Please go to http://co2u.info

Thank you
Bruce A. Kershaw

I have been testing CO2 since 1976

Do yourself a favor. Instead of “reading” articles you find off of .com opinion pages, go to your local community college, if your po-dunk oil town has one, and take a class on Environmental Science.

THEN, come on here and act as if you know what you’re talking about.

Let’s do a scientific experiment. Let’s put you in a room, totally sealed off from the outside world, and slowly increase the CO2 content. How well do you think you’ll do?

Just to make it interesting, we’ll throw in a couple plants.

Your comment on their growth rates going up is wrong.

Once CO2 levels in the atmosphere reach a certain point, plants stop taking in carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen. They instead, begin taking in CO2 and releasing… guess what? CO2.

So yes, by all means, let’s keep cutting down the tropical rain forests to make room for our McDonald’s cattle. It’s just forest, it doesn’t matter, right? Even through over half the life on earth lives in tropical rain forests… but who cares right? We NEED our deep fried, double bacon cheeseburger with a side of cow fat to dip it in.

And before you say anything, I’m a carnivore. Only difference is I know where my meat comes from, and it’s not cow.

Did you know that if the human population became strictly vegetarian we could increase the world’s capacity to hold AND feed the human population by 16 times?

10 acres of farmland could feed up to 16 people… or one cow.

It looks more and more like a disillusioned insider leaked these emails, which were not private by the way, in order to prevent their destruction. All were subject to public disclosure and had been requested under Britain’s Freedom of Information Act. The method of their release is not as important as the fact that they reveal brazen crime on the part of a number of scientists. They show not “careless language”, but active collusion to alter data in order to support predetermined conclusions, smear critics and, insidiously, subvert the peer review process to shut out any scientists who dare deviate from AGW dogma. This doesn’t concern you??!!

These emails reveal not only an enormous case of organized scientific fraud, but also criminal activity. Phil Jones at CRU has raked in millions in Grant money. How much, I wonder, has Michael E. Mann received? More than that, however, countries around the world have adopted policies that have shackled economies and spent billions of taxpayer dollars on the basis of a theory that has now been incontrovertibly revealed as pure fraud. This is the scandal of the century and needs to be thoroughly investigated. But, it seems clear that Earth & Sky will play no role in that. Seriously, how can you live with yourselves? How can you call yourselves journalists and yet ignore this, perhaps the biggest science story ever? Again, shame on you – you are, in effect, complicit in the scandal.

Ultimately, the process and power of science boils down to being able to reproduce experiments about questions people have on what’s happening in our world, whether it’s rising surface temperatures, sea level rise, glacier retreat, or Arctic sea ice loss. No amount of collusion or conspiracy will ever be able to completely shut that out.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts about the incident.

ClimateGate is not only a scandal of science, it is also a scandal of journalism. It is shameful that Earth & Sky so willingly participated in a colossal fraud and now the evasion of its unraveling. Shame on you all.

we cant prove anything nor can we blame anyone but ourself

we dont know the people that do this research so we dont know if this is correct or not.

Other factors poorly modeled in the general circulation models (CGM) are the heat transconductance interface between the oceans and air, keeping in mind the air doesn’t heat the oceans, but rather the oceans heat the air. Most recent peer reviewed studies in ocean temperature reconstructions have shown no net increase in oceanic sub surface temperatures (SST) over instrument history. Not modeled at all is the heat effects of ocean turbidity which can (without the help of CO2) raise the ocean SST (and lake SST’s) by as much as 3 degrees for a given total solar insolation (TSI).

Since the 1850′s there has been a 10% decrease in earth’s magnetic flux and a significant shift of the magnetic axis, which scientists just now realize affects the atmosphere’s composition and sensitivity at polar regions. The warming trend of the early 1900′s was as great as the present yet C02 played no role. Temperatures declined from the late 40′s through the 70′s (when CO2 was starting to rise significantly). The ice sheets in the Arctic were nearly gone in the late 1940′s, early 1950′s – so much so that navy submarines were able to break through the thin ice and surface at the North Pole (which they can’t do today). There is far more ice today than then yet CO2 levels were normal then.

The point here is climate change is real. However, there are much larger natural and man made climate variables than CO2. Our current general circulation models, while improving, still model the climate poorly and by the standards of other areas of science fail miserably to predict anything without unreasonably high climate sensitivity. As the models improve they are demonstrating that other natural forcings have a much greater influence on climate while climate sensitivity to CO2 is much less than originally believed.

Land use plays a much greater role in the land surface temperature record than CO2. The Urban Heat Effect (UHE) has been shown to bias the North American land temperature record by as much as six degrees and affects some 80% of our current USHCN land monitoring stations. All of this seriously raises doubt about how much CO2 really affects climate. It does to some small degree but it’s net effect is lost in the noise (or confidence intervals) of much larger drivers and historical errors.

Hansen needs to get off his ignorant position of the CO2 boogie man and radical alarmism and start to read the latest Geophysical Research Journal abstracts. We are learning much about our climate. We still have much to learn. Hansen is starting to look rather uninformed and more like a politician with each opening of his mouth.

2006 – 2008 Trend = -44.25 degF / Decade COOLING
2005 – 2008 Trend = -16.35 degF / Decade COOLING
2004 – 2008 Trend = -1.50 degF / Decade COOLING
2003 – 2008 Trend = -0.69 degF / Decade COOLING
2002 – 2008 Trend = -2.47 degF / Decade COOLING
2001 – 2008 Trend = -0.17 degF / Decade COOLING
2000 – 2008 Trend = -0.74 degF / Decade COOLING
1999 – 2008 Trend = -1.08 degF / Decade COOLING
1998 – 2008 Trend = -1.77 degF / Decade COOLING
1997 – 2008 Trend = -0.15 degF / Decade COOLING

1996 – 2008 Trend = 0.92 degF / Decade WARMING