For years now, we have been told that science is dedicatedly attempting to find out how the Earth’s Climate works. With all possible seriousness, the most publically vocal of these scientists, those working for the UN’s IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), have for the last several years blamed the warming they “found” on Carbon Dioxide. With the release of the CRU (Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia) email database, it is very clearly apparent that the scientists involved with the IPCC were doctoring data to give a specific result. That result was designed to look as if CO2was causing climate change, warming the earth due to Human activities. It can be reported now that this theory has been solidly disproven by Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi and Dr. Miskolczi’s work will make history.
Constants
To give context to this discovery, a short lesson in science is needed. The term “Constant” is very well known in science. Simply put it is a part of an equation (An equation is merely a mathematical sentence, the Variables are the words) that does not change; they are specific and represent solid concepts. You may have heard of Bohr’s Constant, Hubble ’s Constant, Avogadro’s Constant, there are many of them. There is a new Constant; one that has not been named, but if history is any guide it will be called the Miskolczi Constant, named for the physicist who discovered it.
A Constant we are all familiar with is the speed of light. Before Einstein and his famous theory of Relativity E=MC2, it was widely believed there was no limit on speed, just throw a rock from a speeding train and the speed will continue to add up. Einstein and his theory of Special Relativity put a specific limit on speed - the speed of light, beyond which nothing could go. There is a strict energetic limit, and we have recognized that for decades now. Before Miskolczi, it was generally thought that the greenhouse effect could be increased infinitely by adding more and more CO2 molecules into the air. Under the conditions prevailing on Earth, Miskolczi has proved that there is a limit to the greenhouse temperature that cannot be raised. Why is that? The IPCC has been telling us the exact opposite for years. Simple, because just as with Einstein’s E=MC2, there is a strict energetic limit as the Miskolczi Law proves.
Dr. Miskolczi’s Constant was discovered with a program that is the result of a project started 25 years ago in Hungary. It was then he began the process of writing a high-resolution radiative transfer program which would describe the Earth’s climate using the TIGR Global radiosonde archive of the Laboratoire de Meteorologie Dynamique, Paris database. With this information he was able to accurately describe mathematically how the atmosphere absorbs and releases heat using a long standing Equation called the Schwarzschild-Milne transfer equation to accurately calculate the Earths infrared optical depth. That is what Global climate is; the process by which Earth either holds onto or releases heat. The IPCC and the CRU scientists would have us believe that CO2 increases the heat the atmosphere holds on an infinite unlimited basis. That conclusion is absolutely false, and the CRU and the IPCC have had to falsify and invent data to make it appear that it does.
In reality water is so overwhelming abundant on Earth, it dominatingly, completely, and overwhelmingly governs the climate equilibrium of the Earth. It is 71% of the total surface area of the planet, 333 Million cubic miles (a cubic mile is an imaginary cube measuring one mile on each side) of water exist here, by far outweighing all other greenhouse gasses.
Can our climate undergo changes due to the addition of greenhouse gasses? Yes, but only under circumstances great enough to overwhelm the presence of 333 million Cubic miles of water, such as the impact of a large Asteroid and the tremendous heat it would add instantly. Carbon Dioxide is very far inside the greenhouse effect’s self-regulatory barriers. Amounts even double our current emissions, cannot overwhelm this equilibrium. Only the Sun has that immense amount of power, and only water exists in quantities large enough to effect such a change. As long as the sun’s activity is the “business-as-usual” fluctuations and there is water on Earth, CO2 cannot cause or increase global warming.
Equilibrium
In order to correctly understand why this is, it is necessary to recognize that what is important here is the equilibrium between the incoming energy from the sun (heating) and the outgoing longwave (infra red) energy (cooling). The 40% of the planet that is not cloud covered at any given time allows for solar radiation to be absorbed at the surface. The most effective form of cooling is the evaporation of water, which takes heat energy from the surface and puts it into the air. Clouds form which do three things: 1) create more cloud cover reflecting solar radiation away from the planet which also 2) releases heat into the very high upper atmosphere where it too is radiated out into space as the clouds condense into precipitation, and 3) drops much cooler water back down to the surface cooling things even further. This is an oversimplification for the sake of brevity and clarity, the interactions here are very complex as is the equation which describes it (the detailed mathematics can be found below in "The Saturated Greenhouse Effect Theory of Ferenc Miskolczi"). However, this does not change the simple fact that our planetary climate system is at equilibrium, and the Miskolczi Constant allows science to completely describe that equilibrium. For the first time, we can do so accurately with raw data, and match observed data with the results. No “hide the decline” needed when simply describing reality.
