention that Lu’s claims are not new, and have not held up to scientific scrutiny in the past. In fact, Lu has been promoting his theories about CFCs for years, and mainstream scientists have found no merit in them. Critics have said Lu makes a fundamental scientific error by confusing correlation with causation, and does not effectively challenge the physical evidence of the warming effects of CO2, a body of knowledge built up over 150 years.

For a detailed response to the criticism of the paper by QB Lu can be found here.

Peer reviewed paper dismissing the findings of QB Lu from his original version in 2011 [PDF]

Skeptical Science criticism  ending with the paragraph-

Frankly, the paper is a non-story.  It may seem like news due to the grandiose claims of overturning the vast body of scientific evidence supporting CO2-caused global warming, but it is very rare for a single paper to accomplish this type of feat.  More often the single paper claiming to overturn the body of established scientific research is wrong.  That is clearly the case for Lu (2013), which is based on assuming rather than proving the hypothesis, unphysical curve fitting, and misrepresenting the cited research.

Moreover, this study isn’t new.  It’s actually the third Lu has published about his CFC warming hypothesis.  The first two were addressed by RealClimate, two peer-reviewed published responses, Skeptical Science, and others.  Andrew Gilkson at The ConversationClimate Science Watch and Rabbett Run (here and here) are also good resources for debunking Lu’s latest effort.


Where did Q B Lu get his inspiration? CFCs and their replacements after the Montreal Protocol are GHGs and there was a sceptic theme some years ago that suggested the ozone hole was allowing more solar energy to enter the atmosphere. For a guide the Real Climate website did an article back in 2005  .  Curiously the concern about CFCs and the Ozone Hole and AGW ended up entwined in public opinion.

Smear tactics [from the BBC 2005]

All the delaying tactics, denials and obfuscations bring to mind what happened in 1974 to two American scientists, Professor Sherwood Rowland and Dr Mario Molina. They coolly set out the evidence that the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) used in refrigeration, aerosols and air conditioning were eating at the ozone layer which protects mankind and plants from dangerous ultraviolet radiation

They were at once smeared as scaremongers. The manufacturers ran an all too successful campaign to fog the issue. A lazy media bought into it. The public got bored and bamboozled. And as they did so, millions more tons of the pollutant were added to the atmosphere.

Thirteen years later when the world finally woke up to an ozone hole bigger than anyone had predicted, there was a swift international agreement – led by the US – to find alternatives to the CFCs. In the meantime, great damage had been done.

Frank Sherwood Rowland best-known work was the discovery that chlorofluorocarbons contribute to ozone depletion. Rowland theorized that man made organic compound gases combine with solar radiation and decompose in the stratosphere, releasing atoms of chlorine and chlorine monoxide that are individually able to destroy large numbers of ozone molecules. It was obvious that Frank had a good idea of what was occurring at higher altitudes when he stated “…I knew that such a molecule could not remain inert in the atmosphere forever, if only because solar photochemistry at high altitudes would break it down.”[4] Rowland’s research, first published in Nature magazine in 1974, initiated a scientific investigation of the problem. The National Academy of Sciences concurred with the findings in 1976 and in 1978 CFC-based aerosols were banned in the United States.

The Denial Industry [Real Climate]

In the public debate, many of the climate contrarians (such as Fred Singer) got their start denying that CFCs were affecting ozone, using many of the same arguments they now use about climate change (CFCs are heavier than air! it’s all the sun! the science is uncertain! the scientists are KGB agents! any controls will cause untold misery in the developing world!), and for much the same reasons. But through this all, Sherry Rowland strode tall (literally – he was 6 ft 5 in), and played a large role in debunking some of the wild claims (such as the idea that it was all volcanoes).

S. Fred Singer still at the forefront of denying the dangers of CFCs in 2010 with a Heartland Institute policy document.

Yet in spite of the hardships caused by the hasty phaseout of CFCs and other suspected ozone-depleting halocarbons, the EPA has never questioned the adequacy of the science that forms the basis for its phaseout policy. The facts are that the scientific underpinnings are quite shaky: the data are suspect; the statistical analyses are faulty; and the theory has not been validated (3,4). The science simply does not support this premature and abrupt removal of widely used chemicals — at great cost to the economy.

