Threatening Correspondence ?

I thought I’d seen enough Climate Change denial-sceptic tactics to be able to spot a payload, but no. I’ve just been sucked into the maelstrom again, by taking the time and trouble to reply to somebody that wrote a couple of e-mails – someone who appeared to be asking genuine questions – only to find that as the exchanges continued, my correspondent became increasingly agitated, incoherent and threatening.

Was it something I said ? I don’t think so. I was trying to be as helpful and polite as possible. I think the person had an agenda. So, not evil, but wrong, and sad, and quite possibly a little brainwashed.

Fortunately, we are separated by a large expanse of salt water, and differing legal systems, so I don’t regard the threats as holding any substance. And anyway, I’ve done nothing wrong, just tried to paraphrase and summarise where we are with the Science.

I checked out Ms Catherine French, using that fine search engine that is Google, and discovered her pattern of attack – rather like that of a mosquito – whining, buzzing, irritating and painful.

A lot of the things she wrote to me she has written to other people in the past, just adding the latest Climate Change denier-sceptic arguments in as they get invented/fabricated.

Baiting Climate Change web loggers is fine sport for some, but I can’t see the funny side of it. It wastes time and personal energy and it doesn’t move the public discourse forward.

Just remember this, Catherine French – you’re wrong. Wrong about the science and wrong about your tactics. Personal abuse, emotive language, false accusations and threats are not the way to conduct rational debate.

Climate Change “scepticism” is being washed away, and so you’d better be prepared to have your vision and perspective altered. You can have all the opinions you want, but you’re not entitled to contradict the facts. You are not believable, and your position is losing ground by the second.



THREAD 1

from: “Catherine” faxcntn@cox.net
to: “Jo Abbess”
date: Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:57 PM
subject: Alternative Energies are also Destructive and Evil

How can Alternative Energies be good when they require materials that originated from places that all environmentalists say are “evil and destructive”? Alternative Energies require “bad” materials for assembly, such as ceramics, carbons, and metals from Mines, and sometimes plastics and other carbon-based materials, which originate from Oil Wells and Coal mines that environmental groups say are all “evil and destructive”. Even “natural” plant fiber materials require machinery and processing and transportation, which also require metals, ceramics, and carbon.

From where do we get the SOURCE materials for wind mills, fuel cells, hydrogen and other alternative energies? Most solar electric panels require ceramics and special elements, such as gallium, arsenic, germanium, etc., that came from mines and smelters. Windmills require metals (originally from mines and smelters). Passive and active solar ventilation and tubing for houses usually require metals and sometimes ceramics, which came from mines and smelters.

Environmental groups say that ALL Mining and Oil / Gas Wells are “bad” and “evil”, even with full-scale reclamations and restorations. So how can we go to Alternative Energies when these requires materials that are not accepted by the Environmentalists?

Even fuel cells require materials originally from mines and smelters. Fuel cells have to have metals and / or ceramics for the containment, tubing, chemical reactions, etc. The cells, containments and associated materials use materials from mines and oil wells. Think about the engineered things used to even make hydrogen fuel get started for producing energy.

Look at the Periodic Table of all the elements of the earth. Hydrogen (H2) is a usually a gas. When hydrogen is used in a chemical bonding or mixture, it is usually released as a single free ion (H- or H+). Sometimes getters are used to store and transport hydrogen.

It is the cells and containments and associated materials that use materials from mines and oil wells. Go and look at the engineered things used to even make hydrogen get started!

To make Hydrogen “burn” and gain energy from it, there must be the chambers, vessels, tubing, connections and fittings. A characteristic of Hydrogen is that is can embrittle materials over time, especially certain types of metals and steels. Normally stainless steels or other specialty metals are used for most Hydrogen activities. These steels and steels are composed of iron and sometimes chromium and / or nickel to control any corrosion from Hydrogen and also prevent embrittlement as much as possible. The materials for steels ALL come from mines and smelters.

But how is hydrogen (H2 and the H ions) produced from water or other source materials? Either in the reaction apparatus and chambers of the cars or else in processing plants, both of which use metals and ceramics and plastics. If we get H2 from the air, we get it from gas separators which are composed of metals and other “bad” materials.

Environmentalist point to bicycles as environmentally-friendly transportation. To make bicycles, manufacturers must get materials that originated from mining operations (iron, molybdenum, aluminum, ceramics, etc.), oil wells and coal mines for Carbon and plastic materials, and sometime timber for wood. These materials are then processed in plants that also use products from mining and oil wells, and use electricity. How can this be “good” by any environmentalist’s definitions?

Look at how many existing Wilderness Areas have abandoned oil / gas wells and also mining sites within their boundaries. Why is that permissible? How is it that reclamations of well drilling sites are either ignored or denied by the environmental groups now? There have been many private groups in the Pacific Northwest (like my grade school in the 1960’s) that went out and planted trees, grass, and shrubs in the forests. We even saw some of the lumber companies replanting trees and shrubs. But apparently, none of those good efforts count in the mind of the environmental groups, as seen in recent publications and notifications.

Take a deeper look at what really is going on. Natural resources are needed for everything in our lives, even medical items and alternative energies. But when our natural resources are being closed up and as reclamations are either ignored or badmouthed, we are loosing the materials needed for our daily lives, even for the “nice” Alternative Energies. As a final note, my 1990 car gets the same gas mileage GPM as a modern hybrid car. Go figure.

In a publication from early 1992, the Sierra Club in Santa Fe openly announced that oil / gas well drillers were still using lead-based (Pb) lubricants. Never mind that the EPA banned their use several years before in the mid-1980s and that the drilling industry had already switched to biodegradable lubricants even before that. Never mind that law enforcement and the EPA later on checked for compliance in the industry. Also, there is new drilling technology, called Coiled Tubing, that allows certain types of well drilling operations from the back of a pickup, thus less impacts than the vehicles you drive. Why don’t we don’t hear that from the Environmentalists.

Are you familiar with the wilderness near Ruidoso, NM, USA? The wilderness boundaries “captured” some gold and silver / lead mines. The government threatened to sue the mine and claim owners with EPA Superfund status if they did not surrender the land for wilderness designation. Now how is it that places that are supposedly EPA Superfund sites can now be “wilderness” and untouched areas? The 1964 Wilderness Act specified that undeveloped, untouched, and natural areas were to be part of the wilderness areas.

Catherine French
A retired Univ. of California technical staff member, Los Alamos, NM USA

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: “Jo Abbess”
to: “Catherine” faxcntn@cox.net
date: Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:18 AM
subject: Re: Alternative Energies are also Destructive and Evil

Dear Catherine,

Thank you for your helpful and well-researched comments. You clearly know a lot about the subject of alternative energy, and you appear to be very concerned about the environmental conditions damaged by mining operations.