Climate scientist and fellow Hungarian, Dr. Miklos Zagoni in his paper “CO2 Cannot Cause any more “Global Warming”” dated December 2009 describes this discovery and its meaning. Dr. Zagoni beautifully sums it up all up:
“Since the Earth’s atmosphere is not lacking in greenhouse gases [water vapor], if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions. It need not have waited for us to add CO2: another greenhouse gas, H2O, was already to hand in practically unlimited reservoirs in the oceans.”
Dr. Zagoni explains:
“Earth type planetary atmospheres, having partial cloud cover and sufficient reservoir of water; maintain an energetically uniquely determined, constant, maximized greenhouse effect that cannot be increased further by emissions. The greenhouse temperature must fluctuate around this theoretical equilibrium constant; [change] is possible only if the incoming available energy changes.”
Saturated Greenhouse Effect Theory
Let’s get more basic in dismantling the IPCC’s “theory” of climate. If one takes Earth’s greenhouse gasses away, the planet would be about -18 degrees C (4 Degrees F) on a global average. Add in the greenhouse gasses and their influence back in using the Miskolczi Constant and you get a 33 degree C increase to 15 degrees C (59 Degrees F). This value is constant, and maximized on a global scale. It also matches observed data. Raw data, not manipulated or computer processed data. Using Miskolczi’s law and constant, there is no need for manipulated data, only the real observations, and that is the reason this discovery is so significant. If you double the amount of current CO2 emissions and add that to the equation, and you cannot come up with the 35 to 38 Degree C increase that the IPCC and Al Gore have been preaching about. It is physically and mathematically impossible, and thanks to the Miskolczi Law and Constant, provable and repeatable by scientists the world over.
Miskolczi's Law and Constant yet to be disproven
Dr. Miskolczi first published his work in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Services in 2004, Volume 108, No 4. He published further statistical proof in the same Journal in 2007, Volume 111, No. 1. In the 5 years since he first published his results, not one peer review has come back disproving his theory, or his Constant. To date, not one scientist has come forward to disprove Miskolczi’s theory that the Earth’s climate is at equilibrium, and that Carbon Dioxide cannot be released in amounts great enough to upset that equilibrium.
“During the 61-year period, in correspondence with the rise in CO2 concentration, the global average absolute humidity diminished about 1 per cent. This decrease in absolute humidity has exactly countered all of the warming effect that our CO2 emissions have had since 1948.” – Dr. M. Zagoni
In short, according to Dr. Miskolczi’s discovery, Earth’s temperature will not rise or fall as a result of increasing CO2 emissions because of the inherent equilibrium created by our oceans upon oceans of water.
The Saturated Greenhouse Effect Theory of Ferenc Miskolczi
Special thanks to Dr. Miklos Zagoni. This article would not have been possible without his assistance. Thank you Dr. Zagoni!
Author’s addendum
This discovery is proof that the IPCC has been lying to the world, along with the CRU and other agencies which have been pushing for programs such as Carbon Cap and Trade schemes. That scheme was designed to coerce peoples and governments into handing over tax dollars for the UN to manage and redistribute as it sees fit. Carbon Dioxide emissions cannot cause Global Warming. Government agencies including the US Federal Government and the White House continue to push this issue as a prelude to instituting a Cap and Trade Tax scheme here in the United States, and it is based upon fraudulent science.
A segment of the scientific community has had its credibility usurped for what amounts to fraud and embezzlement, and indeed went along willingly in order to continue to receive funding for their grant programs for decades. In other words they “produced” predetermined results according to what the check writers wanted to see in order to keep their jobs. Their own internal emails prove that. That’s not Science, which describes reality as it is. That is Science Fiction, and should be condemned as the fraud that it is.
The American Government, and governments the world over, should be prevented at all costs from instituting Cap and Trade Taxation. Reducing carbon emissions, taxing them into oblivion, will not alter the Earth’s climate in the least. It will however beggar this Nation and its citizens, every other nation which institutes it, and have no effect on the climate at all.
UPDATE: Sometimes the greatest evidence of the truth being told is the persecution of those discovering it and telling it, particularly when that truth damns those in power as being corrupt:
http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C00F2616F39D0B2B!895.entry
January 03
Another Scientist SilencedThe deft hand of the socialism hasn’t really left us, as the following note received via email shows.
