Monday, March 15, 2010

Forty Inconvenient Truths of Global Warming Alarmism


1. The head of the IPCC, Dr Rajendra Pachauri, has no background in Climate Science. His PhD is in economics and he worked as a railway engineer before becoming the head of the IPCC.

2. Only 52 scientists contributed to the 2007 IPCC summary for policy makers, although diplomats from over 115 countries contributed.

3. A paper that became a key reference source for the IPCC’s claimed that the effect of urban warming in eastern China was “negligible”. It turned out that 49 of the 84 climate monitoring stations used for the report had no history of their locations at all, meaning no one could verify where the data came from. This included 40 of the 42 rural stations. Of the rest no fewer than 18 “had been moved” during the study period to warmer urban areas. When the source data was re-examined it was found that urbanisation was responsible for 40% of the warming previously reported and claimed as evidence for “man-made” global warming.

4. When asked to independently review the IPCC’s last two reports on claimed sea-level rises, the reviewing scientist was “astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors was a sea level specialist”.

5. Up until 2003, the IPCC’s satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend in sea level, so the IPCC used an increase of 2.3mm recorded on a single Hong Kong harbour tide-gauge to claim a global sea level increase of 2.3mm.

6. The IPCC’s now retracted claim that the Himalayan glaciers were melting was derived from nothing more scientific than a phone interview with someone who wasn’t even a scientist.

7. The IPCC’s now retracted claim that “man-made” global warming would lead to increasing numbers of natural disasters, such as Katrina scale hurricanes, was based on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to critical peer-review.

8. The IPCC’s now retracted claim that “man-made” global warming was going to result in deficiencies of up to 50% in African agriculture was also based on a non peer-reviewed claim in a non-scientific paper.

9. The IPCC’s now retracted claim that “up to 40%” of the Amazonian rain forest could react drastically to even a slight reduction in rainfall was based on a non-peer-reviewed non-scientific paper.

10. The IPCC’s claim that 55% of the Netherlands was below sea level, rather than the actual 26%, has now been retracted.

11. According to the United States Historical Climateology Network (USHNC) 90% of US climate-monitoring surface stations have been found to be poorly situated, meaning that they have a margin of error greater than one degree Centigrade, which is huge in climateology terms.

12. In 1978 there were 6,000 climate-monitoring surface stations; today there are only about 1,200.

13. The vast majority of lost climate monitoring stations were sited in rural areas, meaning that overall results are distorted upwards due to a much greater percentage of such stations being located in urban areas, often on top of warm office blocks.

14. Carbon dioxide contributes only 4.2% to 8.4% of the greenhouse gas effect.

15. Only approximately 4% of carbon dioxide is actually man-made.

16. Water vapour accounts for between 90% and 95% of the green house gas effect.

17. An estimated 99.99% of water vapour is natural, meaning that no amount of de-industrialisation could get rid of it.

18. There have been many times when the temperature of the planet has been higher than it is now; these include the Medieval Warming Period, the Holocene and the Jurassic periods.

19. Antarctic ice core samples prove that increases in carbon dioxide follow increases in temperature by about 800 years, not precede them as claimed by the IPCC.

20. A leading figure in the “Climategate” scandal now admits that there has been no “statistically significant” global warming since 1995.

21. 2008 and 2009 were the two coolest years of the decade, neither of which are likely to be as cold as 2010.

22. During the Ordovician period carbon dioxide concentrations were twelve times higher than what they are now – yet the temperature was lower.

23. Solar activity is highly correlated with temperature change.

24. Studies show that half of all recent warming was solar in cause.

25. The planet Mars has warmed by about half a degree Centigrade since the 1970’s, which is about as much as the Earth over the same period; as far as we are aware there is no industry on that planet.

26. The 0.7 degree Centigrade increase in temperature over the last century is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, climate trends.

27. The distance between the Earth and the Sun varies; thus affecting the amount of heat energy the earth receives.

28. Earth’s axial tilt oscillates between 21.4 degrees and 24.8 degrees, which affects the distribution of the sun’s energy across its surface.

29. Antarctica has 90% of the earth’s ice and it is growing, not shrinking as claimed by the IPCC.

30. The Arctic sea ice has now returned to its 1979 levels, which is when monitoring began.

31. The Arctic ice caps have recovered from their loss in 2007.

32. The Arctic is now one degree Centigrade cooler than it was in the 1940’s.

33. Sea level 81,000 years ago was one metre higher than it is now while carbon dioxide levels were lower.

34. According to satellite data sea level has been decreasing since 2005.

35. Instead of damaging forests, the increased level of carbon dioxide has been helping them grow.

36. Some climate scientists argue that urban warming is responsible for half of the global warming trend from 1980 to 2002.

37. According to a leaked “Climategate” email, temperatures recorded in Darwin, Australia, were shown to be falling by 0.7 degrees Centigrade per century – but after IPCC “homogenisation” they were recorded as increasing at 1.2 degrees Centigrade per century.

38. It is alleged by Russian scientists that Britain’s Hadley Climate Research Unit “cherry picked” climate data from just 25% of Russia’s surface weather monitoring stations, thereby overstating Russia’s warming by a very significant two-thirds of a degree Centigrade for the period between the 1870’s and 1990’s.

39. It is alleged that Britain’s Hadley Climate Research Unit, the body at the centre of “Climategate”, threw out original temperature data that could have been re-examined to verify its findings, because it claimed it did not have “storage space”.

40. The owners of the trading floor where the carbon credits will be traded, allegedly including Goldman Sachs and Al Gore, stand to make trillions of dollars if cap-and-trade is passed by the US administration.
===
This article has been found at BNP link provided. More at the link.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hi ddball,

We are always concerned about copyright infringement on iCompositions. Our policy states that you may not post any material that infringes the copyright, trademark right, or other intellectual property right of any third party. Your post of Forty Inconvenient Truths About Global Warming Alarmism originally appears on the British National Party website, written by merica, as far as we can tell. It does not originate with the source you provide. Furthermore, regardless of which place it originates, reprinting it and posting a recording of you reading the entire 40 points verbatim is against most copyright limitations.

If you have explicit permission to present this material in the way you have done, please list that explicit permission on the page. Otherwise, to post such material on iCompositions is copyright infringement and thus a violation of the site's Terms of Service. We must ask you to remove the material.

If there are any other posts of yours that are verbatim presentations of copyrighted material without explicit permission, please remove them from iCompositions.

Thank you for your time in this matter.

Sincerely,
becwil
a Moderator on the iCompositions Team

DaoDDBall said...

It was not a case of copyright infringement and you are wrong to suggest it was, but I have deleted it out of respect for the moderator's position I believe you and others abuse.
I won't justify it and dont feel I need to, but your overstepping your mark meant I had to delete it. Some things fall into a grey area. All writing is re writing. I suspect what you, or those reporting it, objected to was the message. I don't know what else you might inflate into an allegation. I wish you wouldn't do that. In future, I would appreciate it if a different moderator carried out such duties, as I believe you have show yourself to be personally involved, and eidolonia.

Anonymous said...

Dear David:

Your recent letter to becwil requested a different moderator to look at your case. I am a different moderator.

Your assertion of bias here is unfounded. We take every case that is presented to us seriously. We're even accused of taking too long to decide cases because we contact people involved, try to mediate problems, or fully research claims to the best of our abilities.

In this case, your piece was defensible on all grounds, except when it came to copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is one of top complaints we get here at iCompositions. We take it extremely seriously because iCompositions does not have the legal funds to fight a lawsuit from the artists and their representatives who often complain to us. It is by their good graces they do not sue us anyway despite removal, because they could legally do so.

There is no "grey area" in this case. You took 40 points verbatim from a comment thread on another site, did not research to ensure where it originated, and then presented it here. There was no "rewriting" as you claim in your statement that "all writing is re writing." It is an exact duplicate, and you reproduced it via print in the lyrics box and via spoken word in your video. If the British National Party did not allow you to do this, you are in the wrong. Our personal feelings about the subject matter, whether we agree or not, whether we think you are working around the iCompositions political ban or not, or anything else do not enter into the decision. The fact is without permission/release it is copyright infringement, and according to the terms of Service you agreed to when you joined iCompositions:

Quote:
...you agree not to post any material that (i) is defamatory, libelous, obscene, indecent, abusive, threatening to others, or in violation of any law; or (ii) infringes the copyright, trademark right, or other intellectual property right of any third party; or (iii) advocates the violation of any law. You will be solely responsible for all content that you post on the Service.


and

Quote:
It is your sole obligation to a) determine if your uses require releases or permission, and b) to obtain the necessary releases.


We gave you the choice of presenting the permissions the BNP provided you or removing the piece. Since you removed it, despite your claim that "it was not a case of copyright infringement and you are wrong to suggest it was," our assumption is you did not have permission, and we appreciate the removal. Should you get such permission and wish to repost the work in the future, then you are free to do so.

You are welcome to express your opinions in song/video uploads on iCompositions, but we cannot turn a blind eye to copyright infringement when it has such a strong impact on the continuing existence of iCompositions. As a writer, you should know the difference between fair use of quotation in your own critical work and simple blatant copying. The TOS simply requires members to ensure that their work is legally and fully their own.

Again, thank you for removing the piece. Remember that according to the TOS, further infringement can result in suspension or termination of your account.

Sincerely,

OB
iComp Moderator

DaoDDBall said...

Then you won't mind providing me with the appropriate support when I initiate an icomp competition to produce a piece applauding the collapse of the global warming myth. I'll provide the prize. I expect to be able to do similar things to what Dirigent was able to do with his competition recently.
====
BTW, you only have someone's word that the viral piece of writing was produce by the BNP. In many ways, saying that someone copies from the BNP is a smear. I'm not taking umberage, but I would point out that becwil has a track record with me which is why I have asked not to have to field moderator requests from her. Eidelonia too. I am aware of how your sewing circle works, Don't try to impress me with your fine sense of duty and fair play. And kindly refrain from threatening me with suspension .. I have adhered to all the rules and accepted moderator requests as they have arisen .. you guys are shifting fence posts and that is not a good look. I am not looking to kill my account, but I would like to know if there is such a switch should I choose to exercise it.

DaoDDBall said...

seriously, do you read what you write? I have given you no reason to take offense. I have done nothing wrong. I would remind you those discussions you have had about me did not include me. No need to reply to this, enjoy your own pity party or share it with friends.

Anonymous said...

Then you won't mind providing me with the appropriate support when I initiate an icomp competition to produce a piece applauding the collapse of the global warming myth. I'll provide the prize. I expect to be able to do similar things to what Dirigent was able to do with his competition recently.


As long as it doesn't break the TOS or go against the politics ban we have standing in the forums, there is no problem whatsoever. We received no complaints about Dirigent's contest, and the majority of it was done on the contest site itself. Insinuating we would act differently in your case is insulting.

Any notice of possible infringement resulting in suspension or termination is not a threat or some kind of personal attack on you. It is a restatement of policy that goes into every communication moderators have with members. It is not about you.

On a personal note, I find your continued rhetoric about "sewing circles" and imagined personal agendae to be discouraging. I am saddened that you would lump me into some kind of perceived slight considering I just helped you find information about getting EPUB books onto the iBookstore, I was the one that provided the link to where you might get permission for your 40 Truths use, and I supported you in the recent discussions about the 40 Truths piece. (Do not assume that means any of the others were against it in any way other than the question of the politics ban and the copyright issues.)

You'd think that by now I'd have learned that no good turn goes unpunished. Luckily, a majority of the people I come across don't crap on me when I'm helping them out.

Good luck with all your endeavors,

OB
iComp Moderator

Anonymous said...

Paring down still makes it plagiarism. The only part removed was that before the 40 points -- a part which would have shown it to be BNP's work. The person who posted it in the comment thread copied just the points, and you copied the points from that. You didn't do you due diligence to discover the source, verify the authenticity of the source, and then ask for permission to reprint and deliver in video format.

You did not locate the original source. You did not get permission. You didn't remove the piece because you did not have the opportunity to defend. The notification specifically asked if you had permission and to remove it if you did not. You removed it because you did not have permission.

You were in the wrong.

--
OB

DaoDDBall said...

It isn't a BNP piece. They copied it. I provided back tracking to my source. The origin remains unknown. In the US it falls into a category known as fair use.

OB said...

Thank you for copying all the notices and correspondence here, David. Kudos for presenting both our requests and your responses. The full thread shows we simply pointed out the/an original source and requested you ensure you have the proper permission to repost/broadcast the forty truths or remove the video, which was followed by removal by you and then a slew of accusations, innuendo, and outright untruth.

The record is clear, and we thank you again for removing the video until you can obtain the true source and permission to reuse the material.

--
OB

Anonymous said...

They BNP article gives no source. Unless you have actual verifiable information otherwise, the writer of that article wrote those words. Until you know otherwise, and know that the words are in the public domain and not stolen by BNP from another copyrighted source, you are in the wrong. If you used them from someone who copied them from BNP and they copied them illegally, you are in the wrong.

"Fair use" does not include verbatim copying of the majority of an article.

You provided backtracking to the wrong source. You did not do the due diligence a writer should in verifying source material. You did not locate the original source. You did not get permission. You didn't remove the piece because you did not have the opportunity to defend. The notification specifically asked if you had permission and to remove it if you did not. You removed it because you did not have permission.

You were in the wrong.

--
OB

Anonymous said...

For reference on US Copyright and fair Use:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

Of note:

"Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:...

...3. The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole"

and

"The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: “quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author’s observations;..."

and

"Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission."

and

"When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of fair use would clearly apply to the situation."

Excerpts and short passages coupled with your own commentary is generally viewed okay, and even then simple acknowledgment without permission (especially acknowledging the wrong source) would still put you and iCompositions at risk of infringing.

Again, thanks for removing the piece until you can receive the proper permissions for it.

--
OB

Anonymous said...

You left a note (quoted below) of yours out of your record on your blog. Could you please insert it before the copy you made of my correspondence which begins, "Paring down still makes it plagiarism." ?

Thank you.

--
OB

ddball wrote:
My deleting that material was in line with a request from the PM that all moderator requests be followed. I had no opportunity to defend the article.
I have followed up on the BNP link and apparently that was tacked on to material one of their writers used. They did not originate it. I am presupposing, but I imagine the author intended it would be viral because they would get into trouble with where they work. Further, my copy was a pared down version and did not include the BNP propaganda. What the moderators have done is panic and assign blame. I'm sorry that you need to feel good by blaming me, you are mistaken.
===
I couldn't put it in place, but I can post it as is ..

DaoDDBall said...

I hope you are proud. It is done. There is no more site for you to moderate, OB and Becwil.

You made a mistake and tried to cover it up. But you will never admit you were wrong.

Anonymous said...

dont worry Mr Ball, you and I and the rest of your ex students know who and what you are at the end of the day. Alot of people these days take advantage of the good to make a quick buck. To me they are classified as parasites. 7 years is a long time of day and night stress, believe you me one day they'll get a taste of their own medicine. The lord Jesus Christ Will always be by your side, even at the worst times.

DaoDDBall said...

Thank you O.
I have many friends I value at that site and I wish them well.
What the fools failed to know was that they didn't have a right to do what they did, although they had a capacity to. The point will be lost on them, but they were partly right in their accusation .. it was political and there were a lot of other items that could have been judged to be inappropriate. But there is no end to the slippery slope of what they may judge as being inappropriate. The other day, an artist posted a copy of Lenny Bruce's 'Fuck' routine which is quite funny for what it is. No reason to despise or remove the piece. But the artist was too young to know who to attribute it to and that it was copyright. The moderators apparently accepted it because it was acceptable to them, whereas a piece that points out the flaws of Global Warming belief needed to be removed .. and a piece on the intifada, and on Che, and on my opposition to terrorism or support for Clare Oliver .. simply put, these guys are terrible people who can not accept diversity of opinion or respect for others.

DaoDDBall said...

It is disappointing that still these cowards won't speak to defend themselves. They are bullies. Only when they have the power to order others to shut up will they deign to speak. What appalling examples of the left those creatures are.

Anonymous said...

Well said DDball. I run a forums myself and these moderators would not have lasted two mins. I cannot stand people who think opinions other than there own are wrong, or somehow incorrect.

BE NEUTRAL. Thats all I got to say.