Mankind can do absolutely nothing about the climate until we can control the sun.
Copies of this have been sent to several Warmists including George Monbiot at the Guardian and Dr Brian Cox at the BBC asking that if they see any inaccuracies they inform me. To date I have had not a single adverse comment. We can, therefore, assume they agree with the following and they each owe me a crispy £tenner.
The Global Warming debate can be very academic and riddled with miss understandings, half truths and downright lies.
It is a concept by the New World Order to justify the dismantling the industrial society and returning the mass of humanity to obedient serfdom. http://www.theeuroprobe.org/2016-082-globalism-and-populism/
• “North Pole could be ice free in 2008” | New Scientist • “Ice-free
#Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe” | Guardian (2013) • “Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013” | Sierra Club • “Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014” | USA TODAY #COP24 1028
In 2018 Ships in the North and South poles stuck in unusually thick ice.
This blog is shortened and written in non technical language for easier reading. For thoroughly researched account that gives the whole disgraceful story see The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science by Dr Tim Ball
The output of the UN and IPCC are classic examples of Lysenkoic Science.
Dr. Patrick Moore, one of the co-founders of Greenpeace, whom they have tried to erase from their website, resigned from the organization because:
Dr. Patrick Moore was right: @Greenpeace IS full of sh*t | Watts Up With That?
I’ve never had a headline like this, but Greenpeace deserves it for their mind-bending defense in a defamation lawsuit: basically their defense is “we publish hyperbole, therefore it isn’t actionable because it isn’t factual”. GMAFB!
The organization I co-founded has become a monster. When I was a member of its central committee in the early days, we campaigned – usually with success – on genuine environmental issues such as atmospheric nuclear tests, whaling and seal-clubbing.
When Greenpeace turned anti-science by campaigning against chlorine (imagine the sheer stupidity of campaigning against one of the elements in the periodic table), I decided that it had lost its purpose and that, having achieved its original objectives, had turned to extremism to try to justify its continued existence.
Now Greenpeace has knowingly made itself the sworn enemy of all life on Earth. By opposing capitalism, it stands against the one system of economics that has been most successful in regulating and restoring the environment.
see also 2015 – 134 Carbon Dioxide in a Nutshell There is within the Green Movement a desire to reduce atmospheric CO2 to zero which will kill all plant life.
Also type CO2 into search box to see why we need more CO2 not less.
The day Al Gore was born there were 7000 polar bears on Earth. Today, only 26,000 remain.
AL Gore funded by Soros http://linkis.com/constitution.com/7h2sd
What’s This All About Then? Global Warming is an invention of the Club of Rome (see 2014 – 002. see also 2014 – 059 & 2014 – 017 From the Somerset Levels to the EU to the UN to the Club of Rome.) aided and abetted by the EU and the United Nations Wildlands project 2014 – 021 The Wildlands Project Unleashes its War on Mankind and Agenda 21 http://www.theeuroprobe.org/2014-002-the-club-of-rome-invented-global-warming
Mark Steyn – IPCC Official Admits Global Warming Is A Lie To Redistribute Wealth https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdoRvly02Bo
Intense flooding in the low countries of Europe became “darkly repetitive” during the Little Ice Age, writes McKillop. 500,000 died
If the wind is free how come the Merchant Marine no longer use sailing ships?
Who are the Club of Rome? http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/clubofrome.htm
Here’s a practical way to understand the CO2 problem.
How much CO2 is created by human activity? Imagine 1000 metres (1 km or well over 1/2 mile) of atmosphere laid out in a line on the ground. with all the gases separated out. ( I know the gas laws will not let it happen but just imagine they do)
Let’s go for a walk along it.
◾The first 770 metres is Nitrogen.
◾The next 210 metres is Oxygen. That’s 980 metres of the 1000 metres. 20 metres (66 feet) to go.
◾The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres (33 feet) left. 9 metres is argon. Just 1 more metre (3 feet). A few other gases, ozone, neon etc, make up 620mm of that last metre.
◾The last 380mm is carbon dioxide. 96% of that is produced by Mother Nature. (fermentation, bush fires and volcanoes, much of it underwater). The recent Icelandic Volcano negated all the UK efforts made by us to reduce CO2.
◾Of our journey of 1000 metres just 15 millimetres are left – about half an inch. That’s the amount of carbon dioxide human activity puts into the air. Of those 15 millimetres the UK contributes about 4% or 0.6mm of the 15 milimetres. The thickness of a credit card.
or another 10 people in the 90 000 crowd at a Rugby match at Twickenham
What is the effect of higher CO2 levels in the air?
At the start of the Carboniferous Era – some 350 million years ago – the CO2 in the air was about 12 times more than now (4200mm of the 1km). Despite this ‘dangerously’ high level of CO2 the world did not boil over. Instead there was an almost explosive growth of vast forests. For 50 million years the trees steadily grew and fell down to be covered up, crushed and eventually transformed into the extensive coal seams around the world. Vast quantities were absorbed into marine organisms to form chalk and limestone rock. The fungi that rots dead wood had not evolved then so the trees lay as wood. By the end of this era – some 300million years ago – the CO2 level was about the same as now.
So where did all the CO2 come from and go?
Controlled burns of forest land and agricultural stubble are an additional anthropogenic contribution. Probably wildfires started by arsonists should be considered anthropogenic sources of CO2 also! Maybe we should also consider the CO2 resulting from smoking tobacco and marijuana for a thorough accounting!
Burning biomass merely accelerates the CO2 release. Burning a forest releases CO2 immediately rather than waiting for the trees to rot naturally. So the only differentiator between anthropogenic and natural is a few years. Then the regenerating forest sequesters CO2 for another cycle.
The trees in the almost limitless forests that flourished then had absorbed it to become stored underground in coal. Even more was deposited as chalk and limestone. How come?
Well let’s look at Wheat. To grow wheat five conditions are required.
◾A grain of wheat,
◾and Carbon Dioxide’
The DNA in the grain of wheat contains the instructions for the energy from the sunshine to combine the rainwater and CO2 by photosynthesise into carbohydrate as new ears of corn plus oxygen gas released into the atmosphere.
i.e. more wheat. A similar process occurs in trees to make more wood
◾Any increase of the CO2 level in the atmosphere will increase the yield of wheat per acre .
◾As a rough example the CO2 from one ton of jet engine exhaust could become an extra 1,500 loaves of bread.
◾Reducing the CO2 level will give a lower yield of food per acre. Halve the CO2 level that we have now and it is estimated to just about extinguish most of the life on earth.
As more information leaks out it has now become known that the warming effect of CO2 only was considered. All other gasses were ignored.
The Hockey Stick Curve
◾We now come to Dr Michael Mann’s infamous Hockey Stick Curve. These Lysenkoist claims that CO2 levels have increased to dangerous levels since 1750 causing Global Warming. Mann’s paper was based on tree ring growth and a set of data and codes that he has refused to make public. His paper was published in Nature – one of the most respected scientific journals. Such journals always require that all data related to a paper must be put into the public domain to enable other scientists to repeat the claims to confirm them. Nature published it anyway – a very strange and unique decision by the editor that has seriously damaged its reputation. The Hockey Stick Curve requires the removal from the historical record of the Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age in 1700s when the Great Frost of 1683–84, the Thames was frozen for two months, with the ice 11 inches (28 cm) thick.
◾There is considerable excitement among the Green Ecotards because it seems that the Greenland Ice Sheet is melting. This, they claim, is proof positive that we are now seeing the results of Global Warming due to man. Unfortunately The Antarctic ice is increasing in area and thickness. An expedition the measure the thickness of the ice to show how thin it is due to AGW and their ship got stuck in near record thickness.
◾However, in the year 982 AD a rather turbulent Viking Erik the Red sailed west and found a green land covered in lush grass which he called ‘Greenland‘. He then began to colonise Greenland. It was then green with grass and virtually no ice. Over next four or five hundred years the colony built up to over 4000 – 5000 people with over 500 farms and was more or less self sustaining. The ice returned at the beginning of the Little Ice Age and the colony then failed. During this period there were no cars, factories, central heating or other significant sources of man made CO2.
Rising sea levels?
The Warmists are so alarmed at this they want the historic Warm Periods removed from the historic record. see 2015 – 025 Austrian professor says ‘execute all Global Warming Deniers’
◾According to A.W.Montford, an expert in statistics, the mathematics Mann used would give a hockey stick curve if numbers were randomly taken from a telephone directory.
◾Although now thoroughly discredited the Hockey Stick Curve is still used, and regularly quoted, by the Environmentalists and Ecotards as if it were valid.
◾The Greenhouse Theory is based on reflected infra-red radiation from the earth vibrating the CO2 molecules and heating them up. There amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is far to small to have any significant effect. CO2 is not a ‘Greenhouse’ gas. Methane is by far more significant.
◾So why is there so much political excitement (bordering on hysteria at times among the Ecotards?) to reduce the CO2 level in our atmosphere despite the overwhelming objective evidence that it is not a significant problem?
◾It was started by The Club of Rome (2014 – 011) who wanted a world wide scare story as a means of persuading people to give up many freedoms ‘to save the world’. The cod science of Dr Mann and his now thoroughly discredited Hockey Stick Curve was a godsend the them to prove ‘Global Warming due to Man’. This charade has been continued, by somewhat panicky and very arrogant ‘Environmentalists and Intellectuals’ with rather narrow agendas. They are driven by their passionate contempt for the industrialised society and intense pique with the increasing consumerism of the lumpen public. There is also a lot of money involved. Many Gov grants to academics who wish to ‘prove’ AGW but none to those who wish to disprove it.
◾They have achieved considerable influence with their fellow ‘Intellectuals’ and politicians, whose understanding of science seems limited to say the least.
◾It is also a very good ‘scare’ story to keep the public in a continual state of anxiety and easy remove more Individual Freedoms – to save the world and impose spurious extra taxes.
◾The Environmentalists have invested so much personal reputation in the Greenhouse Gas scare now that it is nigh on impossible to admit they have grossly overstated the problem or if there is one at all.
◾Many Industrialists certainly continue to fuel this alarm. However their ‘crime’ is essentially pollution and despoiling the environment – not CO2 emissions.
Always follow the money. Who is earning the megabucks from this scam? See 2013 – 042 UK climate change committee accused of being on the take
◾It is a wonderful excuse for politicians to slap on extra charges on the public ‘to save the planet’. They are essentially Stealth Taxes. The taxes on airlines do absolutely nothing to reduce the CO2 output from jet engines or ‘Global Warming’.
◾The Carbon Trading Market is potentially worth trillions of dollars – as long as the governments can regulate and enforce Carbon Trading into general existence. Even at this early stage Carbon Trading is plagued with fraud.
◾The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of the United Nations is packed with personnel who have significant financial interests that rely on the ‘CO2 problem’.
◾The IPCC have a floating coterie of some 2000 experts who promote AGW and vilify anyone who disagrees with them. Actually it seems that most, by far, of their experts are Environmental Activists. Many of the true scientists are very angry that their input into the IPCC Report on Global Warming was ‘manipulated’ without their knowledge.
◾The IPCC and politicians are energetically lobbied by commercial companies who are now heavily committed to producing equipment to reduce the level of CO2 in the atmosphere – windmills, stripping CO2 from exhaust gas etc.
◾Many Universities are reliant on generous grants for research to ‘prove’ that AGW is valid. Investigators who wish to demonstrate that AGW is of very minor significance do not get grants and are ostracised by the controlling AGW scientific community.
There is now a move among the academic Warmists to have the Medieval Warm period removed from the historical record as it is an embarrassing contradiction to their Hockey Stick. A most remarkable position for so called scientists to take.
◾The BBC Pension Fund has some £8 billion invested in CO2 Trading. The AGW bubble is beginning to leak badly and when it finally bursts that pension scheme will take a devastating hit. To save their pension fund they will not allow any programme that does not support the Global Warming myth.
◾The BBC has a coterie of some 20-30 Ecotards who hold secret meetings to decide the BBC policy on Climate Change.
Is there Global Warming/Cooling? Yes – of course there is.
◾Short term heating and cooling is caused by the varying energy being emitted by the sun, the effect of cosmic rays on cloud generation and the position of the earth to the sun.
◾Long term is overwhelmingly due to how the earth orbits around the sun and the varying gravitational pull of the planets.
◾As the earth moves to its furthest from the sun an Ice Age is caused every 100,000 years or so, with a Warm Period in between. We came out of worst of the last Ice Age about 12,000 years ago and we are now in a warm period. Within about 1000 years we are due to start descending into the next Ice Age. (Vostok ice cores)
◾Will any of the ‘green’ taxes imposed on us by our governments do anything to change this? Not on your life!
Just as King Cnut knew he could not turn back the tide so the AGW Environmentalists, Intellectuals and politicians cannot alter the orbit of the earth. They are pushing our country further into terrible debt trying to do so. The Global Warming Crisis is an invention of the Club of Rome (see 2014 – 002)to generate a crisis that can be used to persuade the public to accept the loss of personal freedoms and more government control ‘to save the planet’.
The big worries we really have are overpopulation, pollution and waste. The Earth can probably cope with about 2-3 billion people so we can all have a decent lifestyle. Even now at 6 billion, and rapidly heading for 10 billion, we do not have enough raw materials and clean water nor safe land to live on, grow food on and keep undeveloped for wildlife.
The money and assets wasted on mythical Global Warming should be spent on dealing with waste and pollution. They are the real threat.
The solution proposed seems to be for our energetic Western society, with its contracting population, to drastically reduce our lifestyle. Much of it can then be transferred to the third world with their unbridled expanding population. Unfortunately much of the Western energy is being drained out of us by over regulation by unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.
Any reduction in lifestyle will not, of course, be suffered by the Elite Politique – just us lumpen public.
This ‘solution’ will not last long. The exponential increase in population will soon overtake it and even more unsafe land will have to be used.
© Mick Greenhough 2009
control click on Continue reading for full item
The latest hand-wringing “myth-buster” video roundly debunked
Guest Blogger / 11 mins ago September 25, 2014
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
The usual suspects have issued yet another “myth-busting” video in their continuing attempt to flog the dead horse of catastrophic Caucasian-caused climate change (CCCCC).
This latest droopy me-too effort is at sciencealert.com.au/features/20142309-26219.html.
Here are the main points in bold face. Science-based responses are in Roman face.
“Overall, temperatures are increasing”. This statement is unscientific because the starting and ending dates are not specified. Temperature has declined since the Holocene Climate Optimum 6000-10,000 years ago. The Old Kingdom, Minoan, Roman, and medieval warm periods were also warmer than the present.
Since 1950 there has been warming, but at only half the rate predicted by the IPCC in 1990.
In the 17 years 11 months from October 1996 to August 2014 there was no global warming at all, according to the RSS satellite dataset, whose output is not significantly different from that of any other global-temperature dataset.
“Storms, droughts, floods, ocean acidification, sea-level rise”: The usual litany. As for storminess, the trend in severe hurricanes, typhoons and tropical cyclones has been downward in recent decades; there has been no trend in landfalling Atlantic hurricanes for 150 years; and the U.S. has enjoyed its longest period without a major hurricane landfall since records began. There is no trend in extra-tropical storminess either, according to the IPCC’s special report on extreme weather.
As for floods, the same report, confirmed by the Fifth Assessment Report, says there is no evidence of any global increase in the frequency, intensity, or duration of floods.
As for droughts, Hao et al. (2014) show that the land area under drought has fallen slightly over the past 30 years.
As for ocean “acidification”, the ocean remains pronouncedly alkaline, with a pH around 8 (where 7 is neutral and values below 7, such as the 5.4 for rainwater, are acid). Why is rainwater acid? Because it is the “missing sink” that scrubs CO2 out of the atmosphere. When the rainfall reaches the ocean, it locally alters the pH at the surface by a minuscule amount. However, where rivers debouch into the ocean (as the Brisbane River does just opposite the Great Barrier Reef), pH can vary locally by large amounts: yet calcifying organisms thrive nevertheless. The oceans are strongly buffered by the basalt basins in which they lie: so our capacity to alter the pH of the oceans by our tiny alteration of the composition of the atmosphere is as near nil as makes no difference. And there is no global measurement network for ocean pH, for two reasons: first, no automated pH measuring device has proven successful; and secondly, notwithstanding the propaganda everyone in the field knows perfectly well that ocean pH is not going to change very much, and that, even if it did, calcifying organisms are well adapted to dealing with it.
As for sea-level rise, the GRACE gravitational-recovery satellites showed sea-level falling from 2003-2009 (Cazenave et al., 2009).
The Envisat satellite showed sea-level rising by a dizzying one-eighth of an inch during its eight-year lifetime from 2004-2012.
The intercalibration errors between the Jason-Topex-Poseidon laser-altimetry satellites are greater than the sea-level rise they pretend to find.
Sea level is probably not rising any faster in this century than it did in the last: and, since there has been no global warming for almost 18 years, there is no particular reason why it should be rising at all. A telling comparison between the reconstructed sea-level changes shown in Grinsted et al. (2009) and the schematic showing surface temperature change in IPCC (1990) indicates that sea-level was 8 in. higher than the present in the medieval warm period and 8 in. lower than the present in the little ice age.
“13 of the last 14 years have been the warmest since records began”: This, too, is an unscientific statement. Records began only in 1850. And, like it or not, there has been no trend in global temperatures for about 13.5 years on the mean of the terrestrial records and on the mean of the satellite records. Yet CO2 concentration has continued to rise at record rates. Absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation. The rising CO2 concentration cannot be causing the lack of warming evident over the past couple of decades.
“Not only Arctic but also Antarctic sea ice volume is declining”: Not a good moment to run this argument, given that satellites do not do a very good job of estimating ice thickness, but are at present showing a record high sea-ice extent in the Antarctic, a substantial recovery of Arctic ice even in the summer, and no appreciable change in global sea-ice extent throughout the 35-year satellite record.
“The Sun is dimmer, but temperatures are rising”. The Sun is indeed becoming less active, but global mean surface temperature is not rising. It is not falling either. Perhaps the modest decline in solar activity is being offset by a modest forcing from the additional CO2 we are adding to the atmosphere: if so, then the CO2 forcing is substantially less than the IPCC imagines. Indeed, Professor David Douglass of Rochester University has recently asked me an interesting question: has anyone attempted empirical measurements, rather than modeling, to determine the CO2 forcing? Please let us know in comments if you are aware of any atmospheric measurements on the basis of which the CO2 forcing has been quantified. The value in the IPCC’s recent documents was determined by inter-comparison between three models, and, given the lamentable performance of models in every other field of climate prediction, perhaps Professor Douglass has a point.
“We add 30 GTe CO2 each year, but Nature adds 780 GTe: however, Nature also takes away 780 GTe, so our net effect is to increase CO2 in the air.” Not quite right. We emit 35 GTe CO2 each year at present, but only half of this remains in the air: the rest is scrubbed out by rain or taken up by the ocean, trees and plants. Nor is it wise to assume a pre-existing balance of CO2 sources and sinks. Close examination shows considerable annual variations in the net CO2 increase in the air, suggesting that our monotonic influence is a rather small part of the picture.
“We know the CO2 remaining in the air is substantially manmade because fossil-fuel CO2 has less carbon-13 than the air, and the carbon-13 fraction in the air is falling”. The difference between fossil-fuel carbon-13 content and general atmospheric CO2 content is not as great as was once thought, and the carbon-13 content in the air is falling very slowly. This method of attribution is fraught with measurement and coverage uncertainties.
“The concentration of water vapor, the most potent greenhouse gas, is increasing, causing a positive feedback”. Not all records show the water vapor increasing, particularly in the crucial upper to mid troposphere. The “positive feedback” may even be a negative feedback. If water vapor were causing a strong positive feedback, global temperature should have risen at least as fast as the IPCC predicted in 1990, but it has risen only half as fast, leading the IPCC almost to halve its medium-term predictions of global climate change.
“CO2 lagged temperature change in the paleoclimate, but it acted as a reinforcing or positive feedback once the Milankovich cycles had triggered temperature change, amplifying it 9-fold”. Given the many uncertainties in paleoclimate analysis, no firm conclusion can be drawn as to the magnitude of the CO2 feedback. The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report put it at 25-225 ppmv per Kelvin – an order-of-magnitude interval that shows very clearly how unwise it is to assume that CO2 was the main reason for temperature change in the paleoclimate. After all, during the Neoproterozoic era 750 million years ago, equatorial glaciers came and went twice at sea level. There are no equatorial glaciers at sea level today. Yet today, to the nearest tenth of one percent, there is no CO2 in the atmosphere at all.
Now contrast the fact-based responses to the goofy scare stories of the “myth-busters”. If the news media had been willing to print facts instead of extremist predictions, the general population – and the scientifically illiterate politicians who represent them – would be in a better position to judge for themselves whether to be scared about manmade global warming. On the real-world evidence, there is no longer any legitimate pretext for fear, and still less for the “climate action” that that needless fear engenders.
And should not Ban Ki-Moon, having relentlessly ignored facts such as those briefly set out here, resign forthwith and for aye? He abandoned the impartiality that his office demands and took sides with communists and kooks by participating in the fatuous New York useful idiots’ climate march. He must go – and the U.N. with him. What little use it had has gone.
Nine inconvenient truths from Greenpeace founder
25 June, 2014 — Leave a comment
When one of an organisation’s founders dumps on it, you know it’s gone off the rails.
Patrick Moore, who helped to establish Greenpeace in the 70s, correctly points out that it has morphed from an environmental organisation into a cross between an extreme-left political ideology and a fundamentalist religion. He also lists nine inconvenient truths for the great unwashed:
The concentration of CO2 in the global atmosphere is lower today, even including human emissions, than it has been during most of the existence of life on Earth.
The global climate has been much warmer than it is today during most of the existence of life on Earth. Today we are in an interglacial period of the Pleistocene Ice Age that began 2.5 million years ago and has not ended.
There was an Ice Age 450 million years ago when CO2 was about 10 times higher than it is today.
Humans evolved in the tropics near the equator. We are a tropical species and can only survive in colder climates due to fire, clothing and shelter.
CO2 is the most important food for all life on earth. All green plants use CO2 to produce the sugars that provide energy for their growth and our growth. Without CO2 in the atmosphere carbon-based life could never have evolved.
The optimum CO2 level for most plants is about 1600 parts per million, four times higher than the level today. This is why greenhouse growers purposely inject the CO2-rich exhaust from their gas and wood-fired heaters into the greenhouse, resulting in a 40-80 per cent increase in growth.
If human emissions of CO2 do end up causing significant warming (which is not certain) it may be possible to grow food crops in northern Canada and Russia, vast areas that are now too cold for agriculture.
Whether increased CO2 levels cause significant warming or not, the increased CO2 levels themselves will result in considerable increases in the growth rate of plants, including our food crops and forests.
There has been no further global warming for nearly 18 years during which time about 25 per cent of all the CO2 ever emitted by humans has been added to the atmosphere. How long will it remain flat and will it next go up or back down? Now we are out of the realm of facts and back into the game of predictions.
“Climate change” is a theory for which there is “no scientific proof at all” says the co-founder of Greenpeace. And the green movement has become a “combination of extreme political ideology and religious fundamentalism rolled into one.”
Patrick Moore, a Canadian environmentalist who helped found Greenpeace in the Seventies but subsequently left in protest at its increasingly extreme, anti-scientific, anti-capitalist stance, argues that the green position on climate change fails the most basic principles of the scientific method.
“The certainty among many scientists that humans are the main cause of climate change, including global warming, is not based on the replication of observable events. It is based on just two things, the theoretical effect of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, predominantly carbon dioxide, and the predictions of computer models using those theoretical calculations. There is no scientific “proof” at all.”
Moore goes on to list some key facts about “climate change” which are ignored by true believers.
1. The concentration of CO2 in the global atmosphere is lower today, even including human emissions, than it has been during most of the existence of life on Earth.
2. The global climate has been much warmer than it is today during most of the existence of life on Earth. Today we are in an interglacial period of the Pleistocene Ice Age that began 2.5 million years ago and has not ended.
3. There was an Ice Age 450 million years ago when CO2 was about 10 times higher than it is today.
4. Humans evolved in the tropics near the equator. We are a tropical species and can only survive in colder climates due to fire, clothing and shelter.
5. CO2 is the most important food for all life on earth. All green plants use CO2 to produce the sugars that provide energy for their growth and our growth. Without CO2 in the atmosphere carbon-based life could never have evolved.
6. The optimum CO2 level for most plants is about 1600 parts per million, four times higher than the level today. This is why greenhouse growers purposely inject the CO2-rich exhaust from their gas and wood-fired heaters into the greenhouse, resulting in a 40-80 per cent increase in growth.
7. If human emissions of CO2 do end up causing significant warming (which is not certain) it may be possible to grow food crops in northern Canada and Russia, vast areas that are now too cold for agriculture.
8. Whether increased CO2 levels cause significant warming or not, the increased CO2 levels themselves will result in considerable increases in the growth rate of plants, including our food crops and forests.
9. There has been no further global warming for nearly 18 years during which time about 25 per cent of all the CO2 ever emitted by humans has been added to the atmosphere. How long will it remain flat and will it next go up or back down? Now we are out of the realm of facts and back into the game of predictions.
Moore makes his remarks in the foreword to a new book by bestselling Australian geologist Dr Ian Plimer called Not For Greens. The book describes the various, complex industrial processes which go into the making of just a single teaspoon, starting with the mining of various metals.
If Greenpeace’s membership remained true to their principles they would have to eat with their bare hands because, as Moore notes, they are opposed to mining in all its forms.
“If you ask them for the name of any mine that is operating in an environmentally acceptable standard you will draw a blank. They have become so cornered by their own extremism that they must deny their daily use of cell phones, computers, bicycles, rapid transit, and yes, the simple teaspoon.”
see also The Hockey Stick Illusion A.W.Montford ISBN 978 1 906768 35 5
One of the founders of Greenpeace has now had a Damascene Conversion.
Principia Scientific International
Hi, A description of the source for Mick’s quote can be found here:
There are, of course, others who claim a strong connection between climate changes and volcanic activity, since donkey’s years:
Since publishing it recently on my blogsite at http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/snippets-questions-2-climate-models.html I have received a strong, and long, criticism by email with a request to publish it on my blog, which I did as requested, together with my reply, of course: http://cleanenergypundit.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/snippets-questions-2-comments.html
since when my readership total increased by 1,562 with no further comments received. Not that this ‘proves’ anything, but can’t be a bad thing (from my point of view).
I only know what I read, of course, (I’m careful in selecting memes, as you know J), here is just one source full of info: http://notrickszone.com/
Where Does the Carbon Really Come From?Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better! If you’ve read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.
Okay, here’s the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2emissions on our planet – all of you.Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are tryingto suppress – it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.I know, it’s very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid’s “The Green Revolution” science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cents light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs …well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth’s atmosphere in just four days – yes – FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time – EVERY DAY.I don’t really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year – think about it.Of course I shouldn’t spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change. And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus human-caused climate change scenario.Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention Global Warming any more, but just Climate Change – you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down. And just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme – that whopping new tax – imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.But hey, relax, give the world a hug and have a nice day!………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Written by Anthony Bright-Paul
We have to be careful to distinguish between latent heat and trapped heat, particularly in the sense that Anthropogenic Global Warmers use the term.
Latent Heat is used most often, following Joseph Black, to describe the change of state from ice, a solid, to water, a liquid, to steam, a gas (water vapour), which are all chemically of the same composition.
In order to clarify the difference to ourselves we may buy at a Supermarket a bag of ice. Let us open the bag and pour the contents into a large saucepan, put it on the stove, light the gas. Having applied x calories of heat the ice rapidly turns to water – it has changed from a solid to a liquid, chemical composition H2O.
If I continue to heat this pan of water until 100C, the water will turn to steam, a gas.Steam and water vapour are one and the same, except that the concentration in the atmosphere differs. Steam is clearly visible to the naked eye, whereas water vapour istransparent, though it can be seen on summer mornings as dew rising from the grass.
It is notable that steam rapidly loses its heat and quickly condenses. This demonstrates the volatility of gases. Hot water on the other hand will retain its heat for a long period compared to the gas, demonstrating heat capacity.
Of course, steam can be used to drive turbines and steam engines – the beginning of railways and the industrial age. We can use a bag of ice in order to learn about the Arctic. If we keep the bag in a cold store where the temperature is rarely if ever above zero C. the ice will barely melt at all. However put the same bag of ice in a bowl of tepid water, the ice will melt rapidly. This shows that Arctic Ice will melt, not from the atmosphere, as the AGWs seem to think, but as the result of warm currents of water.
The AGWs use the analogy of sunlight on a stationary car, with windows closed. They aver correctly that the temperature within the car will rise, and they call this ‘trapped heat’. What they omit to add is that this rise of temperature will only occur and continue while heat is being generated. Once the Sun goes down the heat rapidly disperses.
This demonstrates that all sensible heat has to be generated, that such heat is never trapped, but is either being generated or being dissipated. There is no steady state. In particular, there is no way that Carbon Dioxide can trap heat – such an idea is bizarre!
Here I hope I have demonstrated the difference between latent heat and sensible heat in a way that is comprehensible to the layman.
At Climate Audit, Something odd has been discovered about the provenance of the work associate with the Marcott et al paper. It seems that the sharp uptick wasn’t in the thesis paper Marcott defended for his PhD, but is in the paper submitted to Science.
Steve McIntyre writes:
Reader ^ drew our attention to Marcott’s thesis (see chapter 4 here. Marcott’s thesis has a series of diagrams in an identical style as the Science article. The proxy datasets are identical.
However, as Jean S alertly observed, the diagrams in the thesis lack the closing uptick of the Science. Other aspects of the modern period also differ dramatically.
Here is Figure 1C of the Science article.
The differences will be evident to readers. In addition to the difference in closing uptick, important reconstruction versions were at negative values in the closing portion of the thesis graphic, while they were at positive values in the closing portion of the Science graphic.
I wonder what accounts for the difference.
Read the full report at Climate Audit
This story just got a lot more interesting. I wonder if we don’t have a situation like with Yamal, and sample YAD06 which when included, skewed the whole set. Perhaps there was some screening in the thesis and that didn’t include part of the proxy datasets, or later for the Science paper maybe there was some Gergis sytyle screening that made hockey sticks pop out. It might also be some strange artifact of processing, perhaps some Mannian style math was introduced. Who knows at this point? All we know is that one paper is not like the other, and one produces a hockey stick and the other does not.
Some additional detective work is sorely needed to determine why this discrepancy exists and if anyone in the peer review process asked any similar questions.
for more comments on this see http://wattsupwiththat.com/
POLITICIAN EXPOSES AGENDA 21 AND THE CLUB OF ROME
This is deeply concerning. Are YOU aware of it ? It effects Britain.
Mick Greenhough 2009
From: Malcolm Heymer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Idris Francis <email@example.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2012 05:14:34 -0500
Subject: Re: BBC Bias / Climate Change Volcanos and CO2?
There are indeed several solar cycles, including those of 11 years and 22 years, and these are the ones most closely linked to weather. Referring also to the separate email headed ‘Carbon’, the linkage between solar magnetic activity and cosmic ray penetration to the lower atmosphere, affecting cloud formation, is only one part of the story. Solar magnetic activity such as solar flares also has a direct impact on the track of the jet stream, which is what determines whether we have a cold or mild winter, warm or cool summer, and so on. It is an understanding of these connections that allows Piers Corbyn to produce long-range forecasts with an accuracy of around 85% ( www.weatheraction.com). His predictions of extreme weather events, not just in the UK but around the world, are particularly impressive. These have absolutely nothing to do with atmospheric CO2 concentrations and are driven entirely by the sun.
The moon also has an influence – its orbit around the earth does not follow precisely the same track each time (otherwise we would have a solar eclipse every month, or never). As the moon passes between the earth and the sun it modulates the solar wind, the stream of charged particles coming from the sun, thus affecting its impact on the jet stream. This is also taken into account by Piers Corbyn in his forecasting.
While the majority of ‘sceptics’ accept the existence of a greenhouse effect, others question it. The greenhouse hypothesis was first postulated about 200 years ago to explain the apparent anomaly between the earth’s measured temperature and what it should theoretically be, calculated on the basis of ‘black body’ radiation theory. It was assumed that the difference must be due to an atmospheric ‘greenhouse’ effect. We now know, however, that the average temperature of the moon is also greater than it should theoretically be. Since the moon has no atmosphere, it cannot of course have a greenhouse effect. The difference is in reality due to false assumptions of the black body approach when applied to a real planet.
Another factor to be aware of is that rising CO2 levels lead to an increase in plant growth (which is why market gardeners raise the CO2 level in their greenhouses to 1,000 ppm or even more). Faster growth means more water is sucked into the plants and then evaporates from the leaves. The evaporation process requires latent heat, which is drawn from the atmosphere, thus cooling it and at least partially negating any increase in temperature from CO2, if there is one.
It is a very compex and fascinating subject.
Gummer faces probe over energy firm links as it is revealed he stands to benefit from Government advice on climate change
PUBLISHED: 01:53, 27 January 2013 | UPDATED: 01:54, 27 January
A former Cabinet Minister faces investigation over his business interests after The Mail on Sunday revealed that he stood to benefit from the advice he gives to the Government on climate change.
John Selwyn Gummer, an Environment Secretary under Margaret Thatcher, is chairman of the advisory Committee on Climate Change (CCC), which advises Ministers about reducing greenhouse gas emissions and replacing fossil fuel with ‘renewable’ energy.
But Lord Deben, as Mr Gummer is now, chairs a £500 million company called Veolia Water UK, which also works in the energy sector. He told MPs it did no energy-related business and dealt only with water.
Key role: John Gummer who helps decide the future size of energy bills iis chairman of a company that stands to benefit from his Government work. Here he is pictured with his daughter Cordelia, then four, in 19990 at the height of the BSE crisis
If it had ‘even a remote connection’ with the environment or climate change, he promised, he would step down.