Duncan Wingham is sometimes wrongly claimed to be a AGW sceptic.

Dr. Wingham and three colleagues published an article in the journal of the Royal Society that casts further doubt on the notion that global warming is adversely affecting Antarctica. By studying satellite data from 1992 to 2003 that surveyed 85% of the East Antarctic ice sheet and 51% of the West Antarctic ice sheet (72% of the ice sheet covering the entire land mass), they discovered that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing at the rate of 5 millimetres per year (plus or minus 1 mm per year). That makes Antarctica a sink, not a source, of ocean water. According to their best estimates, Antarctica will “lower [authors’ italics] global sea levels by 0.08 mm” per year. [from a 2007 ‘Denier’ site]

From Wikipedia

In the 1990s, Wingham was involved in a four-year satellite study of the Antarctic ice sheet. His conclusion then, and from later research, is that the Antarctic has contributed little to observed rising sea levels in the 20thC. Paradoxically Wingham stated It is possible that the consequences of global warming on sea level rise have been underestimated. He expanded Other sources of rise must be underestimated. In particular it is possible that the effect of global warming on thermal expansion [on the oceans] is larger than we thought.[2]

In a 2005 interview Wingham stated Antarctic is to some extent insulated from global warming because to its north are zonal flows in the atmosphere and ocean, unimpeded by other landmasses…I am not denying global warming[3]

From the article quoted in Wikipedia

“I am not denying global warming. For instance, Greenland, in the northern hemisphere, does seem to be going. But Greenland’s ice cap – Greeland is quite far south – is a last survivor from the ice age and only its height protects it. The more that cap melts, the more it will continue to melt as it gets lower and warmer. But Antarctica is different. Even in the Arctic I am sceptical of some claims that 40 per cent of the sea ice has already vanished, and that what remains is drastically thinning.

“Sparse data from subs in some parts of the Arctic do seem to show a thinning trend, but our preliminary observations using satellite data point to large growth and decay from year to year and place to place, by as much a meter in just a few years. Here too natural variability is considerable. No one doubts that the ultimate fate of Arctic ice looks a grim one, but I believe we have too few data to be confident of how fast it will meet its fate.”

The article dates from 2005- a 2012 report that includes Duncan Wingham is less sceptical of alarmist claims of diminishing Arctic Ice.

Nir Joseph Shaviv (Hebrew: ניר יוסף שביב‎, born July 6, 1972) is an IsraeliAmericanphysics professor, carrying out research in the fields of astrophysics and climate science. He is currently an associate professor at the Racah Institute of Physics of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[1] He is also the head of the national coordinating council of faculty unions in Israel.

He is most well known for his solar and cosmic rays hypothesis of climate change.

From his Wikipedia entry

From an online article:

Dr. Shariv’s digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence — only speculation — that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change– the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming — is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC’s own findings, man’s role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man’s effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is “incriminating circumstantial evidence,” which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding “evidence of fingerprints.” Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, “without other ‘suspects.’ ” However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible “other suspects,” he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century’s warming.

“Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming,” he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that “it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist.”

The sun’s strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can’t have much of an influence on the climate — that C02 et al. don’t dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, “will not dramatically increase the global temperature,” Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant.”

The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% –sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth’s climate.

In another study, directly relevant to today’s climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth’s temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 — instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

“I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue.” His conclusion: “I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go.”

How do cosmic rays alter the climate?

According to WUWT and GWPF – “Henrik Svensmark’s hypothesis that most of the global warming of the 20th Century can be explained by the reduction in cosmic rays due to livelier solar activity, resulting in less low cloud cover and warmer surface temperatures”.

Jasper Kirkby of CERN and his 62 co-authors, from 17 institutes in Europe and the USA, announce big effects of pions from an accelerator, which simulate the cosmic rays and ionize the air in the experimental chamber. The pions strongly promote the formation of clusters of sulphuric acid and water molecules – aerosols of the kind that may grow into cloud condensation nuclei on which cloud droplets form. What’s more, there’s a very important clarification of the chemistry involved. [Aug 2011]

Nature who published the research balanced the findings.

