Friday, September 18, 2009


James H. Rust [] writes: "Herewith is an essay I have been thinking of writing for years because of the unprovoked name calling by climate alarmists:

Aryan Physics Revisited: A Comparison of 1930s German Physics and Global Warming Science Today

By James H. Rust, Professor of Nuclear Engineering (ret.)

For more than a quarter century controversy has embroiled the scientific community over whether carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas formed from burning fossil fuels, is causing increased global temperatures with catastrophic consequences. This is also called anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Many supporters of AGW are adamant in their views and refuse to acknowledge the existence of scientists or the science that refutes their views. Some advocates could be described as self-assured, arrogant, and using unflattering terms to describe those who disagree with them.

The possible threat of AGW spawned research funds from the United States government to study climate science. An excellent paper by Joanne Nova titled "Climate Money" traces the way money was spent from 1989 to 2008 in the amount of $79 billion. Research supporting AGW was able to generate more money; so the financing system fed upon itself. If initial research proved AGW did not exist, future funding would have ceased. Yet to be reported, the United States economic stimulus funds for 2009 will allocate billions of dollars spent in anticipation of AGW.

Advocates of AGW have had much media attention so many have become household names. Five names are Dr. John Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology; Dr. James Hansen, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies; Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore, former United States Senator and Vice President; Nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman; and journalist Ellen Goodman.

Doctor Holdren co-authored a book Ecoscience: Population, Resources, Environment in 1977 with Paul and Anne Ehrlich. This book describes means of population control of forced abortions, sterilizations, babies seized from single or teen mothers, etc. During Dr. Holdren's confirmation hearing before the United States Senate in 2009, it was pointed out he had predicted in 1986 one billions deaths due to AGW by 2020. The question today about Dr. Holdren's prediction is whether one hundred million will die annually for the next decade or will one billion die during 2019.

Dr. Hansen is a strong advocate for AGW testifying to this effect before the United States Senate in 1988. Recently, Dr. Hansen called for CEOs of fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for "high crimes against humanity and nature". He testified in the defense of six British conservationists who vandalized a new coal power plant under construction.

The attitudes of Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore are well summarized by an article by John Dendahl "Nobel Peace Laureate Al Gore is a Threat to Peace". Nobel Prize Winner Gore made the statement years ago "the science is settled" on AGW. MIT Professor Richard Lindzen wrote an article in the April 12, 2006 Wall Street Journal titled "Climate of Fear". In this article Prof. Lindzen wrote that Senator Gore in 1992 tried to bully dissenting scientists to agree with his climate alarmism. Later Vice President Gore tried to enlist Ted Koppel in a witch hunt to discredit anti-alarmist scientists.

Nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman wrote in the June 29, 2009 New York Times his feeling about the June 26, 2009 debate on the Waxman-Markey Bill - "And as I watched the deniers make their argument, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason-treason against the planet."

Journalist and AGW expert Ellen Goodman wrote "Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers."

To illustrate uncivil behavior by AGW advocates is not confined to the United States; a June 16, 2009 meeting between Australian Senator James Fielding, Australian government AGW proponents, and four independent climate scientists is reported by Dr. David Evans.

Senator Fielding and four independent climate scientists met with the Minister for Climate Change Peggy Wong, Chief Climate Scientist Penny Sackett and Professor Will Steffen to discuss current science on AGW. The government scientists were aloof, self-assured, and created an aura of intimidation. They made no eye contact or shook hands at the end of the meeting.

In another vein, President of the British Science Association, Lord Robert May of Oxford, addressed his association and said faith groups could lead in the policing of human behavior. In a plea to enforce climate change, Lord May said, "How better it is if the punisher is an all-powerful, all-seeing deity."

After WWI, a movement was started to promote accomplishments of German physicists which soon took on racial aspects because these accomplishments were restricted to Aryan or German physicists. Thousands joined this movement and notable members where Nobel Prize Winners Johannes Stark and Philipp Lenard. Naturally, Aryan Physics excluded the works of Jewish scientists; most famous being Albert Einstein.