“Alternative”, renewable energy technologies give us the opportunity to build sustainable energy infrastructure.

It works like this : yes, in the first place we need to mine, but the re-powering phase of many technologies such as Wind Power only required recycling, and no new mining.

How is that possible ? Most of the materials to make a new wind turbine can be scavenged from an old wind turbine, for example.

Let us consider another, non-renewable technology such as nuclear fission, in say, a pressurised water reactor. What can you re-use from the PWR at the end of the reactor life ? Maybe some of the fuel rods can be re-processed, but most of the rest of the plant will have become totally unusable.

Look at the ash and tailings from running a coal-fired electricity generating station, or refining Tar Sands. Toxic sludge, effectively. This is not safe to be re-used.

By comparison, fixing a few mirrors at a Concentrated Solar Power plant is almost 100% benign.

The aim of renewable energy is not only to make use of a source of energy that is self-sustaining, but to use materials that can be re-used, making the energy capture and delivery systems self-sustaining too.

I agree there are problems with batteries and some forms of solar power, but these are being worked on. There are “gravel batteries” for example, that use only gravel and argon. And there are new plastics made from growing plants that are being researched for cheap solar photovoltaics.

I think that high-resource energy technologies, such as the proposed hydrogen vehicle network, will only achieve niche status, for the very reasons that you outline. Hydrogen needs to be stored under pressure, and that requires a solid vessel, which means high metal content.

I wonder if you had considered the self-sustaining goal of sustainable energy infrastructure and plant, or whether you had only considered the self-renewing nature of the energy source ?

One more point : many of the metals and materials used for renewable energy are plentiful in the Earth’s crust and non-toxic for the most part. Even if we do need to mine for a few decades more, it can be so much more environmentally-friendly than “conventional” energy systems.

I hope my points have helped.

If you have more questions, please do not hesitate to write. I do not always answer immediately, by the way, but it’s good to exchange views.

My finest regards,

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: “Catherine” faxcntn@cox.net
to: “Jo Abbess”
date: Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:23 AM
subject: Re: Alternative Energies are also Destructive and Evil

The point is missed.

Alternative Energies (AE) require materials from sources and places that environmental groups (Sierra Club, etc.) have stated are evil and must be shut down. If we shut down the source materials needed for AE, like for wind mills, then what?

Already a major source for solar cells, a mine in southern Utah, has been attacked by environmentalists. So if we don’t have the ceramics needed for solar cells, then what???

=x=x=x=x=x=

from: “Jo Abbess”
to: “Catherine” faxcntn@cox.net
date: Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:03 AM
subject: Re: Alternative Energies are also Destructive and Evil

Dear Catherine,

Thank you for your concern, but I have clearly understood the point you are making.

There is a continual struggle between the need to stop environmentally damaging mining and the need to get more resources from the Earth for our energy needs.

What we need to aim for is a self-sustaining energy system that does not need any more mining.

Regards,

jo.


THREAD 2

from: “Catherine” faxcntn@cox.net
to: “Jo Abbess”
date: Tue, Jun 22, 2010 at 3:56 PM
subject: stopping nature’s climate change and global warming

Recently there have been articles and reviews on the melting Arctic ice and the warming temperatures. While we may blame humans for “global warming,” Nature itself has provide a much greater source of greenhouse gases in the form of “Burning Ice” (Methane Hydrates) that in the geological past have outgassed in massive amounts periodically into the atmosphere. I will review the megatons of burning ice later on, but first there is a technical scientific issue to resolve.

The issue of “global warming” brings up the need for good mathematics in analyzing the various data sources to determine the true causes-and-effects (“inputs” and “outputs”) and to filter out those causes that either do not affect the output, or in minor ways, or in combined effects that do not show up until certain conditions are correct. As I have spent time in R&D and also getting my series of degrees, I have found that very few scientists and researchers know how to use statistics properly to be able to filter and view data for the actual, true cause-and-effects. Too many times statistical regression methods are used that assume a direct relationship between the causes and effect, which may not be real. Although there are several books on the market, one of the best books I know of that can help researchers, analysts, and scientists is a book entitled, “Statistics for Experimenters,” by Box, Hunter, and Hunter.

When it comes to global warming, there are more causes than most scientists have considered. For example, the increase in the number and intensity of solar eruptions has a much higher statistical correlation than the other causes/inputs. There are not many web pages that show these in good ways, but here are two articles for present the correlations rather easily.

http://www.qualitydigest.com/mar98/html/spctool.html
http://www.qualitydigest.com/april98/html/spctool.html

Although these graphs are from the late 1990s, the use of this type of statistical tool, SPC charting, has hardly ever been used by scientific researchers and investigators. Most of them have used other mathematical methods that assume a direct correlation between greenhouse gases and Global warming, as directed and determined by the process modeler. This traditional “assumption” may not be correct, and in some cases may potentially mislead scientists and modelers. These other tools can allow a scientist to purposely minimize the effects from natural causes and to maximize the effects of human sources.

Mars also has Global Warming (and from the Solar Sun, NOT human-causes)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming030207.htm

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/legislative_issues/federal_issues/hot_issues_in_congress/energy/Al-Gore-Scours-for-Extraterrestrial-SUVs.htm

Some researchers say that they know all the effects that the increased solar flux has on the atmosphere and have included this in their models, and stated that there are no real effects from the solar flux. But then there are other scientists with different theories on the effects of increased flux that present different scenarios for atmospheric reactions, such as the geomagnetic fields and changes, volcanics and their outgassings, etc. You do not hear much in the news about these other scientists and their results.

People should be very cautious about assuming that the global warming “effect” is due solely to “greenhouse” gases. Also, it should be noted that recent satellite data has shown that upper atmosphere is actually cooling:

http://www.lanl.gov/orgs/pa/News/121699text.html
http://ees5-www.lanl.gov/IGPP/Debate2.html
(some of these links may not be working due to computer changes since 9-11)

Some researchers say that their theory and modeling shows that this cooling should occur, while others show differing effects. We see that there are still not complete agreements on the causes and especially the effects of global warming. Then there are some researchers who have purposely manipulated their models, formulas, and analyses to purposely disregard all other inputs and only tie the temperatures to greenhouse gases.

There is the other issue of how some scientists and researchers can purposely change the structure of the formulas used in their models, the mathematical terms used in the formulas, the parameters and scaling factors in the formulas, and the values of any exponentials so as to obtain predetermined results that the scientists wanted to get anyway.

This allows the scientist to minimize effects from natural causes and to maximize the effects of human sources. This is “tampering” with the formulas so as to get the predetermined results that someone might want to get, no matter what the real processes are.

In my experiences in the scientific / R&D cultures, I have seen this happen several times, even with Peer Reviews. Peer Reviews are “supposed” to catch incorrect things, inconsistencies, and errors. But this does not always occur. In some cases, the scientific peers involved in those Peer Reviews also wanted “certain” results to come out of the modeling and designs that they were reviewing. In other cases, the peers were not paying attention to critical items and issues.

Also the issue of temperature collection has not been properly resolved. Temperatures are taken in cities that have the heat island effect. I have seen several different approached to handling and correcting these heat effects, but these approaches vary and also give various results. Then there is the issue of thermometer calibration. I have observed where some thermometers for city temperatures were not calibrated properly at the required intervals, and some times not calibrated at all. How can we trust the temperature data if there are these variations in the instruments?

When it comes to Nature’s greenhouse generators through the Burning Ice (Methane Hydrates), we soon realize that our gases are very small when compared to the megatons of methane hydrates that are held within our oceans in a manner similar to a bathtub ring. Also the Earth has had major accumulations and releases in its geological past over the eons, some of which scientists now believe may have lead to some great temperature increases in the Earth’s past, long before humans were ever around.

Let me give you some web sites that describe the characteristics and issues with the Earth’s Burning Ice and the natural abundance of methane greenhouse gases:

General information on chemistry and biology of Methane Hydrates:
–> http://www.at-sea.org/missions/extremes/preview.html

–> http://www-ocean.tamu.edu/Quarterdeck/QD5.3/sassen.html

–> http://ench1.ench.ucalgary.ca/~hydrates/

–> http://fossil.energy.gov/programs/oilgas/hydrates/

–> http://www.mbari.org/ghgases/

–> http://www.mbari.org/ghgases/geochem/gas_hydrates.htm

–> http://www.mbari.org/volcanism/Margin/Marg-Hydrates.htm

–> http://www.netl.doe.gov/scngo/NaturalGas/hydrates/index.html

U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) fact sheets:
–> http://walrus.wr.usgs.gov/hydrates/

–> http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/gas-hydrates/title.html

–> http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs021-01/

–> http://woodshole.er.usgs.gov/project-pages/hydrates/

Germany’s research:
–> http://www.mpi-bremen.de/deutsch/biogeo/mumm2.html

–> http://www.gashydrate.de/

In the geological records and how dramatically and even violently the climate has changed, long before modern man came around. There is very strong geological and scientific evidence that the massive Extinction in the Permian Era many millions of years ago in the Earth’s geological past was caused both by massive volcanism and by Methane Hydrates.
http://www.terradaily.com/news/deepimpact-05r.html

Climate models overheat Antarctica incorrectly
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Climate_Models_Overheat_Antarctica_999.html
Shame on those computer models!

Study breaks ice on ancient Arctic thaw:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Study_Breaks_Ice_On_Ancient_Arctic_Thaw_999.html
(previous periods of global warming)

And then there is the aspect of climate change from meteors:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzo.html

Outgassing of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) from volcanoes:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs172-96/

Inaccuracies in measurements of climates:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Antarctic_Snow_Inaccurate_Temperature_Archive.html

Ancient Climate Studies Suggest Earth On Fast Track To Global Warming
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Ancient_Climate_Studies_Suggest_Earth_On_Fast_Track_To_Global_Warming.html

Green plants also cause Global Warming:
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/22944/
http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/info/publications/week/2006/060113/e-list.html#Wi1
http://www.terradaily.com/news/The_Forgotten_Methane_Source.html
http://www.terradaily.com/news/Could_Forests_Worsen_Global_Warming.html
http://www.terradaily.com/news/Extinctions_Linked_To_Climate_Change.html

Farming Provides Wildlife Habitat And Reduces Global Warming
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Farming_Provides_Wildlife_Habitat_And_Reduces_Global_Warming.html

Prehistoric warming helped preserve fossils:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzzi.html

Ancient tropical warming and nature’s greenhouse gases
http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzzj.html

Volcanic impacts on ocean levels:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/oceans-05y.html

Climate change and massive flooding:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/The_Role_Of_Massive_Floods_In_Climate_Change.html

Late Pleistocene Americans Faced Chaotic Climate Change Environments:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Late_Pleistocene_Americans_Faced_Chaotic_Climate_Change_Environments.html

Global Warming evidence from 55 million years ago:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzzzb.html

Tropical ice cores shows two abrupt Global Climate shifts:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Tropical_Ice_Cores_Shows_Two_Abrupt_Global_Climate_Shifts_999.html

How continental splits resulted in global cooling:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/antarctic-05q.html

Earth’s burping from wobbling also affects climate:
http://www.terradaily.com/news/climate-05zzzzt.html

Geomagnetism as one factor in rain / weather:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Magnets_Help_Explain_Rain_Patterns.html

None of the environmentalists or businesses involved in reducing carbon emissions can go and blame massive climate changes in the past on power plants and vehicles!

It is not wise to make international policies on theories that are not agreed upon by the scientists who have been studying these causes and effects. Other scientists have published their works dealing with other causes, but have not been given the publicity such as the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has received.

But if the Solar Sun is the major, primary cause and we are just a minor contributor, then our Governments are imposing on us a major compliance issue that will NOT solve the problem. Control of carbon emissions does NOT equal Control of the Solar Sun and its flux intensities on us. Several environmental groups have told us and openly admitted at other times that they want to use the idea of human sources in order to shut down industrial activities — their words, not ours.

Retired Univ. of California technical staff member Los Alamos, New
Mexico, USA

=x=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: “Jo Abbess”
to: “Catherine French” faxcntn@cox.net
date: Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:00 AM
subject: Re: stopping nature’s climate change and global warming

Dear Ms French,

Thank you for taking the time to let me know all these very useful resources about Global Warming.

Yes, there have been some news items about warming in the Arctic recently. I am assuming you mean this kind of story :-

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2010/06/antarctica-pine-island-glacier-detached-underwater-ridge-melting-faster.php

It is most certainly true that during various stages of Earth history there have been periods of intense Global Warming and Global Cooling. All the data, from ice core analysis and sedimentary research and other proxy sources, show this.

The evidence points to two major drivers of Global Warming in the past : (a) outbursts of Methane and Carbon Dioxide; and (b) the precession and inclination of the Earth’s axis in its orbit around the Sun.

The outgassing of the planet has generally occurred when Continents have collided, or split, causing magma plumes to rise from the Earth’s core. But there are positive feedbacks that take place – when Greenhouse Gases erupt, the Earth’s surface gets warmer, and more gas is released, from just such stores as the Methane Hydrates that you mention.

It is proposed that under some conditions of high rates of Global Warming, there are mass extinctions of all forms of life, creating “dead zones” in the oceans, giving rise to Hydrogen Sulphide emissions which make the Global Warming worse :-

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=impact-from-the-deep
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=paleontologist-peter-wards-medea-hy-2010-01-13
http://www.wired.com/science/planetearth/news/2008/03/peter_ward_qa

Yes, Earth has cycled in an out of Global Warm periods before now. However, the period in which we are now living is unusual, in that the Global Warming taking place cannot be due to the factors that normally cause it.