It sounds like a conspiracy theory: ‘cosmic rays’ from deep space might be creating clouds in Earth’s atmosphere and changing the climate. Yet an experiment at CERN, Europe’s high-energy physics laboratory near Geneva, Switzerland, is finding tentative evidence for just that.

The findings, published today in Nature1, are preliminary, but they are stoking a long-running argument over the role of radiation from distant stars in altering the climate.

For a century, scientists have known that charged particles from space constantly bombard Earth. Known as cosmic rays, the particles are mostly protons blasted out of supernovae. As the protons crash through the planet’s atmosphere, they can ionize volatile compounds, causing them to condense into airborne droplets, or aerosols. Clouds might then build up around the droplets.

The number of cosmic rays that reach Earth depends on the Sun. When the Sun is emitting lots of radiation, its magnetic field shields the planet from cosmic rays. During periods of low solar activity, more cosmic rays reach Earth.

Scientists agree on these basic facts, but there is far less agreement on whether cosmic rays can have a large role in cloud formation and climate change. Since the late 1990s, some have suggested that when high solar activity lowers levels of cosmic rays, that in turn reduces cloud cover and warms the planet. Others say that there is no statistical evidence for such an effect.

Outside of the denial-sphere the cosmic-ray effect is considered tiny when compared to CO2. More detail on why cosmic rays are poor at seeding clouds can be found here.




Dr. Ole Humlum, Professor of Geosciences at the University of Oslo. PhD in Glacial Geomorphology [a combination of geography/geology] [Uni Copenhagen]

Ole Humlum has become the deniers expert for – CO2 increases are natural, and increased temperatures are just natural variations. Deniers may also cite that the last inter-glacial period was warmer, and that we are following a similar trend [which will ultimately lead to another ice age]. The message is don’t worry, it’s natural, the increased CO2 comes from the oceans, and humanity can carry on burning fossil fuels.

A full argument of Ole Humlum’s views can be found here at The Hockeyshtick blog.

Dr. Ole Humlum, Professor of Geosciences at the University of Oslo, has published a summary and reply to comments on his groundbreaking paper demonstrating why man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming. Dr. Humlum summarizes the main findings of his paper at a Norwegian website for geologists:
1. [Observations show] The temperature rise begins at sea level and spreads gradually to the land and atmosphere several months later. This is contrary to the IPCC CO2 hypothesis that atmospheric CO2 controls land and ocean temperature.
2. The geographical distribution of a CO2 increase doesn’t start at 30-50 degrees North latitude, which one would expect if the source were mainly created by the fossil fuel industry and transport in the Northern Hemisphere.  Instead, the increase of CO2 starts just south of the equator. This is contrary to the IPCC hypothesis that use of fossil fuels is the primary cause of increased CO2 levels.
Dr. Humlum notes that existing climate models are based on the improper assumption that CO2 controls temperature and have not provided skillful predictions so far. He concludes,

“One should therefore consider moving the focus of climate research from CO2 to the nature and significance of natural variation, both related to the sun and other [natural causes]. It is most likely where we will find the main reason for the present (and future) climate change.”

An English translation of his paper is here.

The signature graph frequently reposted is below.

Skeptical Science questions some of the honesty of the graphs here.  And here they correct the graphs.

making it look like this [the Greenland temperature is 2c greater]

and with a correction to the CO2 levels looking like this

Ole Humlum runs the blog Climate4you which mixes climate data from a number of sources with his own graphs.

As for CO2 increases being natural – information is available here. Text from NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory.

 How do we know that humans are responsible?

The evidence for a dominating human role in the CO2 increase is extremely strong. The 38% increase (in 2009) in atmospheric CO2 observed since pre-industrial times cannot be explained by natural causes. CO2 levels in the atmosphere have varied naturally throughout Earth’s history. However, CO2 levels are now higher than any seen in the past 800,000 years. When we add the observed CO2 increase in the atmosphere to the observed increase in the oceans, the sum is approximately equal to all of the coal, oil, and natural gas burned since the 19th century. Furthermore, the observed progressive depletion in carbon-13 (see the question below about isotopes) shows that the source of the CO2 is either fossil fuels or deforestation because both produce CO2 depleted in carbon-13. The atmospheric CO2 increase cannot have come from the oceans because that would not have caused any depletion of carbon-13. In fact, carbon in the oceans has itself become gradually depleted in carbon-13, with the greatest depletion at the surface. That implies that the signal is imposed from the atmosphere. The next piece of evidence is that we also observe a depletion of radioactive carbon-14 in the atmosphere and oceans, with the strongest signal in the atmosphere suggesting it is the place where the depletion originates. Fossil fuels contain no carbon-14, and their combustion produces CO2 without carbon-14. Deforestation does not cause a change in atmospheric carbon-14. Finally, the annual mean CO2 abundance in the northern hemisphere is higher than in the southern hemisphere, and more so in recent years compared to the early years of atmospheric CO2 measurements. This suggests a growing source of CO2 in the northern hemisphere, which is in fact where most of the fossil fuel burning takes place.

Dr Charles Wax past president of the American Association of State Climatologists. Currently professor of Geography and Climatology at Mississippi State University and has written peer reviewed papers.

“First off, there isn’t a consensus among scientists. Don’t let anybody tell you there is.”

Watch this video – ‘climate change is a good thing from the standpoint of us’

Global climate change may have little or nothing to do with mankind’s burning of fossil fuels and a lot to do with sunspot cycles and other natural phenomena that aren’t affected by greenhouse gases

[Wax] says variations in climate — often in only a few years — represent “much more of a threat than global warming of the magnitude we’re seeing.” For example, he notes, in 2007 Mississippi rainfall totaled only 34 inches for the entire year, and farmers faced severe drought conditions. “Yet, two years later in 2009, rainfall totaled 86.11 inches — two very different scenarios within just a very brief time span. A two-degree variation in average annual temperature by 2029, which some computer models are forecasting, isn’t that critical to our farmers, but a 50-inch variation in rainfall is.  []

Despite Charles Wax’s qualifications he should read up on why the sun isn’t anything to do with current warming, why 2c is a serious increase in global temperature and why climate change is likely to increase extremes.

Quote by Dennis Hollars, from the Senate Minority Report which contains hundreds, thousands of statements by scientists dissenting from the consensus.

Astrophysicist Dr. Dennis Hollars dissented from man-made climate fears in 2008.
“What I’d do with the IPCC report is to put it in the trash can because that’s all it’s worth,”
Hollars, who holds a doctorate in astrophysics from New Mexico State University, said.
According to a November 20, 2008, article Hollars added that “carbon dioxide was an
insignificant component of the earth’s atmosphere and that, rather than being the purveyor
of doom it is currently viewed as today, it is needed in order for plants to grow.” “Mars’
atmosphere is about 95 percent CO2 and has no global warming,” Hollars stated. Hollars
previously declared “man made global warming is basically flawed science at this point.
We do not have sufficient temperature data to even decide if there is a planetary scale
warming, let alone what the cause might be. In the ’70s it was global cooling that was the
scare – by many of the same people who are pushing warming now, using models that are
not even close to reality.”

‘”Mars’ atmosphere is about 95 percent CO2 and has no global warming,” Hollars stated’. This makes a refreshing change to the denial meme that ‘other planets are warming’ however as an Astrophysicist he really should know better than to make gaffs about Mars’ climate as it far less dense than Earth’s and has a minuscule amount of water vapour. And that old meme that ‘[in the] 70s it was all about global cooling’ has been so thoroughly debunked you wonder if deniers actually read the science.  Perhaps next time he gets a copy of the IPCC report he should read it. Dennis has been known to debate the issue of climate change so next time be sure to question his knowledge on some of his key points

Dennis Hollars is sensible enough to invest and work on a green future with solar panels he co-founded and runs Nuvosun- Company description

Dennis and Dave have been together for more than twenty years when Dave hired Dennis out of Lockheed in 1987 to develop the world’s largest throughput disk sputtering system while at Domain Technology. These systems where in use for 18 years at Seagate Technology where three vacuum systems produce more than 70 million hard disks per year. Dr. Hollars was Mr. Pearce’s CTO at OptCom, SciVac, and MiaSolé. Dr. Hollars earned a Ph.D. in Astrophysics from New Mexico State University; a Master of Science in Astrophysics from the University of Arizona; and a Bachelor of Science, Basic Science, USAF Academy. Dr. Hollars is the inventor of numerous sputtering processes and hardware. Over the past five years, Dr. Hollars has become a recognized technical expert in the field of CIGS thin-films

