Hall of Shame

False statements in climate science

Blatant fraudulent statements about climate change and ocean acidification
- by the scientific community!

By Dr J Floor Anthoni (2010, updated occasionally)

Environmental alarmism first embraced global warming, then climate change and finally ocean acidification as 'the other CO2 problem', which could be more devastating than global warming. Because so little is known about it, their extravagant claims remain unrebutted. But in this section we expose the blatantly fraudulent statements made by various scientists and academia. The time has come for skeptics to hold scientists personally accountable. Fraud is not perpetrated by science as a whole, but by individual scientists. Let's name them and their institutions.  For a better understanding of the ocean acidification problem, read ocean acidification where also a number of scientists  disgraced themselves. This section now also rebuts climate change nonsense. Read our large chapter about climate and global warming to understand the essentials and how the IPCC has propagated an immense fraud. 
“The real tragedy is that the global warming community have showed no signs of changing their ways and entering into multidisciplinary discussions in a field where they have neither knowledge nor experience. Do they not realise that they have antagonised those of us in the engineering and applied sciences to the extent that we no longer trust their motives based on their attempts to silence all those who have contrarian views, and their deliberate departures from the truth?“- professor Will Alexander

Begin your study of the environment at the Seafriends home page or our sitemap.

Note! for best printed results, read tips for printing. For corrections and suggestions, e-mail the author.
The whole section covers about 1.2 MB, including text, drawings and photographs. Buy our CD or make a donation.
-- Seafriends home --Global problems index-- climate index -- ocean acidification --

The Seafriends web site aims to bring science to the masses, at a level that a college student can understand, without trivialising it. We pride ourselves that the information presented is reliable and without bias or belief. We also wish this educational resource to serve future generations for as long as possible, because truth does not degrade.
So why would we include a page about corrupted science, scientists and their institutions? A few decades from today, very few will remember this episode. But then again, another episode of scientific corruption may draw the public's attention. Scientific corruption is found not only in global warming and ocean acidification, but in a large number of disciplines which are not of concern to this web site. It would indeed be fair to say that we are living in a world of lies, small, large and gigantic, to such extent that it becomes difficult to discern the truth. In all cases, institutions and their disciples are to blame. The time has come to hold these people accountable, by name, even though many of the people mentioned here will have passed on in a few decades from now. Others must realise that there is a cost to lying. I hope that others will also list the traitors by name such that they may feel the shame of society upon them.
“In the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don't know any better. That's not a good future for the human race. That's our past.”—Michael Crichton, “Environmentalism as Religion,” (A lecture at the Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA, September 15, 2003).
At this point we may ask ourselves, why the vast majority of climate scientists support the position of the IPCC? And why are so many skeptics outsiders, without important publications to their name? It is an important question because it also lies at the heart of other scientific frauds. The obvious and simple answer is that the skeptics must be wrong in the face of so much consensus. But hang on a moment, All this means that skeptics have a number of advantages over professionals, so don't write them off too soon.

While writing this chapter and rebutting the many disgraceful statements made by the most highly respected scientsts, a pattern emerged.

Do scientists really know the constraints within which they are working? Read our Science, technology and human nature for a challenge, particularly when you are a scientist. Now continue reading the disgraceful statements made by reputable scientists, often in reputable journals, and don't forget to read our extensive education to understand global climate and the falsities of the IPCC. Future will tell. At the moment hysteria reigns.
It is my understanding of the scientific method that it proceeds by the falsification of hypotheses, not their defense by every means possible, which is what Nature and regrettably other leading science journals have resorted to in the case of man-made climate change. The goal ought not to be to defend a hypothesis, but to test it, and if it fails, to consider competing hypotheses and test those just as rigorously. - Joseph Bast
But the problem is now compounded by massive malfeasance and even deliberate corruption of temperature data. The climategate leaked e-mails leave no doubt about this. Never before in the history of science has such an extensive scam emerged, and the institution of science damaged to such extent. So what do the scientsts do? They circle their wagons and defend the perpetrators, thereby becoming complicit themselves. But the Public is not dumb, nor deaf, and will remember. This page aims to do so, far into the future, exposing the worst scientists and institutions who lent their names. Budding scientists need to know. The Public needs to know. Our children deserve to know.
"My experience is that academia, including its scientific (royal) societies, has given up independent thinking and is controlled by climate politics of governments and governmental institutions. Even worse,  "skepticism" is actively being oppressed and harassed at universities." - Prof Claes Johnson

“Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite. Throw 30 billion dollars at one question and how could bright, dedicated people not find 800 pages worth of connections, links, predictions, projections and scenarios?
(What’s amazing is what they haven’t found: empirical evidence.)”

List of institutions and their rogue scientists - Hall of Shame
One would think that real science is subjected to thorough criticism, and that most criticism originates from the people inside the originating institution. However, this is often not the case because so many scientists live on their respective little 'islands' of expertise, quite remote from their colleagues. In other words, most scientists do not feel qualified enough to criticise the work of colleagues. Besides, for career promotion, it pays not to thump the apple cart.
Because so much money has been handed down to those who are willing to support AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), institutions have become willing co-conspirators. Naming them is as important as the corrupt scientists wo work there. Worst of all is their involvement in educating brainwashing school children. Quite worrisome is also the vast number of universities involved in the global warming scam.

Use the University of Toronto extensive list of names to find out more about these scientists and the consensus statements they signed.

United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other UN bodies: Rajendra Pachauri, A Reisinger, Yvo de Boer, Sir John T Houghton, G J jenkins, J J Ephraums, Prof. Rahmstorf, Tom Wigley, Benjamin Santer, Raymond Bradley, Malcolm Hughes, Mike Hulme, Kevin Trenberth 1, Amy Clement, Rasmus Benestad, William Connolley, Caspar Ammann, Gene Wahl, Rick Piltz, Jonathan Overpeck, Gavin Schmidt, Keith Briffa, Stephen Schneider, Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen, Jørgen E. Olesen, Steven Sherwood, Scott Rutherford, Prof James McCarthy, Bert Bolin, Robert Watson, Sir John Houghton, Susan Solomon, Dahe Qin, Martin Manning, Gary W. Yohe, Cynthia Rosenzweig, William E. Easterling, Claus Frohlich, Judith Lean 1, Andrew Weaver, Ken Overpeck, Prof David Shearman, Richard Klein, William (Bill) Hare, Malte Meinshausen, Thomas Stocker, Achim Steiner UNEP, Jeff Jenkins,  Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, Prof Guy McPherson,
A mix of scientists worldwide: Mxolisi E Shongwe, Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, Bart van den Hurk, Maarten van Aalst 1,BMJ’s editor Dr Fiona Godlee,
The hockey Team:Gavin Schmidt, Mike Mann, Eric Steig, William Connolley, Stefan Rahmstorf,Kevin Trenberth, Phil Jones,[The main players behind the hockey stick temperature curve]
Realclimate.com: Gavin Schmidt, Mike Mann, Eric Steig, William Connolley, Stefan Rahmstorf, Raymond Bradley, Amy Clement, Rasmus Benestad, Caspar Ammann,  (erasing the history of climate)
University of Queensland Global Change Institute: Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg (also Greenpeace activist), Prof Chris Turney.
ARC (Australian Research Council)
Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies, Australian Institute of Marine Science and other Australian scientists:  Prof Terry Hughes, Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Prof Malcolm McCulloch, Prof Charlie Veron, Dr Janice M Lough, Prof Will Steffen, See also CSIRO below
Institut de Ciencies del Mar, CSIC, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain: Prof Carles Pelejero, Dr. Eva Calvo,
Woods Hole Oceanic Institute USA: Scott Doney,
Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology: Ilsa B. Kuffner, Andreas J. Andersson, Paul L. Jokiel, Ku'ulei S. Rodgers, Fred T. Mackenzie
University of Tennessee: gave Al Gore an honorary doctorate.
Texas A&M University (tamu): Prof Andrew Dessler,
University of East Anglia/ Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research/ CRU Climatic Research Unit/ Met Office/Hadley Centre/UK scientists: Dr. Phil Jones, Tony McMichael (Greenpeace), Prof Edward Acton, Prof Sir John Beddington, Prof Julia Slingo, Prof Bob Watson, Prof Trevor Davies, Prof Geoffrey Boulton, Sir Brian Hoskins, John Houghton, Myles R. Allen, Dr Geoff Jenkins, Mike Hulme founding director, Dr John Turnpenny, Robert Napier chairman Met Office and green activist WWF, Kevin Anderson Director of the Tyndall Centre, Mark McCarthy, Naomi Oreskes, Tom Wigley, Prof Chris Reid, Prof Alex Rogers, Sir Mark Walport,
Netherlands scientists and institutions: Dr Carlos Heip,
Pennsylvania State University: Dr Michael Mann, Prof Donald Brown,
Other US universities and departments: Peter H Gleick 1, Prof Guy R. McPherson, Prof John Bruno, Prof Scott Denning, Prof Richard Somerville, Prof Donald Brown, Prof A J Hoffman, Prof Paul O'Gorman, LSU Prof. Raymond Bradley Schaefer, Dr. Raymond S. Bradley, Ron L. Miller, Lionel Pandolfo, Drew Shindell, Dr. Richard B Alley, Prof Kerry Emanuel (MIT), Katharine Hayhoe (TEX TECH), Barry Bickmore, John Cook, Richard Somerville, Dr. Eric R. Pianka, Darryn Waugh, Rolando Garcia, Richard Wiles, Benjamin Preston, Robert Brulle, Geoff Meaden, Dr. Ray Pierrehumbert (Chicago), Prof Douglas Kysar (Yale), Adam Frank, Noah Diffenbaugh, Eric Steig, Russell Seitz, Jim Bouldin, Chris Colose, (grad student) George Godin, Charles Koven, Dan Isaac, Seth wenger1, Prof Lawrence Torcello 1,
NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)/NCDC: fraudulent to the core: James Hansen, Dr Gavin A Schmidt, Andrew A Lacis, D Rind, R A Ruedy, Thomas Peterson, Prof Jane Lubchenko, David Hathaway,
http://climate.nasa.gov/ : truly disgusting for rocket scientists (Global Climate Change is produced by the Earth Science Communications Team at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory/California Institute of Technology).
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climatic Data Center NCDC "high quality science in a culture of transparency, integrity and ethical behaviour": Tom Karl, Susan Solomon, Richard Feely, Tom Peterson, Peter Thorne, S. A. Montzka, E. J. Dlugokencky, J. H. Butler, Michael J. McPhaden, Dr. Jane Lubchenco (EDF, WRI, Pew),
NOAA Climate Service:  Dr. Tom Karl, Ellen Mecray, Doug Kluck, David Brown, DeWayne Cecil, John Marra, James Partain,
EPA USA Environmental Protection Agency : Lisa Jackson,
NCAR National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado: Kevin Trenberth, Jeffrey Kiehl, Mark Serreze, Tom Yulsman,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Ben Santer,
Pew Center on Global Climate Change: Daniel G. Huber, Jay Gulledge,
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory:
Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research "Hard winters do not refute global warming, instead they more so confirm it.": Vladimir Petuchov, Prof Stefan Rahmstorf, Dr. Peter Werner, Georg Feulner,
Max Planck Institute for Meteorology and German Scientists: Klaus Hasselmann (emeritus director), Joachim Schellnhuber (advises government), Dr Ottmar Edenhofer 1,
NIWA National Institute for Water & Atmosphere (NZ) and other NZ scientists: Dr Jim Salinger, Dr David Wratt, Dr Brett Mullan, Prof James Renwick, Prof Sir Peter Gluckman,  Rhys Taylor, Prof Alistair Woodward, Martin Manning,
Royal Society of New Zealand (RSNZ), Professor Keith Hunter, Lord Ronald Oxburgh, Nicholas Stern,
CSIRO Australia and Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), and Australian scientists 1, 2,:Prof Penny Sackett (Chief Scientist), Cathy Foley, Karl Braganza (BOM), Paul Holper, Prof Andy Pitman, Prof Tim Flannery, Prof Will Steffen (ANU), Prof David Karoly, Matthew England, Dr Charlie Veron, Dr Will Howard, Prof David Shearman MD, Prof Stephan Lewandowsky 1, Dr Volker Oschmann (Germany), Prof Michael Ashley, Prof Michael Archer, Prof Barry Brook, Prof Ian Enting, Prof David Karoly, Prof Mike Sandiford, Prof Malcolm Walter, Prof John Wiseman,  Prof John Abraham, Prof Ian Enting, Simon Niemeyer, Michael J. I. Brown, Dr. Matthew Hipsey, Dr Julie Trotter, Prof Malcolm McCulloch, Prof Kevin Judd, Dr Thomas Stemler, Dr. Karl-Heinz Wyrwoll, Dr. Andrew Glikson, Associate Prof Ben Newell, Prof Matthew England, Dr Alex Sen Gupta, Prof Steven Sherwood, Dr. Katrin Meissner, Dr Jason Evans, Prof Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, Dr Andy Hogg, Prof John Quiggin, Prof Chris Turney, Dr Gab Abramowitz, Prof Andy Pitman, Dr Michael Box, Prof Corey Bradshaw, Dr Paul Dargusch, Prof Nigel Tapper, Prof Jason Beringer, Prof Neville Nicholls, Prof Dave Griggs, Prof Peter Sly, Dr Pauline Grierson, Prof Jurg Keller, Prof Amanda Lynch, A/Prof Steve Siems, Prof Justin Brookes, Prof Glenn Albrecht, Prof Steven Smith, Dr Kerrie Unsworth, Dr Pieter Poot, Adam McHugh, Dr Louise Bruce, Dr Ailie Gallant, Dr Will J Grant, Rick A. Baartman (APS), William GC Raper, Dr Chris Riedy, Ben McNeil, Paul Beckwith, Tim Leslie, Prof Philip Jennings, Dr John Tibby, Prof Ray Wills, Jess Robertson, Dr Paul Tregoning, Dr Doone Wyborn, Dr. Jonathan Whale, Dr Tas van Ommen, Dr Jim Salinger (NZ), Dr P. Timon McPhearson, Prof Deo Prasad, Prof Rob Harcourt, Dr John Hunter, Dr Michael Brown, Dr Karen McNamara, Dr Paul Marshall, Dr Ivan Haigh, Dr Ian Allison, Dr Jennifer Coopersmith, Prof Emeritus Peter Kershaw, Professor Peter Gell, Prof David A Hood, Professor Lesley Hughes, Dr Melanie Bishop, Dr Jane Williamson, A/Prof Grant Wardell-Johnson, A/Prof Ralph Chapman, Dr Malcolm Walter, Dr Darrell Kemp, Dr Liz Hanna, Dr. Patrick J. Conaghan, Prof Alan Robson (UWA), Prof Ross Garnaut, Dr Richard Deniss, Dr Marco Amati, Prof Gunther Andersson, Prof Snow Barlow, Prof John Beardall, Professor Stephen Boyden, Professor Nick Costa, Professor Christopher Dickman, Professor Jim Falk, Prof Peter Cawood, Prof Larry Frakes, Dr Paul Fraser, Prof Stephen Garnett, Prof Victor Gostin, Dr Warwick Grace, Dr Galen Halverson, Prof Rob Harcourt, Prof Lesley Head, Dr Andrew Holmes, Dr Michael Lawes, Prof Jonathan Majer, Prof Jennifer A. Marshall Graves, Prof David McKirdy, Prof Paul Memmoth, Dr Luciana Moller, Dr E. Charles Morris, Prof Colin Murray Wallace, Prof John Morrison, Prof Gerald C. Nanson, Dr Bradley Opdyke, Dr Enzo Palombo, Prof Graeme Robertson, Prof Patricia Ryan, Prof Tom Rich, Prof Peter Schwerdtfeger, Dr Vladimir Strezov, Prof Ros Taplin, Dr John Tibby, Prof Patricia Vickers-Rich, Prof Clive Warren, John Nicol, Prof Andrew Pitman, Prof David Carpenter, Dan Isaac, Seth wenger1,

The rot indeed runs deep. Imagine how many young minds have been corrupted by these 'professionals'.

We were given very strict, VERY strict guidelines on not publishing anything or publicly discussing any research that could be seen as critical to Government policy. If we did not do it, we would be subject to dismissal. We had now become a Government Enterprise.  - Dr Art Raiche, CSIRO Chief Research Scientist

We must never forget these traitors of science!

National Resources Defense Council:
IUCN, International Union for the Conservation of Nature : Dan Laffoley,
Pew Center on Global Climate Change, Environment Group : Kelly Rigg, Josh Reichert,
Union of Concerned Scientists ucsusa.org: "Coordinated U.S. scientists and economists statement with over 2,000 signatures calling for emissions reductions". Carl wunsch, Richard Jensen, Edward L Miles, John Halstead, Daniel Kammen, William H Schlesinger, Jagadish Shukla, Edward B Barbier. Also: Aaron Huertas,
Google.org has joined the warmists, nominating fellows: "we chose scientists who had the strongest potential to become excellent communicators" (none of whom are climate scientists or phycisists) 1, 2, : Dr Amy Luers, Paul Higgins, Andrew Dessler, Brendan Bohannan, Edward Brook, Julia Cole, Eugene Cordero, Frank Davis, Noah Diffenbaugh, Simon Donner, Nicole Heller, Brian Helmuth, Jonathan Koomey, David Lea, Kelly Levin, David Lobell, Edwin Maurer, Susanne Moser, Prof Matthew Nisbet, Rebecca Shaw, Whendee Silver, Alan Townsend,
This is their belief 1, : "There is consensus amongst scientists that humans are changing the Earth's climate, and that these alterations are having significant impacts on natural ecosystems. The challenge before the scientific community is no longer to document whether climate is affecting nature, but rather to forecast where, when, and how severe these impacts will be so that we can better prepare for the future. Forecasting these changes requires that we first be able to view the world from the perspective of a nonhuman organism - something that we are not very well equipped to do. One effective means of removing this 'human filter' is through the application of biophysics, which uses engineering techniques to look at how organisms interact with their physical environment and with one another." (Brian Helmuth, Univ South Carolina)

The bell-wethers (leading sheep/ringleaders) of the catastrophic warming scare are:
The National Association of Sciences NAS USA stands out: list of signatories, Ralph Cicerone (pres), Sir David King, William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, Stephen Schneider,  “Our academies[NAS, RSUK] will provide the scientific backdrop for the political and business leaders who must create effective policies to steer the world toward a low-carbon economy.”In other words, science serving politics.
The Royal Society (UK's national academy of sciences) who publish Nature: Lord Martin Rees (pres), Sir Paul Nurse (pres), Lord May(ex-pres) 1 , Sir Mark Walport, Sir John Houghton, Bob Ward, Lord Oxburgh,  Sir Muir Russell, John Pethica, Anthony Giddens,  Mark G. New, Diana M. Liverman, Richard A. Betts, Kevin L. Anderson, Chris C. West, Niel H. A. Bowerman, David J. Frame, Chris Huntingford, Jason A. Lowe, Myles R. Allen, Richard A. Betts, Matthew Collins, Deborah L. Hemming, Chris D. Jones, Jason A. Lowe, Michael G. Sanderson, Francis NicholsonS. Read this disgusting document they produced, and this one.Immense damage has been done to the reputation of the Society by its last three presidents(Rees, Nurse, May).
The American Association for the Advancement of Science AAAS (USA) who publish Science: "AAAS seeks at every opportunity to increase the volume of scientific leadership on the issue of global climate change." 1, :John Holdren,  Teresa and John Heinz , Bruce Forbes, F. Sherwood Rowland, Prof John Abraham, Alice Huang, Nina V. Fedoroff, David Evans Shaw, Alan Leshne, Nancy Knowlton, Stephen Mayo, Raymond Orbach, Julia M. Phillips, Sue V. Rosser, David D. Sabatini, Inder Verma, Thomas Woolsey,
The National Science Foundation NSF 1,
The American Physical Society APS (why1, why2): Curtis G. Callan (pres), Jr., Barry Barish, Robert L. Byer, newsletter Physics Today,
The American Geophysical Union: why2, why3, Tom Yulsman, Prof Michael Oppenheimer, Chris Mooney, Ben Santer 1, Michael J. McPhaden,  Christine McEntee,
Four organizations comprise the National Academies: the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council:
American Chemical Society: Rudy Baum,
American Meteorological Society The AMS is going to be judged in future years as having foolishly sacrificed its sterling scientific reputation for political and financial expediency: Greg Craven, Heidi Cullen, Executive Director Keith Seitter, awards to warmists (YY) Susan Solomon (00), V. Ramanathan (02), Peter Webster (04), Jagadish Shukla (05), Kerry Emanuel (07), Isaac Held (08) and James Hansen (09), Kevin Trenberth (00), Rich Rotunno (04), Graeme Stephens (05), Robert D. Cess (06), Allan Betts (07), Gerald North (08), Warren Washington (08), Gerald Meehl (09),
Agronomy and Crop Science organizations ASA/CSSA:
IAC/IAP Inter Academy Council & Panel, formed in 1993 to act and speak for national scientific academies and societies around the world.
Canadian Meteorological and Ocean Society (CMOS):

Others: J.E.N. Veron, T.M. Lenton, D.O. Obura, P. Pearce-Kelly, C.R.C. Sheppard, M. Spalding, M.G. Stafford-Smith, A.D. Rogers, Glenn De'ath, Katharina E Fabricius, John M. Guinotte, Victoria J. Fabry, Daniel Pauly, Steve Palumbi, Jeremy Kemp, Richard Milne, Dave S. Reay, John Holdren, Carl Mears, Frank Wentz, Thomas Schelling, John F. Bruno, James P. Barry (MBARI), Prof Jon A. Krosnick,  M E Wickett, Nathan P. Gillett, Vivek K. Arora, Kirsten Zickfeld, Shawn J. Marshall, William J. Merryfield,

A letter to members of Congress, 28 Jan 2011: John Abraham, University of St. Thomas; Barry Bickmore, Brigham Young University; Gretchen Daily,* Stanford University; G. Brent Dalrymple,* Oregon State University; Andrew Dessler, Texas A&M University; Peter Gleick,* Pacific Institute; John Kutzbach,* University of Wisconsin-Madison; Syukuro Manabe,* Princeton University; Michael Mann, Penn State University;  Pamela Matson,* Stanford University; Harold Mooney,* Stanford University; Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University; Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Richard Somerville, Scripps Institution of Oceanography; Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research; Warren Washington, National Center for Atmospheric Research; Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University; George Woodwell,* The Woods Hole Research Center. Those marked * are members of the National Academy of Sciences. Read this shocking letter carefully to understand the nature of the rot in climate science and how many 'respectable' institutions are tainted with it. Then read comments by Roger Pielke,

Coral reefs will not survive ...: Sir David Attenborough (working group co-chair), Prof. Ken Caldeira (Carnegie Institution for Science), Dr Ann Clarke (Frozen Ark Project), Rachel Garthwaite (The Royal Society), Prof. James Crabbe (University of Bedfordshire), Prof. Andreas Fischlin (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology), Wendy Foden (IUCN Species programme), Dr Simon Harding (Globe International), Rachel Jones (Zoological Society of London), Aylin McNamara (Zoological Society of London), Dr Dirk Petersen (SECORE), Dr Peter Read (Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory), Dr Peter Read (Massey University), Prof Philip Chris Reid (Sir Alister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science/Marine Institute, University of Plymouth), Prof. Callum Roberts (University of York), Dr Christopher Sabine (Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory) Prof Yvonne Sadovy (Carnegie Institution for Science), Dr Kristian Teleki (International Coral Reef Action Network), John Taylor (World Wildlife Fund), Dr John Turner (Bangor University), Dr Philip Williamson (University of East Anglia). - the rot is wide-spread.

America’s Climate Choices (May 2010)is a congressionally requested suite of studies from the National Research Council of the National Academy of Science, designed to inform and guide the nation’s response to climate change. Advancing the Science of Climate Change is their equivalent to WG1 of the IPCC, with -surprise, surprise?- the same outcomes. http://americasclimatechoices.org/
Panel Membership: Pamela A. Matson (Chair), Stanford University; Thomas Dietz (Vice Chair), Michigan State University, East Lansing; Waleed Abdalati, University of Colorado at Boulder; Antonio J. Busalacchi, Jr., University of Maryland, College Park; Ken Caldeira, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Stanford, California; Robert W. Corell, H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment; Ruth S. Defries, Columbia University; Inez Y. Fung, University of California, Berkeley; Steven Gaines, University of California, Santa Barbara; George M. Hornberger, Vanderbilt University; Maria Carmen Lemos, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; Susanne C. Moser, Susanne Moser Research & Consulting; Richard H. Moss, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory; Edward A. Parson, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; A. R. Ravishankara, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; Raymond W. Schmitt, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; B. L. Turner, II, Arizona State University; Warren M. Washington, National Center for Atmospheric Research; John P. Weyant, Stanford University; David A. Whelan, The Boeing Company; Ian Kraucunas (Study Director), National Research Council.

All these people and many more, must be held accountable for corrupting the minds of our children.
It is a major and unpardonable crime.

Scientific societies: The 2001 joint statement [that most of the observed temperature increase since the middle of the 20th century was very likely caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases resulting from human activity such as fossil fuel burning and deforestation] was signed by the national academies of science of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, the Caribbean, the People's Republic of China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, New Zealand, Sweden, and the UK. The 2005 statement added Japan, Russia, and the U.S.
The 2007 statement added Mexico and South Africa. The Network of African Science Academies, and the Polish Academy of Sciences have issued separate statements. Professional scientific societies include American Astronomical Society, American Chemical Society, American Geophysical Union 1, American Institute of Physics, American Meteorological Society, American Physical Society, American Quaternary Association, Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, European Academy of Sciences and Arts, European Geosciences Union, European Science Foundation, Geological Society of America, Geological Society of Australia, Geological Society of London-Stratigraphy Commission, InterAcademy Council, International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, International Union for Quaternary Research, National Association of Geoscience Teachers, National Research Council (US), Royal Meteorological Society, and World Meteorological Organization. [Wikipedia]
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies (FASTS),
British Medical Society, American Medical Association, American Public Health Association,

Signatories to the Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change: Academia Brasiliera de Ciências, Royal Society of Canada, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Academié des Sciences, Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Accademia dei Lincei, Science Council of Japan, Russian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society, National Academy of Sciences.
The scientific consensus on climate change (PDF 31pp) describes the rot in academia, listing all corrupted societies. Lest we forget.

Is there ANY scientific society NOT in the warmist camp?

The natural sciences have terms for that kind of [warming] hypothesis. ‘Unfalsifiable’ is one of them. ‘Unscientific’ is another. An idea may be true, but if it is incapable of being ‘falsified’ or proven wrong, then whatever else that idea is, it certainly isn’t science. It also automatically invalidates itself as a predictive tool” - Jared Olar

If consensus is aimed at by the members of the reference group and arrived at by intent, it becomes conspiratorial and irrelevant to our intellectual concern. - Keith Lehrer, agnoiology= the study of human stupidity (ignorance)

When society doesn’t know something, it’s often because special interests work hard to create confusion. - Robert Proctor, agnoiology= the study of ignorance

Scientists sold themselves and their objectivity to group-think and the comfort of funding. - Floor Anthoni

Update: a number of academic societies show signs of 'turning around' by publishing more moderate policy statements: Geological Soc UK (2011, still many mistakes), American Physical Society APS (2014?)

List of biased scientific journals
If scientific research had been done in a proper way, lending utmost priority to truth and doubt, the list of corrupted 'prestigious' and 'peer-reviewed' journals below would not have been possible. What precisely happened, is not entirely known, but the editors of these scientific journals have knowingly or innocently allowed themselves to become biased to a single point of view, thereby promoting supportive papers while blocking dissenting research. It is a most deplorable situation. In many cases they also allowed publications that were entirely based on opinion.

Science magazine (AAAS) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,: Richard A. Kerr, Eli Kintish, Alan I Leshner CEO, John P Holdren Pres,
Nature (Royal Society)  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, :Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. Conway, Philip Campbell (editor) , Jeff Tollefson,
Nature Climate Change journal a monthly journal dedicated to publishing the most significant and cutting-edge research on the impacts of global climate change and its implications for the economy, policy and the world at large. (It is not about climate science): many names.
Scientific American 1,: David Biello,
New Scientist:  Greenpeace activist Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg is reviewing editor for ocean acidification, Michael Le Page (guide for the perplexed),
Geophysical Research Letters: Jay Famiglietti,
Nature Geoscience
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Global and Planetary Change
Trends in Ecology and Evolution (TREE)
Marine Pollution Bulletin
Annals of the NY Academy of Sciences
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
British Medical Journal: Prof Hugh Montgomery, Prof Ian Gilmore,

Wikipedia, 1, 2, : highly corrupted by scientists Keith Briffa, William Connolley, Kim Dabelstein Petersen.

Lawrence Solomon reports in the National Post:
Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

BBC list of greenlobby 'expert' specialists, 26 Jan 2006.

Robert May, Oxford University and Imperial College London
Mike Hulme, Director, Tyndall Centre, UEA
Blake Lee-Harwood, Head of Campaigns, Greenpeace
Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen
Michael Bravo, Scott Polar Research Institute, University of Cambridge
Andrew Dlugolecki, Insurance industry consultant
Trevor Evans, US Embassy
Colin Challen MP, Chair, All Party Group on Climate Change
Anuradha Vittachi, Director, Oneworld.net
Andrew Simms, Policy Director, New Economics Foundation
Claire Foster, Church of England
Saleemul Huq, IIED
Poshendra Satyal Pravat, Open University
Li Moxuan, Climate campaigner, Greenpeace China
Tadesse Dadi, Tearfund Ethiopia
Iain Wright, CO2 Project Manager, BP International
Ashok Sinha, Stop Climate Chaos
Andy Atkins, Advocacy Director, Tearfund
Matthew Farrow, CBI
Rafael Hidalgo, TV/multimedia producer
Cheryl Campbell, Executive Director, Television for the Environment
Kevin McCullough, Director, Npower Renewables
Richard D North, Institute of Economic Affairs
Steve Widdicombe, Plymouth Marine Labs
Joe Smith, The Open University
Mark Galloway, Director, IBT
Anita Neville, E3G
Eleni Andreadis, Harvard University
Jos Wheatley, Global Environment Assets Team, DFID
Tessa Tennant, Chair, AsRia

Climate of fear (Editorial in Nature magazine)
Nature 464, 141 (11 March 2010) | doi:10.1038/464141a; Published online 10 March 2010
(author unknown)

In black the original text; in blue our comments; emotive words in red.

The integrity of climate research has taken a very public battering in recent months. Scientists must now emphasize the science, while acknowledging that they are in a street fight.

Climate scientists are on the defensive, knocked off balance by a re-energized community of global-warming deniers who, by dominating the media agenda, are sowing doubts about the fundamental science. Most researchers find themselves completely out of their league in this kind of battle because it's only superficially about the science. The real goal is to stoke the angry fires of talk radio, cable news, the blogosphere and the like, all of which feed off of contrarian story lines and seldom make the time to assess facts and weigh evidence. Civility, honesty, fact and perspective are irrelevant.

Indeed, science has taken a very public battering, due to the behaviour of a select few (see chapters above) abetted by those who stayed silent. Nature itself and its editorial board carry a lot of the blame, as do editorial boards of other 'respectable' scientific journals (see above). The very tone of this first paragraph underlines the kind of attitude of the warmist-scientist: he calls skeptics global warming deniers (a lie and a very emotive epithet). It is unnecessary to comment on the other six lies in just one paragraph. This editorial has obviously not been peer-reviewed. Nor did it invite for blog-comments.
Worse, the onslaught seems to be working: some polls in the United States and abroad suggest that it is eroding public confidence in climate science at a time when the fundamental understanding of the climate system, although far from complete, is stronger than ever. Ecologist Paul Ehrlich at Stanford University in California says that his climate colleagues are at a loss about how to counter the attacks. "Everyone is scared shitless, but they don't know what to do," he says.
Where have the editors of Nature been in the past 20 years? Have they missed completely what has been going on all that time? Have they not noticed the extreme unscientific bias in favour of Anthropogenic Global Warming (thus caused by people)? Have they never heard of other explanations for observed changes in the climate system? Have they all this time been unaware of the fraud going on in their midst? There exists no such thing as a strong fundamental understanding of the climate system. The science is not settled. Finally the doubt that should accompany the science, is surfacing - not by mainstream scientists, but by skeptics (the Public). It is not an onslaught but just a necessary correction.
Scientists must not be so naive as to assume that the data speak for themselves.
Wrong. Skeptics are scientifically proficient. They check and test and verify.

Researchers should not despair. For all the public's confusion about climate science, polls consistently show that people trust scientists more than almost anybody else to give honest advice. Yes, scientists' reputations have taken a hit thanks to headlines about the leaked climate e-mails at the University of East Anglia (UEA), UK, and an acknowledged mistake about the retreat of Himalayan glaciers in a recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But these wounds are not necessarily fatal.

Wake up, editor. A ground swell has arisen. The credibility of many scientists lies in tatters. The main culprits will be prosecuted. A new era has begun where scientists will be held accountable like other professions. It is not about a few slips or a few rotten apples. It is about decades of corruption, deception and right-out malfeasance. It is about cheating the public, and the public finally woke up. For now the momentum is still with the alarmists, but it is not carried by scientists. It is now carried by political institutions, NGOs, financiers and profiteers.
To make sure they are not, scientists must acknowledge that they are in a street fight, and that their relationship with the media really matters. Anything strategic that can be done on that front would be useful, be it media training for scientists or building links with credible public-relations firms. In this light, there are lessons to be learned from the current spate of controversies. For example, the IPCC error was originally caught by scientists, not sceptics. Had it been promptly corrected and openly explained to the media, in full context with the underlying science, the story would have lasted days, not weeks. The IPCC must establish a formal process for rapidly investigating and, when necessary, correcting such errors.
Wrong again. There is no street fight. Scientists' relationship with the media is still hugely in favour of the warmists, as it has always been - follow the money (massive amounts). It is true that there would be less skepticism had scientists been truthful, and corrected their 'mistakes'. Failing that, the public will, and must. Which error is the writer referring to? There have been dozens of errors, some very serious.
The unguarded exchanges in the UEA e-mails speak for themselves. Although the scientific process seems to have worked as it should have in the end, the e-mails do raise concerns about scientific behaviour and must be fully investigated. Public trust in scientists is based not just on their competence, but also on their perceived objectivity and openness. Researchers would be wise to remember this at all times, even when casually e-mailing colleagues.
Bravo. This is what it is all about: un-scientific behaviour that must be fully investigated and prosecuted. Oops - skeptics do not care about perceived objectivity; only about true objectivity, and so should all scientists. And oops, the scientific process has shown to have failed, and with it, peer review. Scientists do well to remember that many are in the public service.
US scientists recently learned this lesson yet again when a private e-mail discussion between leading climate researchers on how to deal with sceptics went live on conservative websites, leading to charges that the scientific elite was conspiring to silence climate sceptics (see page 149). The discussion was spurred by a report last month from Senator James Inhofe (Republican, Oklahoma), the leading climate sceptic in the US Congress, who labelled several respected climate scientists as potential criminals - nonsense that was hardly a surprise considering the source. Some scientists have responded by calling for a unified public rebuttal to Inhofe, and they have a point. As a member of the minority party, Inhofe is powerless for now, but that may one day change. In the meantime, Inhofe's report is only as effective as the attention it receives, which is why scientists need to be careful about how they engage such critics.
Criminals typically commit fraud, conceal, corrupt, misappropriate, lie, and for this they are prosecuted, and so should scientists. James Inhofe is entirely correct in calling such scientists 'criminal', and indeed they should be prosecuted like criminals. Don't use 'respectable' because it is only superficial and no longer applies to your journal. See how you confuse politics with truth?
The core science supporting anthropogenic global warming has not changed. This needs to be stated again and again, in as many contexts as possible. Scientists must not be so naive as to assume that the data speak for themselves. Nor should governments. Scientific agencies in the United States, Europe and beyond have been oddly silent over the recent controversies. In testimony on Capitol Hill last month, the head of the US Environmental Protection Agency, Lisa Jackson, offered at best a weak defence of the science while seeming to distance her agency's deliberations from a tarnished IPCC. Officials of her stature should be ready to defend scientists where necessary, and at all times give a credible explanation of the science.
Oops. This is exactly the problem. The core science has changed but not this editor. Scientific agencies have indeed been odly silent whereas they should have condemned criminal and unscientific behaviour amongst them. They didn't, thereby condoning such behaviour and becoming complicit. They also dare not speak because they have been tainted. See academic societies above.
These challenges are not new, and they won't go away any time soon. Even before the present controversies, climate legislation had hit a wall in the US Senate, where the poorly informed public debate often leaves one wondering whether science has any role at all. The IPCC's fourth assessment report had huge influence leading up to the climate conference in Copenhagen last year, but it was always clear that policy-makers were reluctant to commit to serious reductions in greenhouse-gas emissions. Scientists can't do much about that, but they can and must continue to inform policy-makers about the underlying science and the potential consequences of policy decisions - while making sure they are not bested in the court of public opinion.
Here we are again on the political rampart. There is no global warming problem; there are no consequences of inaction. Policy makers just refuse to spend large sums on a problem that does not exist, in an era of financial uncertainty. Obviously this editor and his supporters need to read up on how global climate really works, available from the Seafriends web site. (after June 2010). Here we have the biggest scientific scandal of all times and the journal Nature is condoning this.
One thing is sure: these scientists are not going to get their house in order.

"Evil twin" threatens world's oceans, scientists warn
29 March 2010.
Our comments in blue. We marked the words denoting uncertainty in red, which indicates just pure opinion. Leaving these statements out, there remains very little left.

The rise in human emissions of carbon dioxide is driving fundamental and dangerous changes in the chemistry and ecosystems of the world’s oceans, international marine scientists warned today. International scientists? One from Australia, two from Spain?

“Ocean conditions are already more extreme than those experienced by marine organisms and ecosystems for millions of years,” the researchers say in the latest issue of the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution (TREE). “This emphasises the urgent need to adopt policies that drastically reduce CO2 emissions.”
If conditions today are more extreme than any time between now and millions of years ago, then why do we not see massive extinctions in the sea? What is extreme? The ice ages can be called extreme because living conditions then were far worse than today. Yet the world has survived many ice ages without problems. There exists no proven linkage between CO2 and extreme conditions. In fact, always when CO2 concentrations were high in the past, life on Earth was profuse.

Ocean acidification, which the researchers call the ‘evil twin of global warming’, is caused when the CO2 emitted by human activity, mainly burning fossil fuels, dissolves into the oceans. It is happening independently of, but in combination with, global warming. Oops. It is logical that manmade CO2, like natural CO2, circulates with the ocean. But it is not known whether the oceans are absorbing or emitting CO2. What IS known, is that oceans emit CO2 when they warm up as suggested by global warming, because they are a massive store of CO2. We can't have both (oceans warming while absorbing CO2).

“Evidence gathered by scientists around the world over the last few years suggests that ocean acidification could represent an equal – or perhaps even greater threat – to the biology of our planet than global warming,” co-author Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and The University of Queensland says. This is just pure opinion and speculation. Firstly, it has been proved extensively that man-made global warming cannot exist - it lives only in flawed computer models. So what is a threat that is 'perhaps' greater than no threat? Why is the University of Queensland pulled into this scam? Does it give the argument more weight? Do they know about this?

More than 30% of the CO2 released from burning fossil fuels, cement production, deforestation and other human activities goes straight into the oceans, turning them gradually more acidic. Again, there exists no proof that this is the case. The 30% figure is just conjecture. There is also no proof that oceans are indeed becoming more acidic. Their chemistry is just too complicated, and their pH depends on day/night, seasons, productivity, eutrophication and much more. They exist in balance with carbonate sediments and rocks.

“The resulting acidification will impact many forms of sea life, especially organisms whose shells or skeletons are made from calcium carbonate, like corals and shellfish. It may interfere with the reproduction of plankton species which are a vital part of the food web on which fish and all other sea life depend,” he adds. To make this claim, in the face of all contradicting scientific facts, is unforgiveable. Where the influence of CO2 was studied without adding acids to the water (a fraud), most organisms proved to make more shell rather than less. They also became more productive than less. Read our acidification/part2.

The scientists say there is now persuasive evidence that mass extinctions in past Earth history, like the “Great Dying” of 251 million years ago and another wipeout 55 million years ago, were accompanied by ocean acidification, which may have delivered the deathblow to many species that were unable to cope with it. Again, correlation in the absence of proof. Did acidification cause death or did death cause acidification, as can be expected from bacterial decomposition of dead organic matter?

“These past periods can serve as great lessons of what we can expect in the future, if we continue to push the acidity the ocean even further” said lead author, Dr. Carles Pelejero, from ICREA and the Marine Science Institute of CSIC in Barcelona, Spain.

“Given the impacts we see in the fossil record, there is no question about the need to immediately reduce the rate at which we are emitting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere,” he said further. Oops. There is simply no proof. Are we going to tax society extraordinarily without extraordinary proof? Terrestrial and oceanic life love carbon dioxide.

“Today, the surface waters of the oceans have already acidified by an average of 0.1 pH units from pre-industrial levels, and we are seeing signs of its impact even in the deep oceans”, said co-author Dr. Eva Calvo, from the Marine Science Institute of CSIC in Barcelona, Spain. The 0.1 pH unit keeps cropping up, as if we indeed measured the average of all oceans before the industrial age began. This is entirely impossible given the state of technology back then and our inability to cover even a very small part of all oceans. The 0.1 pH unit originates from extrapolating back into the past, based on three assumptions: 1) CO2 concentrations back then were 280ppm or less.  2) the pH of the ocean is in direct balance with the air. 3) we pretend to know ocean chemistry. And all three assumptions are wrong.

“Future acidification depends on how much CO2 humans emit from here on – but by the year 2100 various projections indicate that the oceans will have acidified by a further 0.3 to 0.4 pH units, which is more than many organisms like corals can stand”, Prof. Hoegh-Guldberg says. This claim is based on IPCC projections, which are based on pure fantasy, now exposed by climategate. 1) the models are fed by assumptions  2) the models project what we want them to.  3) actual temperature measurements are massaged and corrected to confirm projections. 4) ocean chemsitry is buffered by the calcium ion and an observable 'acidification' seen today cannot be extrapolated straight into the future. 5) there exists no proof of Hoegh-Guldberg's claim.

“This will create conditions not seen on Earth for at least 40 million years”. “These changes are taking place at rates as much as 100 times faster than they ever have over the last tens of millions of years” Prof. Hoegh-Guldberg says. A lot of unwarranted certainty here.

Under such circumstances “Conditions are likely to become very hostile for calcifying species in the north Atlantic and Pacific over the next decade and in the Southern Ocean over the next few decades,” the researchers warn.
Besides directly impacting on the fishing industry and its contribution to the human food supply at a time when global food demand is doubling, a major die-off in the oceans would affect birds and many land species and change the biology of Earth as a whole profoundly, Prof. Hoegh-Guldberg adds. . . . .Sigh. These people see a disaster scores of millions of years ago and make us believe that is relevant to today, and that it was caused by CO2. Correlation is not causation.

Palaeo-perspectives on ocean acidification by Carles Pelejero, Eva Calvo and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg is published in the latest issue of the journal Trends in Ecology and Evolution (TREE), number 1232.

More information:
Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, CoECRS and Global Change Institute at UQ, Ph +61 (07) 3346 7417 or 0401 106 604; email oveh@uq.edu.au)
Professor Carles Pelejero, ICREA and Institut de Ciencies del Mar, CSIC, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain, Ph  +34 93 2309500 ; email:  pelejero@icm.cat
Dr. Eva Calvo, Institut de Ciencies del Mar, CSIC, Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain. Ph  +34 93 2309500 or +34 93 2309520 (direct); email:  ecalvo@icm.cat
Jenny Lappin, CoECRS, 07 4781 4222
Jan King, UQ Communications Manager, +61 (0)7 3365 1120. http://www.coralcoe.org.au/

9 November 2009
Our comments in blue.

Australian marine scientists have issued an urgent call for massive and rapid worldwide cuts in carbon emissions, deep enough to prevent atmospheric CO2 levels rising to 450 parts per million (ppm). In the lead up to United Nations Copenhagen Climate Change Conference Professors Charlie Veron (former Chief Scientist, Australian Institute of Marine Science) and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg of the ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and The University of Queensland, have urged the world’s leaders to adopt a maximum global emission target of 325 parts per million (ppm). 'Australian marine scientists' - actually only three belonging to a small clique. An emission target corresponding to that of some 50-100 years ago, is totally unrealistic. When people mention the Copenhagen 'conference', one must raise one's heckles in suspicion. This is not a scientific conference where dissenting voices are heard, but a political convention where consensus is rallied for a political cause while suppressing all doubt, opposition and skepticism.

This will be essential, they say, to save coral reefs worldwide from a catastrophic decline which threatens the livelihoods of an estimated 500 million people globally. This is substantially lower than today’s atmospheric levels of 387 ppm, and far below the 450ppm limit envisaged by most governments attending Copenhagen as necessary to restrain global warming to a 2 degree rise, on average. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, which is entirely absent. The statement is based on a belief that raised CO2 levels cause catastrophic warming. These people base their opinions entirely on the fraudulent work of others.

“This may take a long time.  However, climate change is an intergenerational issue which will require intergenerational thinking”, Professor Hoegh-Guldberg said. “If CO2 levels are allowed to continue to approach 450 ppm (due by 2030–2040 at the current rates at which emissions are climbing), reefs will be in rapid and terminal decline world-wide from mass coral bleaching, ocean acidification, and other environmental impacts associated with climate change,” Professor Charlie Veron, Prof. Hoegh-Guldberg, Dr Janice Lough of COECRS and the Australian Institute of Marine Science and colleagues warn in a new scientific paper published in the Marine Pollution Bulletin. Here comes the correlation: 1) reefs decline world-wide. 2) coral bleaching has been observed  3) fraudulent temperature records saw a rise in temperature.  4) computer models predict more warming.  5) CO2 may/must be absorbed by the oceans, causing a drop in pH  6) this may affect many organisms.  Conclusion: CO2 is catastrophic at current levels.

“Damage to shallow reef communities will become extensive with consequent reduction of biodiversity followed by extinctions,” they add. “Reefs will cease to be large-scale nursery grounds for fish and will cease to have most of their current value to humanity. There will be knock-on effects to ecosystems associated with reefs, and to other (marine) ecosystems.” Far-reacing conclusions without any base or fact or measurement. Just fantasy.

The researchers say that coral deaths due to bleaching were first observed when global atmospheric CO2 levels passed 320ppm in the 1970s. By the mid-1980s, at 340 ppm, sporadic, highly-destructive events were being recorded. In the paper they argue for a long-term limit “below 350ppm” to be set. Again correlation as above and because before the 1970s coral bleaching was not observed (which does not prove it didn't happen). Without any proof, CO2 is taken as the culprit.

Prof Veron told the British Royal Society recently that Australia’s Great Barrier Reef would be on ‘death row’ unless urgent action was taken to stem global carbon emissions. “We are tracking the IPCC’s worst case scenario. The global CO2 situation, tracked by temperature and sea level rise, is now following the worst case scenario,” he says. “The people meeting at Copenhagen need to hear this message.” Again, conclusions based on fraudulent CO2 science: IPCC + worst case + rising seas. All proved wrong by climategate.

At the same time CO2 emissions are turning the oceans more acidic, causing damage to corals and all life with a carbonate skeletons or shells and, if unchecked, potentially leading to mass extinctions of ocean life like those of the geological past. Wow! Mass extinctions from a life-bringing and life-enhancing gas!

Prof Hoegh-Guldberg warns “We are already well above the safe levels for the world’s coral reefs. The proposed 450ppm/2 degree target is dangerous for the world’s corals and for the 500 million people who depend on them.” “We should not go there, not only for reasons of coral reefs, but for the many other impacts that are extremely likely,” he says.
“We deduce, from the history of coral bleaching, that the safe level for coral reefs is probably about 320 or 325ppm. From fossil air taken from ice cores we know the world has not exceeded 300ppm for at least the last 760,000 years, so we are already in dangerous territory. We are already way outside the limits that mother earth has been operating within for millions of years.” This statement is rather naive. Coral bleaching has been studied extensively and scientists discovered that corals simply adapt (See Dr Craig Idso). Further the Professor refers to ice cores, which have been proved unreliable. Then he declares that we are already in dangerous territory and 'outside limits' even though not long ago the CO2 concentrations were very much higher than today, and that today is historically exceptionally low. Furthermore, life was rich when CO2 was abundant.

“Then there is sea level rise. The latest scientific consensus that the minimum sea level rise we can expect globally is 1 m.  The IPCC’s earlier estimates on this are now seen as far too conservative.  A metre of rise will displace at least 30 million people and contaminate the underground water supplies of many coastal cities with salt. Oops. There exists no consensus on sea level rise as a result of 'warming'. This is just printed by IPCC computer models, which are just fantasy. Besides, fresh water floats on salt water and stays above as it always does. Besides, look at the Dutch where the land is sinking. They just built dykes - no displacement of people.

“Tens of millions of people are going to be displaced. This is not just about corals. Big issues of food security and regional security are also at stake, and we all need to wake up to the fact that climate change is not simply about warm days.” .... Sigh.

 “It will cost less than 1 per cent of GDP growth (over the next 50 years) to sort this problem out.  In times of war individual countries have devoted anything from 40 to 70 per cent of their GDP to the war effort, so the effort required to cease emitting carbon is far, far smaller. “It is completely affordable, completely achievable. Oops, figures plucked out of thin air. The costs are far higher, for a problem that does not and cannot exist.

“The consequences of not cutting carbon emissions sharply are extremely serious for humanity. It is time all people understood this.” Dear Professor, it is better if you began understanding what you are talking about. Reader, please understand that this is not a scientific article about cause and effect and proof off such, but is purely a viewpoint of a bunch of scientists. Note also that this article was written before the climategate scandal broke.

The paper “The coral reef crisis: The critical importance of <350 ppm CO2”  by J.E.N. Veron, O. Hoegh-Guldberg, T.M. Lenton, J.M. Lough, D.O. Obura, P. Pearce-Kelly, C.R.C. Sheppard, M. Spalding, M.G. Stafford-Smith, A.D. Rogers, is a viewpoint in Marine Pollution Bulletin 58 (2009) 1428–1436. Free from Science Direct.

More information:
Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, CoECRS and Global Change Institute at UQ, contact (07) 3346 7417  for interviews. (Mob 0401 106 604 , oveh@uq.edu.au)
Professor Charlie Veron, 07 4778 4609 ornbsp 0419 701 935
Janice Lough, CoECRS and AIMS, ph 07 4753 4248
Jenny Lappin, CoECRS, 07 4781 4222
Jan King, UQ Communications Manager, +61 (0)7 3365 1120
Jim O’Brien, James Cook University Media Office, 07 4781 4822 or 0418 892449
http://www.coralcoe.org.au/nbspnbsp http://www.coralreefresearch.org/index.htm

Climate Change and the Integrity of Science
fake image of ice bear on ice floeSCIENCE    VOL 328    7 MAY 2010
(accompanied by a faked photo of an ice bear on an ice floe. What happened to due diligence here?
Stock photo description: A polar bear managed to get on one of the last ice floes floating in the Arctic sea. Due to global warming the natural environment of the polar bear in the Arctic has changed a lot. The Arctic sea has much less ice than it had some years ago. (This images is a photoshop design. Polarbear, ice floe, ocean and sky are real, they were just not together in the way they are now) )
(original text in black; our comments in blue; emotive words in red)

We are deeply disturbed by the recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular. All citizens should understand some basic scientific facts. There is always some uncertainty associated with scientific conclusions; science never absolutely proves anything. When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action. For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet.

Carl Sagan once said “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”. No less so with catastrophic climate change because the cost of remedy is so extraordinarily high. Then there is also the doctor's dilemma: what if the cure makes things worse? But most importantly, there exists absolutely no evidence that 1) climate change is abnormal, let alone catastrophic, and that 2) there exists a cure for it, and 3) that such a cure will work, and that 4) it is affordable. No doctor will act on such a poor diagnosis, and neither should society.
Scientific conclusions derive from an understanding of basic laws supported by laboratory experiments, observations of nature, and mathematical and computer modeling. Like all human beings, scientists make mistakes, but the scientific process is designed to find and correct them. This process is inherently adversarial—scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That’s what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But when some conclusions have been thoroughly and deeply tested, questioned, and examined, they gain the status of “well-established theories” and are often spoken of as “facts.”
Everyone should be allowed to make mistakes and then correct them, even more so, scientists. But the great forerunners Galileo to Einstein and others were all unfortunate that science does not work so well, and that they had to endure unnecessarily long periods of denial, derision and attack. But the situation with Climategate is that science has been corrupted to the core; that its very institution of publication, critique and peer review, has been demolished, not just by a few rotten apples but also by those who have been complicit for either inaction, or defence of the status quo. Every signatory to this document is implicitly guilty of scientific corruption. It is very disturbing that the 300 scientists and Nobel prize winners, attached to this document defend the total loss of integrity dealt to science as a whole. The problem with scientists is that they are seldom or never held accountable for what they say, the advice they give or the propaganda they spread, unlike other professionals such as engineers. That time has now come and if scientists cannot keep their own house in order, then the public (the skeptics) will and must do so, through the courts if necessary.
For instance, there is compelling scientific evidence that our planet is about 4.5 billion years old (the theory of the origin of Earth), that our universe was born from a single event about 14 billion years ago (the Big Bang theory), and that today’s organisms evolved from ones living in the past (the theory of evolution). Even as these are overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, fame still awaits anyone who could show these theories to be wrong.
It is totally wrong to compare our understanding of Earth's climate system with that of evolution and the age of Earth. As far as the Big Bang is concerned, there is again, no proof sufficiently large to explain all the paradoxes that remain. It is not an accepted theory. Even in evolutionary theory, many paradoxes remain. These are all fields open to new discoveries. Our almost total ignorance of our nearest 'sister' planet Venus, serves as example.
Climate change now falls into this category: There is compelling, comprehensive, and consistent objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in ways that threaten our societies and the ecosystems on which we depend.
This statement gives away the naivety of the writers and endorsers. There is no compelling, neither consistent, nor objective evidence that humans are changing the climate in a threatening way by burning fossil fuels. There exists an overwhelming majority of scientists (over 30,000) who also think so. Besides, the climate system remains too complex for the foreseeable future. The science is NOT settled. The whole edifice of global warming is based on faulty computer models and their predictions, which is not evidence.
Many recent assaults on climate science and, more disturbingly, on climate scientists by climate change deniers are typically driven by special interests or dogma, not by an honest effort to provide an alternative theory that credibly satisfies the evidence.
It is unworthy to react to this very unscientific and emotional statement, except that there are alternative theories that provide more satisfying evidence. One of the most serious mistakes of the IPCC was that because there was no explanation (yet) for an observed rise in temperature, CO2 has been chosen as the culprit by default, and all observed facts, theories, computer models, and even the data (!) were then fitted to suit. This corruption of the scientific process needs to be exposed and examined and brought into the open, which is entirely different from an assault on science and its practitioners.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other scientific assessments of climate change, which involve thousands of scientists producing massive and comprehensive reports, have, quite expectedly and normally, made some mistakes. When errors are pointed out, they are corrected. But there is nothing remotely identified in the recent events that changes the fundamental conclusions about climate change:
It is true that some minor mistakes by the IPCC have been blown up out of all proportion as a tit-for-tat pettiness. It is also true that the majority of contributors to the IPCC report have been diligent and truthful. However, it is also true that a handful of IPCC-salaried scientists have twisted the truth in order to present a most scary summary for policy makers. It is equally true that this has upset a majority of diligent contributors. Most importantly, one will not find in the IPCC any reports that could upset its apple cart. That evidence must be found OUTSIDE the IPCC.
(i) The planet is warming due to increased concentrations of heat-trapping gases in our atmosphere. A snowy winter in Washington does not alter this fact. False.

(ii) Most of the increase in the concentration of these gases over the last century is due to human activities, especially the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation. Somewhat true but the sea has been ignored and volcanism (undersea).

(iii) Natural causes always play a role in changing Earth’s climate, but are now being overwhelmed by human-induced changes. Partly true. The problem with this entire letter is that two issues are merged or confused. 1) global warming due to CO2 and 2) human-induced changes that may affect climate, like land-use change. It is very unscientific not to differentiate the two.

(iv) Warming the planet will cause many other climatic patterns to change at speeds unprecedented in modern times, including increasing rates of sea-level rise and alterations in the hydrologic cycle. Rising concentrations of carbon dioxide are making the oceans more acidic. Again, the issues are confused, but they are three times FALSE and extensively PROVED false.

(v) The combination of these complex climate changes threatens coastal communities and cities, our food and water supplies, marine and freshwater ecosystems, forests, high mountain environments, and far more. Again confusion. It is true that Man's greatest problems are lack of food and water and degradation of its environments, but increased levels of CO2 alleviate many such problems: more food with less water over larger areas.

Much more can be, and has been, said by the world’s scientific societies, national academies, and individuals, but these conclusions should be enough to indicate why scientists are concerned about what future generations will face from business-as-usual practices. We urge our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels.

Again confusion. This letter is mainly about support for criminal colleagues, but it also calls for policy-makers to act urgently and immediately on flimsy evidence for the sake of future generations, at an unspecified cost.
We also call for an end to McCarthy-like threats of criminal prosecution against our colleagues based on innuendo and guilt by association, the harassment of scientists by politicians seeking distractions to avoid taking action, and the outright lies being spread about them. Society has two choices: We can ignore the science and hide our heads in the sand and hope we are lucky, or we can act in the public interest to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. The good news is that smart and effective actions are possible. But delay must not be an option.
Oops. Another very unscientific statement, reminiscent of threats to firmly held beliefs. To my knowledge there exists no remedy to reduce the threat of global climate change quickly and substantively. Neither do smart and effective actions exist. So delay  is a very valid option - delay until the truth emerges and the rotten apples held accountable - in court. This letter makes one thing sure: these people are not going to get their house in order.

Apparently drafted by Peter H Gleick <petergleick@pacinst.org>
1. The signatories are all members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences but are not speaking on its behalf.
2. Signatory affiliations are available as supporting material at ww.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/328/5979/689/

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe."
–Albert Einstein.

All signatories, including Nobel Prize winners, are members of the about 2100 in the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). Very few have qualifications relating to climate science. Would a well-informed scientist like to be seen in their company?


For an extensive list of these signatories and their qualifications and institutions, visit http://xyzt.atomic-hosting.com/NASsigs.pdf (58pp) by Josualdo. Nobel prize laureates in BOLD.

U.S. Scientists and Economists’ Call for Swift and Deep Cuts
in Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Statement by the Union of Concerned Scientists, March 2010
(Our dissection and analysis in blue and alarmist words in red.)

In the light of Climategate which erupted in November 2009 [1], this statement can at best be called 'poorly timed', because for all to see, the corruption and fraud inside the scientific community has come to light, as well the utterly flimsy scientific basis on which the global warming scare is founded [2].

We call on our nation’s leaders to swiftly establish and implement policies to bring about deep reductions in heat-trapping emissions. The strength of the science on climate change compels us to warn the nation about the growing risk of irreversible consequences as global average temperatures continue to increase over pre-industrial levels (i.e., prior to 1860).

The strength of the science on which these claims are based, is next to zero [3]. Past climate excesses have shown that there are no irreversible consequences - there is no tripping point. What's more, there exists new and old overwhelming scientific evidence, that human-made greenhouse gases cannot measurably influence temperature and climate. Deep reductions are not needed. There exists no urgency, and indeed a wait-and-see attitude is by far the best choice of action and by far the cheapest.
As temperatures rise further, the scope and severity of global warming impacts will continue to accelerate. The 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change unequivocally concluded that our climate is warming, stating with at least 90 percent certainty that the warming of the last several decades is primarily due to human activities. Global average temperatures have already risen ~ 0.7°C (1.3°F) over the last 100 years, and impacts are now being observed worldwide.
Earth's climate is always changing. The biggest change happened at the end of last ice age. Past history has shown that warm periods are good for civilisation. Periods significantly higher than now feared, have only brought prosperity. The recent 40 years of warming have now come to an end, and a long period of cooling is feared. furthermore, the climate changes seen worldwide have no relationship to carbondioxide.
Human-caused emissions to date have locked in further changes including sea-level rise that will intensify coastal flooding, and dramatic reductions in snowpack that will disrupt water supplies in the western United States.
The seas have stopped rising to a level where they stood a million years ago - new dunes are found over old dunes. Recent observations have shown that sea level is rising at the same rate as before the industrial age. Snow packs are steady. All these concerns are based on projections from the faulty science propagated by the IPCC.
If emissions continue unabated, our nation and the world will face more sea level rise, heat waves, droughts, wildfires, snowmelt, flood risk, and public health threats, as well as increased rates of plant and animal species extinctions.
Recent observations have shown all the above fears wrong.
The longer we wait, the harder and more costly it will be to limit climate change and to adapt to those impacts that will not be avoided. Many emissions reduction strategies can be adopted today that would save consumers and industry money while providing benefits for air quality, energy security, public health, balance of trade, and employment.
More of the same. Unavoidable impacts due to carbondioxide will not happen. Money can be spent much better, but improving air quality, energy security and balance of trade, are all commendable.
All nations must commit to a goal designed to limit further harm. The United States, the European Union, and a number of other countries have recognized the need for limiting global warming to no more than 2°C (3.6°F) above pre-industrial levels.
There is no further harm. Natural climate changes can neither be wished for, nor avoided.
Emerging science must be regularly evaluated to assess whether this goal is sufficient. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change recognizes that all nations have  responsibility to curb global warming, consistent with their respective contribution to emissions and capacity to act. Recent analyses indicate the United States—even with aggressive action by other nations—would need to reduce  its emissions on the order of 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050to have a reasonable chance of limiting warming to 2ºC.
Emerging science must further our understanding of Earth's climate system, but first of all the 2000 signatories should swat up a bit on what is known, and the physics behind it. The claim of reducing emissions by 80% is sheer madness.
A strong U.S. commitment to reduce emissions is essential to drive international climate progress.  Voluntary initiatives to date have proven insufficient. We urge U.S. policy makers to put our nation onto a path today to reduce emissions on the order of 80 percent below 2000 levels by 2050. The first step on this path should be reductions on the order of 15-20 percent below 2000
levels by 2020, which is achievable and consistent with sound economic policy.
Initiatives and emission reductions to date have been a waste of time and money, and have engendered a financial market of profiteers and criminals.
There is no time to waste. The most risky thing we can do is nothing.
The most foolish thing is to act on bad science and to waste the funds that could have helped the poor and solved some real world problems.
It is truly mind-boggling how the academic community acts like herd animals, too dumb to think for themselves and too besotted with the statements of those 'in authority' amongst them. But here in this Hall of Shame, they will be remembered for their motto is: UCS stands out among nonprofit organizations as the reliable source for independent scientific analysis. Check it out.

[1] John P Costella (2010):  Climategate analysishttp://assassinationscience.com/climategate/  an important analysis by an insider, and important to understand the magnitude of malfeasance.
[2] Anthoni, J Floor (2010): Anthropogenic Global Warming dissected. Climate/Chapter4. Understanding why the science is wrong.
[3] Anthoni, J Floor (2010): Global Climate: Understanding Earth's climate system. Climate/intro.

The CO2 problem in 6 easy steps
By Gavin Schmidt in Realclimate.org, 6 August 2007
Original text in black; our analysis in blue.
Reader, we are deconstructing this seemingly scientific reasoning here because it lies at the core of the whole global warming scam as propagated by the IPCC and so many other scientists.

We often get requests to provide an easy-to-understand explanation for why increasing CO2 is a significant problem without relying on climate models and we are generally happy to oblige. The explanation has a number of separate steps which tend to sometimes get confused and so we will try to break it down carefully.

Step 1: There is a natural greenhouse effect.
The fact that there is a natural greenhouse effect (that the atmosphere restricts the passage of long wave (LW) radiation from the Earth’s surface to space) is easily deducible from i) the mean temperature of the surface (around 15ºC) and ii) knowing that the planet is roughly in radiative equilibrium. This means that there is an upward surface flux of LW around sigma T^4 (~390 W/m2), while the outward flux at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) is roughly equivalent to the net solar radiation coming in (1-a)S/4 (~240 W/m2). Thus there is a large amount of LW absorbed by the atmosphere (around 150 W/m2) – a number that would be zero in the absence of any greenhouse substances.

Both i) and ii) are incorrect. The mean surface temperature can NOT be derived from the radiative equilibrium and has never been shown as such. It has been measured by thermometers, and back-calculated from the 'radiative balance'. The planet is in constant change of temperature. Some of it 'internal' from melting ice and warming oceans, some of it 'external' from solar and cosmic variations. Lots of uncertainty here (in red). Even a completely transparent atmosphere without greenhouse gases will have a large greenhouse effect. See marble in space.

Step 2: Trace gases contribute to the natural greenhouse effect.
The fact that different absorbers contribute to the net LW absorption is clear from IR spectra taken from space which show characteristic gaps associated with water vapour, CO2, CH4, O3 etc (Harries et al, 2001; HITRAN). The only question is how much energy is blocked by each. This cannot be calculated by hand (the number of absorption lines and the effects of pressure broadening etc. preclude that), but it can be calculated using line-by-line radiative transfer codes. The earliest calculations (reviewed by Ramanathan and Coakley, 1979) give very similar results to more modern calculations (Clough and Iacono, 1995), and demonstrate that removing the effect of CO2 reduces the net LW absorbed by ~14%, or around 30 W/m2. For some parts of the spectrum, IR can be either absorbed by CO2 or by water vapour, and so simply removing the CO2 gives only a minimum effect. Thus CO2 on its own would cause an even larger absorption. In either case however, the trace gases are a significant part of what gets absorbed.

On the other hand, many authors, already from Fourier and Aengstrom have shown decisively by experiment that CO2 cannot have a measurable influence. The IPCC computer models essentially leave the physics of conduction and convection out. A good source to read is Timothy Casey: http://greenhouse.geologist-1011.net/, describing the work of Fourier, Tyndall, Arrhenius and others, also clearing up some misunderstandings, uptodate to this date.
Ramanathan and Coakley pointed out in their 1978 paper: "convection is what determines the temperature gradient of the atmosphere but solving the equations for convection is a significant problem – so the radiative convective approach is to use the known temperature profile in the lower atmosphere to solve the radiative transfer equations." In other words, a fiddle to and oversimplification of the real physics, and acknowledgement of the importance of conduction and convection as the greenhouse effect. Reader. this is a very important fact.

Step 3: The trace greenhouse gases have increased markedly due to human emissions
CO2 is up more than 30%, CH4 has more than doubled, N2O is up 15%, tropospheric O3 has also increased. New compounds such as halocarbons (CFCs, HFCs) did not exist in the pre-industrial atmosphere. All of these increases contribute to an enhanced greenhouse effect.

There is convincing evidence that greenhouse gases do not have a measurable effect. They do not affect Robert Wood's glasshouse experiment and cannot explain it. Yes, the mentioned gases have increased, but No, they have not and cannot measurably affect temperature. Further, the CO2 baseline of 280ppm is based only on ice cores, with many assumptions on their validity.

Step 4: Radiative forcing is a useful diagnostic and can easily be calculated
Lessons from simple toy models and experience with more sophisticated GCMs suggests that any perturbation to the TOA (Top-Of-Atmosphere) radiation budget from whatever source is a pretty good predictor of eventual surface temperature change. Thus if the sun were to become stronger by about 2%, the TOA radiation balance would change by 0.02*1366*0.7/4 = 4.8 W/m2 (taking albedo and geometry into account) and this would be the radiative forcing (RF). An increase in greenhouse absorbers or a change in the albedo have analogous impacts on the TOA balance. However, calculation of the radiative forcing is again a job for the line-by-line codes that take into account atmospheric profiles of temperature, water vapour and aerosols. The most up-to-date calculations for the trace gases are by Myhre et al (1998) and those are the ones used in IPCC TAR and AR4.

This is the main stumbling block of the IPCC computer models, where every possible effect is reduced to a radiative forcing (solar energy). Everything from CO2 infrared absorption, to land use change, becomes a part of solar radiation. The real physics and thermodynamics of the planet are not even considered as everything is reduced to a radiative fudge factor of guessed-at quantity, programmed as line-by-line codes without verification. This is not scientific.
These calculations can be condensed into simplified fits to the data, such as the oft-used formula for CO2: RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig) (see Table 6.2 in IPCC TAR for the others). The logarithmic form comes from the fact that some particular lines are already saturated and that the increase in forcing depends on the ‘wings’ (see this post for more details). Forcings for lower concentration gases (such as CFCs) are linear in concentration. The calculations in Myhre et al use representative profiles for different latitudes, but different assumptions about clouds, their properties and the spatial heterogeneity mean that the global mean forcing is uncertain by about 10%. Thus the RF for a doubling of CO2 is likely 3.7±0.4 W/m2 – the same order of magnitude as an increase of solar forcing by 2%.
It has been showed in experiments that an increase in CO2 concentrations has no effect on either absorption or temperature, and this included the 'wings' of the spectrum. The calculations (not experiments) by Myhre are just an excuse to justify the IPCC's radiative forcing formula. More to the point, the hockey stick frauds are behind this, postulating an exponential behaviour of temperature, CO2 and human emissions.
There are a couple of small twists on the radiative forcing concept. One is that CO2 has an important role in the stratospheric radiation balance. The stratosphere reacts very quickly to changes in that balance and that changes the TOA forcing by a small but non-negligible amount. The surface response, which is much slower, therefore reacts more proportionately to the ‘adjusted’ forcing and this is generally what is used in lieu of the instantaneous forcing. The other wrinkle is depending slightly on the spatial distribution of forcing agents, different feedbacks and processes might come into play and thus an equivalent forcing from two different sources might not give the same response. The factor that quantifies this effect is called the ‘efficacy’ of the forcing, which for the most part is reasonably close to one, and so doesn’t change the zeroth-order picture (Hansen et al, 2005). This means that climate forcings can be simply added to approximate the net effect.
There is a huge twist on the radiative forcing concept: it is wrong. Which physics attributes large effects from a 'small but non-negligible amount'? How much certainty is shown here? It is all fiddling around the real physics that are not part of their models.
The total forcing from the trace greenhouse gases mentioned in Step 3, is currently about 2.5 W/m2, and the net forcing (including cooling impacts of aerosols and natural changes) is 1.6±1.0 W/m2 since the pre-industrial. Most of the uncertainty is related to aerosol effects. Current growth in forcings is dominated by increasing CO2, with potentially a small role for decreases in reflective aerosols (sulphates, particularly in the US and EU) and increases in absorbing aerosols (like soot, particularly from India and China and from biomass burning).
Again gases becoming sources of energy and aerosol-reflectors ditto. It is now known with certainty what conditions were pre-industrial. How?

Step 5: Climate sensitivity is around 3ºC for a doubling of CO2
The climate sensitivity classically defined is the response of global mean temperature to a forcing once all the ‘fast feedbacks’ have occurred (atmospheric temperatures, clouds, water vapour, winds, snow, sea ice etc.), but before any of the ’slow’ feedbacks have kicked in (ice sheets, vegetation, carbon cycle etc.). Given that it doesn’t matter much which forcing is changing, sensitivity can be assessed from any particular period in the past where the changes in forcing are known and the corresponding equilibrium temperature change can be estimated. As we have discussed previously, the last glacial period is a good example of a large forcing (~7 W/m2 from ice sheets, greenhouse gases, dust and vegetation) giving a large temperature response (~5 ºC) and implying a sensitivity of about 3ºC (with substantial error bars). More formally, you can combine this estimate with others taken from the 20th century, the response to volcanoes, the last millennium, remote sensing etc. to get pretty good constraints on what the number should be. This was done by Annan and Hargreaves (2006), and they come up with, you guessed it, 3ºC.
Converting the estimate for doubled CO2 to a more useful factor gives ~0.75 ºC/(W/m2).

Atmospheric temperatures, clouds, water vapour, winds, snow, sea ice etc have all become sources of energy. "..any period in the past where the changes in forcing are known.." How? An ice age giving a large temperature response to CO2 while CO2 was lagging temperature changes? Then implying a CO2 sensitivity of 3ºC? To get a more useful factor? Reader, can you smell a dead rat here? It is all about guessing about a fictitious phenomenon created to explain recent warming.

Step 6: Radiative forcing x climate sensitivity is a significant number
Current forcings (1.6 W/m2) x 0.75 ºC/(W/m2) imply 1.2 ºC that would occur at equilibrium. Because the oceans take time to warm up, we are not yet there (so far we have experienced 0.7ºC), and so the remaining 0.5 ºC is ‘in the pipeline’. We can estimatethis independently using the changes in ocean heat content over the last decade or so (roughly equal to the current radiative imbalance) of ~0.7 W/m2, implying that this ‘unrealised’ forcing will lead to another 0.7×0.75 ºC – i.e. 0.5 ºC.
Additional forcings in business-as-usual scenarios range roughly from 3 to 7 W/m2 and therefore additional warming (at equilibrium) would be 2 to 5 ºC. That is significant.

Fair enough, the oceans lag behind the atmosphere but everything is based on assumptions and estimates, converted to solar energy. What score would this essay get as a school project?

Q.E.D.? [Quod Erat Demonstrandum, which was the thing to be proved, which proves it]

Reader, this sums it all up. This is the basis behind the IPCC, the Kyoto Protocol, emissions trading, massive transfers of wealth, huge costs for everybody, and all based on a fictitious global warming phenomenon that cannot possibly happen, and the mitigation of which cannot possibly work either. All at astronomical costs to society. [Sigh]

AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change
Approved by the Board of Directors, American Association for the Advancement of Science
9 December 2006
(Our dissection in blue)

The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society. Accumulating data from across the globe reveal a wide array of effects: rapidly melting glaciers, destabilization of major ice sheets, increases in extreme weather, rising sea level, shifts in species ranges, and more. The pace of change and the evidence of harm have increased markedly over the last five years. The time to control greenhouse gas emissions is now.

The scientific evidence for global warming caused by CO2 is not at all clear. In fact it is the least plausible of all effects on climate. There has been some warming, which has in no way been a growing threat to society. To the contrary, it has been beneficial for global harvests and feeding the growing world populations. Glaciers are not melting more than before 1900, neither are ice sheets. There have been no increases in hurricanes and there has been no rising sea levels beyond what began before the industrial age. The recent years since 1998 have seen cooling of the atmosphere and oceans. Greenhouse gases have no measurable effect on climate. There is no proof that they do.
The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, a critical greenhouse gas, is higher than it has been for at least 650,000 years. The average temperature of the Earth is heading for levels not experienced for millions of years. Scientific predictions of the impacts of increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases from fossil fuels and deforestation match observed changes. As expected, intensification of droughts, heat waves, floods, wildfires, and severe storms is occurring, with a mounting toll on vulnerable ecosystems and societies. These events are early warning signs of even more devastating damage to come, some of which will be irreversible.
CO2 is not in any way a critical greenhouse gas as it plays a minor to negligible role. There have been no reliable quantitative measurements of CO2 before 1960. Temperature leads CO2 in all past records. CO2 does NOT cause warming. The temperature of Earth has been higher in very recent times and the last inter-glacial (only 100,000 years ago) was very much warmer than today. Scientific predictions do not exist. All we have are computer model scenarios based on assumptions. The observed changes do NOT match predictions as there are colossal discrepancies. No change in temperature is expected. Only primitive computer models do. There are no tipping points or irreversible changes; they are part of how the models have been programmed.
Delaying action to address climate change will increase the environmental and societal consequences as well as the costs. The longer we wait to tackle climate change, the harder and more expensive the task will be.
History provides many examples of society confronting grave threats by mobilizing knowledge and promoting innovation. We need an aggressive research, development and deployment effort to transform the existing and future energy systems of the world away from technologies that emit greenhouse gases. Developing clean energy technologies will provide economic opportunities and ensure future energy supplies.
The best and most cautious course of action is to wait, which is also the cheapest option. History has proved over and over without a single exception, that societies cannot save themselves from collapse, and the AAAS is a clear example of how this repeats itself today. It is laudable but not necessary to hurry into developing 'clean' technologies. The cleanest of all is nuclear energy but society has been misinformed about it, just as it is about global warming.
In addition to rapidly reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it is essential that we develop strategies to adapt to ongoing changes and make communities more resilient to future changes.
The growing torrent of information presents a clear message: we are already experiencing global climate change. It is time to muster the political will for concerted action. Stronger leadership at all levels is needed. The time is now. We must rise to the challenge. We owe this to future generations.
Humans have always adapted to changes. No need to stress this. The only torrent is that of DISinformation, of which this statement is one, sponsored by a large cross-section of the scientific community. We are not experiencing human-caused global warming but a short period of slight natural warming. Our biggest fear should be global cooling, which is even more likely, while far more devastating.
The conclusions in this statement reflect the scientific consensus represented by, for example, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (www.ipcc.ch/), and the Joint National Academies’ statement (http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf ).
Fortunately the skeptics are determined to defend the truth. It is absolutely despicable how the AAAS has been promoting fraudulent education about the world's climate in all schools. It has created a generation of fear for the future. The quoted Joint National Academies' statements is an utter disgrace. Click on the link to read more scare propaganda. Study the AAAS web site to become disgusted.

AAAS letter to US senators
October 21, 2009

Dear Senator:

As you consider climate change legislation, we, as leaders of scientific organizations, write to state the consensus scientific view.

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver.
These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science. Moreover, there is strong evidence that ongoing climate change will have broad impacts on society, including the global economy and on the environment.  For the United States, climate change impacts include sea level rise for coastal states, greater threats of extreme weather events, and increased risk of regional water scarcity, urban heat waves, western wildfires, and the disturbance of biological systems throughout the country. The severity of climate change impacts is expected to increase substantially in the coming decades.

If we are to avoid the most severe impacts of climate change, emissions of greenhouse gases must be dramatically reduced. In addition, adaptation will be necessary to address those impacts that are already unavoidable. Adaptation efforts include improved infrastructure design, more sustainable management of water and other natural resources, modified agricultural practices, and improved emergency responses to storms, floods, fires and heat waves.

We in the scientific community offer our assistance to inform your deliberations as you seek to address the impacts of climate change.

Signed by
Alan I Leshner, Executive Director American Association for the Advancement of Science
Thomas Lane, President American Chemical society
Timothy L Grove, President American Geophysical Union
Mary R Berenbaum, President American Institute of Biological Sciences
Keith Seitter, Executive Director American Meteorological Society
Mark Alley, President American Society of Agronomy
Tuan-Hua David Ho, President American Society of Plant Biologists
Sally C Morton, President American Statistical Association
Lucinda Johnson, President Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Kent e Holsinger, President Botanical Society of America.
Kenneth Quesenberry, President Crop Science Society of America
Maary Power, President Ecological society of America
William Y Brown, President Natural Science Collections Alliance
Brian D Kloeppel, President Organization of Biological Field Stations
Douglas N Arnold, President Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
John Huelsenbeck, President Society of Systematic Biology
Paul Bertsch, President Soil Science Society of America
Richard A Anthes, President University Corporation for Atmospheric Research UCAR

NAS letter to members of congress and the senate
January 28, 2011
To the Members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate:
(in blue our dissection, Floor Anthoni, 6 Feb 2011)

The Importance of Science in Addressing Climate Change

As you begin your deliberations in the new 112th Congress, we urge you to take a fresh look at climate change. Climate change is not just an environmental threat but, as we describe below, also poses challenges to the U.S. economy, national security and public health.

These scientists talk only about climate change, which nobody disputes as the climate is always changing, mostly by ice ages, solar variation, and in the past century from changing land use (deforestation). So nobody can prove that climate change is in any way normal or abnormal or that it is associated with heat-trapping gasses like CO2. Their only scientific (falsifyable) position (hypothesis) is: due to increasing CO2, the atmosphere is warming (global warming). Global cooling is not part of this hypothesis and indeed disproves it. The fact that these scientists choose to be vague should raise suspicion about the scientific value of their arguments. It makes their argument impossible to disprove and equally impossible to prove.
Some view climate change as a futuristic abstraction. Others are unsure about the science, or uncertain about the policy responses. We want to assure you that the science is strong and that there is nothing abstract about the risks facing our Nation. Our coastal areas are now facing increasing dangers from rising sea levels and storm surges; the southwest and southeast are increasingly vulnerable to drought; other regions will need to prepare for massive flooding from the extreme storms of the sort being experienced with increasing frequency.  These and other consequences of climate change all require that we plan and prepare. Our military recognizes that the consequences of climate change have direct security implications for the country that will only become more acute with time, and it has begun the sort of planning required across the board.
Oops, wrong on all counts: there can be no strong science about a vague notion as climate change. The sea levels have been rising ever more slowly and have recently levelled off. There have been no unusual storms or storm surges, and there have been fewer hurricanes of which even fewer reached land. Droughts and heatwaves are caused by cooling rather than warming, as evidenced wherever cool water borders the land (California, Galapagos, Chile, etc.). We cannot prepare for things that are not going to happen. We must just wait and see. At the moment the greatest risk is that of global cooling. Recent flooding and snowfall was caused by the end of an unusual El Niño during which warm water accumulated in the tropics.
The health of Americans is also at risk. The U.S. Climate Impacts Report, commissioned by the George W. Bush administration, states: “Climate change poses unique challenges to human health. Unlike health threats caused by a particular toxin or disease pathogen, there are many ways that climate change can lead to potentially harmful health effects. There are direct health impacts from heat waves and severe storms, ailments caused or exacerbated by air pollution and airborne allergens, and many climate-sensitive infectious diseases.”
There is no proof that a warmer climate poses unique challenges to human health. Indeed there is overwhelming evidence that warmth has been beneficial to societies. This whole paragraph rambles and is unworthy of science.
As with the fiscal deficit, the changing climate is the kind of daunting problem that we, as a nation, would like to wish away. However, as with our growing debt, the longer we wait to address climate change, the worse it gets. Heat-trapping carbon dioxide is building up in the atmosphere because burning coal, oil, and natural gas produces far more carbon dioxide than is absorbed by oceans and forests. No scientist disagrees with that.  Our carbon debt increases each year, just as our national debt increases each year that spending exceeds revenue.  And our carbon debt is even longer-lasting; carbon dioxide molecules can last hundreds of years in the atmosphere.
Oops, there is a non-sequitur (does not follow) here, as the fiscal deficit bears in no way any relationship or semblance to changing climate. Do these people know what caused the fiscal deficit, and that climate mitigation just worsens it for no benefit in return? We see CO2 increasing; we see the temperature rising; we program computers that the one causes the other; we believe their outputs. This is voodoo science.
There exists so much contradictory science that we are blind to see how it really works. CO2 molecules last from hours to several decades in air. One cannot speak of an average residence time, let alone of hundreds of years.

The Science of Climate Change

It is not our role as scientists to determine how to deal with problems like climate change. That is a policy matter and rightly must be left to our elected leaders in discussion with all Americans.  But, as scientists, we have an obligation to evaluate, report, and explain the science behind climate change.

Let's read the explanations of scientists (on this page) and in the IPCC reports and the Roycal Society. It doesn't look good, does it?
The debate about climate change has become increasingly ideological and partisan. But climate change is not the product of a belief system or ideology. Instead, it is based on scientific fact, and no amount of argument, coercion, or debate among talking heads in the media can alter the physics of climate change.
Having studied climate and atmosphere now for 21 years, I found ideology only by the proponents of CAGW (these people) and not with those who are skeptical. The whole ideology (not science) is based on computer models which bear no resemblance to how the atmosphere works. There is no scientific study that has empirically shown that CO2 causes the atmosphere to warm. On the contrary, there is overwhelming evidence from past climates, that this is not so. These scientists treat the atmosphere as a vacuum with a trace amount of CO2 in it, basing heat transfer entirely on radiation. It can't get worse than that.
Political philosophy has a legitimate role in policy debates, but not in the underlying climate science. There are no Democratic or Republican carbon dioxide molecules; they are all invisible and they all trap heat.
There are no warmists' or skeptics' CO2 molecules either.
The fruits of the scientific process are worthy of your trust.  This was perhaps best summed up in recent testimony before Congress by Dr. Peter Gleick, co-founder and director of the Pacific Institute and member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.  He testified that the scientific process “is inherently adversarial – scientists build reputations and gain recognition not only for supporting conventional wisdom, but even more so for demonstrating that the scientific consensus is wrong and that there is a better explanation. That’s what Galileo, Pasteur, Darwin, and Einstein did. But no one who argues against the science of climate change has ever provided an alternative scientific theory that adequately satisfies the observable evidence or conforms to our understanding of physics, chemistry, and climate dynamics.”
Does this mean a way out; that these scientists are unsure; that we cannot hold them accountable for what they say? That day is long past. You are in the Hall of Shame now.

National Academy of Sciences

What we know today about human-induced climate change is the result of painstaking research and analysis, some of it going back more than a century. Major international scientific organizations in disciplines ranging from geophysics to geology, atmospheric sciences to biology, and physics to human health – as well as every one of the leading national scientific academies worldwide – have concluded that human activity is changing the climate. This is not a “belief.” Instead, it is an objective evaluation of the scientific evidence.

Oops, it begins wrong and ends wrong. There is human-induced climate change(land use change) but it is not global warming. Let's stick to the subject. YES we owe a lot of honest scientists our gratitude for their unbiased and painstaking work. Hat off! But human health has nothing to do with it.
If one were truly ignorant, this paragraph may have rung true, but as this page has shown, the leading national scientific academies have become deep believers, totally divorced from scientific scrutiny, even divorced from the Scientific Method, as shown by the vagueness of their arguments. Read on this page what they say and don't forget the Royal Society. The most important scientific evidence, that of solar variation, has not been considered, even though the world has entered a period of rapid cooling.
The U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was created by Abraham Lincoln and chartered by Congress in 1863 for the express purpose of obtaining objective expert advice on a range of complex scientific and technological issues. Its international reputation for integrity is unparalleled. This spring, at the request of Congress, the NAS issued a series of comprehensive reports on climate change that were unambiguous.
Blabla, more fog. The reports were unambiguous (not having many meanings) because they were based on one and the same belief, as is this letter. The integrity of the NAS is totally shattered, as is that of all those mentioned in this Hall of Shame, and many more. The integrity of science as a whole has taken a hard blow.
The NAS stated, “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities . . . and in many cases is already affecting a broad range of human and natural systems.”  This conclusion comes as no surprise to the overwhelming majority of working climate scientists.
We have seen now that what the NAS says is poppycock and the more it says, the more poppycock. It indeed comes as no surprise because the lie has been around for so long. Fortunately there are scientists bright enough to see through the fog.

Climate Change Deniers

Climate change deniers cloak themselves in scientific language, selectively critiquing aspects of mainstream climate science. Sometimes they present alternative hypotheses as an explanation of a particular point, as if the body of evidence were a house of cards standing or falling on one detail; but the edifice of climate science instead rests on a concrete foundation. As an open letter from 255 NAS members noted in the May 2010 Science magazine, no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate and why.

It had to happen, the deniers bit, not worthy of real scientists. We are at blogging level now, dear members of Congress. It is true that shallow attacks have been made on trivial faults made by the warmers. For the public these were easy to understand, because what is really wrong with the IPCC science, requires a level of intelligence not displayed even by the signatories below.
The last line is blatantly wrong as there exists a vast amount of science contradicting the IPCC, and these lines of evidence are growing whereas that of the IPCC remains stale. But more to the point, there is not a shred of empirical evidence that shows global warming due to CO2. There are also too many places in the world proving it wrong.
The assertions of climate deniers therefore should not be given scientific weight equal to the comprehensive, peer-reviewed research presented by the vast majority of climate scientists.
A real scientist should say: "Let the facts speak for themselves". These pseudo-scientists however, want to speak from the vantage point of authority. History has shown their fate.
More to the point, the IPCC report was edited by a single person, Ben Santer, ignoring the recommendations of the vast majority of climate scientists. What followed was a circumglobal whitewash.
The determination of policy sits with you, the elected representatives of the people. But we urge you, as our elected representatives, to base your policy decisions on sound science, not sound bites. Congress needs to understand that scientists have concluded, based on a systematic review of all of the evidence, that climate change caused by human activities raises serious risks to our national and economic security and our health both here and around the world. It’s time for Congress to move on to the policy debate.
We've just been reading a polemic (a controversial discussion) consisting entirely of sound bites, did you notice?
Raises serious risks? Has the risk from global cooling been considered? Which of the two is worse? What about snow, ice, crop failures, famines? Read about the benefits of CO2.

How Can We Move Forward?

Congress should, we believe, hold hearings to understand climate science and what it says about the likely costs and benefits of action and inaction.  It should not hold hearings to attempt to intimidate scientists or to substitute ideological judgments for scientific ones. We urge our elected leaders to work together to focus the nation on what the science is telling us, particularly with respect to impacts now occurring around the country.

Oops, have these scientists not noted snow and ice and record freezing temperatures? Have they closed their eyes to the thousands died from cold? Or does cooling belong to climate change as part of global warming?
More to the point, what is the value of hearings when this kind of belief is regurgitated as real science?
Already, there is far more carbon in the air than at any time in human history, with more being generated every day. Climate change is underway and the severity of the risks we face is compounded by delay.
The first is a blatant lie as human history covers perhaps 1 million years. The claim is based on reliable measurements since 1960. Beyond that, no reliable data exists. As the oceans continue to warm, CO2 goes up. When it begins cooling again, the reverse happens. Just wait and see.
We look to you, our representatives, to address the challenge of climate change, and lead the national response. We and our colleagues are prepared to assist you as you work to develop a rational and practical national policy to address this important issue.
Oops, real scientists should not be involved in developing policies. See above: It is not our role as scientists to determine how to deal with problems like climate change.
Reader, having read all of the above, would you be proud to place your name here? These 'scientists' have maimed themselves forever, methinks.
Thank you for your attention.

John Abraham, University of St. Thomas
Barry Bickmore, Brigham Young University
Gretchen Daily,* Stanford University
G. Brent Dalrymple,* Oregon State University
Andrew Dessler, Texas A&M University
Peter Gleick,* Pacific Institute The same Peter Gleick who is one of only a handful of commenters who has been banned from WUWT, after several warnings, for his endless personal diatribes and childish behavior.
John Kutzbach,* University of Wisconsin-Madison
Syukuro Manabe,* Princeton University
Michael Mann, Penn State University The mann of the infamous hockey stick
Pamela Matson,* Stanford University
Harold Mooney,* Stanford University
Michael Oppenheimer, Princeton University
Ben Santer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Who doctored the IPCC report and messed up Wikipedia.
Richard Somerville, Scripps Institution of Oceanography
Kevin Trenberth, National Center for Atmospheric Research The missing heat man.
Warren Washington, National Center for Atmospheric Research
Gary Yohe, Wesleyan University
George Woodwell,* The Woods Hole Research Center

*Member of the National Academy of Sciences

Scientists show faults in the letter to congress
In a rebuttal far more detailed than ours above, a group of scientists (skeptics) provide the undeniable scientific evidence found in hundreds of peer-reviewed reports, to point out blatant inaccuracies in the letter to congress.
"In light of the profusion of actual observations of the workings of the real world showing little or no negative effects of the modest warming of the second half of the twentieth century, and indeed growing evidence of positive effects, we find it incomprehensible that the eighteen climate alarmists could suggest something so far removed from the truth as their claim that no research results have produced any evidence that challenges their view of what is happening to Earth’s climate and weather."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/08/rebuttal-to-the-climate-rapid-response-team/#more-33529. A short introduction with signatories.
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentpath/prudentpath.pdf. (2 Feb 2011) the original report 168pp.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate - signed by 31,000 scientists

This pathetic plea to politicians to declare “their brand of science” as the official, one-and-only version of Truth is a complete repudiation of the scientific method and of the critical skepticism that has made science so valuable for so long. - Jim Cole

How could so many scientists be so wrong for such a long time?

“It’s not easy being seen if you find information that does not support the accepted views because the supporters of the accepted views have publicity, money and power to grant degrees. Going along is how proponents of the accepted view obtained their degrees, how they obtained funding and how they obtained their publicity. So how could so many smart people have got it so wrong? A few got it wrong; the rest went along. Self interest, not science, ensured the status quo.”  - C. J. Ransom.