Many physicists, including Stark and Lenard, joined and became active members of the National Socialist Party. This provided a perfect match with National Socialists views on race. They saw that the works of Jewish scientists were stricken from textbooks, papers could not be published in scientific journals, research funds denied, and finally by the mid 1930s, employment with universities or research institutions terminated. Jewish science was ignored. Supporters of Aryan Physics could be described as self-assured, arrogant, and using unflattering names to describe Jewish scientists. This author strongly states this essay does not imply any connection of advocates for Aryan Physics to the atrocities committed by advocates of National Socialism.

Finally Aryan Physics fell apart because it was recognized that the Secrets of the Universe could not be unlocked without use of Einstein's Theories. For the record, Nobel Prize Winner Stark was jailed for four years after WWII.

A link between National Socialism and Conservatism movements was reported by German historian Uekoetter's The Green and the Brown: a History of Conservation in Nazi Germany published by Cambridge Press in 2006. A detailed review of this book was written by William Walter Kay. Conservation movements started in Germany in the late nineteenth century and found easy mixing with National Socialism with their members having memberships in their local groups and the National Socialist Party. Millions of trees were planted in the name of Adolf Hitler.

The behavior of many AGW advocates is remarkably similar to that of supporters of Aryan Physics in 1930s Germany. They ignore entreaties of scientists who disagree with them. They attempt to stifle publications of research papers, obstruct funds for research that challenges AGW, and refuse public debate on the science of AGW.

It is ironic that scientists who question AGW are placed in a similar position as Jewish scientists in 1930s Germany. Their fate is most certainly not as grim. Labelling those who question AGW as deniers implying they deny the Holocaust is immoral.

The mixing of science with forces (such as politics, religion, or advocacy groups) contrary to scientific principles of postulating theories and then using observations to prove or disprove theories have been around since the birth of human thought. Noteworthy is Galileo Galilei being found vehemently suspect of heresy and forced to recant his belief the sun was the center of the solar system instead of the earth in 1634. This setback may have slowed development of astronomy; but did not seriously alter world's history.

Germany's experience with Aryan Physics may have cost them, and indirectly Japan, greater harm from WWII. Without Jewish physicists, the Germans were years away from developing an atomic bomb. The scientists who fled Europe in the 1930s insured the United States would successfully develop an atomic bomb in time to force a conclusion to WWII.

Subscribing to AGW may produce a large global impact if nations decide to alter means of energy production because of a perceived belief in catastrophic events due to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide. The proposal to reduce the world's production of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels in 2050 to fifty percent of the level of 1990 will have negligible impact on global warming or any other climate change. Great economic damage will be done to the earth's inhabitants with energy shortages and vastly higher energy costs. Undeveloped nations will be doomed to maintaining the same lifestyles as years in the past. All will suffer except those who trade in energy credits and produce alternative energy sources.

Much has been written about the science of climate change and the influence of carbon dioxide. A recent 2009 book Climate Change Reconsidered--The Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change contains numerous references as current as 2009. The futility of trying to restructure the United States energy production from fossil fuels to alternative energy sources by 2050 is well described by Donn Dears in his 2009 book Carbon Folly.

A vast amount of material is available to support the thesis of a similarity between militant advocates of Aryan Physics and AGW. Internet reference were given for this essay and those willing to check these references and use available links can have months of reading.

Arctic ice melt third-largest on record

I suppose I should say something about the nonsense below. Assuming that the figures given are accurate and not "massaged" (which is by no means certain given chronic Warmist secrecy about their raw data), how does the report jibe with the COOLING in central Greenland? Easy. Central Greenland is on land. The report below concerns floating ice. And it is known that ocean currents and sub-surface vulcanism affect sea-ice extent. So it is clearly influences such as those which are at work in the data below: NOT "global warming". The fact that there has in fact been no global warming for the last 10 years renders that conclusion a certainty. NOTE: The subarctic Gakkel ridge mapped below is the most active volcanic region known on earth. You'd melt if you had a volcano under you too -- JR

The Arctic's sea ice pack thawed to its third-lowest summer level on record, continuing an overall decline symptomatic of climate change, US scientists said. The melt was up slightly from the seasonal melt of the past two years, but still some 20 per cent below the minmum cover for the Arctic summer since satellites began measuring it in 1979.