Why Dr Ferenc Miskolczi and Dr Miklos Zagoni have been put under pressure to be silent about Miskolczi`s research concerning the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect.
In 2004 Dr Ferenc Miskolczi published a paper ’The greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of the clear-sky terrestrial radiation’, in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service (Vol. 108, No. 4, October–December 2004, pp. 209–251.).
The co-author of the article was his boss at NASA (Martin Mlynczak). Mlynczak put his name to the paper but did no work on it. He thought that it was an important paper, but only in a technical way.
When Miskolczi later informed the group at NASA there that he had more important results, they finally understood the whole story, and tried to withhold Miskolczi’s further material from publication. His boss for example, sat at Ferenc’s computer, logged in with Ferenc`s password, and canceled a recently submitted paper from a high-reputation journal as if Ferenc had withdrawn it himself. That was the reason that Ferenc finally resigned from his ($US 90.000 /year) job.
I want to make it clear: NASA never falsified or even tried to falsify Ferenc`s results, on the contrary, they fully understand it. They know that it is correct and see how important it is. To make sense of their actions, they probably see a national security issue in it. Perhaps they think that AGW is the only way to stop, or to slow, the coal-based growth of China.
In my circumstance where I have been dismissed from my Government paid position in Hungary, I think the information vacuum (in Hungary), has the same type of origin. I believe someone is in the background trying to convince the establishment (media, science, politics) that Miskolczi's results are against our national security interests. First, they tried to frighten me, and then when that did not work, they kicked me out from my job. So now I am turning to the wider internet to publicise Miskolczi`s work, as I know that his results are valid and true. There is no way and no need to hold them back for the world to understand them.
Tomorrow, for the first time in my life, I am jobless.
Budapest, 31 Dec, 2009Dr Miklos Zagoni
(57)
physicist
Hungary
http://miskolczi.webs.com
Comments
www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi
Dianna,
Thanks for another well researched and explained article. There have been so many nails driven into the 'global warming' coffin that we now may be facing a global iron shortage.
Now I believe is the time for a criminal investigation that roots out the real reason for the scare. Which is the 'command and control' of everyone and everything by a few self-proclaimed elitists.
Scott says:
"www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi"
So "Peer review" is now defined as a wiki page on a Warmist site run by the CRU crowd?
How about a link to a real peer reviewed rebuttal by Mr.(Dr?) Nick Stokes?
well said Danae, the skeptics are right.
Don and Scott, Answer this: hXXp://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!C00F2616F39D0B2B!895.entry
Thanks for the link to Wikipedia which is about a useful as the information on the back of a box of Cheerios. Search on Lawrence Solomon.
The author is just parroting bad science to further her wing nut political agenda.
Didn't read the scientific papers did you Marty Wilson? Nope you didn't. Bet you also could not follow the math that is in it either, or are you a physicist? It is you who is parroting what the MSM and your Democrat "green" handlers have brainwashed you with.
Twenty years ago, I was involved in research into a previous trumpted up disaster, Acid Rain run by the University of Minnesota. The Feds poured lots of $$$ into it while professors hired students to cut down forests down wind of coal power plants and re-plant them with acid sensitive plants.
Funny how we never heard about the results but 10 years later, Global Warming becomes the next disaster again targeting coal power generation.
thank you - great article - what we need more!
Excellent article post. Truth is rising and the only eco problem we currently face too much of is the eco-terrorism
D. Cotter is a two trick pony.
Either it is birther non-sense or climate change denial. And there are always some conspiracy theory lunatics wearing tin foil hats, wanting to believe.
Time to learn a new trick sweetie.
Interesting article. I hope it holds up.
did you really refer us to realclimate????? olivia can you spell ad hominem?
It is a really interesting paper. And not only does the theory fix the temperature discontinuity problem that the current equations have, but it also works in the atmosphere of Mars.
The paper has been around for over a year.
LOL @ Olivia. The AGW nuts are wearing the tin foil here... Why don't you try reading the paper Olivia? You may learn something.
Is this where the Civil Rights discussions are held?
Civil Rights are what we are all guaranteed by the Constitution. Any time the Federal Government steps over its Constitutional limits, and Cap and Trade as well as Health care are unconstitutional, then ALL of our Civil Rights are violated.
I describe myself as a skeptic, and that means asking questions. This paper looks like flawed science and there are many papers already published that would raise significant questions about its validity.
Let me raise just one.
Water-vapor climate feedback inferred from climate fluctuations,
2003–2008; A. E. Dessler, Z. Zhang, and P. Yang; GRL 2008
"Between 2003 and 2008, the global-average surface temperature of the Earth varied by 0.6°C. We analyze here the response of tropospheric water vapor to these variations... RH increased in some regions and decreased in others, with the global average remaining nearly constant at most altitudes. The water-vapor feedback implied by these observations is strongly positive.."
This says that RH (relative humidity) was constant, which implies that actual humidity increases as temperature increases. Dr. Miskolczi believes in some kind of balance that isn't there in any other account of the physics of radiative transfer.
Comments on the physics description. There's a lot of water on the planet. Most of it is water and ice. It turns into water vapor dependent on a number of factors including local humidity, temperature and pressure.
Quote from above: "..if the system could have increased its surface temperature it would have done so long before our emissions" No, there isn't some underlying desire of the earth's climate system to form a specific temperature and therefore draw on the inexhaustible reservoir of water available.
If you add CO2 to the atmosphere it has a warming effect. You can see the 15um signature from space. See the scienceofdoom website for a simple explanation.
This very simply absorbs energy and re-radiates energy, some back to earth. If CO2 didn't absorb energy you would not see the 15um signature. Water vapor absorbs at other wavelengths. Add more CO2 - get more absorption in the 15um band. Add more water vapor - get more absorption in those bands, e.g 6.27um.
Steve,
According to you, Global temps. changed (actually decreased).6 C deg. but the relative humidity stayed the same so somehow this disproves his theory?????. What do you believe is the difference between the highest temp. and the lowest temp. on Earth is at any given time and over what area? How could anyone give totally acurate data over such a wide spectrum and say it is so. It is an educated guess at best. In my opinion .6 deg. is inconsequential when all the variables are considered. Much like a political poll has a margin of error. Also an equilibrium does not mean totally static. Take a pendulum for example.
Mitch, 1000 chars is short, can't quote much: geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2008b.pdf
I was taking issue with the claim that "no one has refuted his paper". Like, "it's so good, it's irrefutable". Not true. The one example was a peer-reviewed paper which I just happened to be reading at the time. It shows that absolute humidity does not stay constant.
0.6'C was the global average and also equals the alleged warming of the earth in the last century. So it's hard to check humidity across a larger *average" temp change. Note that measurement ability of humidity has improved massively in the last 10 years. I don't claim Dessler's paper is correct.
There will also be 100+ papers already published which implicitly show that radiative balance doesn't imply an equilibrium of longwave absorbing gases.
Diana creates the impression that here's irrefutable evidence. It might seem like it to her. I suspect 99.99% of physicists will be shaking their heads.
@Dianna: Civil Rights are what we are all guaranteed by the Constitution. Any time the Federal Government steps over its Constitutional limits, and Cap and Trade as well as Health care are unconstitutional, then ALL of our Civil Rights are violated.
No. Seriously.
You're posting junk science. That hasn't got anything to do with Civil Rights. Maybe you should ask Philip to give you a more fitting title that describes your postings.
We could have a contest.
Above I noticed and incorrect conversion. You state that -18 degrees C = -64.4 degrees F. This is not correct. -18 degrees C = -0.4 degrees F. The nature of this error becomes obvious if one remembers that the two temperature scales intersect at -40 degrees.
Thanks Dianna, Great article.
I see the Statist's have come out of the wood work to comment. The truth hurts, what fools.
Steve,
I'll tell you one thing that supports his theory. Millions of years of life on this planet. Sure there have been ups and downs but it always seems to 'keep on keeping on'.
I am feeling charitable today, so in order to have a good argument, it is only fair that Obot Dave and Oblivia and other Statist's be armed with good responses to those of us who say MMGW is a hoax.
hxxp://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/
Feel free to cut and paste....
Mitch, 1000 chars is short, can't quote much: geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2008b.pdf
I was taking issue with the claim that "no one has refuted his paper". Like, "it's so good, it's irrefutable". Not true. The one example was a peer-reviewed paper which I just happened to be reading at the time. It shows that absolute humidity does not stay constant.
0.6'C was the global average and also equals the alleged warming of the earth in the last century. So it's hard to check humidity across a larger *average" temp change. Note that measurement ability of humidity has improved massively in the last 10 years. I don't claim Dessler's paper is correct.
There will also be 100+ papers already published which implicitly show that radiative balance doesn't imply an equilibrium of longwave absorbing gases.
Diana creates the impression that here's irrefutable evidence. It might seem like it to her. I suspect 99.99% of physicists will be shaking their heads.
Uh Steve I read your first reply you don't have to keep repeating it.
Sorry to get off topic but it seems big news may be breaking on the 'birther' story.
www.thepostemail.com/2010/01/12/his-name-is-steve-dunham/
Mitch, the past history of the climate shows huge variations, like you can see at scienceofdoom.com/2009/11/22/temperature-history/
This doesn't support his theory. It is most likely unrelated but possibly attacks his theory. The huge variations in the past climate demonstrate that the system is very complex and possibly chaotic. But has no impact on the basics of radiative transfer.
By the way I have no idea why my posts are repeating, repeating. I type it in and hit "Send" once
test
Steve Carson, You are incorrect in your remarks regarding Humidity. The Global Absolute Humidity of the planet fluctuates, Naturally. The fluctuation is what is seen when more or less energy (heat) is in the atmosphere. The Absolute airborne Humidity drops as a result when more greenhouse gas is added. You are missing the point that it is the EQUILIBRIUM that matters. The Absolute Humidity is the part of the system that changes to maintain overall balance. The point of the article is the fact that Miskolczi has mathematically described this equilibrium, and it matches real observations. It is also repeatable, and does not require any special data manipulation to make it work. Not one Peer Review has come back to say that the Dr.'s Math is incorrect. Not one.
Obot Dave,
So please describe for the world your experience with Radiative Transfer, Physics, and overall Mathematics that gives you any credibility whatsoever to say that Cotter is repeating Junk Science. (crickets) Exactly, you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about (obviously), clearly didn't read either of the papers included in this article, likely didn't read the article, and it is absolutely hysterical that you are referring to a solid body of work that has been published, UN-REFUTED for 5 years with pure 100% baloney.
Obot Dave, it is you and your ilk that have been taken in by the hoax of AGW. It doesn't exist.
But you have a nice day there on your flat earth map.
Dianna I'm with Steve Carson on this. The climate and the weather are chaotic systems. The attractors are controlled by a number of inputs and can be moved by large events like comet/meteorite impacts, the Deccan Traps, tectonic plate realignment (oceanic flow perturbation), etc.
Currently we are circling an attractor. I expect that the professor's numbers and theory are correct as long as we remain in the vicinity of this attractor. Any significant event will push us into chaos until we get 'hooked' by another attractor. For practical purposes he is correct (at the moment).
Obot Dave,
So please describe for the world your experience with Radiative Transfer, Physics, and overall Mathematics that gives you any credibility whatsoever to say that Cotter is repeating Junk Science. (crickets) Exactly, you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about (obviously), clearly didn't read either of the papers included in this article, likely didn't read the article, and it is absolutely hysterical that you are referring to a solid body of work that has been published, UN-REFUTED for 5 years with pure 100% baloney.
Obot Dave, it is you and your ilk that have been taken in by the hoax of AGW. It doesn't exist.
But you have a nice day there on your flat earth map.
For a rebuttal of this preposterous theory, check out the realclimate website and search for Ferenc Miskolczi. No offense to Ms. Cotter, but she has just joined the ranks of self-appointed experts on climate change that know virtually nothing about the science (other than a few gathered facts or absurd claims) but are willing to toot their horn as though they have authority to proclaim with confidence that they understand something that they clearly don't. If I were a psychologist, I would try to figure out what motivates such people--same thing that motivated flat earthers and anti-evolutionists, I suppose (fear of giving up indefensible worldviews? Strong will and ego coupled with inability or unwillingness to think analytically? Smug satisfaction with ideologically-driven worldview that is resistant to dissonant information? Functional idiocy?). Scientists can be arrogant but scientific truths have a way of winning out. You can hold onto your ignorance while the world moves on.
Realclimate is the website owned and operated by the frauds at CRU.
Why is it that whenever someone comes up with a theory contrary to AGW, that the scientists and the messengers with opposing views are summarily executed? I thought the goal was to test theories. You can't do that with only one side of an equation. One does not prove a theory by conveniently hiding contrary information.
Mr. Zagoni, if you read this -- I worked closely with a survivor of the 1956 revolution. One thing I can say is that the communists destroyed a beautiful country and demoralized a wonderful population. It is sad to see that the original oppressor’s children and grand children are still trying to hold back the Hungarian people. It is even sadder as this individual said that many of the same things that happened prior to the communist takeover of your country are happening again in the West. Thank you for your bravery and honesty in a country ruled by those that would execute anyone that speaks against them.
