Follow by Email

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Children “Forgotten” in Overheated Cars

Well worth the money

Thank goodness for technology, that’s all I can say….no, it’s not all I can say after all. The Associated Press reports that the number of children left to die in hot cars during the summer is rising. Research shows that July is the month when most are “forgotten” by their parents to die a slow, horrible death in the back seat of cars.

Now, in addition to your cell phone, BlackBerry, iPod, iPhone, GPS device, Bluetooth and mini-tape recorder, you can buy a “ChildMinder.” The device, costing about $60.00, consists of a sensor pad placed under the cushion of a car seat, and is wirelessly linked to an alarm on the parent’s key chain. If the adult walks more than a few feet away from the car with the child still in the seat, the alarm will sound. Wow! What a great way to help a parent remember that they have a small human being with them!

In the past 10 years, almost 350 children have died in cars, because the parents or other caretakers simply forgot them. Only about 7% of these sad deaths involved drugs or alcohol on the part of the adult. Most cases involved dentists, nurses, ministers, college professors, concert musicians, social services board members, NASA engineers…you know, the pillars of the community. These are the busy, self-involved folks always in a rush, for whom even dropping kids off at a day-care center instead of tending to the little ones themselves was too difficult an assignment.

Astonishingly, these parents, when prosecuted at all (and only 50% of them are prosecuted), receive only three to five year prison sentences. Also astonishing is how much “understanding” public support they get from those who say “It can happen to anyone.” No, it can’t happen to anyone.

It can happen only when parenting and family are not the highest priorities. It can happen only when parents spend their time focused on maximizing their own personal fulfillment at the expense - and very existence - of their children.

Dr. Laura

Dr. Laura- Blog
Dr. Laura- Radio

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

More Real Facts About Domestic Energy

House fails Vote, John McCain Gets it.

Hey folks,

As I and others keep pointing out to you, we have a very REAL solution to the energy crises that we are facing today. Our gas prices are dropping again for only one reason. President Bush, and YOU are fed up with it and there are signs that over 70 percent of you want to drill and start using our own. But this is a temporary thing. As soon as some realized that the Congress will NOT lift their ban, the price WILL go back up. Congress is what is standing in the way of the prices continuing to drop and remain lower.

The Liberal answer for a fix? Tap the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Ten percent of it at that. What would that amount to? Reality is one time deal, of what, about 7 million barrels? That will solve NOTHING except give them, so they think, the ability to blame Bush. But this failed miserably.

Consumer Energy Supply Act - Vote Failed (268-157, 10 Not Voting)
The House failed to attain the two-thirds margin needed to pass this bill to release 10 percent of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

John McCain is NOW getting it. He said this.

"We all know that a comprehensive solution is wind, tide, solar, all the other things all of us believe in," McCain told reporters after touring San Joaquin Facilities Management, an oil company in the California desert that yields 1,100 barrels a day. "In the meantime, as we develop all of these alternate sources of energy, it will be vital that we continue oil production at a high level, including offshore drilling."

He even called Obama the "Dr. No" of energy. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and the rest of the Liberal Loony Left beholden to the Evionuts out there keep repeating the same old garbage. Well the following are some more REAL facts from my new friends over at Energy Tomorrow - Rhetoric vs Reality

Policymakers are talking a lot about energy and energy policy. What follows are some of the most frequently heard claims and proposals emanating from the campaign trail, along with realities that need to be considered when evaluating these claims.

RHETORIC: Oil Companies are to blame for the high price of gasoline.

REALITY: There are many factors affecting the price of gasoline.

More than 80 cents of every dollar spent at the pump goes to the price of crude and taxes. The price of crude oil is set on global markets, not by oil companies, and it accounts for more than 70 cents of every dollar of gasoline price. And the government takes nearly twice as much in taxes (13 cents) as the industry makes in profit (fewer than 8 cents).

While gasoline prices have increased dramatically this year, the price of crude oil has increased by $1.21 per gallon in 2008, compared with the price of gasoline, which is up 80 cents per gallon.

Demand is strong in both mature economies and the developing world, especially in China, India and the Middle East. The market impact of tight supplies has been exacerbated by political instability, resource mismanagement and weather. Finally, the decline in the value of the dollar against other currencies has put American consumers at a disadvantage.

RHETORIC: Oil and natural gas companies are demanding greater access to America’s resources even though they own leases on millions of acres of federal lands that are already open to drilling. They would rather sit on these idle leases and make record profits than increase production. If they’re not willing to produce on these idle leases, they should hand them over to someone who will.

REALITY: Just because a lease is not producing oil or natural gas doesn’t mean it’s idle. Companies are actively exploring and developing the majority of their leases, but the entire process takes years and requires many steps, including securing government permits, analyzing seismic data and installing the machinery needed for drilling and production. Many leases prove not to contain enough oil and natural gas to be commercially viable, and companies can’t produce oil and natural gas where it does not exist. Over the past five years, American companies have paid billions to obtain federal leases, and if they don’t develop leases within a certain period of time, they return them to the federal government, forfeiting all investments.

RHETORIC: We can’t just drill our way to energy security – it won’t make a difference.

REALITY: At a time when we need all the energy we can find, increasing access to domestic sources of oil and natural gas would enhance our energy security. We have enough oil and natural gas resources to power 65 million cars for 60 years and heat 60 million households for 160 years. But more than 85 percent of coastal waters adjacent to the lower-48 states are off-limits to oil and natural gas exploration.

RHETORIC: Allowing oil companies to drill would ruin the environment on our lands and off our coasts.

REALITY: The industry has researched and developed breakthrough technologies, such as 4D seismic imaging and multi-directional drilling, which have helped reduce the industry’s environmental footprint dramatically. For example, today it’s possible to develop nearly 80 square miles of area below the surface from a single two-acre site on the surface.

RHETORIC: We need to get off oil and use renewable and alternative energy instead.

REALITY: The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that fossil fuels will continue to meet at least 80 percent of energy demand, both in the United States and globally, through 2030, even with tremendous growth in alternative and renewable sources of energy.

RHETORIC: U.S. oil companies have refused to invest in alternative energy and other clean technologies.

REALITY: The U.S. oil and natural gas industry invested almost $100 billion between 2000 and 2005 in emerging energy technologies, including $12 billion in non-hydrocarbons and $42 billion in greenhouse gas emission mitigation technologies from 2000 to 2006.

RHETORIC: Oil companies are making record profits and we should impose a windfall profits tax on them.

REALITY: While company profits are large in dollar terms, the earnings of oil companies aren’t much higher than those of the S&P Industrials. In fact, it is only in recent years that they have matched or exceeded those returns. Oil and natural gas industry profits are in line with other manufacturing industries. And there is no credible evidence that raising taxes on them would lower fuel prices.

RHETORIC: It’s time to end tax breaks for Big Oil and make these companies pay their fair share in taxes.

REALITY: Oil companies already pay on average almost twice as much in income taxes as other U.S. manufacturing companies – 40.7 percent, as a share of net income before income taxes, compared with 22.1 percent for other industries.

RHETORIC: Oil company executives and other company insiders are profiting at the expense of working class Americans.

REALITY: Tens of millions of Americans, many of them middle-class, own shares of oil company stocks through IRAs and mutual and pension funds, and they benefit from strong company earnings. Only 1.5 percent of industry shares are owned by corporate management.

For this and even more information please visit them at Energy Tomorrow. Do not let these falling gas prices fool you folks. Do not get comfortable. As long as we are dependent on foreign oil, we are at their mercy. We need to Drill NOW, Drill Here, so we can continue to pay less. It really is that simple.

Energy Tomorrow - Rhetoric vs Reality
AP - McCain promotes drilling for oil off US coast

Monday, July 28, 2008

Real Simple Solution to Illegal Immigration Raids

Do not come here Illegally

Hey folks,

Here is something else that is really annoys me. Illegal Aliens passing themselves, or others passing them off as, victims. Seems that in the little town of Postville Iowa, a community of about 2,200, had themselves a little Illegal Alien Rally yesterday. I mean little. About 1000 people

This is where the May 12 raid at Agriprocessors took place. The raid resulted in 389 arrests. Most of those arrested were Guatemalan and Mexican Illegal Aliens who lived in Postville and the surrounding area.

Well, this little protest of about a thousand strong, bused in by the way, were trying to make some kind of point. I guess, with chants like "End the raids!" "Yes, we can!" they are calling for Amnesty from THEIR actions. Why? THEY CAME HERE ILLEGALLY. THEY worked at the plant ILLEGALLY. THEY are to BLAME. It IS THIER fault.

Some get it. According to this story. The AP - Iowa town become flash point in immigration debate By HENRY C. JACKSON, Associated Press Writer Some want to blame the town and Government, but some get it.

"It's not their fault," he said of the protesters. "It just didn't need to get to this, to a boiling point."

It IS the Illegal Alien's fault.

"This is an awesome moment, a historic moment," said Sister Mary McCauley of St. Bridget's. "We're calling for reform, not raids."

NO IT ISN'T Sister. It is about CRIMINALS that have come here, committed crimes as soon as they step foot on our soil and now want Amnesty for their CRIMES. They are NOT the victims you and some others would LOVE to see them as.

Some get it.

One of them was Claire Jamison, who said she'd traveled from Minneapolis to protest the protesters. She wore a hat emblazoned with a U.S. Border Patrol logo and held up a sign reading "What would Jesus do? Obey the law" as she shouted across the street.

"I'm just so fed up as an American. We have laws. Why can't they obey our laws?" Jamison said. "I empathize with those people, but they are not victims. They should not have even been here."

Of course the article ends in support.

The reaction from Postville residents appeared largely supportive. Cindy Moser, 53, from nearby Elkader, said her daughter and son-in-law were marching while she watched her two grandchildren.

"If they want to come and work here I say fine," Moser said. "We all saw the effect of this. My grandson, he told me, 'Grandma, they took my friends away.' I hope this stops."

I say fine too. I have no problem with them coming here to better themselves and seeking a better future for their families. JUST DO IT LEGALLY. As far as this little sappy last sentence? "'Grandma, they took my friends away.' I hope this stops."

Real easy solution. Do not come here Illegally.

AP - Iowa town become flash point in immigration debate

Sunday, July 27, 2008

Preview For Sunday 072708

Big Sunday Edition coming up.

Hey folks,

Welcome to the Sunday Edition of the OPNTalk Blog. Coming right up today?

Little Hitler is proving WHY Talks and Sanctions do not work.
In the Health and Science Segment, Diamonds are life's best friend.
Get ID Protection for free? Use a stolen Credit Card.

Get frustrated, get a shotgun.
And of course, YES! Obama IS the IWA winner.

All this coming right up. However first I have a question. Can someone help me out here. Last week I posted this. Now We Know Why Those Cookies Are So Addicting It was meant to be for humorous infotainment. Not to be taken all that seriously. I have always been addicted to those Girl Scout Cookies and since they just found a large amount of Pot plants at the Girl Scout camp grounds, I though, hey, maybe that's why. {Smile} But then I got this comment from Miss Dorothy.

"I dont know if i agree with what your tring to convay i think you should go back and evauluate what you really want to say because im not understading.the word liberal has nothing to do with this siguation." MISS DOROTHY

Now I have read this FOUR times and I STILL cannot see the word Liberal ANYWHERE in this. Somebody help me out here?

Anyway, we are fully loaded and ready to go. Sit back with your morning coffee, mine is Hazelnut again, and here we go.

Talks And Sanctions INCREASED Iran Nuclear Quest

Someone tell Obama

Hey folks,

You know, it really does get frustrating from time to time when discussing Little Hitler and the Iranian situation. For YEARS now, I have been watching President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rise to power, and his continuing rise amongst the Radicals Islamic regime. I have been warning you that he is a mirror image of the Original Hitler, and telling you that you ARE watching history repeat itself.

Meanwhile in loony land, both the Far Left Lonny Fringe {LWL} and the Mainstream Media continue to say that force is not an option. All we need to do is talk nice and they will be nice to us. All we need to do is have political negotiations and if that doesn't work, then we will talk tough and place Sanctions on him and Iran until they decide to play nice. There is a diplomatic solution to all things, and we must seek that.

The only problem is, reality and logic dictate that there is NOT always a diplomatic solution. We are talking about a guy that said he would give up half his country to wipe Israel off the map. A guy who chants death to America and calls us the Little Satan. These idiots want us to negotiate with someone who's starting point is our death. Someone who is very much investing in acquiring nuclear weapons to USE against us and his neighbors. World Domination ruled by Islamic Law. HIS version of it.

The other problem is that, as I have told you over and over again, TALKS WILL NOT WORK. SANCTIONS WILL NOT WORK. The ONLY thing that will stop this new and ever growing Hitler's rise is FORCE. Plain and Simple. We must SERIOUSLY consider either helping Israel, or doing it ourselves, destroy his Nuclear capabilities.

I am not advocating one foot of one Soldier touching the ground in Iran. But a couple of well placed bombs targeting his Nuclear facilities WILL delay this threat. All the talk and sanctions so far?

When we began Sanctions, he bragged about 3500 active centrifuges. After the, and even tougher Sanctions? Now he is bragging about 6000. Well, that worked. According to Reuters - Iran says expanded nuclear enrichment program By Zahra Hosseinian and Fredrik Dahl

Iran has more than 5,000 active centrifuges for enriching uranium, its president was quoted as saying on Saturday, suggesting expansion of the nuclear work the West suspects is aimed at making bombs.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's comments may irritate major powers which have offered the Islamic Republic economic and other incentives to persuade it to suspend enrichment activity that can have both civilian and military uses.

Western officials said after a meeting with Iran's chief nuclear negotiator in Geneva on July 19 it had two weeks to reply to an offer of a halt to new steps towards more U.N. sanctions if Iran froze the expansion of its nuclear program.

Iran has so far ruled out a freeze to start preliminary talks or suspension of enrichment to start formal talks on the incentives package proposed by the six world powers - the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany.

"Today, we have more than 5,000 active centrifuges," state television quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

The U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, said in May that Tehran had 3,500 centrifuges working at its Natanz facility in central Iran.

The U.N. Security Council has imposed three sets of sanctions in a stand-off that goes back to the revelation in 2002 by an exiled opposition group of the existence of a uranium enrichment facility and heavy water plant in Iran.

Little Hitler also said this.

"Iran does not negotiate with anyone over its obvious nuclear right," Ahmadinejad said in the city of Mashhad.

State radio quoted him as saying the West had retreated in the dispute and had now "accepted that Iran would continue uranium enrichment with its current 6,000 centrifuges."

The AP is reporting it this way.

Iran's president said Saturday his country now possesses 6,000 centrifuges, a significant increase in its nuclear program that is certain to further rankle the United States and others who fear Tehran is intent on developing weapons.


"Today, they have consented that the existing 5,000 or 6,000 centrifuges not be increased and that operation of this number of centrifuges is not a problem," state radio quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

A report by the U.N.'s nuclear monitoring agency that was delivered to the U.N. Security Council in May said Iran had 3,500 centrifuges, though a senior U.N. official said at the time that Iran's goal of 6,000 machines running by the summer was "pretty much plausible."

They report he, Little Hitler, said this.

"The presence of a U.S. representative ... was a victory for Iran, irrespective of the outcome. ... The U.S. condition was for Iran to suspend enrichment but they attended (the talks) without such a condition being met," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying in the state radio report.

{Sigh} No we really didn't. We sent someone there to get an answer as to if they would stop enrichment and accept the terms. They of course did not. There are NO TALKS.

Folks, Little Hitler will not stop. He will not negotiate. He WILL acquire Nuclear Weapons. He will USE them if he is not stopped. It really is just that simple.

Reuters - Iran says expanded nuclear enrichment program
AP - Report: Iran now has 6,000 centrifuges for uranium

H.S. For Sunday 072708

Great news for Scifi fans and Atheists

Hey folks,

In the Health and Science segment this week, we look at Evolution once again. I keep saying that it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it actually takes to believe in God. The biggest and most fundamental problem with evolution is where the first something came from. It is impossible, as we all know, to have something come from nothing. So there had to be a source of the first something to form life.

Then you have to believe, have faith in, you have to believe that all things came from the first something. The most common theory is the first something was a single cell organism. From that, we got warm blooded, cold blooded, tress, flowers, birds, fish, people, ETC. DNA proves that this is impossible. But none the less.

So NOW a group of Scientists are claiming that not only are they a girls best friend, but may have played a major part in life itself. Yup. Diamonds. According to - Diamonds May Have Jumpstarted Life on Earth by Robert Roy Britt LiveScience Managing Editor

One of the greatest mysteries in science is how life began. Now one group of researchers says diamonds may have been life's best friend.

Scientists have long theorized that life on Earth got going in a primordial soup of precursor chemicals. But nobody knows how these simple amino acids, known to be the building blocks of life, were assembled into complex polymers needed as a platform for genesis.

Or where the first one came from.

Diamonds are crystallized forms of carbon that predate the oldest known life on the planet. In lab experiments aimed to confirm work done more than three decades ago, researchers found that when treated with hydrogen, natural diamonds formed crystalline layers of water on the surface. Water is essential for life as we know it. Also, the tests found electrical conductivity that could have been key to forcing chemical reactions needed to generate the first birth.

When primitive molecules landed on the surface of these hydrogenated diamonds in the atmosphere of early Earth, a few billion years ago, the resulting reaction may have been sufficient enough to generate more complex organic molecules that eventually gave rise to life, the researchers say.

The only problem is this. Where did the atmosphere come from?

The research, by German scientists Andrei Sommer, Dan Zhu, and Hans-Joerg Fecht at the University of Ulm, is detailed in the Aug. 6 issue of the American Chemical Society's journal Crystal Growth & Design. Funding was provided by the Landesstiftung Baden-Wurttemberg Bionics Network.

Another theory, called panspermia, holds that life on Earth arrived from space, as organisms rained down inside tiny meteors or giant comets.

OK folks. So if this theory is correct. Life HAS to exist in Space. Would this NOT then lead to MORE of a reason to explore? We should be building an "Enterprise" type of ship to go and explore new life, and new civilizations. To boldly go where no one has gone before. Right? If we are actually all aliens, then we should be searching for our Parents in the final frontier. But again, where did our atmosphere come from able to host this life that landed here?

The new research does not conclusively determine how life began, but it lends support to one possible way.

Of course, that is impossible.

"Hydrogenated diamond advances to the best of all possible origin-of-life platforms," the researchers contend.

Not until you can establish where the trees that produce oxygen, water to produce life, and all the other elements needed for this theory to have ANY credibility at all.

Sorry folks, it really is this simple. Nothing from nothing is nothing. Nothing to nothing is nothing. Lets say the first something DID come form space. That is still assuming that there was SOMETHING here to help it grow, change, and produce all that you see. Where did THAT come from?

Like I said, I find it takes a lot more faith to believe in Evolution than it does to believe that GOD, a very real something, CREATED all that you see and put it here FOR us. But believe what you will. Although, I would love to be on that first Starship. {Smile}

Sources: - Diamonds May Have Jumpstarted Life on Earth

You Can't Make This Stuff Up 072708

Great Job.

Hey folks,

I caught this in the local news at TC News {Treasure Coast News} and just thought this was too funny. I wonder why they did not give the name of the ID Protection Company. Maybe because if you are like me, they will be the LAST people you would think of if you are in the market for this type of thing. Seriously folks. How bad is this for them.

Thursday 072408


That is it. That's that whole story. {Laughing} Be right back

Sources: News Brief

Runner Up for The IWA

Just for fun

Hey folks,

If it were not for Obama Dissing the Troops. The WOUNDED Troops, I would have named THIS guy the winner of the IWA. I do have a bit of compassion for this guy though. I've been there.

Think about this. Remember the time, we have ALL been there, that you were in the middle of doing something and things were not working out like they should? In other words, putting something together Christmas Eve for your kids, building a shelving unit, working on your car, or, in this case, your Lawn Mower didn't start. You feel that frustration and anger growing up inside of you. Some of us can control it. I'll admit, I'm not ALWAYS one of those people. Some, as in my case from time to time, that turns to RAGE. I see blood and destruction. I want the source of my anger destroyed. Some times I actually DO destroy it. Now do not worry, I'm only talking about inanimate objects. Sometimes costs me more money to buy another one. I have more patients with actual breathing things, such as people and animals. But when I'm doing something and it is suppose to work a certain way and it doesn't, I get a little, huh, angry. {Smile}

So I can indeed feel this guys pain.

A Milwaukee man was accused of shooting his lawn mower because it wouldn't start. Keith Walendowski, 56, was charged with felony possession of a short-barreled shotgun or rifle and misdemeanor disorderly conduct while armed.

According to the criminal complaint, Walendowski said he was angry because his Lawn Boy wouldn't start Wednesday morning. He told police quote, "I can do that, it's my lawn mower and my yard so I can shoot it if I want."

A woman who lives at Walendowski's house reported the incident. She said he was intoxicated.

Walendowski could face up to an $11,000 fine and six years and three months in prison if convicted.

A call to Walendowski's home went unanswered Friday morning.

I would say deep breaths and count to ten, but that never worked for me. However, I have not shot anything yet. May I suggest to you Mr. Walendowki, you invest in a sedge-hammer. You can not go to jail with that.

Be right back.

AP - Angry man shoots lawn mower for not starting

IWA For Sunday 072708

This One Shows His Qualifications Daily

Hey folks,

It's SUNDAY! Time to award the IWA. This weeks winner shows on a daily bases why he is a deserving recipient of the Idiot Award, but this latest snafu did it for me. I have pretty much gone light on him until now. I know three things about him.

One, it does not matter what I or anyone else tells some about this Idiot. He will continue to be portrayed as a Messiah. As someone who is a great orator, compassionate, wise, and able to save us all from our sins.

Two, it does not matter how blatant his "miss-steps," "miss-speaks," {Lies} ignorance is on display, the Mainstream Media will still be driving the Mass Marketing Machine behind him, excusing, ignoring, or just propping him up, no matter what. They have decided to ignore their job and just lap up his image as he leaves a room.

Three, I see this person as a complete Moron, not really worth getting upset about. I discuss things about him from time to time, as we draw closer to election day, 100 days to go by the way, I'm sure I will have to spend more time on him. But I feel it may be an exercise in futility. The Sheeple out there truly buy into the hype, and truly believe this is a messenger of change.

However, this latest action by Obama the Messiah is a direct slap in the face of all those that died, those that fight for our freedoms, and all the families that have lost loved ones doing the same. This is a CLEAR EXAMPLE of what is the truth about this guy. He DOES NOT CARE. He DOES NOT CARE about this country, you, your freedoms, the Troops, or anything else with the exception of simply getting into power.

Yes, the fact he completely dissed the Troops, the WOUNDED Troops, those that payed nearly the ultimate price for him to have the RIGHT to go on his little world tour, is disgusting to me. It's beyond ignorant. It is a purposeful slap in the face.

Now he and his Campaign have now attempted to explain this three or four different ways, the latest, blame Bush. Idiot. It was his Campaign's decision. No one else's. HE did not meet with the wounded troops because he would not be allowed to bring his like 200 strong entourage with him. He would not be allowed to have the Media there to pass him off as a great and high Messiah, taking time out to meet with the little people.

As Sen. McCain said, "Barack Obama is wrong. It is never inappropriate to visit our men and women in the military."

But it is if you are the Leader, or figurehead, of a group of people in this country that HATE the Military and everything they stand for. In Obama's case, he actually did the RIGHT thing. He wouldn't want to send a mixed message to his major supporters, now would he?

Congratulations Obama, you ARE the Idiot of the Week, possibly on your way to the Idiot of the Year. I do have to thank you for continuing to TRULY show the people who you REALLY are, and what you are REALLY about.

I thank you for teaching me another lesson at the same time. I can NOW understand how some feel about Bush. I mean that. If you are elected President, I STILL will not be able to respect you. I would not be able to shake your hand if we were to ever meet. I would not be able to respect you at all at this point. I would TRULY feel that the Office of the President is infected by your presence in it. I get BDS now. I'm starting to feel the signs of BODS {Barack Obama Delusional Syndrome}I understand it better by thinking that there may actually be enough ignorant Sheeple out there to blindly vote for you in, in November. I would like to believe that my mind is open enough to give you a chance to prove that you may be able to learn reality and do what is right, but at this point, I do not believe that it is probable, or even possible.

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Presidential Radio Address for 072608

President Bush Radio Address

President Bush: "Good morning. This week, Congress voted to expand a vital program that is saving lives across the developing world -- the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, also known as PEPFAR. I thank members of Congress from both sides of the aisle for working with my Administration to pass this important bill, and I will be honored to sign it into law next week.

PEPFAR is the largest international health initiative dedicated to fighting a single disease in history. And it is a testament to the extraordinary compassion and generosity of the American people. When we first launched this program five-and-a-half years ago, the scourge of HIV/AIDS had cast a shadow over the continent of Africa. Only 50,000 people with AIDS in sub-Sahara Africa were receiving antiretroviral treatment. Today, PEPFAR is supporting treatment for nearly 1.7 million people in the region. PEPFAR has allowed nearly 200,000 African babies to be born HIV free. And this program is bringing hope to a continent in desperate need.

The new legislation that I will sign next week will build on this progress. We will expand access to lifesaving antiretroviral drugs. We will help prevent millions of new HIV infections from occurring. And we will also bolster our efforts to help developing nations combat other devastating diseases like malaria and tuberculosis.

Fighting disease is one part of America's larger commitment to help struggling nations build more hopeful futures of freedom. Over the past seven years, we've learned how advancing the cause of freedom requires combating hopelessness. This is because the only way that the enemies of freedom can attract new recruits to their dark ideology is to exploit distress and despair. So as we help struggling nations achieve freedom from disease through programs like PEPFAR, we must also help them achieve freedom from corruption, freedom from poverty, freedom from hunger, and freedom from tyranny. And that is exactly what we're doing.

America is using our foreign assistance to promote democracy and good government. We have more than doubled the federal budget for democracy and governance and human rights programs. And through the Millennium Challenge Account, we have transformed the way we deliver aid, so we can support developing nations that make important political and economic reforms.

America is promoting free trade and open investment. Over the long term, we know that trade and investment are the best ways to fight poverty, and build strong and prosperous societies. So we have expanded the African Growth and Opportunity Act to increase trade between America and Africa. We have put eleven new free trade agreements into effect since 2001. And we're striving to make this the year that the world completes an ambitious Doha Round agreement, so we can tear down barriers to trade and investment around the world.

America is leading the fight against global hunger. This year, the United States has provided more than $1.8 billion in new funds to bolster global food security. We are the world's largest provider of food aid, and we have proposed legislation that would transform the way we deliver this aid to promote greater self-reliance in developing nations.

America is leading the cause of human rights. Over the past seven years, we've spoken out against human rights abuses by tyrannical regimes like those in Iran and Syria, Cuba, Sudan, and Zimbabwe. We've spoken candidly about human rights with nations with whom America has good relations, such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia and China. And to ensure that our Nation continues to speak out for those who have no other voice, I recently issued a directive instructing all senior U.S. officials serving in undemocratic countries to maintain regular contact with political dissidents and democracy activists.

With all these steps, we're helping defeat the forces of violent extremism by offering a more hopeful vision of freedom. And as this vision takes hold in more nations around the world, America will be safer here at home.

Thank you for listening."

Obama Disses Our WOUNDED Troops

This is just infuriating.

Hey folks,

Yeah, I know it's Saturday, I know I'm not supposed to be here. But THIS just pissed me off. Sorry, but it did. I'm getting so tire of the Media falling all over Obama to the point it seems as if they are lusting after him. Like little puppies, they are following him around and panting. They are just waiting for the next perils of ignorance, uh, I mean, uh, uh, you know, uh, and, uh, wisdom. They do not DARE criticize what has REALLY and TRULY become their Messiah. I have pretty much left this alone. We all know the Mainstream Media usually goes for the Liberal running anyway, they, most, are controlled by a Lib. George Soros. But this time, Obama went too far.

We all know he does not care about those of you that cling to your guns and God. We all know that he wanted to lose the war. We all know he has said that he wants to cut the military budget, end the "Star Wars" defense system. We all know he has said he will invade our FREINDS and meet with our enemies without preconditions. We all KNOW he does not care about YOU. Even some Democrats have called him further Left and more of a Liberal than Ted Kennedy. That is saying something. But this?

This is an outright dis. What Obama did is go all over the Middle East, and Europe, claiming to be a "Citizen of the World" and imitate Reagan, give GREAT pre-written speeches and in essence, put down America. But then he decides that the Wounded American Troops were not worthy of his presence.

According to AOL News- Obama Cancels Visit to Military Hospital By Mark Impomeni
Jul 25th 2008 11:00AM

One casualty of Sen. Barack Obama's busy schedule on his foreign trip was a planned visit to the Landstuhl Regional Medical Center, a U.S. military hospital located at the U.S. air base in Ramstein, Germany. The cancellation left Obama with a gap in his official schedule this morning in Berlin before he boarded a plane to fly to Paris for a five-hour stop over en route to London. Obama was to visit with troops receiving treatment for wounds inflicted in Iraq and Afghanistan at Landstuhl. Now, the cancellation, and the Obama campaign's shifting explanations for it, are raising questions.

Obama adviser Robert Gibbs initially said that the visit was canceled because the campaign thought, "it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign." That remark drew sharp criticism from Sen. John McCain, who said, "Barack Obama is wrong. It is never inappropriate to visit our men and women in the military." The McCain campaign also pointed out the Sen. McCain paid a visit to wounded troops on his last trip to Iraq. In response to increased questioning on the cancellation from the press, and perhaps to Sen. McCain's criticism, the Obama campaign later said that it was the military that requested that Obama not make the trip to the base. "We learned from the Pentagon last night that the visit would be viewed instead as a campaign event," a campaign adviser said.

But the military is disputing that explanation. A spokesman for the base told NBC News that the base was prepared to host Sen. Obama, as long as some conditions were met.

"He could only bring two or three of his Senate staff member, no campaign officials or workers. Obama could not bring any media. Only military photographers would be permitted to record Obama's visit.

We didn't know why [the trip was canceled]. He was more than welcome. We were all ready for him."

Obama's campaign has steadfastly refuted the characterization of his trip as political. But the campaign's original explanation for removing the military hospital stop was based on the perception that the visit would be viewed as political. This is a pretty serious mistake by the campaign. The controversy will have no impact on the leaders and crowds Obama will encounter on the remainder of his trip. But it will resonate in the United States, and especially among those whom the trip was intended to convince that Sen. Obama had the experience to be the leader of the free world. Furthermore, the shifting explanations for the cancellation will cause the press to be more skeptical of the campaign's statements. That is something no candidate can afford, much less one who has enjoyed a largely uncritical relationship with the mainstream press.

So could it be as simple as the fact he was denied a photo op by his buddies in the media? They could not take picture of their Messiah shaking hands with our WOUNDED Soldiers? So he said Hell no, I won't go. and moved on to the next pre-written speech.

This just completely disgusts me. Seriously. Obama is nothing more than a puppet. Meeting with the troops did not fit the agenda. The Template. It would not be good for those that hate the war, and look down on our Troops. You know, the LWL.

Do you REALLY want this idiot being the Commander and Chief? The Leader of the Free World? One with complete and total control over your safety, security, and everyday lives? Think about that.

AOL News- Obama Cancels Visit to Military Hospital

Friday, July 25, 2008

From The Emails 072508

More Evidence GW is BS 2

Hey folks,

Happy Friday. It's finally here thank God. What a week I have had. I hope yours was much better. Anyway, it is Friday, so it's time to go to the Emails.

OK, I will have to admit something here folks. I KNOW I want to share this information. The problem? I'll call the Sender Mr. BIG. Mr. BIG sent me a PDF of a Project being done by ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, ANDWILLIE SOON of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Road, Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 []It's entitled Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

ABSTRACT A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future in creases in hydrocarbon use and minor green house gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.


Political leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to consider a world treaty restricting human production of “greenhouse gases,” chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2). They feared that CO2 would result in “human-caused global warming” – hypothetical severe increases in Earth’s temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences. During the past 10 years, many political efforts have been made to force worldwide agreement to the Kyoto treaty.

When we reviewed this subject in 1998 (1,2), existing satellite records were short and were centered on a period of changing intermediate temperature trends. Additional experimental data have now been obtained, so better answers to the questions raised by the hypothesis of “human-caused global warming” are now available.

I am completely butchering this study, and it has taken me about two hours to do it. {Smile} I have written this Daily Article about four times now. The Project is 12 pages long. Every time I try to pull something out to highlight, I see something else to add. Basically, the only way for me to do this justice is to post the whole thing. I cannot do that, so I HIGHLY encourage you to check out the link. You will get all the graphs and information, well, you will get the whole thing.

Basically, the bottom line is the SUN controls the earths temperatures. Yes, imagine that. It also PROVES that we are NOT warming to alarming rates. Some of the graphs actually show we are now COOLING. There are NATURAL CYCLES. Where have I heard that before? Hmmm? CO2 is NOT a pollutant. ETC. I love this.

Predictions of catastrophic global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its in fancy. The empirical evidence – actual measurements of Earth’s temperature and climate – shows no man-made warming trend.

Remember The Lord Monckton Report? Garbage in, garbage out.

Indeed, during four of the seven decades since 1940 when average CO2 levels steadily increased, U.S. average temperatures were actually decreasing. While CO2 levels have increased substantially and are expected to continue doing so and humans have been responsible for part of this increase, the effect on the environment has been benign.

There is, however, one very dangerous possibility.

Our industrial and technological civilization depends upon abundant, low-cost energy. This civilization has already brought unprecedented prosperity to the people of the more developed nations. Billions of people in the less developed nations are now lifting themselves from poverty by adopting this technology.

Hydrocarbons are essential sources of energy to sustain and extend prosperity. This is especially true of the developing nations, where available capital and technology are in sufficient to meet rapidly increasing energy needs without extensive use of hydrocarbon fuels. If, through misunderstanding of the underlying science and through misguided public fear and hysteria, mankind significantly rations and restricts the use of hydrocarbons, the worldwide in crease in prosperity will stop. The result would bevast human suffering and the loss of hundreds of millions of human lives. Moreover, the prosperity of those in the developed countries would be greatly reduced.

Yes folks, in other words, if we continue to surcome to the Envionuts and continue to allow GWBS to continue unchanged, we WILL cause great harm to ourselves and others.

Again, I would love to post this whole thing, but trust me, you have no idea how much time and space that would take. Clink HERE and read it through yourself. WELL WORTH THE TIME TO DO THAT.

As I keep telling you, the whole GWBS is NOT based in any REAL Science. It is Scaryence. {Scare Science, Junk Science, ETC.} More and More REAL Scientist, using REAL Science are coming out and saying that this is all BS. That there is no real evidence to support it. What's it all about then? You guessed RIGHT! Money, power and control. And it IS, just that simple.

Have a great Weekend. See you Sunday.

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
OPNTalk- Proof That GW IS BS

Note: "From The Emails" is a weekly segment in the Friday edition of the OPNtalk Blog. If you care to send in News Articles, Comments, Stories, or anything else you may wish to share, please feel free to send it to As always, you never know what you are going to see here.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

Way To Go Newt

Along with ALL of us that are keeping the pressure on Congress

Hey folks,

Happy Thursday to you. It has been a busy Thursday morning for me. I had to wade through all the lecherousness over Obama to find any REAL news that matters. THAT is getting to be more and more difficult. Even some in the Media itself is starting to question this mass marketing machine drive by the Mainstreme Media to get Obama elected. Some seem to already SEE him as President. One main reason folks? Yup, you know it's true. The Fairness Doctrine. They want their monopoly back.

Anyway, I came across some interesting things in my quest to avoid this ignorant ramblings tour of Obama. First I found that Newt is still on the front lines in the energy war with Congress. According to CQ Politics - Gingrich to House GOP: Stay on Message By Molly K. Hooper, CQ Staff Wed Jul 23, 7:29 PM ET

Drill, drill, drill is the message Americans want to hear on energy and GOP candidates should stay on that message, former Speaker Newt Gingrich told House Republicans Wednesday.

The former Speaker was "complimentary," of the House Republican leadership, according to Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, R-Ga., who attended the closed-door meeting at the Capitol Hill Club.

"They've had a very good couple of weeks, the question is: can they keep building on that to the next three months -- but they've had consistent focus on energy -- energy feeds into the economy, those are key issues," Gingrich said following the meeting. He was speaking about recent efforts by House Republicans to highlight Democratic opposition to opening areas off the U.S. coast and in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas drilling. Republicans have focused on increased domestic oil production as a means of reducing high gas prices.

He is right. 1,368,393 people have signed the Petition "Drill Here Drill Now, Pay Less" at the time of me writing this.

On a smaller scale, but no less important is Over 100,000 people have signed their Petition calling for Congress to forgo their month long recess until they lift THEIR ban. In other words, get out of the way, before you get out of town. The President of said this.

"The energy crisis is crippling American families, and they want real action, right now. If that means Congress needs to stay overtime, and postpone vacation plans, so be it. Lifting the ban on offshore drilling makes sense, and based on the incredible response that we have seen since launching this petition over the last four days, it's something Americans are demanding."

Elliott adds that Grassfire representatives are delivering petitions on a daily basis to both Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. "Time is short, and they both need to see that Americans want the ban lifted right now."

In addition to lifting the ban on offshore drilling, the petition also supports removing restrictions for exploration in ANWR, lifting barriers on Shale Oil exploration, enhancing exploration for natural gas, significantly increasing domestic nuclear power and building more refineries. "It's obvious to all that changes must be made regarding our energy policies. Americans are doing their part. Now it's time Congress steps up and does something constructive and positive for the people," says Elliott. You can "take action" HERE.

I also came across this article written by A.W.R. Hawkins over at Human Events Online - What Part of 'Drill Now' do they Not Understand? He mirrors what I have been telling you for some time now, but he ends it with this.

I am worried about having politicians in office who are more concerned about hoofed creatures than they are about human beings. Like President Bush, we still read our Bibles in West Texas and from it we learn that mankind was placed over nature not under it. Our Founding Fathers concurred.

We need to drill here and we need to drill now, as Newt Gingrich, McConnell, Cornyn, Hutchinson, and others who value America’s independence assert. It’s not a question of whether the oil is or isn’t there -- we know it’s there -- the question is whether we as a people will muster the wherewithal to tell politicians like Reid and Pelosi to remove the Congressional ban on drilling because America, rather than the Democrat Party or the caribou, comes first. In the end, this is tantamount to saying people come first; people of all economic classes who need gasoline for their cars, diesel for their trucks, oils to heat their homes, and the natural gas required to produce the electricity we are accustomed to having at the flip of a switch.

Just what part of “drill now” do they not understand?

They understand it Mr. Hawkins. They just do not care. This is why we need to keep the pressure on. This is why we HAVE to make sure that Congress stops playing games and starts to do their job. Lift the ban on drilling for the betterment of the American people and the betterment of America itself. However, my gut tells me, just like they went on vacation without protecting America first with FISA, they will skip town again without doing this. When they do? Hammer them when they come back home to YOUR State. Let them know you could not care less what the Media Messiah Obama is doing on his world tour, you are still paying over four dollars a gallon. You are mad, and you are not going to take it anymore. Let them know, if they do not do this, they will be out first chance we get.

CQ Politics - Gingrich to House GOP: Stay on Message
Human Events Online - What Part of 'Drill Now' do they Not Understand?

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

Some Real Facts On Access Of Domestic Energy

Alaska at least opens door a crack

Hey folks,

I just want to post some REAL facts about domestic energy today. In the news, it seems Alaska has at least opened the door just a bit to really investigating this. Thanks to Gov. Sara Palin. The US House has the votes to pass the lift on the Ban, yet Pelosi is still standing in the way of the vote. Now that there is real talk about it, the price continues to go down. Gas remains over four dollars a gallon however, because of Pelosi and Reid. It really is that simple. It really is their fault.

The Mainstreme Media just either reports the same old talking points repeated by Pelosi and the LWL, or, as we have seen this week, just completely shifts ALL their attention on the pointless and joke of a world tour by their chosen one.

Well folks, here are some REAL FACTS about this. Facts About Access

America needs a balanced, fact-based energy policy that promotes energy efficiency and conservation and greater supplies of all forms of energy, including domestic oil and natural gas. Congress must act to expand access to the abundant supplies of domestic oil and natural gas that have been off-limits to drilling for decades.

Oil and natural gas are vital to our energy and economic future. Right now, companies are not allowed to drill where the best prospects for oil and natural gas may exist.

85 percent of the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) off the lower 48 states is off-limits to development. These inaccessible lands contain an estimated 18 billion barrels of oil and 76.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to the U.S. Minerals Management Service.

Only 17 percent of non-park, non-wilderness federal lands administered by the federal government is open to energy development under standard lease terms. Lands unavailable for development hold an estimated 19 billion barrels of oil and 94.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, according to the U.S. Bureau of Land Management.

Federal lands hold an estimated 650.9 trillion cubic feet of recoverable natural gas, enough to meet the natural gas needs of 60 million households for 160 years (60 million households in the United States are fueled by natural gas). They also hold an estimated 116.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil, enough to produce gasoline for 65 million cars and fuel oil for 3.2 million households for 60 years.

The industry has proven it can safely develop oil and natural gas resources in all areas, including federal lands. With new technologies, the industry has and will continue to reduce the environmental footprint of exploration and production by drilling fewer wells to access greater amounts of production.

Production of oil and natural gas on federal lands has brought billions of dollars of revenue into federal and state treasuries. Expanding access to additional non-park federal lands and federal waters could put billions of additional dollars into federal and state budgets.

Oil and natural gas leasing and development on non-park federal lands and in OCS waters have generated in excess of $200 billion since 1953 through bonus bids, royalties and lease rental payments. The U.S. government received $3.7 billion from company bids in a single Gulf of Mexico lease sale in March 2008.

Revenues from oil and natural gas activities represent the second largest revenue source to the federal government.

Revenues from such development go to both the federal government and to states to help pay for vital programs.

Beginning in 2008, states that allow development in federal waters off their coasts receive additional revenues from oil and natural gas operations. The Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 authorizes sharing of 37.5 percent of all revenue collected by the MMS, from all Gulf leases issued – including bonus bids, rentals and production royalties – between Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. The first lease sale under this provision netted over $24 million in immediate revenue for the four states.

Expanding access to additional non-park federal lands and federal waters could add high-paying jobs to America’s employment rolls.

The oil and natural gas exploration and production industry in 2006 directly employed nearly 386,000 workers nationwide. (The entire oil and natural gas industry employed 1.8 millions workers).

Oil and gas exploration and production wages in 2006 were more than double the national average.

MMS, "Oil and Gas Resources in the OCS Areas Unavailable for Leasing and Development." May 2007.
BLM, "Inventory of Onshore Federal Oil and Natural Gas Resources and Restrictions to Their Development." June 2008.
MMS, Minerals Revenue Management, various tables.
MMS, "MMS Incorporates Revenue Sharing Rules." May 27, 2008.
US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages. Employment given is total jobs in four sectors comprising the upstream oil and gas industry (oil and gas extraction, NGL extraction, drilling oil and gas wells, and support activity for oil and gas extraction)
US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages.

These are real facts from people who KNOW what they are talking about, not some talking points memo that has been completely proven false, time and time again. These are real facts from people who understand concern and are concerned about the environment. More importantly, they are also concerned about YOU.

It is not the time to be distracted by the Media Messiah Obama tour. Nor allow the Congressional Leadership get away with ignoring the situation in the hopes the price will go down, for right this second, to ease the pressure off THEM. NOW is the time to continue to tell these idiots, Drill Here, Drill Now, so we can all Pay Less. Period.

Energy Tomorrow - Facts About Access
AP - Alaska House OKs gas pipeline license

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Proof That GW IS BS

The Lord Monckton Report

Hey folks,

Global Warming. They claim computer models tell them what is going to happen. But as I keep telling you, computers can only say what they are told to say. Garbage or incorrect data in, garbage or incorrect data out. I could get a computer to tell you what could happen if you fly into space without a rocket or any kind of protection. I can get the computer to calculate all the possible scenarios. But the one BIG problem is this. YOU CAN NOT DO IT. That will not stop the computer from doing what it does. Computing. Based on the "facts" I have provided.

A little while back, I posted this. Now Politicians Being Threatened “Don’t Call Global Warming a Hoax”

For years they, the Chicken Little Crowd, have been doing their very best to create mass hysteria. They have succeeded to a certain degree. Many people have just become Sheeple that accept the Scaryence as real science. The just accept the fact that this is happening, and that they are to blame. But not enough of you are accepting it. The "cause" has stalled. More and more REAL Scientists are coming out, using real science to debunk the hoax. More and more people are actually starting to listen to the FACTS and deciding that it makes no sense whatsoever. They are starting to question it. Well, they can't have THAT. Why? Because they can't win an intelligent fact and science based argument. They can not win because there is NO real Science in it. There are no PROVABLE facts to back up what they say.

Al Gore has been telling us we only have ten years left for about 15 years. All the predictions are completely wrong, every time the give them. More frequent and severe storms. {Hurricanes} Well, the last two years? Warmer and dryer winters. Well, this year? Fake pictures, fake facts, and fake {Or bought and paid for} Scientist to try to convince you that in the face of REALITY, FACTS, and SCIENCE, Man-made Global Warming is real.

On March 21, 2008 I posted this. Chicken Little Crowd To Attempt To Brainwash More Americans Here are the talking points and use of Psychobabble that they continue to use to get you to believe it, because there is not enough of you buying it. SERIOUSLY! look at the talking points.

The need for a different approach is apparent, environmentalists say.

"We've come up against a brick wall with Americans," says Lee Bodner, executive director of ecoAmerica, an environmental group based in Washington, D.C. Despite Americans' widespread familiarity with global warming, "only a small group are changing their behavior."

There's little research on how to lower people's energy use, but early evidence suggests that many people will change if:

• They think others similar to themselves are jumping on the "green" bandwagon.

• They get frequent positive feedback for effort.

• They feel able to make a difference by taking concrete steps.

• They think their children will be harmed by global warming, or children encourage the family to lead a greener life.

This is to good folks. They are TELLING the rest in the movement. Here are the talking points. Read this again. "You have to convince people that they are not just sheeple. That everyone is doing it, so they should too. Make sure you give them a pat on the back when they do. Make them feel that they are now a good person. That they matter. That they are heroes for doing this. They also have to "believe" that THEY can solve it. Don't be going around telling them that there is no hope. Make sure they know 'we can do it.' If all else fails, tell them their kids are going to DIE. That they will blame them for not doing anything about it. Scare them into submission if need be."

What if the people ask for proof? "Just tell them that all the Scientist agree that it is real, and they are smarter then them, so they need just accept it. Any Scientists that say it's not real are just kooks, or bought off by big oil."

This is the very definition of Scaryence. Scare Science. "Don't forget, if all else fails, the KIDS. Bring up the kids."

Well, now we have even MORE proof that the Computer Models have been wrong, because of data inputted is wrong. The following post is a report completed by Lord Christopher Monckton of Brenchley. Now some of you Goreties out there will see this and cling to it in an attempt to dismiss this.

"The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: 'Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate.'"

The IPCC report is completely free of peer review. It starts with a premise. Constructs models based on assumptions that give the desired results. Runs the models and, of course, it gets Scarience in line with its beginning premise.

However, Lord Monckton sent a Letter disputing this to the President of APS.

“Trying to duck the usual process of scientific discourse by arguments about peer-review procedures is an ad-hominem approach which is not worthy of the name of science. What has happened is that the usual suspects, instead of ploughing through the (not particularly difficult) math and saying what I got wrong and why (which is what Popper calls the EE or "error-elimination" step in the scientific-method algorithm), decided it would be easier simply to lobby the president of the APS, who - instead of consulting me first - instantly and shamefully crumbled.”

Reported Monckton, “I've had hundreds of emails from Professors, PhDs and other physicists who belong to the APS, on all sides of the "global warming" debate, saying how dismayed they are at the unethical conduct of their President and Council.”

Lastly, added Monckton, “One might ask President Bienenstock what steps the APS took to peer-review its own half-baked Council policy statement on "global warming", which is unadorned by even a single reference to a reputable, peer-reviewed journal."

Now I know it's long and all scientific and all that, but take time to check it out. This COMPLETELY proves Al Gore and the Chicken Little Crowd wrong, and shows GW for what it is. BS.

OPNTalk - Now Politicians Being Threatened
OPNTalk -
Chicken Little Crowd To Attempt To Brainwash More Americans
APS - Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered
Lord Monckton- Letter

Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley


The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) concluded that anthropogenic CO2 emissions probably caused more than half of the “global warming” of the past 50 years and would cause further rapid warming. However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001. The present analysis suggests that the failure of the IPCC’s models to predict this and many other climatic phenomena arises from defects in its evaluation of the three factors whose product is climate sensitivity:

Radiative forcing ΔF;
The no-feedbacks climate sensitivity parameter κ; and
The feedback multiplier ƒ.
Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.

The context

LOBALLY-AVERAGED land and sea surface absolute temperature TS has not risen since 1998 (Hadley Center; US National Climatic Data Center; University of Alabama at Huntsville; etc.). For almost seven years, TS may even have fallen (Figure 1). There may be no new peak until 2015 (Keenlysideet al., 2008).

The models heavily relied upon by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had not projected this multidecadal stasis in “global warming”; nor (until trained ex post facto) the fall in TS from 1940-1975; nor 50 years’ cooling in Antarctica (Doran et al., 2002) and the Arctic (Soon, 2005); nor the absence of ocean warming since 2003 (Lyman et al., 2006; Gouretski&Koltermann, 2007); nor the onset, duration, or intensity of the Madden-Julian intraseasonal oscillation, the Quasi-Biennial Oscillation in the tropical stratosphere, El Nino/La Nina oscillations, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation that has recently transited from its warming to its cooling phase (oceanic oscillations which, on their own, may account for all of the observed warmings and coolings over the past half-century: Tsoniset al., 2007); nor the magnitude nor duration of multi-century events such as the Mediaeval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age; nor the cessation since 2000 of the previously-observed growth in atmospheric methane concentration (IPCC, 2007); nor the active 2004 hurricane season; nor the inactive subsequent seasons; nor the UK flooding of 2007 (the Met Office had forecast a summer of prolonged droughts only six weeks previously); nor the solar Grand Maximum of the past 70 years, during which the Sun was more active, for longer, than at almost any similar period in the past 11,400 years (Hathaway, 2004; Solankiet al., 2005); nor the consequent surface “global warming” on Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and even distant Pluto; nor the eerily- continuing 2006 solar minimum; nor the consequent, precipitate decline of ~0.8 °C in TS from January 2007 to May 2008 that has canceled out almost all of the observed warming of the 20th century.

Figure 1

Mean global surface temperature anomalies (°C), 2001-2008

Since the phase-transition in mean global surface temperature late in 2001, a pronounced downtrend has set in. In the cold winter of 2007/8, record sea-ice extents were observed at both Poles. The January-to-January fall in temperature from 2007-2008 was the greatest since global records began in 1880. Data sources: Hadley Center monthly combined land and sea surface temperature anomalies; University of Alabama at Huntsville Microwave Sounding Unit monthly lower-troposphere anomalies; Linear regressions – – – – – – –

An early projection of the trend in TS in response to “global warming” was that of Hansen (1988), amplifying Hansen (1984) on quantification of climate sensitivity. In 1988, Hansen showed Congress a graph projecting rapid increases in TS to 2020 through “global warming” (Fig. 2):

Figure 2

Global temperature projections and outturns, 1988-2020

Hansen (1988) projected that global temperature would stabilize (A) if global carbon dioxide concentration were controlled from 1988 and static from 2000: otherwise temperature would rise rapidly (B-C). IPCC (1990) agreed (D). However, these projections proved well above the National Climate Data Center’s outturn (E-F), which, in contrast to the Hadley Center and UAH records (Fig. 1), show a modest rise in temperature from 1998-2007. If McKitrick (2007) (G,H) is correct that temperature since 1980 has risen at only half of the observed rate, outturn tracks Hansen’s CO2 stabilization case (A), although emissions have risen rapidly since 1988.

To what extent, then, has humankind warmed the world, and how much warmer will the world become if the current rate of increase in anthropogenic CO2 emissions continues? Estimating “climate sensitivity” – the magnitude of the change in TS after doubling CO2 concentration from the pre-industrial 278 parts per million to ~550 ppm – is the central question in the scientific debate about the climate. The official answer is given in IPCC (2007):

“It is very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gas increases caused most of the observed increase in [TS] since the mid-20th century. … The equilibrium global average warming expected if carbon dioxide concentrations were to be sustained at 550 ppm is likely to be in the range 2-4.5 °C above pre-industrial values, with a best estimate of about 3 °C.”

Here as elsewhere the IPCC assigns a 90% confidence interval to “very likely”, rather than the customary 95% (two standard deviations). There is no good statistical basis for any such quantification, for the object to which it is applied is, in the formal sense, chaotic. The climate is “a complex, non-linear, chaotic object” that defies long-run prediction of its future states (IPCC, 2001), unless the initial state of its millions of variables is known to a precision that is in practice unattainable, as Lorenz (1963; and see Giorgi, 2005) concluded in the celebrated paper that founded chaos theory –

“Prediction of the sufficiently distant future is impossible by any method, unless the present conditions are known exactly. In view of the inevitable inaccuracy and incompleteness of weather observations, precise, very-long-range weather forecasting would seem to be non-existent.”.

The Summary for Policymakers in IPCC (2007) says –

“The CO2radiative forcing increased by 20% in the last 10 years (1995-2005).”

Natural or anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere induces a “radiative forcing” ΔF, defined by IPCC (2001: ch.6.1) asa change in net (down minus up) radiant-energy flux at the tropopause in response to a perturbation. Aggregate forcing is natural (pre-1750) plus anthropogenic-era (post-1750) forcing. At 1990, aggregate forcing from CO2 concentration was ~27 W m–2 (Kiehl&Trenberth, 1997). From 1995-2005, CO2 concentration rose 5%, from 360 to 378 W m–2, with a consequent increase in aggregate forcing (from Eqn. 3 below) of ~0.26 W m–2, or <1%. f =" ΔF2xλ," f =" (1">ΔF2xCO2≈ 5.35 ln 2 ≈ 3.708 W m–2. (3)

To ΔF2xCO2 is added the slightly net-negative sum of all other anthropogenic-era radiativeforcings, calculated from IPCC values (Table 1), to obtain total anthropogenic-era radiative forcing ΔF2x at CO2 doubling (Eqn. 3). Note that forcings occurring in the anthropogenic era may not be anthropogenic.

Table 1

Evaluation of ΔF2x from the IPCC’s anthropogenic-era forcings

Anthropogenic-era radiativeforcings from CO2, from long-lived (LLGHG) and short-lived (SLGHG) greenhouse gases are added to other forcings to yield total anthropogenic-era forcings ΔF2x, which are then reduced by a probability-density function. The column for 1750-2005 summarizes the values given in IPCC (2007). The column for forcings from 1750 to CO2 doubling proceeds differently, since IPCC (2007) does not publish projected values for individual forcings at CO2 doubling other than that for CO2 itself. However, IPCC (2001) projected that CO2forcings by 2050-2100, when CO2 doubling is expected, would represent 70-80% of all greenhouse-gas forcings. That projection is followed here, while non-greenhouse-gas forcings (which are strongly net-negative) are conservatively held constant. To preserve the focus on anthropogenic forcings, the IPCC’s minuscule estimate of the solar forcing during the anthropogenic era is omitted.

From the anthropogenic-era forcings summarized in Table 1, we obtain the first of the three factors –

ΔF2x≈ 3.405 W m–2. (4)

2. The base or “no-feedbacks” climate sensitivity parameter κ, where ΔTκ is the response of TS to radiativeforcings ignoring temperature feedbacks, ΔTλ is the response of TS to feedbacks as well as forcings, and b is the sum in W m–2 °K–1of all individual temperature feedbacks, is –

κ = ΔTκ / ΔF2x °K W–1 m2, by definition; (5)

= ΔTλ / (ΔF2x + bΔTλ) °K W–1 m2. (6)

In Eqn. (5), ΔTκ, estimated by Hansen (1984) and IPCC (2007) as 1.2-1.3 °K at CO2 doubling, is the change in surface temperature in response to a tropopausalforcing ΔF2x, ignoring any feedbacks.

ΔTκ is not directly measurable in the atmosphere because feedbacks as well as forcings are present. Instruments cannot distinguish between them. However, from Eqn. (2) we may substitute 1 / (1 – bκ) for f in Eqn. (1), rearranging terms to yield a useful second identity, Eqn. (6), expressing κin terms of ΔTλ, which is measurable, albeit with difficulty and subject to great uncertainty (McKitrick, 2007).

IPCC (2007) does not mention κ and, therefore, provides neither error-bars nor a “Level of Scientific Understanding” (the IPCC’s subjective measure of the extent to which enough is known about a variable to render it useful in quantifying climate sensitivity). However, its implicit value κ≈ 0.313 °K W–1 m2, shown in Eqn. 7, may be derived using Eqns. 9-10 below, showing it to be the reciprocal of the estimated “uniform-temperature” radiative cooling response –

“Under these simplifying assumptions the amplification [f] of the global warming from a feedback parameter [b] (in W m–2 °C–1) with no other feedbacks operating is 1 / (1 – [bκ–1]), where [–κ–1] is the ‘uniform temperature’ radiative cooling response (of value approximately –3.2 W m–2 °C–1; Bony et al., 2006). If n independent feedbacks operate, [b] is replaced by (λ1 + λ 2+ ... λ n).” (IPCC, 2007: ch.8, footnote).

Thus, κ≈ 3.2–1 ≈ 0.313°K W–1 m2. (7)

3. The feedback multiplier f is a unitless variable by which the base forcing is multiplied to take account of mutually-amplified temperature feedbacks. A “temperature feedback” is a change in TSthat occurs precisely because TShas already changed in response to a forcing or combination of forcings. An instance: as the atmosphere warms in response to a forcing, the carrying capacity of the space occupied by the atmosphere for water vapor increases near-exponentially in accordance with the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. Since water vapor is the most important greenhouse gas, the growth in its concentration caused by atmospheric warming exerts an additional forcing, causing temperature to rise further. This is the “water-vapor feedback”. Some 20 temperature feedbacks have been described, though none can be directly measured. Most have little impact on temperature. The value of each feedback, the interactions between feedbacks and forcings, and the interactions between feedbacks and other feedbacks, are subject to very large uncertainties.

Each feedback, having been triggered by a change in atmospheric temperature, itself causes a temperature change. Consequently, temperature feedbacks amplify one another. IPCC (2007: ch.8) defines f in terms of a form of the feedback-amplification function for electronic circuits given in Bode (1945), where b is the sum of all individual feedbacks before they are mutually amplified:

f = (1 – bκ)–1 (8)

= ΔTλ/ ΔTκ

Note the dependence of f not only upon the feedback-sum b but also upon κ –

ΔTλ =(ΔF + bΔTλ)κ

==> ΔTλ (1 – bκ) = ΔFκ

==> ΔTλ = ΔFκ(1 – bκ)–1

==> ΔTλ/ ΔF = λ = κ(1 – bκ)–1 = κf

==> f = (1 – bκ)–1 ≈ (1 – b /3.2)–1

==> κ ≈ 3.2–1 ≈ 0.313 °K W–1 m2. (9)

Equivalently, expressing the feedback loop as the sum of an infinite series,

ΔTλ = ΔFκ+ ΔFκ 2b + ΔFκ 2b2 + …

= ΔFκ(1 + κb + κb2 + …)

= ΔFκ(1 –κb)–1

= ΔFκf

==>λ = ΔTλ/ΔF = κf (10)

Figure 3

Bode (1945) feedback amplification schematic

A forcing dF is input by multiplication to the final or “with-feedbacks” climate sensitivity parameter λ = κf, yielding the output dT = dFλ = dFκf. To find λ = κf, the base or “no-feedbacks” climate sensitivity parameter κ is successively amplified round the feedback-loop by feedbacks summing to b.

For the first time, IPCC (2007) quantifies the key individual temperature feedbacks summing to b:

“In AOGCMs, the water vapor feedback constitutes by far the strongest feedback, with a multi-model mean and standard deviation … of 1.80 ± 0.18 W m–2K–1, followed by the negative lapse rate feedback (–0.84 ± 0.26 W m–2 K–1) and the surface albedo feedback (0.26 ± 0.08 W m–2 K–1). The cloud feedback mean is 0.69 W m–2 K–1with a very large inter-model spread of ±0.38 W m–2 K–1.” (Soden& Held, 2006).

To these we add the CO2 feedback, which IPCC (2007, ch.7) separately expresses not as W m–2°K–1 but as concentration increase per CO2 doubling: [25, 225] ppmv, central estimate q = 87 ppmv. Where p is concentration at first doubling, the proportionate increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration from the CO2 feedback is o = (p + q) / p = (556 + 87) / 556 ≈ 1.16. Then theCO2 feedback is –

λCO2= zln(o) / dTλ ≈ 5.35 ln(1.16) / 3.2 ≈ 0.25 W m–2 K–1. (11)

The CO2 feedback is added to the previously-itemized feedbacks to complete the feedback-sumb:

b = 1.8 – 0.84 + 0.26 + 0.69 + 0.25 ≈ 2.16 W m–2 ºK–1, (12)

so that, where κ= 0.313, the IPCC’s unstated central estimate of the value of the feedback factor f is at the lower end of the range f = 3-4 suggested in Hansen et al. (1984) –

f = (1 – bκ)–1≈(1 – 2.16 x 0.313)–1 ≈ 3.077. (13)

Final climate sensitivity ΔTλ,after taking account of temperature feedbacks as well as the forcings that triggered them,is simply the product of the three factors described in Eqn. (1), each of which we have briefly described above. Thus, at CO2 doubling, –

ΔTλ = ΔF2xκ f ≈ 3.405 x 0.313 x 3.077 ≈ 3.28 °K (14)

IPCC (2007) gives dTλon [2.0, 4.5] ºK at CO2 doubling, central estimate dTλ≈ 3.26 °K, demonstrating that the IPCC’s method has been faithfully replicated. There is a further checksum, –

ΔTκ = ΔTλ/ f = κ ΔF2x= 0.313 x 3.405 ≈ 1.1 °K, (15)

sufficiently close to the IPCC’s estimate ΔTκ ≈ 1.2 °K, based on Hansen (1984), who had estimated a range 1.2-1.3 °K based on his then estimate that the radiative forcing ΔF2xCO2 arising from a CO2 doubling would amount to 4.8 W m–2, whereas the IPCC’s current estimate is ΔF2xCO2 = 3.71 W m–2 (see Eqn. 2), requiring a commensurate reduction in ΔTκthat the IPCC has not made.

A final checksum is provided by Eqn. (5), giving a value identical to that of the IPCC at Eqn (7):

κ = ΔTλ / (ΔF2x + bΔTλ)

≈ 3.28 / (3.405 + 2.16 x 3.28)

≈ 0.313°K W–1 m2. (16)

Having outlined the IPCC’s methodology, we proceed to re-evaluate each of the three factors in dTλ. None of these three factors is directly mensurable. For this and other reasons, it is not possible to obtain climate sensitivity numerically using general-circulation models: for, as Akasofu (2008) has pointed out, climate sensitivity must be an input to any such model, not an output from it.

In attempting a re-evaluation of climate sensitivity, we shall face the large uncertainties inherent in the climate object, whose complexity, non-linearity, and chaoticity present formidable initial-value and boundary-value problems. We cannot measure total radiative forcing, with or without temperature feedbacks, because radiative and non-radiative atmospheric transfer processes combined with seasonal, latitudinal, and altitudinal variabilities defeat all attempts at reliable measurement. We cannot even measure changes in TS to within a factor of two (McKitrick, 2007).

Even satellite-based efforts at assessing total energy-flux imbalance for the whole Earth-troposphere system are uncertain. Worse, not one of the individual forcings or feedbacks whose magnitude is essential to an accurate evaluation of climate sensitivity is mensurable directly, because we cannot distinguish individual forcings or feedbacks one from another in the real atmosphere, we can only guess at the interactions between them, and we cannot even measure the relative contributions of all forcings and of all feedbacks to total radiative forcing. Therefore we shall adopt two approaches: theoretical demonstration (where possible); and empirical comparison of certain outputs from the models with observation to identify any significant inconsistencies.

Radiative forcing ΔF2x reconsidered

We take the second approach with ΔF2x. Since we cannot measure any individual forcing directly in the atmosphere, the models draw upon results of laboratory experiments in passing sunlight through chambers in which atmospheric constituents are artificially varied; such experiments are, however, of limited value when translated into the real atmosphere, where radiative transfers and non-radiative transports (convection and evaporation up, advection along, subsidence and precipitation down), as well as altitudinal and latitudinal asymmetries, greatly complicate the picture. Using these laboratory values, the models attempt to produce latitude-versus-altitude plots to display the characteristic signature of each type of forcing. The signature or fingerprint of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing, as predicted by the models on which the IPCC relies, is distinct from that of any other forcing, in that the models project that the rate of change in temperature in the tropical mid-troposphere – the region some 6-10 km above the surface – will be twice or thrice the rate of change at the surface (Figure 4):

Figure 4

Temperature fingerprints of five forcings

Modeledzonal mean atmospheric temperature change (ºC per century, 1890-1999) in response to five distinct forcings (a-e), and to all five forcings combined (f). Altitude is in hPa (left scale) and km (right scale) vs. latitude (abscissa). Source: IPCC (2007).

The fingerprint of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcing is a distinctive “hot-spot” in the tropical mid-troposphere. Figure 4 shows altitude-vs.-latitude plots from four of the IPCC’s models:

Figure 5

Fingerprints of anthropogenic warming projected by four models

Zonal mean equilibrium temperature change (°C) at CO2 doubling (2x CO2 – control), as a function of latitude and pressure (hPa) for 4 general-circulation models. All show the projected fingerprint of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas warming: the tropical mid-troposphere “hot-spot” is projected to warm at twice or even thrice the surface rate. Source: Lee et al. (2007).

However, as Douglass et al. (2004) and Douglass et al. (2007) have demonstrated, the projected fingerprint of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas warming in the tropical mid-troposphere is not observed in reality. Figure 6 is a plot of observed tropospheric rates of temperature change from the Hadley Center for Forecasting. In the tropical mid-troposphere, at approximately 300 hPa pressure, the model-projected fingerprint of anthropogenic greenhouse warming is absent from this and all other observed records of temperature changes in the satellite and radiosonde eras:

Figure 6

The absent fingerprint of anthropogenic greenhouse warming

Altitude-vs.-latitude plot of observed relative warming rates in the satellite era. The greater rate of warming in the tropical mid-troposphere that is projected by general-circulation models is absent in this and all other observational datasets, whether satellite or radiosonde. Altitude units are hPa (left) and km (right). Source: Hadley Centre for Forecasting (HadAT, 2006).

None of the temperature datasets for the tropical surface and mid-troposphere shows the strong differential warming rate predicted by the IPCC’s models. Thorne et al. (2007) suggested that the absence of the mid-tropospheric warming might be attributable to uncertainties in the observed record: however, Douglass et al. (2007) responded with a detailed statistical analysis demonstrating that the absence of the projected degree of warming is significant in all observational datasets.

Allen et al. (2008) used upper-atmosphere wind speeds as a proxy for temperature and concluded that the projected greater rate of warming at altitude in the tropics is occurring in reality. However, satellite records, such as the RSS temperature trends at varying altitudes, agree with the radiosondes that the warming differential is not occurring: they show that not only absolute temperatures but also warming rates decline with altitude.

There are two principal reasons why the models appear to be misrepresenting the tropical atmosphere so starkly. First, the concentration of water vapor in the tropical lower troposphere is already so great that there is little scope for additional greenhouse-gas forcing. Secondly, though the models assume that the concentration of water vapor will increase in the tropical mid-troposphere as the space occupied by the atmosphere warms, advection transports much of the additional water vapor poleward from the tropics at that altitude.

Since the great majority of the incoming solar radiation incident upon the Earth strikes the tropics, any reduction in tropical radiative forcing has a disproportionate effect on mean global forcings. On the basis of Lindzen (2007), the anthropogenic-ear radiative forcing as established in Eqn. (3) are divided by 3 to take account of the observed failure of the tropical mid-troposphere to warm as projected by the models –

ΔF2x≈ 3.405 / 3 ≈ 1.135 W m–2. (17)

The “no-feedbacks” climate sensitivity parameter κ reconsidered

The base climate sensitivity parameter κis the most influential of the three factors of ΔTλ: for the final or “with-feedbacks” climate sensitivity parameter λ is the product of κand the feedback factor f, which is itselfdependent not only on the sum b of all climate-relevant temperature feedbacks but also on κ.Yet κ has received limited attention in the literature. In IPCC (2001, 2007) it is not mentioned. However, its value may be deduced from hints in the IPCC’s reports. IPCC (2001, ch. 6.1) says:

“The climate sensitivity parameter (global mean surface temperature response ΔTS to the radiative forcing ΔF) is defined as ΔTS / ΔF = λ {6.1} (Dickinson, 1982; WMO, 1986; Cesset al., 1993). Equation {6.1} is defined for the transition of the surface-troposphere system from one equilibrium state to another in response to an externally imposed radiative perturbation. In the one-dimensional radiative-convective models, wherein the concept was first initiated, λis a nearly invariant parameter (typically, about 0.5 °K W−1 m2; Ramanathanet al., 1985) for a variety of radiativeforcings, thus introducing the notion of a possible universality of the relationship between forcing and response.”

Since λ= κf = κ(1 – bκ)–1 (Eqns. 1, 2), where λ = 0.5 °K W–1 m2 and b ≈ 2.16 W m–2 °K–1 (Eqn. 12), it is simple to calculate that, in 2001, one of the IPCC’s values for f was 2.08. Thus the value f = 3.077 in IPCC (2007) represents a near-50% increase in the value of f in only five years. Where f = 2.08, κ = λ / f ≈ 0.5 / 2.08 ≈ 0.24 °K W–1 m2, again substantially lower than the value implicit in IPCC (2007). Some theory will, therefore, be needed.

The fundamental equation of radiative transfer at the emitting surface of an astronomical body, relating changes in radiant-energy flux to changes in temperature, is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation –

F = ε σ T4 W m–2, (18)

whereF is radiant-energy flux at the emitting surface; εis emissivity, set at 1 for a blackbody that absorbs and emits all irradiance reaching its emitting surface (by Kirchhoff’s law of radiative transfer, absorption and emission are equal and simultaneous), 0 for a whitebody that reflects all irradiance, and (0, 1) for a graybody that partly absorbs/emits and partly reflects; and σ ≈ 5.67 x 10–8 is the Stefan-Boltzmann constant.

Differentiating Eqn. (18) gives –

κ=dT / dF= (dF / dT)–1=(4 ε σ T3)–1 °K W–1 m2. (19)

Outgoing radiation from the Earth’s surface is chiefly in the near-infrared. Its peak wavelength λmax is determined solely by the temperature of the emitting surface in accordance with Wien’s Displacement Law, shown in its simplest form in Eqn. (20):

λmax= 2897 / TS = 2897 / 288 ≈ 10 μm. (20)

Since the Earth/troposphere system is a blackbody with respect to the infrared radiation that Eqn. (20) shows we are chiefly concerned with, we will not introduce any significant error if ε = 1, giving the blackbody form of Eqn. (19) –

κ= dT / dF = (4σ T3)–1 °K W–1 m2. (21)

At the Earth’s surface, TS≈ 288 °K, so that κS≈ 0.185 °K W–1 m2. At the characteristic-emission level, ZC, the variable altitude at which incoming and outgoing radiative fluxes balance, TC≈ 254 °K, so that κC ≈ 0.269 °K W–1 m2. The value κC ≈ 0.24, derived from the typical final-sensitivity value λ = 0.5 given in IPCC (2001), falls between the surface and characteristic-emission values for κ.

However, the IPCC, in its evaluation of κ, does not follow the rule that in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation the temperature and radiant-energy flux must be taken at the same level of the atmosphere. The IPCC’s value for κ is dependent upon temperature at the surface and radiant-energy flux at the tropopause, so that its implicit value κ≈ 0.313 °K W–1 m2 is considerably higher than either κS or κC.

IPCC (2007) cites Hansen et al. (1984), who say –

“Our three-dimensional global climate model yields a warming of ~4 ºC for … doubled CO2. This indicates a net feedback factor f= 3-4, because [the forcing at CO2 doubling] would cause the earth's surface temperature to warm 1.2-1.3 ºC to restore radiative balance with space, if other factors remained unchanged.”

Hansen says dF2x is equivalent to a 2% increase in incoming total solar irradiance (TSI). Top-of-atmosphere TSI S ≈ 1368 W m2, albedoα = 0.31, and Earth’s radius is r. Then, at the characteristic emission level ZC,

FC= S(1 – α)(πr2 / 4πr2) ≈ 1368 x 0.69 x (1/4) ≈ 236 W m–2. (22)

Thus a 2% increase in FCis equivalent to 4.72 W m–2, rounded up by Hansen to 4.8 W m–2, implying that κ ≈ 1.25 / 4.8 ≈ 0.260 °K W–1 m2. However, Hansen, in his Eqn. {14}, prefers 0.29 W m–2.

Bony et al. (2006), also cited by IPCC (2007), do not state a value for κ. However, they say –

“The Planck feedback parameter [equivalent to κ–1] is negative (an increase in temperature enhances the long-wave emission to space and thus reduces R [the Earth’s radiation budget]), and its typical value for the earth’s atmosphere, estimated from GCM calculations (Colman 2003; Soden and Held 2006), is ~3.2 W m2ºK–1 (a value of ~3.8 W m2ºK–1 is obtained by defining [κ–1]simply as 4σT3, by equating the global mean outgoing long-wave radiation to σT4 and by assuming an emission temperature of 255 ºK).”

Bony takes TC≈ 255 °Kand FC≈ 235 W m–2 at ZC as the theoretical basis for the stated prima facie value κ–1≈TC / 4FC≈3.8 W m2ºK–1, so that κ≈ 0.263 ºK W–1 m2, in very close agreement with Hansen. However, Bony cites two further papers, Colman (2003) and Soden& Held (2006), as justification for the value κ–1≈ 3.2 W m2ºK–1, so that κ ≈ 0.313 ºK W–1 m2.

Colman (2003) does not state a value for κ, but cites Hansen et al. (1984), rounding up the value κ ≈ 0.260 °K W–1 m2 to 0.3 °K W–1 m2 –

“The method used assumes a surface temperature increase of 1.2 °K with only the CO2 forcing and the ‘surface temperature’ feedback operating (value originally taken from Hansen et al. 1984).”

Soden& Held (2006) likewise do not declare a value for κ. However, we may deduce their implicit central estimate κ≈ 1 / 4 ≈ 0.250 °K W–1 m2 from the following passage –

“The increase in opacity due to a doubling of CO2 causes [the characteristic emission level ZC] to rise by ~150 meters. This results in a reduction in the effective temperature of the emission across the tropopause by ~(6.5K/km)(150 m) ≈ 1 K, which converts to 4 W m–2 using the Stefan-Boltzmann law.”

Thus the IPCC cites only two papers that cite two others in turn. None of these papers provides any theoretical or empirical justification for a value as high as the κ ≈ 0.313 °K W–1 m2 chosen by the IPCC.

Kiehl (1992) gives the following method, where FCis total flux at ZC:

κS= TS/ (4FC)≈ 288 / (4 x 236) ≈ 0.305 °K W–1 m2. (23)

Hartmann (1994) echoes Kiehl’s method, generalizing it to any level J of an n-level troposphere thus:

κJ = TJ/ (4FC)

= TJ/ [S(1 – α)]

≈ TJ/ [1368(1 – 0.31)] ≈ TJ/ 944 °K W–1 m2. (24)

Table 2 summarizes the values of κevident in the cited literature, with their derivations, minorespriores. The greatest value, chosen in IPCC (2007), is 30% above the least, chosen in IPCC (2001). However, because the feedback factor f depends not only upon the feedback-sum b≈ 2.16 W m–2°K–1but also upon κ, the 30% increase in κ nearly doubles final climate sensitivity:

Table 2

Values of the “no-feedbacks” climate sensitivity parameter κ

The range of values for κ in the IPCC’s assessment reports and in the papers which it cites is substantial. The value of κ implicit in IPCC (2007) is some 30% above that which is implicit in IPCC (2001): consequently, the value of the climate-sensitivity parameter λ is almost doubled. Though it is usual to assume a constant temperature lapse-rate, and hence to use the value of κ that obtains at the characteristic-emission level, where inbound and outbound radiative fluxes balance by definition, the theIPCC’s current value for κ assumes that the lapse-rate increases as temperature rises. Also, the IPCC does not sufficiently allow for latitudinal asymmetry in distribution of the values of κ.

The value of κ cannot be deduced by observation, because temperature feedbacks are present and cannot be separately measured. However, it is possible to calculate κ using Eqn. (6), provided that the temperature change ΔTλ, radiativeforcingsΔF2x, and feedback-sum b over a given period are known. The years 1980 and 2005 will be compared, giving a spread of a quarter of a century. We take the feedback-sum b = 2.16 W m–2°K–1 and begin by establishing values for ΔF and ΔT:

CO2 concentration: 338.67 ppmv 378.77 ppmv ΔF = 5.35 ln (378.77/338.67) = 0.560 W m–2

Anomaly in TS: 0.144 °K 0.557 °K ΔT = 0.412 °K (NCDC)

Anomaly halved: ΔT = 0.206°K (McKitrick) (25)

CO2 concentrations are the annual means from 100 stations (Keeling & Whorf, 2004, updated). TS values are NCDC annual anomalies, as five-year means centered on 1980 and 2005 respectively. Now, depending on whether the NCDC or implicit McKitrick value is correct, κmay be directly evaluated:

NCDC: κ= ΔT/ (ΔF + bΔT) = 0.412 / (0.560 + 2.16 x 0.412) = 0.284 °K W–1 m2

McKitrick: κ= ΔT/ (ΔF + bΔT) = 0.206 / (0.599 + 2.16 x 0.206) = 0.197 °K W–1 m2

Mean: κ = (0.284 + 0.197) / 2 = 0.241 °K W–1 m2 (26)

We assume that Chylek (2008) is right to find transient and equilibrium climate sensitivity near-identical; that allof the warming from 1980-2005 was anthropogenic; that the IPCC’s values for forcings and feedbacks are correct; and, in line 2, that McKitrick is right that the insufficiently-corrected heat-island effect of rapid urbanization since 1980 has artificially doubled the true rate of temperature increase in the major global datasets.

With these assumptions, κ is shown to be less, and perhaps considerably less, than the value implicit in IPCC (2007). The method of finding κ shown in Eqn. (24), which yields a value very close to that of IPCC (2007), is such that progressively smaller forcing increments would deliver progressively larger temperature increases at all levels of the atmosphere, contrary to the laws of thermodynamics and to the Stefan-Boltzmann radiative-transfer equation (Eqn. 18), which mandate the opposite.

It is accordingly necessary to select a value for κthat falls well below the IPCC’s value. Dr. David Evans (personal communication, 2007) has calculated that the characteristic-emission-level value of κ should be diminished by ~10% to allow for the non-uniform latitudinal distribution of incoming solar radiation, giving a value near-identical to that in Eqn. (26), and to that implicit in IPCC (2001), thus –

κ = 0.9TC / [S(1 – α)]

≈0.9 x 254 / [1368(1 – 0.31)]≈ 0.242 °K W–1 m2 (27)

The feedback factor f reconsidered

The feedback factor f accounts for two-thirds of all radiative forcing in IPCC (2007); yet it is not expressly quantified, and no “Level Of Scientific Understanding” is assigned either to f or to the two variables b and κ upon which it is dependent.

Several further difficulties are apparent. Not the least is that, if the upper estimates of each of the climate-relevant feedbacks listed in IPCC (2007) are summed, an instability arises. The maxima are –

Water vapor feedback 1.98 W m–2 K–1

Lapse rate feedback –0.58 W m–2 K–1

Surface albedo feedback 0.34 W m–2 K–1

Cloud albedo feedback 1.07 W m–2 K–1

CO2 feedback 0.57 W m–2 K–1

Total feedbacks b 3.38 W m–2 K–1 (28)

Since the equation [f = (1 – bκ)–1] → ∞ as b → [κ–1 = 3.2 W m–2 K–1], the feedback-sum b cannot exceed 3.2 W m–2 K–1 without inducing a runaway greenhouse effect. Since no such effect has been observed or inferred in more than half a billion years of climate, since the concentration of CO2 in the Cambrian atmosphere approached 20 times today’s concentration, with an inferred mean global surface temperature no more than 7 °K higher than today’s (Figure 7), and since a feedback-induced runaway greenhouse effect would occur even in today’s climate where b >= 3.2 W m–2 K–1 but has not occurred, the IPCC’s high-end estimates of the magnitude of individual temperature feedbacks are very likely to be excessive, implying that its central estimates are also likely to be excessive.

Figure 7

Fluctuating CO2 but stable temperature for 600m years

Millions of years before present

Throughout the past 600 million years, almost one-seventh of the age of the Earth, the mode of global surface temperatures was ~22 °C, even when carbon dioxide concentration peaked at 7000 ppmv, almost 20 times today’s near-record-low concentration. If so, then the instability inherent in the IPCC’s high-end values for the principal temperature feedbacks has not occurred in reality, implying that the high-end estimates, and by implication the central estimates, for the magnitude of individual temperature feedbacks may be substantial exaggerations. Source: Temperature reconstruction by C.R. Scotese; CO2 reconstruction after R.A. Berner; see also IPCC (2007).

Since absence of correlation necessarily implies absence of causation, Figure 7 confirms what the recent temperature record implies: the causative link between changes in CO2 concentration and changes in temperature cannot be as strong as the IPCC has suggested. The implications for climate sensitivity are self-evident. Figure 7 indicates that in the Cambrian era, when CO2 concentration was ~25 times that which prevailed in the IPCC’s reference year of 1750, the temperature was some 8.5 °C higher than it was in 1750. Yet the IPCC’s current central estimate is that a mere doubling of CO2 concentration compared with 1750 would increase temperature by almost 40% of the increase that is thought to have arisen in geological times from a 20-fold increase in CO2 concentration (IPCC, 2007).

How could such overstatements of individual feedbacks have arisen? Not only is it impossible to obtain empirical confirmation of the value of any feedback by direct measurement; it is questionable whether the feedback equation presented in Bode (1945) is appropriate to the climate. That equation was intended to model feedbacks in linear electronic circuits: yet many temperature feedbacks – the water vapor and CO2 feedbacks, for instance – are non-linear. Feedbacks, of course, induce non-linearity in linear objects: nevertheless, the Bode equation is valid only for objects whose initial state is linear. The climate is not a linear object: nor are most of the climate-relevant temperature feedbacks linear. The water-vapor feedback is an interesting instance of the non-linearity of temperature feedbacks. The increase in water-vapor concentration as the space occupied by the atmosphere warms is near-exponential; but the forcing effect of the additional water vapor is logarithmic. The IPCC’s use of the Bode equation, even as a simplifying assumption, is accordingly questionable.

IPCC (2001: ch.7) devoted an entire chapter to feedbacks, but without assigning values to each feedback that was mentioned. Nor did the IPCC assign a “Level of Scientific Understanding” to each feedback, as it had to each forcing. In IPCC (2007), the principal climate-relevant feedbacks are quantified for the first time, but, again, no Level of Scientific Understanding” is assigned to them, even though they account for more than twice as much forcing as the greenhouse-gas and other anthropogenic-era forcings to which “Levels of Scientific Understanding” are assigned.

Now that the IPCC has published its estimates of the forcing effects of individual feedbacks for the first time, numerous papers challenging its chosen values have appeared in the peer-reviewed literature. Notable among these are Wentz et al. (2007), who suggest that the IPCC has failed to allow for two-thirds of the cooling effect of evaporation in its evaluation of the water vapor-feedback; and Spencer (2007),who points out that the cloud-albedo feedback, regarded by the IPCC as second in magnitude only to the water-vapor feedback, should in fact be negative rather than strongly positive.

It is, therefore, prudent and conservative to restore the values κ≈ 0.24 and f ≈ 2.08 that are derivable from IPCC (2001), adjusting the values a little to maintain consistency with Eqn. (27). Accordingly, our revised central estimate of the feedback multiplier f is –

f = (1 – bκ)–1≈(1 – 2.16 x 0.242)–1≈ 2.095 (29)

Final climate sensitivity

Substituting in Eqn. (1) the revised values derived for the three factors in ΔTλ, our re-evaluated central estimate of climate sensitivity is their product –

ΔTλ= ΔF2x κ f ≈ 1.135 x 0.242 x 2.095 ≈ 0.58 °K (30)

Theoretically, empirically, and in the literature that we have extensively cited, each of the values we have chosen as our central estimate is arguably more justifiable – and is certainly no less justifiable – than the substantially higher value selected by the IPCC. Accordingly, it is very likely that in response to a doubling of pre-industrial carbon dioxide concentration TS will rise not by the 3.26 °K suggested by the IPCC, but by <1>