In fact, Veolia boasts on its website of supplying ‘large electrical grid connections for renewable energy producers’, and illustrates this with a large photograph of wind farms.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268949/Gummer-faces-probe-energy-firm-links-revealed-stands-benefit-Government-advice-climate-change.html#ixzz2J9uPq4C3
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
The Great Green Con no. 1: The hard proof that finally shows global warming forecasts that are costing you billions were WRONG all alongBy DAVID ROSE PUBLISHED: , 17 March 2013No, the world ISN’T getting warmer (as you may have noticed). Now we reveal the official data that’s making scientists suddenly change their minds about climate doom. So will eco-funded MPs stop waging a green crusade with your money? Well… what do YOU think?The Mail on Sunday today presents irrefutable evidence that official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed.The graph on this page blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. These moves have already added £100 a year to household energy bills.global warming graphSteadily climbing orange and red bands on the graph show the computer predictions of world temperatures used by the official United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).The estimates given with 775 per cent and 95 per cent certainty suggest only a five per cent chance of the real temperature falling outside both bands.More…
But when the latest official global temperature figures from the Met Office are placed over the predictions, they show how wrong the estimates have been, to the point of falling out of the ‘95 per cent’ band completely.
Varying fears: In 1977 we were warned of the ‘next ice age’, now we are warned that the planet is getting dangerously hot.
The graph shows in incontrovertible detail how the speed of global warming has been massively overestimated. Yet those forecasts have had a ruinous impact on the bills we pay, from heating to car fuel to huge sums paid by councils to reduce carbon emissions.
The eco-debate was, in effect, hijacked by false data. The forecasts have also forced jobs abroad as manufacturers relocate to places with no emissions targets.
A version of the graph appears in a leaked draft of the IPCC’s landmark Fifth Assessment Report due out later this year. It comes as leading climate scientists begin to admit that their worst fears about global warming will not be realised.
Academics are revising their views after acknowledging the miscalculation. Last night Myles Allen, Oxford University’s Professor of Geosystem Science, said that until recently he believed the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century.
But he now says: ‘The odds have come down,’ adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower.
Prof Allen says higher estimates are now ‘looking iffy’.
The graph confirms there has been no statistically significant increase in the world’s average temperature since January 1997 as this newspaper first disclosed last year.
At the end of last year the Met Office revised its ten-year forecast predicting a succession of years breaking records for warmth. It now says the pause in warming will last until at least 2017. A glance at the graph will confirm that the world will be cooler than even the coolest scenario predicted.
Its source is impeccable. The line showing world temperatures comes from the Met Office ‘HadCRUT4’ database, which contains readings from more than 30,000 measuring posts. This was added to the 75 and 95 per cent certainty bands to produce the graph by a group that amalgamates the work of 20 climate model centres working for the IPCC.
Predictions of global warming, based on scientists’ forecasts of how fast increasing CO2 levels would cause temperatures to rise, directly led to Britain’s Climate Change Act. This commits the UK to cut emissions by 80 per cent by 2050.
1977 – THE YEAR WE WERE TOLD TO FEAR TERROR OF…GLOBAL COOLING
In the Seventies, scientists and policymakers were just as concerned about a looming ‘ice age’ as they have been lately about global warming as the Time magazine cover pictured here illustrates.
Temperatures had been falling since the beginning of the Forties. Professors warned that the trend would continue and food crises were going to get worse because of shorter growing seasons.
Newsweek magazine reported that evidence of cooling was so strong ‘meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it’. But, it lamented, ‘scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections’. It said the planet was already ‘a sixth of the way towards the next ice age’.
While recently every kind of extreme weather event has been blamed on warming, in the Seventies the culprit was cooling. One article predicted ‘the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded’, along with ‘droughts, floods, extended dry spells and long freezes’.
The current Energy Bill is set to increase subsidies for wind turbines to £7.6 billion a year leading to aa combined cost of £110 billion. Motorists will soon see a further 3p per litre rise in the cost of petrol because this now has to contain ‘biofuel’ ethanol.
Many scientists say the pause, and new research into factors such as smoke particles and ocean cycles, has made them rethink what is termed ‘climate sensitivity’ how much the world will warm for a given leveel of CO2.
Yesterday Piers Forster, Climate Change Professor at Leeds University, said: ‘The fact that global surface temperatures haven’t risen in the last 15 years, combined with good knowledge of the terms changing climate, make the high estimates unlikely.’
And Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at the prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said: ‘The models are running too hot. The flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two.’
James Annan, of Frontier Research For Global Change, a prominent ‘warmist’, recently said high estimates for climate sensitivity now look ‘increasingly untenable’, with the true figure likely to be about half of the IPCC prediction in its last report in 2007.
Avowed climate sceptics are more unequivocal. Dr David Whitehouse, author of a new report on the pause published on Friday by Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: ‘This changes everything. It means we have much longer to work things out. Global warming should no longer be the main determinant of anyone’s economic or energy policy.’
I said the end wasn’t nigh… and it cost me my BBC career says TV’s first environmentalist, David Bellamy
Challenged the orthodoxy: Former BBC Botanist David Bellamy said that he was regarded as heretical for not toeing the line on global warming
This graph shows the end of the world isn’t nigh. But for anyone like myself who has been vilified for holding such an unfashionable view, possibly the most important thing about it is its source: the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Since its creation in 1988, the IPCC has been sounding the alarm about man-made global warming. Yet here, in a draft of its latest report, is a diagram overlaying the observed temperature of the earth on its predictions.
The graph shows a world stubbornly refusing to warm. Indeed, it shows the world is soon set to be cooler.
The awkward fact is that the earth has warmed just 0.5 degrees over the past 50 years. And Met Office records show that for the past 16 years temperatures have plateaued and, if anything, are going down.
As the graph shows, the longer this goes on, the more the actual, real-world temperature record will diverge from the IPCC’s doom-laden prediction.
Yet this prediction is used to justify the ugly wind farms spoiling our countryside and billions in unnecessary ‘green’ taxes that make our industry less competitive and add up to £100 a year to household energy bills.