@Mitch.
Steve Dunham? Get a grip.
Dianna already believes too many of the fantasies of the Birfer movement.
@Jacob: Anybody who thinks that posting qualifications for anything on this or any other blog is a credible source of information is an idiot. Those who do it anyway are self aggrandizing fools.
Obot Dave,
So please describe for the world your experience with Radiative Transfer, Physics, and overall Mathematics that gives you any credibility whatsoever to say that Cotter is repeating Junk Science. (crickets) Exactly, you have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about (obviously), clearly didn't read either of the papers included in this article, likely didn't read the article, and it is absolutely hysterical that you are referring to a solid body of work that has been published, UN-REFUTED for 5 years with pure 100% baloney.
Obot Dave, it is you and your ilk that have been taken in by the hoax of AGW. It doesn't exist.
But you have a nice day there on your flat earth map.
You want a shoehorn for that Obot Dave? You have a lot less credibility than Cotter does at this point.
Far as I can tell, Cotter talks about the constitutional violations that Obama creates, which as far as I can tell, are correct. And it doesn't take a genius to figure it out. The guy is British. Not a Natural Born Citizen. Doesn't matter where he was born. So its not a conspiracy so much as it is Obama pulling the wool over your eyes. I am glad there are Cotters in the world actually talking about the REAL issues the MSM and idiots like Obama supporters can't handle let alone deal with.
The article contains an error in the following sentence: "Let’s get more basic in dismantling the IPCC’s “theory” of climate. If one takes Earth’s greenhouse gasses away, the planet would be about -18 degrees C (-64.4 Degrees F) on a global average."
-18 C is -0.4 degrees F. An easy-to-remember fact, that -40 C is the same temperature as -40 F, makes it easy to see when conversions are wildly in error.
Colonial;
Tc = (5/9)*(Tf-32); Tc = temperature in degrees Celsius, Tf = temperature in degrees Fahrenheit
Thank you for catching the error! It has been corrected!
I know, this is way OT, Jacob, but in response:
When did the US give sovereignty to the UK with regard to our citizenship laws?
Maybe Dianna could give us a blog about Taitz being denied on her Quo Warranto "transfer" by Judge Carter.
www.scribd.com/doc/25128529/KEYES-BARNETT-v-OBAMA-108-ORDER-by-Judge-David-O-Carter-denying-105-Motion-to-Transfer-Case
Dude, why you commenting on articles Cotter doesn't write about a person she isn't writing about, on a totally different subject? You seem so much into the birther thing, I think you are the birther in disguise.
Jacob,
You have to excuse ObotDave. He is a very primitive form of Obot that has been subject to recall. It seems that a great majority of his circuitry came from China during the Clinton Years (part of the nuclear secret deals). Add to this a Windows 95 based software and you get the 'Dave model'.
I have to agree Mitch, that guy is whacked.
Obot Dave... The US never gave its sovereignty to any other Nation. Our Constitution says you have to be a Natural Born Citizen to be POTUS, and Obama was born British and American. That means he never was a Natural Born Citizen. The guy ought to be in jail with his girlfriend Nancy. Its treason as far as I am concerned, because the constitution trumps EVERYONE in the land, either you follow it or you break it. Break it, and you are a traitor. Obama is a traitor.
hxxp://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/antarctica_and_the_myth_of_dea_1.html
Kate says:
"Realclimate is the website owned and operated by the frauds at CRU."
Yes. And it is funded by Fenton/Soros. But Realclimate is in reality a very tiny blog, although it is quoted much more often by the MSM than the winner of last year's WeblogAwards for "Best Science" site: WattsUpWithThat dot com.
Realclimate was outpolled by "WattsUpWithThat", the winner, by a 10:1 margin.
Dianna Cotter is reporting accurately. Those who falsely claim that CO2, a *very* tiny atmospheric trace gas, which comprises 4 parts in ten thousand, will cause climate catastrophe if the ratio goes up to 5 parts in ten thousand, have no real world evidence to support their claims.
The CO2 scare is just like the ALAR apple scare, the killer bees scare, the Y2K scare, and all the other scares that never panned out. The difference with the CO2 scare is that it is the biggest financial scam in history, pushed by the U.S.-hating United Nations kleptocracy.
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!