Prof Myron Wyn Evans is another Moncktonesque character although does have a Ph.D and Sc.D

A climate denialist who is a member of the pseudo science e-journal Principia Scientific International which produces a number of time wasting ‘science’ papers that claim CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. They also republished a 1970s paper that claims the sun has a neutron star rattling around inside -‘Iron Sun’ theory.

from his bio on Principia-

“In 2005 Professor Evans was appointed by the Crown and Parliament as Civil List Pensioner in recognition of distinguished service to Great Britain and the Commonwealth in science. He is a Civil List Scientist on the advice of the Prime Minister and is the only “pure chemist” ever to have been appointed to the List. Originator of the Einstein – Cartan – Evans (ECE) Unified Field Theory, the simplest and most complete theory to date which unites General Relativity with Quantum Mechanics using just 4 dimensions. His work on ECE is published in “Foundations of Physics Letters”, a leading journal in the fundamentals of physics.Professor Evans is Founder and Director of the Alpha Foundation’s Institute for Advanced Study (AIAS) and Nominee for a Nobel Science Prize. He has also been granted Letters Patent of Garter and Clarenceux Kings of Arms. “

Prof Atkins set up an  online petition       

We, the undersigned, call upon the Royal Society to withdraw any support or advice which may have led the monarch to award a Civil List pension to a scientist who persists in bringing that award and its symbolic meaning into disrepute, and indeed to press for the forfeiture of said award.

Behaviours deemed to bring such disrepute might include: promotion of known frauds such as ‘perpetual motion’, illegal promotion of quack cancer ‘cures’, the blatant misrepresentation of current scientific understanding and the misuse of legal means to suppress legitimate scientific criticism.

“promotion of known frauds such as ‘perpetual motion’………blatant misrepresentation of current scientific understanding…”  His self publicising website and ‘Institute’ found here promotes Myron Wyn Evans’ own Einstein Cartan Evans (ECE) theory, ECE would be useful as it would be a fabulous source of ‘free- um- perpetual’  energy. Associated websites describes a range of products being manufactured by the Alex Hill group for new energy, energy savings, counter gravitation, anti friction devices and so on. TheSearlSolutionWebsite of John Searl developing a magnetic machine that “structures” ambient energy into useable power.  They are well on the way to producing a production prototype designed to produce power on a useable scale. The ECE theory reminds me of a central of a plot by the ‘science’ fiction [fiction written by a scientist] Bill Napier- Revelation [2000- quite a few years before Evans’ theory]. (Evans’ self promoting web site is listed and there is only 1 scientist on the Civil List Pension out of 24)

Wikipedia has an entry for ECE which highlights the published theory in Physics Letters was criticised and the journal disassociated it self from it.  Those interested can read this website where someone tells him just how wrong his equations are.

As for climate change – it one big conspiracy, this from his blog that mainly deals with self publicity, & self importance [he was nominated for a Nobel prize- except it was supposed be kept quiet, and we can’t check as only the names of nominees upto 1956 are available] and how important ECE is/will be etc.

Evans opinion of climate science is occasional and found on his blog. his interest in the denier publisher Principia seems to be due to the lack of credibility of his ECE theory.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Thanks to Ioan ap Trefor , sometime Deputy Mayor of Swansea, for this document, which reveals the corruption inside IPCC. The climate is always changing, and I refer readers to the Norman Page blog in Texas for a scientific analysis of it. The Nobel Prize to Al Gore and IPCC was a mistake, and is not recognized by scientists. The experimental data give no support to the failed theory of global warming. In Wales this failed theory is used to eat up the environment. The People of Mawr recently threw out a wind turbine proposal, indicating to the whole of Wales that it should follow. Apathy is the greatest danger, if a determined and organized democratic resistance appears, combined with legal skills, the cynical, greed ridden multinationals will be defeated. I don’t care whether I am an “official” or “unofficial” advisor, I just advise, and these are scientific views which are listened to all over the world. We know this by seven years of daily monitoring of feedback, regularly summarized in an overview file on the blog or home page. Government departments all over the world regularly view the site, as well as all good universities.

Evans Glyn Eithrym
Civil List Pensioner

More from Myron wyn Evans at his blog

Wikipedia has an entry for his ECE theory that debunks it.

Ferenc Miskolczi

Ferenc Miskolczi

Brilliant theoretical Astrophysicist Ferenc Miskolczi dicovered [sic] that the Earth’s greenhouse is a self regulating system which balances the effects of the gases and vapours within it.

His second paper was withdrawn from publication when his boss at NASA logged in to Ferenc’s PC using Ferenc’s credentials and withdrew the paper.

When deniers mention that GHG theory is entirely wrong and that, in fact increased CO2 cancels out the GHG properties of water vapour thus creating a natural balance you know they have latched on to Ferenc Miskolczi’s theory. Other clues are the use of terms like ‘black body’ ‘thermo dynamics’ and various laws of physics. The usual argument goes something like this- [randomly trawled from the internet]


Anybody who thinks there is significant CO2 contribution to the GHE via atmospheric warming demonstrates extreme scientific ignorance. Firstly most of the surface IR emission in the CO2-GHG band is switched off. Secondly, CO2 self-absorbs from ~200 ppmv so its absorptivity plateaus [below the AGW point]. Thirdly, the Law of Equipartition of Energy at Local Thermodynamic Equilibrium coupled with Gibbs’ Principle of Indistinguishability means that an incoming photon absorbed in a local volume cannot, as claimed by climate science, specifically Ramanathan, be converted to kinetic energy in the average time needed for it to be re-emitted.

This is the most childish of climate science’s mistakes. Gibbs principle is that in a thermodynamic system, there is no memory. What really happens is that the concentration of activated CO2 molecules is set by the temperature through the bidirectional transfer of that energy to N2/O2 kinetic energy but is constant on average.

Therefore, the incoming photon energy is lost by an already thermally activated molecule instantly ejecting a similar photon out of that volume, restoring LTE. These peripatetic energy packets diffuse to heterogeneities such as clouds and bare aerosols to be thermalised, much into grey body radiation, to space or back to the surface. The atmospheric window grey IR from the tops of clouds is a cooling process.

blah blah blah….

See what they have just done?- randomly assemble some technical terminology that appears to be clever.  The really clever ones throw in a few equations and who could possibly argue with that? It is the favourite denial argument of engineers as it appears to have a hint of science attached to the denial. So by default the claim is that CO2 is a GHG, there is an increase in CO2 caused by burning fossil fuels, that Earth has a natural balancing process leading to a small increase in temperature, but everything will be fine and 100 years of science is entirely wrong.

How it started-

Miskolczi, Ferenc M. 2007. “Greenhouse Effect in Semi-Transparent Planetary Atmospheres.” Időjárás 111, 1-40 (pdf)


In his own words- taken from this website.

No one is denying that global warming has taken place, but it has nothing to do with the greenhouse effect or the burning of fossil fuels.

Are man-made CO2 emissions the cause of global warming?-Apparently not. According to my research, increases in CO2 levels have not increased the global-average absorbing power of the atmosphere.

 Where does the traditional greenhouse theory make its fundamental mistake? The conventional greenhouse theory does not consider the newly discovered physical relationships involving infrared radiative fluxes. These relationships pose strong energetic constraints on an equilibrium system.
Why has this error escaped notice until now? Nobody thought that a 100-year-old theory could be wrong. The original greenhouse formula, developed by an astrophysicist, applies only to the stars, not to finite, semi-transparent planetary atmospheres. New equations had to be formulated.
According your theory, the greenhouse effect is self-regulating and stabilizes itself in response to rising CO2 levels. You identified (perhaps discovered) a “greenhouse constant” that keeps the greenhouse effect in equilibrium.  Is that a fair assessment of your theory? Yes. Our atmosphere, with its infinite degree of freedom, is able to maintain its global average infrared absorption at an optimal level. In technical terms, this “greenhouse constant” is the total infrared optical thickness of the atmosphere, and its theoretical value is 1.87. Despite the 30 per cent increase of CO2 in the last 61 years, this value has not changed. The atmosphere is not increasing its absorption power as was predicted by the IPCC.
Have your mathematical equations been challenged or disproved? Dr. Miskolczi: No.