Man-made global warming has become scientific orthodoxy, with no room for dissent. Tragically, the traditional caution of my brethren has gone out of the window along with the concept of sceptical peer reviewing to test new theories.
Opponents of man-made global warming are regarded as dangerous heretics, as I learnt to my cost. Soon after the IPCC was created, I was invited to what is now the Met Office’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter to hear a presentation on global warming.
As the face of natural history on the BBC and a science academic, they wanted to enrol me in their cause. But when I read the so-called evidence, I realised it was flawed and refused to ‘sign up’.
I rapidly found myself cast out from the BBC and the wider scientific community. When I helped some children campaign against a wind farm as part of a Blue Peter programme, I was publicly vilified. Abusive emails criticised me. I realised my career at the BBC was over.
But scientific theory should be tested. That’s why I question the science which casts carbon as the villain that will bring about the end of the world.
Open discussion: David Bellamy argues that we should be able to test theories about global warming and that the world can live with fluctuations of carbon levels in the air
Geology tells us that fossil fuels are predominantly carbon which was part of our atmosphere before being locked away in the earth millions of years ago. At that time, there were more than 4,000 carbon parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere. Over time this has been as low as 270ppm and is now about 385ppm.
It is obvious the world can live with these fluctuations in the level of atmospheric carbon.
There is a correlation between temperature and CO2, but some of my colleagues have put the cart before the horse.
The evidence shows CO2 levels follow temperature, not the other way around.
Indeed, there may be many factors that determine our climate. Australian scientist David Archibald has shown a remarkable correlation between the sun’s activity and our climate over the past 300 years. Climate scientists insist we must accept the ‘carbon’ orthodoxy or be cast into the wilderness.
But the scientists behind the theory have a vested interest it’s a great way to justify new taxes, get more money and guarantee themselves more work.
The reality is that man-made global warming is a myth: the global temperature is well within life’s limits and, indeed, the present day is cooler by comparison to much of Earth’s history. Perhaps this will be the moment that this fact becomes the new scientific orthodoxy.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2294560/The-great-green-1-The-hard-proof-finally-shows-global-warming-forecasts-costing-billions-WRONG-along.html#ixzz2NpBBHzQs
The Mail on Sunday today presents irrefutable evidence that official predictions of global climate warming have been catastrophically flawed.The graph on this page blows apart the ‘scientific basis’ for Britain reshaping its entire economy and spending billions in taxes and subsidies in order to cut emissions of greenhouse gases. The graph shows in incontrovertible detail how the speed of global warming has been massively overestimated. Yet those forecasts have had a ruinous impact on the bills we pay, from heating to car fuel to huge sums paid by councils to reduce carbon emissions. The eco-debate was, in effect, hijacked by false data. –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 17 March 2013Academics are revising their views after acknowledging the miscalculation. Last night Myles Allen, Oxford University’s Professor of Geosystem Science, said that until recently he believed the world might be on course for a catastrophic temperature rise of more than five degrees this century. But he now says: ‘The odds have come down,’ – adding that warming is likely to be significantly lower. Prof Allen says higher estimates are now ‘looking iffy’. –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 17 March 2013Many scientists say the pause, and new research into factors such as smoke particles and ocean cycles, has made them rethink what is termed ‘climate sensitivity’ – how much the world will warm for a given level of CO2. Yesterday Piers Forster, Climate Change Professor at Leeds University, said: ‘The fact that global surface temperatures haven’t risen in the last 15 years, combined with good knowledge of the terms changing climate, make the high estimates unlikely.’ –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 17 March 2013Professor Judith Curry, head of climate science at the prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said: ‘The models are running too hot. The flat trend in global surface temperatures may continue for another decade or two.’ Avowed climate sceptics are more unequivocal. Dr David Whitehouse, author of a new report on the pause published on Friday by Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation, said: ‘This changes everything. It means we have much longer to work things out. Global warming should no longer be the main determinant of anyone’s economic or energy policy.’ –David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 17 March 2013The implications of the inconvenient truth we publish today are profound. Since the Kyoto Treaty in 1997, Britain has been impoverishing itself in a lonely quest to cut its CO2 emissions – even though the world’s powerhouse economies, such as China and America, have refused to set any limits. It is clear that the science, supposedly ‘settled’, is deeply uncertain, while growing numbers of experts now say that the effects of greenhouse gases are much less bad than they feared: any warming is going to happen much more slowly than they thought a few years ago. –Editorial, Mail on Sunday, 17 March 2013The Met Office figures come as a report by the Global Warming Policy Foundationclaims there been no “statistically significant increase” in global temperatures in 16 years. Dr Benny Peiser, director of the foundation, said: “The biggest surprise for climate scientists is the discrepancy between the predictions and the reality of ongoing warming standing still. It suggests that the climate models on which these predictions are based are flawed. Scientists are beginning to reconsider whether their previous, more doom-laden predictions, were overegged. We should reconsider all policies that may turn out to be hugely wasteful and potentially economically disastrous.” —Daily Express, 18 March 2013Mysteriously, anything can be produced as evidence of global warming – hot weather, cold weather, wet weather and dry. Climate change has become a religion and any diversion from the orthodox view is pounced on as evidence of heretical wickedness. Those who beg to differ about the global warming creed are held up as wicked rather than merely sceptical. But now new data from the Met Office is at odds with the doomy computer predictions from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The new data show that the pace of climate change has been wildly overestimated. –-Editorial, Daily Express, 18 March 2013De rigueur though it may be to describe Sir David Attenborough as a “national treasure” and our “greatest living naturalist”, it really is time he was called to account for the shameless way in which he has allowed himself to be made the front-man for one particular propaganda campaign that has stood all genuine scientific evidence on its head. Last week yet another report picked up on the part Sir David has played in promoting what the facts show to have been no more than a colossal scare story. . –Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 17 March 2013A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point. We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks. But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs