[ RadSafe ] Global Stuff

Brian Riely brian.riely at gmail.com
Wed Apr 25 17:24:01 CDT 2012

He then accepted Koch money for the explicit purpose of finding problems
with the data used by climatologists around the world???????

Wow! Show me the proof of your political statement!  I was taking you
seriously until you wrote the above.

Speaking of money

A writer for the U.K. Telegraph wrote
None of the lobbying has been more telling than a statement issued by 259
investment organisations, controlling ‘collective assets totalling over $15
trillion’ — including major banks, insurance companies and pension funds.
These are the bodies calling most stridently for “government action on
climate change”, because they are the ones who hope to make vast sums of
money out of it,” wrote Christopher Booker. “They are desperate for a treaty
of the type they failed to get at Copenhagen — even more so since the
collapse of the US cap and trade bill — because they see their chance of
turning global warming into the most lucrative fruit machine in history
dwindling by the month.

As for climate data

Last year, Phil Jones, one of the foremost proponents of man-made global
warming, admitted there has been no global warming since 1995

and a few days ago one of the Guru of man-made global warming, climate
scientist  Lovelock, admitted that he made a mistake.  

		“The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We
thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine
included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock
		“The climate is doing its usual tricks. There’s nothing much
really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world
now,” he said.
		“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium.
Twelve years is a reasonable time
 it (the temperature) has stayed almost
constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no
question about that,” he added.
 Bottom Line: For the past 15 years man has increased CO2 significantly, but
the global temperatures have remained approximately constant.  Therefore,
all the models that predicted man-made global warming if there is a
significant increase in man-made CO2 are wrong.   


-----Original Message-----
From: radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu
[mailto:radsafe-bounces at health.phys.iit.edu] On Behalf Of Karen Street
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 9:42 AM
To: The International Radiation Protection (Health Physics) Mailing List
Subject: Re: [ RadSafe ] Global Stuff

Rich Muller embarrassed himself by making exactly some of these claims in a
very public way before checking. He then accepted Koch money for the
explicit purpose of finding problems with the data used by climatologists
around the world. Here are the findings of his group:

Bottom line: the data used by climatologists are just fine.

> Hi Group:
> Quite a lively discussion! I wanted to throw my 2 cents in.  The global
> temperature is quite sensitive to a number of factors including dust
> shrouding from volcanic explosions. There was a the significant global
> temperature drop caused by Krakatoa in the late 19th Century which
> to an average 1 degree C drop for several years. "Average global
> temperatures fell by as much as 1.2 degrees Celsius in the year following
> the eruption. Weather patterns continued to be chaotic for years and
> temperatures did not return to normal until 1888." From:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa
> I remember the early portions of the climate debate being rather sane
> it became a political debate, and then there was "Fact" with no
> As a geologist, I hate having "facts" crammed down my throat before I have
> a chance to look at the data. Being a geologist, it is impossible to
> imagine an Earth that does not have very significant changes in climate on
> a regular or irregular basis.
> Dan ii
> Dan W McCarn, Geologist
> 108 Sherwood Blvd
> Los Alamos, NM 87544-3425
> +1-505-672-2014 (Home – New Mexico)
> +1-505-670-8123 (Mobile - New Mexico)
> HotGreenChile at gmail.com (Private email) HotGreenChile at gmail dot com
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 6:49 AM, Karen Street
<Karen_Street at sbcglobal.net>wrote:
>> I always suggested to people that they not cite Lovelock as what he said
>> did not overlap well with scientific consensus. So far as I can tell from
>> the article, he is admitting to just that. But I doubt that any in
>> believe that climate consensus will collapse because one analyst who
>> participate in the process that begins with peer review admits he was
>> Re Earth not warming as fast as had been predicted, there is a range of
>> predictions. If Earth is heating at the 0.2°C/decade predicted, then the
>> range of expected temperature increases over any particular decade
>> includes some decades with cooling, because of weather (eg, lots of La
>> Ninas). That said, 2010 is the hottest year on record, despite the sun
>> being the coolest on record (since satellite measurements began in the
>> 1970s) and despite the huge increase in particulates from coal and other
>> fossil fuels which cool the Earth, temporarily. So IPCC's prediction,
>> consensus predictions, look good; Lovelock's not so much.
>> Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was created to report
>> consensus, but it's a slow process. The most recent set of reports is 5
>> years old, based on information that is >6 years old. For more recent
>> understanding, you can go to NOAA or the lads in East Anglia.
>> On Apr 24, 2012, at 5:03 AM, John R Johnson wrote:
>>> Brad
>>> Thanks. That is closer to my view of reality.
>>> John
>>> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Brad Keck <bradkeck at mac.com> wrote:
>>>> John,
>>>> Lovelock has softened his view:
>>>> Something approaching the raw global temperature data can be had at
>> NOAA:
>>>> http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/
>>>> if you work at it a while :}  But it is still always better to plot the
>>>> data yourself than just listen to the lads in East Anglia!   Also,
>> insomnia
>>>> just melts away..
>>>> Best,
>>>> Brad Keck
>>>> On Apr 23, 2012, at 1:08 PM, JPreisig at aol.com wrote:
>>>>> J.R. Johnson,
>>>>>    Is there a reference referred to in the  google news item???  I
>>>> don't
>>>>> know.
>>>>> He seems to be an independent researcher.  The gentleman has written
>>>> books
>>>>> on global warming.
>>>>> Maybe his data source references are in one of his books???
>>>>>    I suspect global warming data, in general,  might be available from
>>>>> NASA/Goddard Space Center,
>>>>> US NOAA and its weather branches, etc.  The British may have similar
>>>>> meteorological agencies.
>>>>>   I remember some of the global warming reports  coming out of the
>>>>> University of East Anglia
>>>>> (Britain).  A weather/atmospheric/meteorology professor out of Penn
>>>> State
>>>>> (Dr. Mann) was also the
>>>>> source of some of the global warming articles.
>>>>>  I guess a google search on global warming  or   earth AND temperature
>>>>> might be a good source
>>>>> of information.  See also Wikipedia????
>>>>> Hope you find what you want.     Joe  Preisig
>>>>> In a message dated 4/23/2012 1:56:23 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>>>>> idiasjrj at gmail.com writes:
>>>>> Isthere  a reference to data that supports his opinion?
>>>>> J. R. Johnson
>>>>> On  Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:29 AM, <JPreisig at aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Dear Radsafe:
>>>>>>  From:     _jpreisig at aol.com_ (mailto:jpreisig at aol.com)     .
>>>>>> Hey all,
>>>>>>  Hope you are well.   Google news today has a  news item about one
>>>>>> of the Global Warming gurus
>>>>>> (Lovelock???)  and describes how he is stepping back from his
>>>>> dire
>>>>>> predictions for Earth
>>>>>> Global Warming and the Earth's future.   Seems temperature data for
>> the
>>>>>> Earth is indicating (over
>>>>>> the  last decade or so) that the Earth isn't getting as  toasty/hot
>>>> he
>>>>>> had predicted.  Please read the news
>>>>>> item if you so  desire.
>>>>>>      Was it all just  Earth  polar motion (Chandler Wobble, Annual
>>>>>> Wobble) or other  things????
>>>>>> Guess we'll see in the near future...
>>>>>> Google news today also has  a news item about  the DARPA (not
>>>>>> DAPRA!!!!!) hypersonic
>>>>>> plane and recent tests  trying to go MACH 20 (MACH 20, Geez, is that
>>>>> really
>>>>>> necessary; how  much acceleration/velocity can a human or payload
>>>>>> stand???).  The  news item
>>>>>> addresses how the hypersonic plane/spacecraft  failed.
>>>>>>     And for my friends in   Pennsylvania, eastern Pennsylvania has
>>>>>> natural gas and western
>>>>>> Pennsylvania has coal.  I'm sure USA power companies will be using
>>>> both
>>>>>> resources over the next
>>>>>> 20 to 50 years.  And when  everything else is gone, the USA will
>>>>> have
>>>>>> nuclear power  and
>>>>>> coal.  I do remember there are a few nuclear plants in
>>>>>>    Is it time for  Atmospheric researchers  to jump off the global
>>>>>> warming  bandwagon????
>>>>>>    Maybe if DARPA can  lower the MACH  number a bit, one of us Health
>>>>>> Physicists,
>>>>>> Nuclear Engineers, Medical Physicists, Physicists etc. can  take a
>> trip
>>>> on
>>>>>> the hypersonic plane/
>>>>>> spacecraft to  Mars???!!!!
>>>>>>   Have a great  week.
>>>>>>   Regards,      Joseph R.  (Joe)  Preisig

Best wishes, 
Karen Street
Friends Energy Project
blog http://pathsoflight.us/musing/index.php

You are currently subscribed to the RadSafe mailing list

Before posting a message to RadSafe be sure to have read and understood the
RadSafe rules. These can be found at:

For information on how to subscribe or unsubscribe and other settings visit:

More information about the RadSafe mailing list