If your theory stands up to scientific scrutiny, it would collapse the CO2 global warming doctrine and render meaningless its predictions of climate catastrophe. Given its significance, why has your theory been met with silence and, in some instances, dismissal and derision?  I can only guess. First of all, nobody likes to admit mistakes. Second, somebody has to explain to the taxpayers why millions of dollars were spent on AGW research. Third, some people are making a lot of money from the carbon trade and energy taxes.

 A huge industry has arisen out of the study and prevention of man-made global warming. Has the world been fooled?
Dr. Miskolczi:Thanks to censored science and the complicity of the mainstream media, yes, totally.
As for he conspiracy Dr Miskolczi [co author Miklos Zagoni] explains

January 03- Another Scientist Silenced The deft hand of the socialism hasn’t really left us, as the following note received via email shows.

Why Dr Ferenc Miskolczi and Dr Miklos Zagoni have been put under pressure to be silent about Miskolczi`s research concerning the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect.

In 2004 Dr Ferenc Miskolczi published a paper ’The greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of the clear-sky terrestrial radiation’, in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service (Vol. 108, No. 4, October–December 2004, pp. 209–251.).

The co-author of the article was his boss at NASA (Martin Mlynczak). Mlynczak put his name to the paper but did no work on it. He thought that it was an important paper, but only in a technical way.

When Miskolczi later informed the group at NASA there that he had more important results, they finally understood the whole story, and tried to withhold Miskolczi’s further material from publication. His boss for example, sat at Ferenc’s computer, logged in with Ferenc`s password, and canceled a recently submitted paper from a high-reputation journal as if Ferenc had withdrawn it himself. That was the reason that Ferenc finally resigned from his ($US 90.000 /year) job.

I want to make it clear: NASA never falsified or even tried to falsify Ferenc`s results, on the contrary, they fully understand it. They know that it is correct and see how important it is. To make sense of their actions, they probably see a national security issue in it. Perhaps they think that AGW is the only way to stop, or to slow, the coal-based growth of China.

In my circumstance where I have been dismissed from my Government paid position in Hungary, I think the information vacuum (in Hungary), has the same type of origin. I believe someone is in the background trying to convince the establishment (media, science, politics) that Miskolczi’s results are against our national security interests. First, they tried to frighten me, and then when that did not work, they kicked me out from my job. So now I am turning to the wider internet to publicise Miskolczi`s work, as I know that his results are valid and true. There is no way and no need to hold them back for the world to understand them.

Tomorrow, for the first time in my life, I am jobless.
Budapest, 31 Dec, 2009

Dr Miklos Zagoni

From the ‘thinktank’ ICSC register of skeptic scientists – Ferenc Mark Miskolczi, PhD, atmospheric physicist, formerly of NASA’s Langley Research Centre, (in his 2010 paper, Dr. Miskolczi writes, “The data negate increase in CO2 in the atmosphere as a hypothetical cause for the apparently observed global warming. A hypothesis of significant positive feedback by water vapor effect on atmospheric infrared absorption is also negated by the observed measurements. Apparently major revision of the physics underlying the greenhouse effect is needed.”), Hampton, Virginia, U.S.A.
from his linkedin page- an independent research professional now.
His full bio and complete list of peer reviewed papers is not available.

His Theory

His theory, despite being a peer-reviewed, ground breaking, theory changing yada yada yada- has met with little enthusiasm by mainstream physicists [who are in on the grand AGW hoax, so they would dismiss his findings].

Van Dorland, R and Forster, P, 2010, Rebuttal of Miskolczi’s alternative greenhouse theory (Layperson summary)

Science of Doom, April-May 2011:

From Realclimate

However Roy Spencer the leading skeptic is not that convinced either: a rather long review of the theory on his website concludes:-

I have not yet seen any compelling evidence that there exists a major flaw in the theory explaining the basic operation of the Earth’s natural Greenhouse Effect.

I would love for there to be one. But I don’t see it yet.

The post is followed up by hundreds of deniers desperate to get Roy to look again and join them in their straw clutching.

The blogger Tallbloke who played a role in the Climategate email affair is a particular fan of Miskolczi.