OIL GIANT GAVE £1 MILLION TO FUND CLIMATE SCEPTICS…

…cries a banner headline on the front page of The Times on 19 July 2010. “One of the world’s largest oil companies has broken its pledge (why and to whom one wonders) to stop funding groups that promote scepticism about man-made climate change”. Only a few days earlier, in the Economist of 10 July 2010, I found again the litany that the only climate scientists that seem to matter are those 'behind closed doors' by order of the IPCC. As noted before, there are, of course, many other scientists outside these confines, as well as thousands of scientists who have signed petitions pleading 'audiatur et altera pars' instead of relying exclusively on the IPCC's Lysenkoism.


So …… HOORAY!

to Exxon for deciding to get out of the climate cabal’s coercion and giving a few pennies to organisations that promote scepticism about man-made climate change, i.e. about anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Pennies? – Yes when compared to the AGW cabal’s propaganda machine having spent an alleged 100 billion dollars (10 billion dollars annually in the US alone) to promote the AGW fable. Fable? To wit: consider published estimates of annual global carbon dioxide emissions in Gt C/year (Gigatonnes of carbon per year):

Gt C/year; average; %

Respiration (humans, animals, phytoplankton) 43.5-52, avge 47.75, = 22.96%

Ocean outgassing (tropics) 90-100, avge 95, = 45.68%

Soil bacteria, decomposition 50-60, avge 55, = 26.45%

Volcanoes, soil degassing 0.5-2, avge 1.25, = 0.60%

Forest cutting, forest fires 0.6-2.6, avge 1.6, = 0.77%

Anthropogenic emissions (2005) 7.2-7.5, avge 7.35, = 3.53%

TOTAL 192-224, avge 207.95, = 100.00%  [1]



I find it hard to believe that about 7 Gt C/year out of total global emissions amounting to some 200 Gt C/year should alone and exclusively be responsible for affecting ‘global climate’, no less - let alone the unresolved question whether even the total of annual CO2 emissions does. Is scepticism not the only possible rational response in the light of these figures? Anthropopathetic is a word that springs to mind. Those sponsors of AGW fables should perhaps take a lesson from the Brothers' Grimm ‘Die Sonne bringt es an den Tag’, i.e. 'Truth Will Out'. And only sceptics will ever find it.

Meanwhile, don't lose your focus on the Clean Energy challenge - nothing else really matters if you take sustainability serious.

[1] Robert M Carter: ‘Climate: the Counter Consensus — a Palaeoclimatologist Speaks’, Stacey International, London 2010

[PS:  for my full story start with Blog (1) 2009]

BURT RUTAN: NEW PRESENTATION

This announcement just received from Burt Rutan:

"Lessons learned by a long debate with a Climate Scientist/Professor prompted me to update my CAGW slides. The update, Version 4 is now posted for download at:

http://rps3.com/Pages/Burt_Rutan_on_Climate_Change.htm

A version of this presentation will be given by me at the world's largest... convention at 11:15 am, July 31st, Pavilion 7

http://www.airventure.org/ 

http://www.airventure.org/attractions/forums.html

Burt"

The Climate Scientist referred to is Professor Robert M Carter whose latest book CLIMATE: THE COUNTER CONSENSUS has just been published by Stacey International, London.

As Burt says about his presentation: read the evidence and make up your own mind.
Can't ask for more.