The range of ocean remaining frozen over the northern polar region reached its minimum extent for 2009 on September 12, when it covered 5.1 million square km, and now appeared to be growing again as the Arctic starts its annual cool-down, the National Snow and Ice Data Center reported. That level was 24 per cent less than the 1979-2000 average, the Colorado-based government agency said.

This summer's minimum represented a loss about about two-thirds of the sea ice measured at the height of Arctic winter in March. By comparison, the Arctic ice shelf typically shrank by a little more than half each summer during the 1980s and 1990s, ice scientist Walt Meier said. The lowest point on record was reached in September 2007 and the 2009 minimum ranks as the third-smallest behind last year's level.

But scientists said they do not consider the slight upward fluctuation again this summer to be a recovery. The difference was attributed to relatively cooler temperatures this summer compared with the two previous years. Winds also tended to disperse the ice pack over a larger region, scientists said. "The long-term decline in summer extent is expected to continue in future years," the report said.

Scientists regard the Arctic and its sea ice as among the most sensitive barometers of global warming because even small temperature changes made a huge difference. "If you go from a degree below freezing to two degrees above freezing, that's a completely different environment in the polar region," Mr Meier said. "You're going from ice skating to swimming. Whereas if you're on a tropical beach and it's three degrees warmer, you probably wouldn't even notice it."

World leaders will meet at the United Nations in New York on Tuesday to discuss a climate treaty due to be agreed on in December.



The global warming narrative - that mankind's addiction to burning fossil fuels is rapidly changing the climate - may be about to go seriously off message.

Far from suggesting the planet will get warmer, one of the world's leading climate modellers says the latest data indicates we could be in for a significant period of steady temperatures and possibly even a little global cooling.

Professor Mojib Latif, from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University in Germany, has been looking at the influence of cyclical changes to ocean currents and temperatures in the Atlantic, a feature known as the North Atlantic Oscillation. When he factored these natural fluctuations into his global climate model, professor Latif found the results would bring the remorseless rise in average global temperatures to an abrupt halt. "The strong warming effect that we experienced during the last decades will be interrupted. Temperatures will be more or less steady for some years, and thereafter will pickup again and continue to warm".

With apologies to Al Gore, professor Latif's finding is something of an "inconvenient truth" for the global warming debate. And the timing couldn't be much worse. World leaders are due to meet in Copenhagen in December to hammer out an agreement on cutting greenhouse gas emissions to replace the Kyoto Treaty. It certainly won't help if there are a couple of inches of snow on the ground outside the convention centre, and climate models are predicting a sustained period of steady, or even falling, global temperatures.

Professor Philip Stott believes climate sceptics may seize on the research as evidence that the whole global warming hypothesis is fundamentally flawed: If natural cycles can interrupt, or even reverse climate change, maybe we don't need to take it so seriously.

It's not a view shared by professor Latif, who points to the resumption of warming as the cycle completes itself in a few years. The best we can hope for, he says, is a brief respite from global warming.

But the complex message professor Latif's research confronts us with, points up another issue debated on the programme this morning: The thorny issue of the media's handling of science.

The Science Minister Lord Drayson sparked a row when he claimed that the coverage of scientific issues was in rude health at the World Conference of Science journalists. Ben Goldacre, the author of "Bad Science" took exception, arguing that most editors were only interested in revolutionary cures for cancer, or whether coffee made you fat. After a heated exchange in the blogosphere the two have agreed to debate the issues at the Royal Institution tonight.


Comment from Benny Peiser: "This is fair and balanced BBC report about a controversial climate change issue. It's nothing sensational because it's elementary journalism - written in a format that good science journalism should approach whenever there are reasonable scientific conflicts and debates. Why then are we pleasantly surprised whenever we witness such rare occasions of BBC fairness and balance? Makes you wonder what's wrong with today's environmental and science journalism, doesn't it?"


The world is "doomed to experience some global warming, and countries must prepare for those changes," warns an international expert, looking at upcoming global climate treaty meetings. In the current Nature, David Victor of the University of California, San Diego, calls for abandoning hopes for a global treaty on climate change in Copenhagen in December, arguing that the 192 nations involved cannot get their act together by then.

Instead, he suggests the major nations releasing greenhouse gasses, particularly China and the United States, cut their own separate deals to save time. "Copenhagen, at best, is a starting point for the most influential nations to make ambitious commitments," he says. "Luckily, just a dozen countries account for nearly all warming emissions."

In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projected a roughly 3-to-7-degree Fahrenheit increase in average global temperatures by 2100, largely due to greenhouse gas emissions. Greenhouse gasses, such as carbon dioxide, are produced by burning fossil fuels including coal and oil. Man-made greenhouse gas emissions add to a natural background that creates a "greenhouse effect" in the air, because they are transparent to sunlight but trap heat. Sea level rise, drought and costly changes over farming regions are among the dangers seen from the warming. The Copenhagen meeting looks to craft a global treaty to replace the Kyoto Protocol of the 1990's for limiting greenhouse gas emissions, never agreed to by the U.S.

Instead of looking to past environmental agreements such as the Montreal Protocol that limited damage to the ozone layers of the upper atmosphere, or stalled trade agreements, nations should model climate plans on "pledge and review" agreements similar to direct arms control talks between nations, Victor argues. "They should junk the toolbox of environmental diplomacy and recognize global warming for the problem of economic cooperation that it is. Success hinges on more credible and ambitious commitments by a smaller number of countries."



India will set its own targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, but will resist legally binding demands imposed from outside, a minister told a newspaper published Thursday. "We are already taking a number of actions that will result in significant reductions of our greenhouse gas emissions," Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh told the Indian Express. "We are in a position to quantify these reductions into a broadly indicative number that can be shared with the rest of the world. I see no problem with that," Ramesh said.

He admitted his statement signaled a shift in India's climate change strategy -- before the crucial December 7-18 talks in Copenhagen, under the 192-nation UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). "Yes, there is a nuanced shift. But this shift is not in our negotiating stand. The stand remains the same. We are not going to accept any legally binding commitments on carbon emissions," Ramesh added.

India and other developing countries such as China believe rich countries should shoulder the main responsibility for mitigating global warming as they have emitted most of the greenhouse gases at the root of the problem. India has repeatedly resisted legally binding cuts arguing that it would hit its economic growth required to lift millions of its billion-plus population from poverty.

India's per capita output is one of the lowest globally as much of the country is without power, but it is still in volume terms among the top five carbon emitters in the world.

The Copenhagen meeting aims to craft a post-2012 pact for curbing the heat-trapping gases that drive global warming.



Don't expect China to keep global warming below 2C, a senior government adviser warned in Beijing today at the launch of an influential report on the nation's prospects for low-carbon growth.

Even in a best-case scenario with massive investment in solar energy and carbon capture technology, Dai Yande, deputy chief of the Energy Research Institute, said China's emissions were unlikely to fall low enough to remain below the temperature goal recommended by the G8 and European Union.

His prediction will alarm those governments and scientists who warn that a rise more than 2C risks disastrous consequences in terms of food security, migration, sea-level rises and extreme weather events. "You should not target China to fulfill the two degree target. That is just a vision. Reality has deviated from that vision," said Dai. "We do not think that target provides room for developing countries." China argues that its priority must be economic growth to relieve poverty among its vast population.

Dai - whose think tank works under the government's powerful National Development and Reform Commission - blamed rich nations for excessive consumption and for failing to reach the targets set at Kyoto. "Twenty percent of the world's population takes 80% of wealth and emits 70% of greenhouse gases," he said. "I think two degrees is a vision that is difficult to fulfill because few countries have reached Kyoto protocol targets, except the UK and some others in the EU."

Dai stressed that his comments are not official government policy, but they are consistent with a hardening of positions ahead of the Copenhagen climate change summit in December.



For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.


No comments: