http://www.jamaicaobserve...er-in-135-years-_17773213

Jian Ghomeshi reveals details of sex scandal after threatening to sue CBC for $50 million


The public break between the CBC and Jian Ghomeshi, Canada’s best-loved radio host since Peter Gzowski, started last week with a discreet announcement that he was taking a leave from the broadcaster for personal reasons, days after the death of his father, with a reassurance that the mop-haired former rockstar was “okay.”

But it exploded into open warfare on Sunday, as the CBC abruptly fired Mr. Ghomeshi, citing information they recently received that “precludes us from continuing our relationship with Jian Ghomeshi,” before Mr. Ghomeshi took to Facebook, posting an an extraordinary account of the reasons for his dismissal.

That fateful information, according to Mr. Ghomeshi, came directly from him last Thursday, in a voluntary disclosure of a scandal he feared was about to break, due to the efforts of “a jilted ex girlfriend and a freelance writer.” The disclosure included what Mr. Ghomeshi described as exculpatory evidence, proving the “rough sex” in question was consensual. He said the allegations and insinuations of “unsavoury aggressive acts in the bedroom,” as yet unmade in any formal or legal context, were “categorically untrue,” and that CBC executives said he was being dismissed essentially for the ugly optics of the situation, due to “the risk of the perception that may come from a story that could come out.”

Glenn Lowson/National Post
Glenn Lowson/National PostJian Ghomeshi back when he was a member of the band Moxy Fruvous.
And so, having hired a leading crisis public relations firm, Mr. Ghomeshi fired back at his employer with the threat of a $50-million lawsuit for “breach of confidence and bad faith,” a union grievance to be reinstated in the job he created as host of the show Q, and then late in the day on Sunday, the shocking written account of sexual scandal involving bondage, gossip, role-play, stolen cellphone contacts, human rights and investigative reporting.

Hasty redecorating at CBC. http://t.co/2gu6MQReBm

—
Greg Hobbs (@GPHobbs73) October 27, 2014
Typically for the arts-focused cultural maven, his story of bedroom kink also included a shout-out to a leading CanLit author. While engaged in domination rituals and rough sex with his 20-something girlfriend, Mr. Ghomeshi, 47, said they “joked about our relations being like a mild form of Fifty Shades of Grey or a story from Lynn Coady’s Giller-Prize winning book last year.”

Mr. Ghomeshi has also been removed as host of the upcoming Giller Prize gala.

As a result, Canada’s national broadcaster appears set to defend against potentially devastating legal claims that it fired an employee for private sexual behaviour, allegedly because it seemed “unbecoming” for a radio host, as Mr. Ghomeshi claimed. As such, it evoked memories of an episode in which the CBC threatened to fire Sook-Yin Lee, host of CBC’s Definitely Not The Opera, for having actual sex on film for the 2006 movie Shortbus, but relented under public pressure.

Mr. Ghomeshi, for his part, faces an uphill battle to restore the image of a smoothly charming, clever and sympathetic interviewer, whose televised radio show, also carried on American public radio, was a ticket to Canadian exposure for everyone from rising bands and new authors to established comedians and cantankerous old rock stars — both real ones like Neil Young, and aspiring ones like the actor Billy Bob Thornton, whose train-wreck of an interview was a highlight of Mr. Ghomeshi’s tenure on Q, thanks to Mr. Ghomeshi’s cool patience in the face of Mr. Thornton’s petulant refusal to play a song with his band because he was asked first about his fame as an actor.

“Would you ask Tom Petty that question?” Mr. Thornton asked, in an episode that sealed the popularity of Mr. Ghomeshi, formerly the front man of the band Moxy Fruvous.



From his eloquent and often alliterative monologues and his chipper greeting of “Happy Monday” or “Happy Tuesday,” through to his signature sign off, “to be continued,” Mr. Ghomeshi occupied a unique spot in the Canadian cultural firmament, an interviewer who pushed the boundaries of arts reporting into serious news, commentary and marquee interviews.

By his account, it all began to unravel this year, as the unproven claims of sexual aggression led to an investigation by a freelance reporter in co-operation with the ex-girlfriend, neither of whom were named by Mr. Ghomeshi in his account. They “set out to try to find corroborators to build a case to defame me,” he said.

After breaking up with the girlfriend, “there began a campaign of harassment, vengeance and demonization against me that would lead to months of anxiety,” Mr. Ghomeshi wrote. He claimed she contacted former girlfriends with claims of sexual abuse, as he put it, “reframing what had been an ongoing consensual relationship as something nefarious.”

I am being fired from the show I love and built and threw myself into for years because of what I do in my private life
“She found some sympathetic ears by painting herself as a victim and turned this into a campaign. The writer boldly started contacting my friends, acquaintances and even work colleagues — all of whom came to me to tell me this was happening and all of whom recognized it as a trumped up way to attack me and undermine my reputation,” he wrote. “The writer tried to peddle the story and, at one point, a major Canadian media publication did due diligence but never printed a story.”

“I am being fired in my prime from the show I love and built and threw myself into for years because of what I do in my private life,” he wrote. “Let me be the first to say that my tastes in the bedroom may not be palatable to some folks. They may be strange, enticing, weird, normal, or outright offensive to others. We all have our secret life. But that is my private life. That is my personal life. And no one, and certainly no employer, should have dominion over what people do consensually in their private life… I am still in shock.”

CBC declined to comment on Mr. Ghomeshi’s account of his firing.

THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris Young
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris YoungRadio presenter Jian Ghomeshi arrives at CBC's Toronto studios for the recording of the 'Canada for Haiti' benefit show on Jan. 22, 2010. The CBC says it has parted ways with "Q" radio host Jian Ghomeshi.
“It’s always difficult when an employer has to sever ties with an employee,” said Chuck Thompson, CBC’s head of public affairs. “Information came to our attention recently that in CBC’s judgement precludes us from continuing our relationship with Jian Ghomeshi.”

Asked to respond to the allegations in the Facebook post on Sunday night, Mr. Thompson declined to comment, citing privacy policies and “the pending lawsuit.”

“Whenever a decision is made to end employment with an employee, for privacy, terms of separation are never disclosed,” said Mr. Thompson.

Related
Jian Ghomeshi says CBC fired him because of 'risk his private sex life could be made public'
Memoir 1982 exposes a year in the life of Jian Ghomeshi
Jian Ghomeshi taking ‘undetermined’ length of time away from hosting Q, CBC confirms
“Our client takes this matter very seriously,” said Mr. Ghomeshi’s lawyer Tiffany Soucy, a senior associate with Dentons, in an email to the Post. The lawsuit will centre around the CBC’s “conduct which [led] to Mr. Ghomeshi’s termination today,” she said.

Starting Monday, Q will be using guest hosts for the “foreseeable future,” Mr. Thompson said.

“I know for the many of you who love and look forward to this show, this is a very hard day,” the CBC’s Brent Bambury said at the opening of Q on Monday. “But remember there are dozens of people who work hard to bring you Q … They’re still here.”

“Today we’re doing what we do as producers, as broadcasters and as people. We move forward. I hope you’ll come with us.”

The scientifically monitored and measured data over the past 20 years that show the exact opposite of those 20 year old predictions to be wrong, is science.


http://www.globalclimates...egory/failed-predictions/

http://www.globalclimates...egory/failed-predictions/

http://wattsupwiththat.co...iled-climate-predictions/



Always test ideas against the totality of data available, don't stop looking when you find data that confirms what you expected to prove. If your theory doesn't work everywhere it should, then it is wrong somehow. The temperature history of the globe is long and complicated. For example, while the Arctic has been warming, the Antarctic has been cooling. If one looks at the long term data (from 1800's to the present), including temperature, sea level, sea ice, glaciers, etc. it is possible to understand the climate history for the last several hundred years as a continuing emergence from the last ice age, modified by cyclic effects. A nicely written and easily understandable paper reviewing that perspective is by Prof. Akasafu of U Alaska and can be obtained at http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?pa... . Much of the contents were also contained in testimony given to Congress, available at
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110shrg75785/htm... . Figure 9 on page 1221 of the paper is particularly interesting. The paper is open access.

The scientifically monitored and measured data over the past 20 years that show the exact opposite of those 20 year old predictions to be wrong, is science.


http://www.globalclimates...egory/failed-predictions/

http://www.globalclimates...egory/failed-predictions/

http://wattsupwiththat.co...iled-climate-predictions/



Always test ideas against the totality of data available, don't stop looking when you find data that confirms what you expected to prove. If your theory doesn't work everywhere it should, then it is wrong somehow. The temperature history of the globe is long and complicated. For example, while the Arctic has been warming, the Antarctic has been cooling. If one looks at the long term data (from 1800's to the present), including temperature, sea level, sea ice, glaciers, etc. it is possible to understand the climate history for the last several hundred years as a continuing emergence from the last ice age, modified by cyclic effects. A nicely written and easily understandable paper reviewing that perspective is by Prof. Akasafu of U Alaska and can be obtained at http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperDownload.aspx?pa... . Much of the contents were also contained in testimony given to Congress, available at
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110shrg75785/htm... . Figure 9 on page 1221 of the paper is particularly interesting. The paper is open access.
- Doppleganger

stfu

Global Temperature Update By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley

The RSS monthly satellite global temperature anomaly for September 2014 is in, and the Great Pause is now two months longer than it was last month. Would this year’s el Niño bite soon enough to stop the psychologically-significant 18-year threshold from being crossed? The official answer is No.

Globally, September was scarcely warmer than August, which was itself some distance below the 18-year trend-line. Therefore, taking the least-squares linear-regression trend on the RSS satellite monthly global mean surface temperature anomalies, there has now been no global warming for 18 years 1 month.

Dr Benny Peiser, our good friend at the Global Warming Policy Foundation in the UK, had anticipated the official crossing of the 18-year threshold by a day or two with an interesting note circulated to supporters on the ever-lengthening period without any global warming, and featuring our 17-years-11-months graph from last month.

The Great Pause is the longest continuous period without any warming in the global instrumental temperature record since the satellites first watched in 1979. It has endured for a little over half the satellite temperature record. Yet the Pause coincides with a continuing, rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration.




read more at http://wattsupwiththat.co...ing-for-18-years-1-month/

This is showing that when Temperature (T) rises, CO2 follows. When T falls, CO2 follows.

Look closely at the graphs, please: temperature goes up. Then CO2 goes up — afterward.

We see that it happens repeatedly, and in that order. But not in the reverse order! Therefore, ∆T causes ∆CO2.

Most people, at least all rational people, would describe that cause-and-effect as CO2 following temperature.





Since changes in CO2 follow changes in temperature, global warming will produce a rise in atmospheric CO2. That is what we are observing. The great mistake of the climate alarmist crowd was to mistakenly assume that it was CO2 causing a rise in temperature, when in fact it was a rise in temperature causing a rise in CO2. They got their causation backward, and it has led them down the wrong path ever since.

The rhetoric and predictions of global warming acolytes have been every bit as confusing in the United States, with former vice president and carbon-credit entrepreneur Al Gore telling an audience in a 2009 speech that “the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.” And his 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” famously predicted increasing temperatures would cause earth’s oceans to rise by 20 feet, a claim many scientists say is utterly without rational basis.







Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/1...over/#blX9Wrj2hyTf7Zrv.99

- Not_Yan

http://wattsupwiththat.co...r-31st-and-november-01st/


100 Year Snow Records broken across the South Eastern US on October 31st and November 01st. It was the earliest and heaviest snow in several places since records have been kept dating as far back as 1880. Reduced sunspot count shows Solar hibernation is occurring along with the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) showing a cooling Pacific Ocean and the Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation (AMO) Atlantic Ocean temperature is predicted to fall by 2020, which screams of cooling events to take place globally.

Bill 4 Passes: B.C. Parks Now Officially Open…To Pipelines and Drilling

BC parks, CPAWS, Garth Lenz

A little-known Bill, the Park Amendment Act, that will drastically alter the management of B.C. parks is set to become law today, creating controversy among the province’s most prominent environmental and conservation organizations. The passage of Bill 4 will make way for industrial incursions into provincial parklands including energy extraction, construction of pipelines and industry-led research.

The Bill, quietly introduced in mid-February, has already met significant resistance in B.C. where the Minister of Environment received “thousands of letters” of opposition, according to Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society’s Peter Wood. “There has been absolutely zero public consultation, and the pace at which this was pushed through suggests this was never a consideration,” he said in a press release.

“This Bill undermines the very definition of what a ‘park’ is,” Gwen Barlee from the Wilderness Committee said in the same statement, “given that our protected areas will now be open to industrial activity.”

“This is a black day for B.C. Parks – the provincial government is ensuring that none of our parks are now safe from industrial development,” she said.

According to staff lawyer Andrew Gage with the West Coast Environmental Law the bill is “difficult to square” with the sentiments underlying the B.C. Parks Service, which claims provincial parks and conservancies are a “public trust” for the “protection of natural environments for the inspiration, use and enjoyment of the public.”

In an overview piece, Gage wrote “Bill 4 allows for industry (and others) to carry out ‘research’ in provincial parks related to pipelines, transmission lines, roads and other industrial activities that might require park land. It also reduces legal protection for smaller parks.”

He noted that preliminary ‘research’ carried out by mining company Taseko in preparation for an environmental assessment of the controversial Prosperity Mine included the drilling of 59 test pits, eight drill holes 50 to 75 metres in depth, and ten holes roughly 250 metres in depth to collect metallurgical samples. The tests also required the creation of 23.5 kilometres of exploratory trails.

Bill 4 claims permits for ‘research’ will only be considered after a “thorough review of protected area values,” yet, Gage writes, “this requirement is nowhere to be found in Bill 4.”

This amounts to a “’trust, us, we’re government’ approach,” writes Gage.

Previously park use permits were only granted to those able to demonstrate the proposed activity was “necessary for the preservation or maintenance of the recreational values of the park involved.” Bill 4 rids the Park Act of this safeguard.

“The government has sent a clear signal that it is open to having pipelines cut through our globally renowned protected areas,” said Al Martin of the B.C. Wildlife Federation. “The Act will now allow industrial expansion in some of B.C.’s most beloved parks, placing them at risk.”

Critics are also concerned the changes will open pristine landscapes to environmentally destructive oil and gas extraction processes.

“This legislation opens the door to pipelines, oil and gas drilling and industrial activities that are counter to the values that created our parks system,” said Darryl Walker from the B.C. Government and Service Employees’ Union. “If Bill 4 passes, 2014 will be the year that B.C. Parks changed forever,” he said.

Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and a group of other environmental NGOs have already collected nearly 10,000 signatures and letters in an effort to stop the implementation of the bill.

These groups are claiming the total lack of public consultation left local communities, park users and conservation groups out of the decision making process.

When Mt St Helens erupted it released more CO2 than 1000 modern civilizations in one day............................................. shouldn't we all be dead now?







18 spectacularly wrong apocalyptic predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970, expect more this year.

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

6. Ehrlich sketched out his most alarmist scenario for the 1970 Earth Day issue of The Progressive, assuring readers that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.”

7. “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation,” declared Denis Hayes, the chief organizer for Earth Day, in the Spring 1970 issue of The Living Wilderness.

8. Peter Gunter, a North Texas State University professor, wrote in 1970, “Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions….By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.”

9. In January 1970, Life reported, “Scientists have solid experimental and theoretical evidence to support…the following predictions: In a decade, urban dwellers will have to wear gas masks to survive air pollution…by 1985 air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half….”

10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in his 1970 that “air pollution…is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946…now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out.

14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate…that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.’”

15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”





“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” - Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

“Inevitably in climate science, when data conflicts with models, a small coterie of scientists can be counted upon to modify the data...That the data should always need correcting to agree with models is totally implausible and indicative of a certain corruption within the climate science community.” Dr. Richard Lindzen, MIT

Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.

“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico

“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.

“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.

“After reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing skeptics to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet.” - Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.

“For how many years must the planet cool before we begin to understand that the planet is not warming? For how many years must cooling go on?" - Geologist Dr. David Gee the chairman of the science committee of the 2008 International Geological Congress who has authored 130 plus peer reviewed papers, and is currently at Uppsala University in Sweden.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” - Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.

“Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined.” - Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.

“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.

“CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another….Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so…Global warming, as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.” - Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan.
“The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds.” - Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.

“Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation.”Prof Christopher de Freitas, of the University of Auckland, NZ said there was no evidence to suggest carbon dioxide was the major driver of climate change ) (In 2003, Dr. de Freitas, who edits the journal Climate Research, had published a peer-reviewed article saying the recent warming is not unusual, relative to previous historical climate changes in the past 1,000 years. As you might suspect, Dr. de Freitas had to withstand multiple demands he be fired from his editorial job, as well as his university position.

“Over the years, the IPCC has changed from a scientific institution that tries to be policy relevant to a political institution that pretends to be scientific. I regret that. There are already more than enough climate activists, while there are too few solid and neutral bodies that make down-to-earth and well-founded statements about climate change and climate policy.” Economist Richard Tol, in a prepared statement for the Dutch parliament examining climate-related controversies

Interestingly, even IPCC uber-warmer Ken Trenberth has stated “It’s very clear we do not have a climate observing system… This may be a shock to many people who assume that we do know adequately what’s going on with the climate, but we don’t.”

Professor Emeritus Friedrich Karl Ewert a geologist from Paderborn University noted the "evaluation of long-term temperature readings . . . disprove that we have man-made global warming," and presented the results of his analysis at a CFACT meeting in 2011 that of over 1,100 temperature curves from around the world, concluding, "the final result is that in 74% of all stations of the world we had no warming." While the UN has often been told there will be terrible consequences if the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere remains at or increases from the current 390 parts per million (ppm), Dr. Ewert pointed out that "in the geological past, we had the greatest glaciation of the earth (the glacier went down to 35 degrees north) when we have carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere of 1400 [ppm]. That means it was several times higher than today." In other words, the historical evidence proves CO2 does not control earth's climate. Dr. Ewert summarizes "It is necessary to conclude that the particular effect of manmade carbon dioxide production is not recognizable, in other words, does not exist."

- watsonnostaw

now this we can all get behind

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Scientists on all sides of the global warming debate are in general agreement about how much heat is being directly trapped by human emissions of carbon dioxide (the answer is "not much"). However, the single most important issue in the global warming debate is whether carbon dioxide emissions will indirectly trap far more heat by causing large increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds. Alarmist computer models assume human carbon dioxide emissions indirectly cause substantial increases in atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds (each of which are very effective at trapping heat), but real-world data have long shown that carbon dioxide emissions are not causing as much atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds as the alarmist computer models have predicted.

The new NASA Terra satellite data are consistent with long-term NOAA and NASA data indicating atmospheric humidity and cirrus clouds are not increasing in the manner predicted by alarmist computer models. The Terra satellite data also support data collected by NASA's ERBS satellite showing far more longwave radiation (and thus, heat) escaped into space between 1985 and 1999 than alarmist computer models had predicted. Together, the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.

In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

When objective NASA satellite data, reported in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, show a "huge discrepancy" between alarmist climate models and real-world facts, climate scientists, the media and our elected officials would be wise to take notice. Whether or not they do so will tell us a great deal about how honest the purveyors of global warming alarmism truly are.

James M. Taylor is senior fellow for environment policy at The Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News.

4-3-2-1-6-5
- Not_Yan

yes

http://www.cfact.org/2013...rs-trapped-in-the-arctic/












Northern Hemisphere snow cover this fall highest ever on record





http://www.washingtonpost...emperatures-at-high-mark/

The revealed truth is that of the sixteen choices given to people regarding what they think are the important issues in their lives, climate change is dead last. Not only that, but in every sub-category, by age, by sex, by education, by country grouping, it’s right down at the bottom of the list. NOBODY thinks it’s important.

http://wattsupwiththat.co...climate-change-who-cares/