How do we know this ? We have to look at what is known as the “attribution” of Global Warming :-

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/05/on-attribution/

Volcanoes only contribute a tiny proportion of the total yearly emissions of Greenhouse Gases.

As for Global Warming on Mars, I would suggest you read this :-
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climate-Change-on-Mars.html

While it is true that solar flares and sunspots are indicative of a change in the output of the Sun, and will obviously have an impact on the Earth’s temperature, it is to be remembered that most of the heat on the Planet moves to the Oceans, which do not release heat again easily. Temporary effects such as those caused by solar flares do not figure as strongly as you might have thought.

The Sun is currently undergoing a low period, but the temperatures have been rising :-

http://www.impactlab.com/2010/06/22/sunspot-activity-eerily-quiet-for-past-two-years/
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Tvs.year+month.lrg.gif

If it were not for the Greenhouse Effect, caused by the trapping of heat radiation by the blanket of Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere, the Earth would be roughly 30 degrees Celsius colder than it is. This is an established fact.

What remains to be discovered is to what extent damage is caused to the Climate because of the Global Warming. This is called “Climate
Sensitivity”.

It is true that the upper atmosphere is cooling. The fact that the stratosphere is cooling is one of the fingerprints of Global Warming. The troposphere close to the ground warms up, and the stratosphere cools down. You can check the Physics, but it is undeniably happening and totally predictable from the way the Greenhouse Effect works.

I cannot accept all your points about statistics and your accusations about “tampering”. Climate Change models have been shown to be accurate. The Climate Change scientists have been intellectually honest, and their work is robust.

As for Peer Review, many negative stories about Climate Change Science and the review process of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) were published at the beginning of this year, but they are now starting to be retracted, for example :-

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2010/06/sunday_times_shamed_by_bogus_j.php

I would urge you to read more widely than you already have to get a comprehensive knowledge of the Science and not just the unjustified criticisms of Science. For example :-

Climate Change : Robust Findings

My finest regards,

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=

from: “Catherine” faxcntn@cox.net
to: “Jo Abbess”
date: Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:14 AM
subject: Re: stopping nature’s climate change and global warming

Having worked at the University of California and been around some of these GW scientists, I know that their models MINIMIZE (and sometimes even exclude) natural causes, and that they set their formulas and equations to do just that!

The other issue is their use (or bad use) of statistics and modeling quality assurance. I have been on several projects with Ph D scientists and had to straighten them out. Unfortunately the GW scientists didn’t like things like that and booted us out.

How convenient!

=x=x=x=x=x=

from: “Jo Abbess”
to: “Catherine” faxcntn@cox.net
date: Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 8:51 AM
subject: Re: stopping nature’s climate change and global warming

Dear Ms French,

Thank you for your efforts to inform me of what you believe.

The three arguments that you use in your two e-mails of yesterday are :-

a. Unsubstantiated
b. Incorrect
c. Personal attacks
d. Professional attacks
e. Common, recent lines of argument invented by Climate Change denier-sceptics

I must therefore conclude that you do not have accurate and up-to-date knowledge of the models and statistical analyses involved in Climate Change and Global Warming science, and their clear results.

I must further conclude that you are strongly influenced by the views of the anti-science groups who are seeking to bring the very clear work on Climate Change and Global Warming into disrepute.

That you do not trust the work of James Hansen, Michael Mann and others is to your personal loss, for you appear to have failed to comprehend the significance of the large body of science that now exists, confirming the theoretical hypothesis of Anthropogenic Climate Change.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a fact, as attested by 150 years of Science and discovery into the nature of the Greenhouse Effect. Studies of the sediments at the bottom of the Oceans laid down a very long time ago indicate that we have put enough Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere in the last 250 years to add 3 degrees Celsius to the temperature of the near-surface of the Earth (SAT – surface air temperatures and SST – surface sea temperatures). This effect is already happening and could occur within our lifetimes. The onset of this effect is suffering from a time lag – it takes time for the Earth system to adjust – somewhere between 20 and 50 years. We are currently experiencing the heating effect of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) that were emitted something like 30 years ago. We have more heating in the pipeline due to the GHG emitted since then.

Climate Change is becoming evident, and the attribution of changes to mankind’s activities are significant. It may be that Climate Sensitivity to Global Warming is high, in which case the Earth’s surface could experience a further additional warming from Climate Change positive feedbacks of somewhere between 1 degree Celsius to 3 degrees Celsius or a little less. This effect will appear over the course of several hundred years.

I would urge you to investigate the errors in your arguments – for instance, all the natural causes of Global Warming have been shown to be much less significant than the additional Greenhouse Effect from emitting Greenhouse Gases into the air from the burning of Fossil Fuels. Yes, that includes solar effects, cosmic rays, solar flares. That includes volcanos, earthquakes, and a number of other crust and seismic events. Look into it and you will find, as I have, that
nothing can account for the current Global Warming apart from the extra Greenhouse Effect.

I have heard from various media sources the accusation that you mention regarding statistics. Despite the criticism of the the work of Michael Mann, his techniques and data and conclusions have been verified, many times over, and despite such views as those of David Hand, Michael Mann’s Hockey Stick still stands as valid :-

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18776-climategate-scientists-chastised-over-statistics.html

Your own Government has recently issued advisories on the real and dangerous facts of Climate Change that I would urge you to take in :-

http://www.globalchange.gov/images/cir/pdf/Climate-Impacts-PR_june-6-2009.pdf

It is worth finding out who to believe on the subject of Climate Change and who to place less trust in. A directory of people who repeatedly make exaggerated claims and promote falsehoods is here :-

http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database

You could also include Steve McIntyre in this list. Most of the denial arguments that are put to me by people like yourself originate with him.

I cannot enter into a long and protracted correspondence with you on the subject of Climate Change, as I have other things I need to get on with, but I hope that you will consider my “expert opinion” on the myths and distortions of the Climate Change denier-sceptics such as Christopher Monckton.

May we all learn,

jo.

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: “Catherine” faxcntn@cox.net
to: “Jo Abbess”
date: Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:32 PM
subject: Re: stopping nature’s climate change and global warming

Even the Global Warming scientists have not been able to technically and mathematically contradict us.

Even they are now starting to admit that we have valid points, and have found true and real weaknesses.

Too bad you have jumped to conclusions and not seen what we as this other part of the scientific community.

Too bad you are leading your denomination into further incorrect things!

I will keep this for LEGAL purposes and also to show the world the contrast between what you say and what the GW communities are admitting to us are now correct!!!

If you have other fallacies that you would like for me to have and post on the Internet as proof of incorrectness, please do!!!!



