James L Bradley Kanook February 9th, 2012

Let it be known that with respect to Climate Change environmentally minded countries should force about the reduced consumption of fossil fuels for the sake of protecting the climate a situation that is walking all of us into an environmental dictatorship. This fear-mongering has taken its toll on our everyday lives, while overheard in restaurants across the world you might take notice of the mother telling her kids at the next table that it is wrong to order an Argentine steak because of the amount of methane they expel. You laugh, but there are a large percentage of people who grasp this IPCC prediction and have run with them. Climate Change is a subject that should be discussed around the lunch tables of our meteorologists, and the dinner table in your home not from behind the political bully-pulpits of the gang who profess to understand the statistics behind the assertions of its cause. As a person who is not educated in the effects of your car belching out CO 2 or a cow or two relaxing it bowls and spewing forth copious harmful methane, I like yourself can only depend on the data that various agencies and scholars produce. Whereas the IPCC (United Nations Organization) has been found to have edited, twisted and hidden some of their data in order to force the world around them to seek alternate forms of energy, I believe that their attempt to do so is a grand idea, whereas we do have too much dependence on fossil fuels to keep us warm, and power-up our technical devices, along with those things that take you to the supermarket to pick up a few things from time-to-time. Although it was a good idea at the time, their tactics have

back-fired, and the world at-large has turned its back on those who predicted meteoric rises in sea level and the disappearance of ice from out planet. As for all that disappearing ice, the latest estimate by our boys and girls at the University of Colorado-Boulder tell us that nearly 230 billion tons of it is melding into the oceans from glaciers, ice caps, and mountains annually which by the way is less than previous estimates, needless to say theyre puzzled. According to one researcher at the University, John Wahr a professor of physics, that if the amount of ice lost between 2003 and 2010 covered the United States it would be under 1.5 feet of water, or in fact fill Lake Erie eight times. Ocean levels it is estimated are creeping up some six-hundreds of an inch per year, he states. Give him a piece of your mind at wahr@lemond.colorado.edu. He continues, while vast quantities of ice

melding into the ocean is not exactly good news, his team is reporting that it is about 30% less is melding than they expected. They garnered their information using data from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite which was launched under a jointproject of the U.S. and Germany in 2002, whereas GRACE measures gravity over wide swaths of our planet, detailing twenty distinct regions Wahr says that this data has given the team the ability to make accurate estimates than previous methods used by our scientific community. Where a few brave souls measure ice lost on a few easily accessible glaciers, a practice not very accurate making their predictions full of holes. One thing that has come out of the latest data is that melding patterns are hard to predict. And with only eight-years of available data wrapped around the massive amount of unknown conditions, making a prediction far into the future is in reality a crap-shoot. Consider the collection of the worlds highest snowcapped peak, the Himalayas, the home of Mount Everest and K2, including 100 other mountains exceeding 23,600 feet compare this to the only peak outside of Asia,

Aconcagua in the Andes at 23,841 feet. According to our studies of the earth some 260 to 325 million years ago the Alleghanian (Appalachian and Allegheny Mountains) likely rivaled or exceeded the Himalayas in heightjust shows to go you what time can do to a set of mountains. The Himalayan range forms an arch some 1,500 miles long and varies from 250 miles to 93 miles in width, and has within its boundaries three coextensive sub-ranges, with the northernmost and the highest known as the Great of Inner Himalayas. You doomsayers of Global Warming, are you sitting down measurement (estimates) released only a couple of days ago tell us that the Himalayas have lost NO ice over the last decade a study that has stunned the Global Warming crowd down to their steel tipped ice climbing boots, where they firmly believed that around 50 billion tonnes (1 tonne equals 2,205 pounds) of melt-water was running off the range each year. The study is the 1st to survey all the worlds icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of GRACE satellite data, which is showing that outside of the two largest icecaps (Greenland and Antarctica) the melt is much less than previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and other high peaks in Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy. Additionally over the past 4-years Al Gores primary selling point of his and the IPCCs fear-mongering point a sharp finger at the melting icecap on Mount Kilimanjaro which at 19,341 feet is the highest peak in Africa, since his famous film "An Inconvenient Truth" there have been direct measurements and subsequent investigations revealed that it was the lack of rainfall, and deforestation at its lower levels that was allowing the icecap to slowly go away. Also, in 2008 increased snowfall was again building up the icecap. Back to those infamous Himalayan glaciers whereas in 2009 a report from the IPCC mistakenly stated that they would disappear by 2035 instead of 2350 caused a worldwide panic and stirred the pot of controversy. However, the scientist who led the new report is clear that while greater uncertainty has been discovered in Asias highest mountains, the melting ice caps and glacier around the world remain a serious concern. Where our

friend, Professor John Wahr says, People should be just as worried about the melting of the worlds ice as they were before. Put on your educate me cap, as we learned since Al and his gang of PR fellows went on their rampage, that in all ice ages there are up and downs of the climate some pretty severe. The colder periods are labeled glacial periods and the warmer periods interglacials, such as the one were in today we all know that glacials are characterized by cooler and drier climates over most of the Earth and large land and sea ice masses extending outward from the poles. In this cooler period Mountain Glaciers crawl down the mountain to lower elevations due to a lower snow line, with colder temperatures that allow the build up of what snow does fall. Sea levels decrease due to the removal of large volumes of water by the ice capsand there is also evidence that our oceans circulation is changed which further increases the glacial expansion at this time on the planet we are in a glacial minimum, what we call the interglacial. As a matter of record weve been bouncing around in this interglacial for around 11,000 years, which according to some scientists a typical interglacial last about 12,000 years a concept that has been called into question where some other guys tell us that according to their precise calculations this interglacial might last not for 12,000 years but 28,000 years. Predicted changes in our orbit around our nuclear furnace suggests that the next glacial period would began some 50,000 years from now something you and I really dont have to worry about, or even what the civilization will do (if anyone is around) to keep warm. As for anthropogenic (human creation of huge amounts of CO 2 or our beef cattle farting a lot) outweighing our orbital changes, I doubt it! As for the predicted sea level change, the recent study predicts a level increase of 1.97 inches, whereas the IPCC and Al Gore predict a 11.82 inches even going as high as 39 inches by 2100. Wahr warns that while crucial to a better understanding of ice melding, the eight-years of data is to short of a time period to predict a accurate rise in sea level saying, It is awfully dangerous to take an eight-year record and predict even the next 8-years, let alone the next century. How much ice world wide are we talking about:

1) Antarctica has approximately 84.6% of all ice in 4.83 million square

miles at an average depth of less than 3 miles or around 7.25 million cubic miles.

2) Greenland has approximately 672,000 square miles at an average dept

of 1 mile, where there have been depth measurements up to two miles in some locations or 2.6 million cubic miles about 7.9% of the worlds ice cap 3) Glaciers and whatnot 7.5% of the ice It is estimated that if all the ice melted in Antarctica the sea level would rise some 240 feet, while if all the ice in Greenland were to melt the sea level would rise some 21 feet, no matter in either case a lot of our population centers would be in deep caw-caw. In Germany a recent book published by an original rebel with a cause, Fritz Vahrenhold1 (Age-62) who holds a doctorate in Chemistry has sucked up a lot of attention he describes himself as a rebel being raised in a generation that rebelled against various actions on our planet. In a few words his book (The Cold Sun Die Kalte Sonne) says, The climate catastrophe is not occurring. Granted there have been other papers or books written by Climate Heretics that usually receive little attention, but as a retired captain of industry the press is stating, His fame will ensure that there will be a debate on the issue. His primary complaint against the IPCC and their gang is that he wants, new scientific findings to be included in the climate debate, whereas, it would become clear that the simple equation that CO 2 and other man-made greenhouse gases are almost exclusively responsible for climate change is unsustainable. He cites the fact that our planet hasnt gotten any warmer in almost 14-years despite the continued increase in CO2 emissions and that established climate science has yet to come up with an answer to that. He also points to the fact that the IPCC is more political than a scientific body, and that he as a proponent of renewable energy, has witnessed how thin the factual basis is for the predictions made by the IPCC really are
1

http://www.rwe.com/web/cms/en/66234/rwe/curriculum-vitae-prof-dr-fritz-vahrenholt/

citing one Greenpeace activist claim that 80% of the worlds energy supply could soon be coming from renewable sources making his assumption without a clear idea of the available data. He writes, the long version of the IPCC report DOES MENTION natural causes of climate change such as the sun and the oscillating ocean current but in turn they do NOT end up in the summary for politicians they were edited out! In other words, there are a great many decision-makers who dont know that new studies have seriously questioned the dominance of CO2 and that CO2 alone will NEVER cause a warming of more than 3.6F by the end of the century. In a direct sense, it is only with supposed amplification (like water vapor) do our supercomputers arrive at such a drastic temperature increase his prediction is that global warming will remain far below 3.6F by the end of the century. He sort of nails all the hubbub when he refers to the cyclical up and down of the sun for the last 7,000 years, long before man began emitting CO2. He refers to the warming phases every 1000 years or so, including during the Roman era, the Medieval and the current period citing that they all consistently coincide with strong solar activity he cites the natural cycles of 210 and 87 years of our bright friend in the day-time sky. He says, ignoring these would be a serious mistake. He goes on to state, In the 2 nd half of the 20th Century, the sun was more active than it been in more than 2,000 years. This large solar maximum as astronomers call it, has contributed at least as much too global warming as the greenhouse gas CO2. But the sun has been getting weaker since 2005, and it will continue to do so in the next few decades. Consequently, we can expect cooling from the sun for now. In words you and I can relate to his complaint is that our boys and girls in the lab coats are not paying enough attention to the importance that our sun has on our climate, whereas its effects are seriously underestimated, while the importance of CO2 is by far seriously overestimated. In other words, all climate predictions are based on incorrect underlying facts. Mind you he doesnt assign any particular percentage to the suns overall effect on climate, but maintains that it is pure nonsense for the IPCC to make the claim that the sun has nothing to do with climate change. In his book he also refers too the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (60-year cycle) which was in a positive warm phase from 1977 to 2000 whereas in it begin a

general cooling as a result of its decline staging that the contribution to the change in temperature has also been wrongly attributed to CO2. Following graphic is from April-2008.

In addition he says that the last sunspot cycle was weaker than the one before it, this is why the suns magnetic field had reduced the Earths ability to deflect the high amounts of cosmic radiation, which in turn leads to stronger cloud formation, thereby increasing the overall effect of global cooling, Why doesnt the IPCC mention any of this in their report? Albeit the effect of cosmic radiation (or lack of) is today a hypothesis, it has been reported that physicist Jasper Kirkby at CERN in Geneva has been experimenting since 2006, whereas in a chamber simulating the Earths atmosphere showed that cosmic particles do indeed lead to the formation of aerosol particles for clouds. Some say the experiment failed to convince the experts (being that it was such a small scale) that the cosmic radiation was actually having this effect, in other words the test put down by a few has as far as the IPCC closed the book on further analysis or investigations. Why?

More than likely because it would jeopardize the foundation of the IPCC predictions. Concerns by many scholars outside of the circle of the 2,000 plus scientists involved in the IPCC organization is the role that a handful of lead authors charged with the final editing of the report and that their claim that they are basing their editing on of 18,000 publications evaluated by their peers when in fact over 5,000 of these papers are what are known as gray literature, in other words NO peer-reviewed sources. Will they contain mistakes our facts that are claimed to be true yes, in street talk they are what is known as rectal reach. Keep in mind of the 34 independent members who composed the synthesis report for politicians almost a third of them are associated environmental organizations like Greenpeace or the WWF odd isnt it? The recent headlines that the IPCC has pretty much run a massive scam, leads most of the general public to ignore other signs of consuming our fossil fuel while it would be a mistake to take our eyes of the utilization of renewable energy to power up our portable digital devices and zip us around in our vehicles. The concern of some individuals is that the scam, which only relates half of the problem, has set the stage for the fossil fuel folks to only increase their footprint in our lives and later on down the line our civilization will be shelling out more and more hard-earned bucks to heat their homes and light-up our night. When this time arrives we will all pay the price of ignoring the options of renewable energy, which as time moves forward we are taking the easy way to energy. It is correct in saying climate change is manageable, as the cooling effects of the sun and the oscillating ocean current are giving us sufficient time to prepare, in addition it is another serious mistake to simply concentrate on CO2, while ignoring some of the other products of burning coal for instance black soot which in comparison creates 55% of the warming effect, soot that can be filtered out with a minimum of effort this applying to the emerging and developing countries not only would the global warming cycle be reduced but there would be huge benefits for human health. Keep in mind that is engineering that must continue to drive the expertise sought in renewable energy, along with the correct placement of renewable energy devices while we have pretty much worked around placement

(unless they are in your backyard), we still have a ways to go in developing efficient solar panels or the conversion of sun light to electrical energy, along with converting some of our water to hydrogen. As for CO2 it is a climate gas, whereas the experts or critics of the IPCC maintain its effect is only 50% as strong as the IPCC claims but these same critics say we have to reduce our output, based on the simple fact that sooner or later were going to deplete our resource of fossil fuels, also in doing so we reduce our dependence on fuel imports from totalitarian regimes. A recent survey demonstrates that the fear of climate catastrophe has declined, as a result the fear-mongers have re-energized their political capital preaching that countries around the world should still concentrate on the reduction of CO2 as the sole reason to save the environment, such as the European Union adopting a tax on airlinesfrom this we see a majestic form of environmental dictatorship will the fear-mongers back off? Not really they depend entirely too much on the governments of the world issuing grants pell-mell to stall the protestors at their gates screaming for the reduction of CO2.