THREAD 3

from: “Catherine” faxcntn@cox.net
to: “Jo Abbess”
date: Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 12:23 AM
subject: Scientific fraud even for Global Warming scientists

As a retired Univ. of California technical staff member, I have worked with a lot of scientists for quite some time, including GW scientists. So people think that all Scientists (global warming included) are pure, untainted, and never have any hidden problems, issues, or agendas?

Misinterpretations of biological data:
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20040712/03/

Plagiarism in the Scientific World:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040922/02

Scientific Misbehavior Is Common / Scientific Fraud cases:
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/28863.html

Other articles on bad ethics and practices among Scientists:
http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/pdfplus/10.1525/jer.2006.1.1.43

Removing scientific Peer Reviews?
http://www.freenewmexican.com/news/50084.html

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20051017/01/

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20050304/01/

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20050617/01/

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/20051213/01

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/22927/

http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/22990/

http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15409/

http://www.the-scientist.com/2006/2/1/24/1/

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/daily/23520/

http://www.the-scientist.com/news/daily/23624/

http://www.the-scientist.com/article/daily/23568/

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060110/ap_on_sc/skorea_stem_cell_16

http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/15409/

http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/23061/

http://www.the-scientist.com/article/display/23073/

Catherine French
A retired Univ. of California technical staff member, Los Alamos, NM USA

=x=x=x=x=x=x=

from: “Jo Abbess”
to: “Catherine French” faxcntn@cox.net
date: Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:09 AM
subject: Re: Scientific fraud even for Global Warming scientists

Dear Ms French,

I do understand what you are pointing to.

Wherever you have Science in the pay of private corporations there is always scope for corruption.

There is often a “conflict of interest” – for example, the partnership between the Government agencies, the BioTechnology companies and the Scientific communities in the United Kingdom, which is busy promoting Genetically Modified Organisms for every kind of application, without the decades of trials and tests needed to make sure GM is safe :-

http://www.bbsrc.ac.uk/

This is why it is so important to have Government-funded, publicly-funded research and development programs for renewable energy, free from all industry interference.

Regards,

jo.

=x=x=x=x=

from: “Catherine” faxcntn@cox.net
to: “Jo Abbess”
date: Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 1:17 AM
subject: Re: Scientific fraud even for Global Warming scientists

NO, these are independent people in universities without corporate funding. PLEASE!

This Mantra of jumping to “contusions” (and I mean contusions) of assuming that “private” funding was involved in science research is plain wrong.

Now there are some Global Warming scientists who have admitted to getting “gifts” (OK, they meant Bribes) and even funding from environmental groups.

So nice !



THREAD 4

from: “Catherine” faxcntn@cox.net
to: “Jo Abbess”
date: Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 2:36 PM
subject: UK judge rules Gore’s climate film has 9 errors

Say what? The British judge rules against Mr. Global Warming himself, Al Gore???

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/11/AR2007101102134.html?wpisrc=newsletter

We have won and will win in even more court cases!


I here include some related material that I found on the Internet

RELATED MATERIAL 1

http://archive.ncsa.illinois.edu/lists/vmi-bug/sep08/msg00017.html

Subject: *****SPAM***** What most Christians have missed out on (Catholic and Protestant)
From: Catherine French
Date: Mon, 01 Sep 2008 11:23:01 -0500

Supposed that someone said this to you:

“There is a place where they have dope in gallon buckets, have 32 foot long joints, and trip out every 12 hours with a lot of these joints! Sometimes the joints are rolled up into one big coil!”

Do you want to go find that place?

What did you think I was talking about? What came to your mind?

What I was talking about was terms used in the well drilling industry!

If you misunderstood what I said in English, then imagine how you could misunderstand an ancient language and culture, such as the language and culture of the Bible.

When we talk about the Bible and its meanings, we have to gain a better understanding of a distant people who thought in much different ways than you or I do in this modern, western world.

BUT WHY SHOULD WE LOOK AT THIS ISSUE?
Many centuries of massive persecutions and slaughters of Jews by Christians and their leaders can be traced back to major misunderstandings on part of the early church leaders from gentile and pagan background and even those who followed in later centuries. Even the Nazis used some of the Church’s teachings, especially of Martin Luther, in their literature and practices against the Jews.


RELATED MATERIAL 2

http://www.asqswwa.org/programs/MSQASpring.doc

Catherine French (82, BS, mining engr.) writes, “I moved to my home — south central Kansas — and now work in the manufacturing sector. It was time to leave Los Alamos, and I moved to be closer to my relatives and help out. My current position is a quality engineer for Agco, an agricultural equipment manufacturer in Hesston. It provides a lot of diversity in parts to review and working with vendors all over the world. I also brought my small airplane here to south central Kansas, where it is very aviation-friendly and there are more independent aircraft builders. Miss the close availability of green chile here, but recently we had some Hatch chile brought in boxes here for us to roast (progress even in Kansas!)

Any Techies interested in contacting me can do so at: catherineafrench@hotmail.com.”



RELATED MATERIAL 3

Here she is, standing up for high levels of heavy metals in the drinking water :-

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47787

ENVIRONMENT
Open Pit Disasters in Mexico and Peru
By Emilio Godoy

TLALPUJAHUA, Mexico, Jul 24 , 2009 (IPS) – Mariana Rangel is filled with nostalgia as she gazes at the abandoned installations of the Dos Estrellas mine, where she worked as a secretary for six years. “Those were years of prosperity; this is all there is left,” she tells IPS, pointing to what used to be the local hospital.

The old mining town of Tlalpujahua, a picturesque colonial hill town 160 km from the Mexican capital, is a symbol of the illusory wealth and very real damages of mining in this country. Between 1905 and 1913 it was one of the world’s biggest producers of gold, but the mine was closed down by the government in 1959 on the grounds that it was unprofitable.

In one eight-year period, 45,000 kg of gold and 400,000 kg of silver were extracted from the mine, owned at the time by wealthy Belgian adventurer François Joseph Fournier, using the most advanced techniques of the time.

A century after the heyday of this town of 8,000 people, open pit mining is at the centre of heated controversy, due to the meager benefits it brings local communities, and even governments, which are left to deal with the mines’ legacy of pollution.

Non-governmental organisations around the world declared a Global Day of Action Against Open-Pit Mining on Wednesday, Jul. 22.

The highest profile case in Mexico is the decade-long fight by the Pro San Luis Ecológico environmental movement against the Minera San Xavier, the Canadian-owned mining company that runs the Cerro San Pedro gold and silver mine in the central state of San Luis Potosí.

The movement of environmentalists and local residents accuses the company, which was sold last year by Metallica Resources Inc. to another Canadian firm, New Gold, of polluting the underground aquifers with the cyanide used to extract gold and silver from the ore, using excessive amounts of water, and operating in an environmentally protected area.

Mining has played a key role in the history of this area. Local residents are not opposed to underground mining, which has been practiced here for centuries. But they are against open cast mining, which consists of digging an enormous crater in the mountain, hundreds of metres deep, by removing millions of tons of rock that is treated with a cyanide leaching process to remove the metals.

http://mwglobal.org/app_letters/index.php?paged=2

ENVIRONMENT: Open Pit Disasters in Mexico and Peru
August 22nd, 2009

Dear Editor:

The recent problems with items from China reminds me of the problems with scientific research in related issues — arsenic and mercury toxicities.

This is a response to the research done by Dartmouth College on arsenic (and on the lack of cancers in the residents of Armagosa Valley, CA, that has very high arsenic content in its drinking waters): http://www.wateronline.com/content/news/article.asp?docid=90e36731-f6ec-45bd-8168-c56e58fb6e92&VNETCOOKIE=NO

As a retired Univ. of California degree tech staff member, I have worked with and talked to many researchers about their methods of designing their research and experiments on arsenic, mercury and lead toxicity. There are some major problems with the basic methods and scientific “assumptions” that these people have made.

There are major experimental design questions here:

Just what is the concentration of the arsenic used in the experiment? Was this equivalent to the concentration found in normal human blood after drinking water with groundwater arsenic? Too often experimenters in the past have made the ionic concentrations way too high for what is found in humans (blood and urine and other types of samples), after they drank groundwater with high arsenic content.

Was the CHEMISTRY of the experiment truly equivalent to the chemistry found in human blood after groundwater ingestion AND the resulting biochemical interactions that take place in the digestive tract, blood, arteries, etc.?

We have seen many other experimenters use arsenic tests that did NOT have the same blood chemistry and did NOT have concentrations found in human blood after ingesting.

They used “tissue samples”. But are these conditions truly equivalent to what humans have in terms of the tissues that receive their ions from blood and plasma through the arteries and other biochemical processes within the human bodies?

See also the problems with biological models: http://www.the-scientist.com/article/home/53306/.

Recently there has been controversy over the change in arsenic (As) standards and in Mercury (Hg) standards. If those who want tighter arsenic standards in drinking water had true geologic knowledge, they would know that both arsenic and mercury are some of the many elements that Nature put in the earth and that the groundwater has picked up over the thousands of years. Often, arsenic (As) is associated with gold deposits, even low grade, and other sulfide ore deposits. In many places in the USA, there are geological deposits of the mineral cinnabar (mercury sulfide) and pure mercury, such as the Big Bend area of Texas near the Rio Grande river. Over geological time, the groundwater has picked up mercury in many places over thousands of years. There are also geological formations that contain trace amounts of mercury in their sediments that for eons have been washing into the rivers, groundwater, and soils.

There are several hundred naturally-occurring lead deposits (lead sulfide and lead carbonate) in the USA that were in existence long before any Europeans explorers came around in the 1500s and 1600s. In many drinking water sources, there are a number of other elements in natural drinking water, such as uranium, lead, molybdenum, nickel, sulfur, etc. that originated from natural mineral deposits.

Some researchers have been giving statements that are not based upon complete analysis, but come across as fear. One researched stated “all the time people were dying of cancers now associated with drinking that arsenic-contaminated water”. But we would have to assume that all autopsies of ancient and modern humans has shown a 100% statistical correlation to arsenic and not to other factors, such as other chemicals, other metals, diet, sun exposure, prescription drug effects, genetics, other elements, etc. In addition, a number of other studies did not show good statistical analysis / correlation on the level of arsenic (percent or parts per million) and health effects. The residents of Amargosa Valley and Beatty in Nevada and the Death Valley areas in California have elevated levels of arsenic in their drinking waters, but cancers are not prevalent there. A number of residents several of us know have lived to the age of 80s and 90s. How do we explain that?

In talking to the environmental and biological scientists on the West Coast about this issue, a peculiar point was brought up. Most of them have mathematically matched arsenic levels to human health affects through regression methods. These are the SAME types of methods used on Lead and Mercury research, as seen in the scientific publications. These methods “assume” a straight statistical correlation (both linear and non-linear) between the input of arsenic and the output (health affects). But how could they have known what other elements in the drinking water were doing in conjunction with arsenic? None of these scientists have filtered out those inputs that are either not affecting the output, or are affecting in minor ways, or are affecting in combined effects that do not show up until certain conditions are correct. The methods are the analyses of variances and other advanced techniques, which do not appear to be well known by these scientists.

Few scientists and researchers know how to use statistics properly to be able to filter and view data for the actual, true cause-and-effects. Too many times researchers use statistical regression methods that assume a direct relationship between the causes and effect, which may not be real. Although there are several books on the market, one of the best books that can help researchers, analysts, and scientists is a book entitled, “Statistics for Experimenters,” by Box, Hunter, and Hunter.

Native peoples have been drinking water here in America and many other places for centuries with arsenic and other “contaminants,” (like lead) long before there was ever a Federal government to protect us from the Earth. Why don’t the environmentalists understand basic Earth Sciences?

Shame on Nature for doing that…

Catherine French
Los Alamos, New Mexico (USA)

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=47787


RELATED MATERIAL 4

Here she is reacting to the appointment of Steven Chu :-

http://www.designnews.com/article/160652-Chu_as_DOE_Chief_Greeted_Favorably.php

Chu as DOE Chief Greeted Favorably
John Dodge, Editor-in-Chief — Design News, December 11, 2008

While expected energy secretary nominee Steven Chu faces a daunting set of challenges, engineering and renewable energy advocates applaud his expected selection given his stellar scientific background.

“I don’t see how the president-elect could have picked anyone better,” IEEE-USA President Russ Lefevre said in a press statement before it was publicly released. “I’m particularly impressed with his emphasis on green energy. Plus, he has experience in managing a very difficult energy organization. He has to deal with scientists and engineers regularly.”

As of this writing, news of Chu’s selection came via democratic sources across all major news outlets. However, Obama and his aides had yet to make a formal announcement.

Tough tasks await Chu assuming he’s picked and confirmed. He will be Obama’s point person to “ensure” that 10 percent of the nation’s electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012 and a quarter by 2025. He must make sure technology is developed so one million plug-in hybrids capable of 150 mpg are on the road by 2015. Within a decade, the U.S. must “save” more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela. And while he’s doing all that, he has to rebuild America’s electrical grid, maintain and safeguard our nuclear stockpiles and oversee a government agency with an annual budget of $25 billion and more than 16,000 employees.

TALKBACK

DOE, the Labs, and Alternative Energies destructive of earth — How can Alternative Energies (which will be touted a lot more) be good when they require materials that originated from places that all environmentalists say are “evil and destructive”? Alternative Energies require “bad” materials for assembly, such as ceramics, carbons, and metals from Mines, and sometimes plastics and other carbon-based materials, which originate from Oil Wells and Coal mines that environmental groups say are all “evil and destructive”. Even “natural” plant fiber materials require machinery and processing and transportation, which also require metals, ceramics, and carbon.

From where do we get the source materials for wind mills, fuel cells, hydrogen and other alternative energies? Most solar electric panels require ceramics and special elements, such as gallium, arsenic, germanium, etc., that came from mines and smelters. Windmills require metals (originally from mines and smelters). Passive and active solar ventilation and tubing for houses usually require metals and sometimes ceramics, which came from mines and smelters.

Environmental groups say that all Mining and Oil / Gas Wells are “bad” and “evil”, even with full-scale reclamations and restorations. So how can we go to Alternative Energies when these requires materials that are not accepted by the Environmentalists?

Even fuel cells require materials originally from mines and smelters. Fuel cells have to have metals and / or ceramics for the containment, tubing, chemical reactions, etc. The cells, containments and associated materials use materials from mines and oil wells. Think about the engineered things used to even make hydrogen fuel get started for producing energy.

Look at the Periodic Table of all the elements of the earth. Hydrogen (H2) is a usually a gas. When hydrogen is used in a chemical bonding or mixture, it is usually released as a single free ion (H- or H+). Sometimes getters are used to store and transport hydrogen.

It is the cells and containments and associated materials that use materials from mines and oil wells. Go and look at the engineered things used to even make hydrogen get started!

To make Hydrogen “burn” and gain energy from it, there must be the chambers, vessels, tubing, connections and fittings. A characteristic of Hydrogen is that is can embrittle materials over time, especially certain types of metals and steels. Normally stainless steels or other specialty metals are used for most Hydrogen activities. These steels and steels are composed of iron and sometimes chromium and / or nickel to control any corrosion from Hydrogen and also prevent embrittlement as much as possible. The materials for steels ALL come from mines and smelters.

But how is hydrogen (H2 and the H ions) produced from water or other source materials? Either in the reaction apparatus and chambers of the cars or else in processing plants, both of which use metals and ceramics and plastics. If we get H2 from the air, we get it from gas separators which are composed of metals and other “bad” materials.

Environmentalist point to bicycles as environmentally-friendly transportation. To make bicycles, manufacturers must get materials that originated from mining operations (iron, molybdenum, aluminum, ceramics, etc.), oil wells and coal mines for Carbon and plastic materials, and sometime timber for wood. These materials are then processed in plants that also use products from mining and oil wells, and use electricity. How can this be “good” by any environmentalist’s definitions?

Look at how many existing Wilderness Areas have abandoned oil / gas wells and also mining sites within their boundaries. Why is that permissible? How is it that reclamations of well drilling sites are either ignored or denied by the environmental groups now? There have been many private groups in the Pacific Northwest (like my grade school in the 1960’s) that went out and planted trees, grass, and shrubs in the forests. We even saw some of the lumber companies replanting trees and shrubs. But apparently, none of those good efforts count in the mind of the environmental groups, as seen in recent publications and notifications.

Take a deeper look at what really is going on. Natural resources are needed for everything in our lives, even medical items and alternative energies. But when our natural resources are being closed up and as reclamations are either ignored or badmouthed, we are loosing the materials needed for our daily lives, even for the “nice” Alternative Energies. As a final note, my 1990 car gets the same gas mileage GPM as a modern hybrid car. Go figure.

In a publication from early 1992, the Sierra Club in Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA, openly announced that oil / gas well drillers were still using lead-based (Pb) lubricants. Never mind that the EPA banned their use several years before in the mid-1980s and that the drilling industry had already switched to biodegradable lubricants even before that. Never mind that law enforcement and the EPA later on checked for compliance in the industry. Also, there is new drilling technology, called Coiled Tubing, that allows certain types of well drilling operations from the back of a pickup, thus less impacts than the vehicles you drive. Why don’t we don’t hear that from the Environmentalists.

Are you familiar with the wilderness near Ruidoso, NM, USA? The wilderness boundaries “captured” some gold and silver / lead mines. The government threatened to sue the mine and claim owners with EPA Superfund status if they did not surrender the land for wilderness designation. Now how is it that places that are supposedly EPA Superfund sites can now be “wilderness” and untouched areas? The 1964 Wilderness Act specified that undeveloped, untouched, and natural areas were to be part of the wilderness areas.

retired University of California technical staff member
Los Alamos, NM, USA

Catherine French – 2008-16-12 18:53:46 EST


RELATED MATERIAL 5

Here she is on Global Warming :-

http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/september98/features/earthtmp/earthtmp.html

http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/dec01/departments/letters/letters.html

Global Warming Details
Catherine French-Sidoti
Los Alamos, N.M.

To the Editor: Some researchers say that they know all the effects that the increased solar flux has on the atmosphere and have included this in their models. Then there are other scientists with different theories on the effects of increased flux that present different scenarios for atmospheric reactions, such as the geomagnetic fields and changes, etc.

Scientists should be very cautious about assuming that the global warming effect is due solely to greenhouse gases. Also, it should be noted that recent satellite data has shown that the upper atmosphere is actually cooling.

Some researchers say that their theory and modeling show that this cooling should occur, while others show differing effects. I see that there is still no complete agreement on the causes and, especially, the effects of global warming.

The issue of temperature collection has not been properly resolved. Temperatures are taken in cities that have the heat island effect. I have seen several different approaches to handling and correcting these heat effects, but these approaches vary and also give various results.

Then there is the issue of thermometer calibration. I have observed where some thermometers for city temperatures were not calibrated properly at the required intervals, and sometimes not calibrated at all. How can we trust the temperature data if there are these variations in the instruments?

It is not wise to make international policies on theories that are not agreed upon by the scientists who have been studying these causes and effects. Some scientists have published their works, but have not been given the publicity that the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research has received.

http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/membersonly/may02/departments/letters/letters.html

Warming Correlations
Joseph M. Prusa
Boca Raton, Fla.
To the Editor: The letter “Global Warming Details” (December 2001) is correct in pointing out that much uncertainty exists in understanding and predicting the details of global change.

However, the letter fails to bring out that there is a consensus in the global change community that the global environment is being anthropogenically forced, that the global average temperature is increasing, and that the change is due to enhanced absorption of infrared radiation emitted from the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere (due in part to increased levels of carbon dioxide).

There is a strong, positive, and well-established correlation between the concentration of atmospheric CO2 and temperature. During the past 160,000 years, the global average temperature has twice dropped 6°C below the present value (ice ages), and once has risen about 1.5°C above the present value (interglacial). We are currently in an interglacial period.

The corresponding volumetric concentrations of CO2 have ranged from approximately 200 (ice age) to 280 (interglacial) ppm. The current concentration of 365 ppm exceeds the 160,000-year prehistorical record maximum by 30 percent. Half of this increase has occurred since 1970.

To get a general introduction to the topic, read Scientific American or see the Web sites at www.epa.gov/
globalwarming and www.whrc.org/ globalwarming/warmingearth.htm. For technical details on climate analysis and models, read the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society or go to www.cgd.ucar.edu.

The evidence for climate change induced by human activity is indirect and inferential. But it is a mistake to think that the evidence is completely ambiguous.

It behooves us all to approach this topic and its possible consequences for our children with extreme caution and utmost concern.


RELATED MATERIAL 6

Here she is on Methane Hydrates, quite possibly her favourite topic :-

How are planes affecting the environment?

Catherine French
September 24th, 2009 at 8:24 am

Recently there have been articles and reviews on the melting Arctic ice and the warming temperatures. While we may blame humans for “global warming,” Nature itself has provide a much greater source of greenhouse gases in the form of “Burning Ice” (Methane Hydrates) that in the geological past have outgassed in massive amounts periodically into the atmosphere. I will review the megatons of burning ice later on, but first there is a technical scientific issue to resolve.

The issue of “global warming” brings up the need for good mathematics in analyzing the various data sources to determine the true causes-and-effects (“inputs” and “outputs”) and to filter out those causes that either do not affect the output, or in minor ways, or in combined effects that do not show up until certain conditions are correct. As I have spent time in R&D and also getting my series of degrees, I have found that very few scientists and researchers know how to use statistics properly to be able to filter and view data for the actual, true cause-and-effects. Too many times statistical regression methods are used that assume a direct relationship between the causes and effect, which may not be real. Although there are several books on the market, one of the best books I know of that can help researchers, analysts, and scientists is a book entitled, “Statistics for Experimenters,” by Box, Hunter, and Hunter.

When it comes to global warming, there are more causes than most scientists have considered. For example, the increase in the number and intensity of solar eruptions has a much higher statistical correlation than the other causes/inputs. There are not many web pages that show these in good ways, but here are two articles for present the correlations rather easily.

http://www.qualitydigest.com/mar98/html/spctool.html
http://www.qualitydigest.com/april98/html/spctool.html

Although these graphs are from the late 1990s, the use of this type of statistical tool, SPC charting, has hardly ever been used by scientific researchers and investigators. Most of them have used other mathematical methods that assume a direct correlation between greenhouse gases and Global warming, as directed and determined by the process modeler. This traditional “assumption” may not be correct, and in some cases may potentially mislead scientists and modelers. These other tools can allow a scientist to purposely minimize the effects from natural causes and to maximize the effects of human sources.

Some researchers say that they know all the effects that the increased solar flux has on the atmosphere and have included this in their models, and stated that there are no real effects from the solar flux. But then there are other scientists with different theories on the effects of increased flux that present different scenarios for atmospheric reactions, such as the geomagnetic fields and changes, volcanics and their outgassings, etc. You do not hear much in the news about these other scientists and their results.

People should be very cautious about assuming that the global warming “effect” is due solely to “greenhouse” gases. Also, it should be noted that recent satellite data has shown that upper atmosphere is actually cooling.

Some researchers say that their theory and modeling shows that this cooling should occur, while others show differing effects. We see that there is still not complete agreements on the causes and especially the effects of global warming. Then there are some researchers who have purposely manipulated their models, formulas, and analyses to purposely disregard all other inputs and only tie the temperatures to greenhouse gases.

There is the other issue of how some scientists and researchers can purposely change the structure of the formulas used in their models, the mathematical terms used in the formulas, the parameters and scaling factors in the formulas, and the values of any exponentials so as to obtain predetermined results that the scientists wanted to get anyway. This allows the scientist to minimize effects from natural causes and to maximize the effects of human sources. This is “tampering” with the formulas so as to get the predetermined results that someone might want to get, no matter what the real processes are.

In my experiences in the scientific / R&D cultures, I have seen this happen several times, even with Peer Reviews. Peer Reviews are “supposed” to catch incorrect things, inconsistencies, and errors. But this does not always occur. In some cases, the scientific peers involved in those Peer Reviews also wanted “certain” results to come out of the modeling and designs that they were reviewing. In other cases, the peers were not paying attention to critical items and issues.

Also the issue of temperature collection has not been properly resolved. Temperatures are taken in cities that have the heat island effect. I have seen several different approached to handling and correcting these heat effects, but these approaches vary and also give various results. Then there is the issue of thermometer calibration. I have observed where some thermometers for city temperatures were not calibrated properly at the required intervals, and some times not calibrated at all. How can we trust the temperature data if there are these variations in the instruments?
Climate models overheat Antarctica incorrectly

http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Climate_Models_Overheat_Antarctica_999.html

Shame on those computer models!

None of the environmentalists or businesses involved in reducing carbon emissions can go and blame massive climate changes in the ancient past on power plants and vehicles!

It is not wise to make international policies on theories that are not agreed upon by the scientists who have been studying these causes and effects. Other scientists have published their works dealing with other causes, but have not been given the publicity such as the US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has received.
But if the Solar Sun is the major, primary cause and we are just a minor contributor, then our Governments are imposing on us a major compliance issue that will NOT solve the problem. Control of carbon emissions does NOT equal Control of the Solar Sun and its flux intensities on us. Several environmental groups have told us and openly admitted at other times that they want to use the idea of human sources in order to shut down industrial activities — their words, not ours.

Retired Univ. of California technical staff member
Los Alamos, New Mexico, USA

JJ Michelson
September 24th, 2009 at 11:06 am

I find it sad that people always try to point a finger at scientists after reading a few papers about the topic such as global warming.

Catherine French writes “there are more causes than most scientists have considered” and then goes on to outline a few of these ideas that she claims have not been considered. HA!

Apparently she did not work anywhere close to the earth sciences while at the U of California. As somebody who has studied not only climate change, but other atmospheric issues for decades now, she is quite naive in her statement.

Not only have the ideas she addresses been very closely studied by hundreds of researchers for decades now, there has been hundreds of research articles published on the topics (no doubt how she learned about them).

So why does she say scientists haven’t considered them? They have been considered over and over and over again. Some of them have been determined based on our current research to not be a significant player, others have.

I suppose I should comment on a story about aviation design (which I know little about, though a pilot for 40 years) suggesting that the engineers should really look at using rocket or turbine power for my Cub since it gives an amazing power boost for little weight. Oh wait, they already have looked into it many times and based on current technology it just doesn’t make sense for the average pilot.

Unfortunately Ms. French’s writing shows she has a handle on the terminology and has obviously been exposed to the research, but she decides that to fulfill her agenda she will ignore the parts that don’t back up her predetermined concepts.

JJ


One thought on “Threatening Correspondence ?”

  1. Which is the bigger business, preaching about global warming as a result of human excesses or the current manufacturing conglomerates of the world collectively producing products for human consumption? Then, who has the bigger reason to lie?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *