By Elmer Beauregard

With 12/21/2021 rapidly approaching I thought this would be a good time to share some of my thoughts about the Mayan Calendar. I have been thinking about this stuff for for a long time and hope to write a book about it someday.

There are a lot of mysteries surrounding the Mayan culture chief among them is what happened to them. It's a civilization on par with the Ancient Egyptians and it collapsed suddenly and nobody seems to know why. Well I have a theory what may have happened to them and the secret may lie in the Mayan calendar itself.

When an ancient city is discovered archeologists sometimes go the Bible to see what city it might be. The Bible has used been used when they discovered Ancient Jericho and Sodom and Gomorrah and many other Ancient cities, but there doesn't seem to be any mention of the Mayan civilization anywhere in the Bible.

It was a civilization as old if not older than the ancient Egyptians and more advanced and much larger than Egypt. The Mayans have cities all over Central and South America and more are being discovered every year. So why does the Bible ignore half the planet an only talk about the history of the eastern hemisphere? I think the Bible actually does talk about the ancient Mayans but we have just not looked at it the right way, here is my theory.

Elmer's Theory about the Mayan Calendar and Everything!
It is my theory that the Ancient Mayan Culture is the Civilization that was destroyed by Noah's flood.

I think this is so for 3 major reasons.

1. In the Mayan Calendar the months were 20 days and there were 18 months in a year so the years were only 360 days. I think this indicates a 20 day lunar cycle where the moon revolves around the earth every 20 days instead of the 28 days it takes now. I think this is evidence of an apocalyptic astronomical event that changed the face of the earth and wiped out the Mayan civilization.

2. Mayan ruins when first discovered are buried in many feet of dirt like they were buried in a flood.

3. There are great similarities in art and architecture between the Mayans the Egyptians and the Ancient Balinese, who flourished on the tiny island of Bali in Southeast Asia.

epahumantesting.com

Washington, DC - (Sep. 24) JunkScience.com announced today that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has been sued in federal court for conducting illegal life- and health-threatening scientific experiments on human subjects.

Based on information uncovered by JunkScience.com publisher and public health consultant Steve Milloy through the Freedom of Information Act, the nonprofit American Tradition Institute Environmental Law Center (ATI) sued EPA in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Among other things, the lawsuit asks for:

EPA to be barred from conducting illegal life-and health-threatening experiments;
a formal investigation of EPA's human experiments; and for
regulations based on the illegal experiments to be suspended pending an investigation.

"EPA has broken every law and violated every standard established since World War II and the Tuskegee syphilis experiments for the protection of human subjects in scientific experiments," said Milloy. "That EPA administrator Lisa Jackson permitted this heinous experimentation to occur under her watch shocks the conscience," Milloy added.

Read more here.

scoop.co.nz

Thursday, 20 September 2012, 5:29 pm

20 September 2012 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

ANTARCTIC ICE AREA SETS RECORD HIGH

"Day 258 of 2012 is the highest for this date since satellite scanning of Antarctic ice areas commenced 33 years ago" the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition announced today. "It is also the fifth highest daily value on record."

Coalition chairman, Hon Barry Brill, says the most remarkable aspect is the extent to which the 2012 area exceeds normal Antarctica averages. "The sea ice cover yesterday was 311,000 square kilometres above the 1979-2012 average. The surplus ice is more than twice the area of New Zealand".

"The Antarctic dimensions come partly at the expense of Arctic sea ice" said Mr Brill. "Over the 33-year period aggregate global sea ice volumes have remained steady, but there are fluctuations between the two polar areas from year to year. The fluctuations are the result of ocean currents and wind patterns, rather than temperatures".

"Antarctic ice is much more important than that of the Arctic. The area of its sea ice is a million square kilometres larger than the highest value ever recorded in the Arctic. Then, of course, the Antarctic is an entire continent, with more than 90% of the earth's glacial ice" said Mr Brill.

"It is appropriate that this record should occur in a week that The Listener carries a cover story featuring the winter low point of Arctic ice, along with multiple pictures of calving glaciers and forlorn polar bears," said Mr Brill. "The magazine has little to say about the Antarctic apart from complaining that it is "poorly understood". The author also avoids mentioning the glaring facts that no significant global warming has been recorded in the past 16 years, and that sea level rise is apparently decelerating.

"It is unfortunate that under-informed writers, albeit unwittingly, mislead their readers who should be helped to understand the difference between sea ice extent and ice cap ice, both thickness and extent as regards the latter. The ice cap in the Arctic is small compared to the Antarctic. The cap of the Antarctic is increasing in thickness in most places, except around the Antarctic Peninsula.
Sea ice extent is largely a consequence of sea surface temperature, ocean currents and wind," said Mr Brill, who advised those interested in graphic confirmation of Antarctic sea ice readings to refer to:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png
and:
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seaice.anomaly.antarctic.png

By Elmer Beauregard

In my quest to find out what CO2 levels actually are in Minnesota I purchased my own CO2 meter and I have been having fun with it ever since. The good people at CO2meter.com said you should let it run all day and see what happens. I did and much to my surprise I noticed that CO2 levels vary greatly in just one day.

During the day CO2 levels drop at a pretty steady rate, as plants grow during the day they consume CO2 and in turn emit oxygen for us to breath. This is called Photosynthesis and is the engine that drives life on this planet. It is a symbiotic relationship between animals and plants which I believe is God designed. How could something this complicated and well designed happen by chance?

What I think is interesting about this chart however is the dramatic spike in CO2 levels around sunset. CO2 levels go from a low of 378 ppm at 7 PM to a high of 462 ppm just after 9 PM. (sunset was at 7:51 PM). This is a 84 PPM or 18% increase in just 2 hours.

There are no man made influences shown on this chart. It was a very nice day here in Minnesota, we weren't running any air conditioners or furnaces, there were no fires no grilling this is just nature doing its thing. Plus, I have noticed this spike every night when taking measurements.

I'm sure all of you climate scientist reading this know all about the Photosynthesis Effect and have many arguments on why natural daily variations are meaningless. But when I see how much natural variability in CO2 levels there are in one day, I don't think there is a need to panic over a 1 PPM increase in CO2 every year at Mauna Loa.

By Elmer Beauregard

Yesterday I blogged on how the atmoshperic CO2 levels in Minnesota are higher than Mouna Loa Hawaii, but I should have waited a day.

I started measuring yesterday morning and the CO2 was about 430 ppm but it kept dropping as the day progressed. The good people at CO2 meter.com warned me this would happen but I had no idea it would be this dramatic. The CO2 levels yesterday went from 430 ppm at 8 AM in the morning to 381 at 5:30 PM the height of the Photosynthesis Effect. That is an 11% shift in one day.

Currently Mauna Loa is at 392 PPM so Minne Loa is 11 PPM lower than Mauna Loa.

I have no idea what this means but it was an interesting exercise.

Here is the chart from 12PM to 7Pm from yesterday.

By Elmer Beauregard

About a month ago I put up a post called Will Minnesota be lower than Mauna Loa? because I had a theory that Minnesota might have less atmospheric CO2 than Mauna Loa Hawaii, but I was dead wrong.

I looked all over the internet to try and find what atmospheric CO2 levels are in Minnesota but I found nothing. So I figured I would just start my own CO2 level reading station here at the Minnesotans For Global Warming World Headquarters. So I purchased the USB CO2 Probe Data Logger K-30 model from the good folks at CO2meter.com.

I got the CO2 meter right away so why did I take so long to post the results?

First, being a mac guy I had to find a PC laptop to run the software. After doing that I messed with the calibration settings on the CO2 probe which I shouldn't have done.

Turns out there are 2 ways to calibrate the K-30 one way is to bring it outside and zero it out to whatever the atmospheric CO2 levels are. It assumes the CO2 level is around 400ppm then it measures all CO2 levels relative to that such as inside a building.

This is what I originally did but that was wrong because I wanted to measure the outside CO2 level and I don't want to assume it is 400ppm.

The other way to calibrate it is in a 100% Nitrogen environment which is how it came shipped but I didn't know that. So I tried creating a 100% Nitrogen environment to recalibrate it but that, turns out, is hard to do. I went to a welding supply store who sells 99.9% Nitrogen gas but the other .1% was probably air which was enough to throw off the calibration. Remember we are taking about .03% of the atmosphere. So I sent it back to the good folks at CO2meter.com and they recalibrated it in a 100% Nitrogen environment.

I got it back yesterday and I plugged it in this morning and took the first measurement which I feel is pretty accurate and to my surprise CO2 levels in Minnesota are higher than I thought.

Drum roll please.......

By Anthony Watts, wattsupwiththat.com

I decided to do myself something that so far NOAA has refused to do: give a CONUS average temperature for the United States from the new 'state of the art' United States Climate Reference Network (USCRN). After spending millions of dollars to put in this new network from 2002 to 2008, they are still giving us data from the old one when they report a U.S. national average temperature. As readers may recall, I have demonstrated that old COOP/USHCN network used to monitor U.S. climate is a mishmash of urban, semi-urban, rural, airport and non-airport stations, some of which are sited precariously in observers backyards, parking lots, near air conditioner vents, airport tarmac, and in urban heat islands. This is backed up by the 2011 GAO report spurred by my work.

Read the rest of the article here.

by Anthony Watts, wattsupwiththat.com

PRESS RELEASE - U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments.

Chico, CA July 29th, 2012 - 12 PM PDT - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

A comparison and summary of trends is shown from the paper. Acceptably placed thermometers away from common urban influences read much cooler nationwide:

A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France's Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.

The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.

Read the Press Release here.

Posted on July 29, 2012 by Anthony Watts, wattsupwiththat.com

PRESS RELEASE - July 29th, 2012 12PM PDT - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France's Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.

The new improved assessment, for the years 1979 to 2008, yields a trend of +0.155C per decade from the high quality sites, a +0.248 C per decade trend for poorly sited locations, and a trend of +0.309 C per decade after NOAA adjusts the data. This issue of station siting quality is expected to be an issue with respect to the monitoring of land surface temperature throughout the Global Historical Climate Network and in the BEST network.

Read the press release here.

By Elmer Beauregard

We all know what the atmospheric CO2 levels are at Mauna Loa Hawaii, it's the one chart that everybody uses and on which all dire predictions are based, but I have always wondered what CO2 levels are in Minnesota. Well, next week I am going to find out because today I purchased a CO2 meter from CO2 meter.com. It's the USB CO2 Probe Data Logger K-30 model.

If you go to the Mauna Loa Website they do measure CO2 levels around the world but not anywhere in Minnesota.

I wonder why this is? Could it be that in Minnesota during the height of our growing season that there is enough plant growth to absorb all of that nasty CO2 and it actually drops below 350ppm? I don't know but next week we will all find out.

By Noel Sheppard, Newsbusters.org

In the past several weeks as much of the nation suffered under a massive heatwave, global warming-obsessed media depicted the high temperatures as evidence of Nobel laureate Al Gore's favorite money-making scam.

A new study published in the journal Nature Sunday completely debunks all previous claims that temperatures in recent decades are in any way historic demonstrating instead that things were much hotter on this planet during Roman times:

Here, we present new evidence based on maximum latewood density data from northern Scandinavia, indicating that this cooling trend was stronger (−0.31 °C per 1,000 years, ±0.03 °C) than previously reported, and demonstrate that this signature is missing in published tree-ring proxy records. The long-term trend now revealed in maximum latewood density data is in line with coupled general circulation models indicating albedo-driven feedback mechanisms and substantial summer cooling over the past two millennia in northern boreal and Arctic latitudes. These findings, together with the missing orbital signature in published dendrochronological records, suggest that large-scale near-surface air-temperature reconstructionsrelying on tree-ring data may underestimate pre-instrumental temperatures including warmth during Medieval and Roman times.

The website of Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz published a more reader-friendly explanation of the study Monday:

Professor Dr. Jan Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC. In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling. "We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low," says Esper. "Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today's climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods." [...]

Read the rest of the story here.

March 28, 2012
The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001
Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA's history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA's advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA's current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

See the rest of the article here.

By Joseph Castro, Christian Science Monitor

The world's oceans have been warming for more than 100 years, twice as long as previously believed, new research suggests.

The findings could help scientists better understand the Earth's record of sea-level rise, which is partly due to the expansion of water that happens as it heats up, researchers added.

"Temperature is one of the most fundamental descriptors of the physical state of the ocean," said the study's lead author,Dean Roemmich, an oceanographer at the University of California, San Diego. "Beyond simply knowing that the oceans are warming, [the results] will help us answer a few climate questions."

From 1872 to 1876, the HMS Challenger sailed the world's oceans along a 69,000-nautical-mile track, crossing the Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans. During the voyage, scientists among the 200-person crew took 300 ocean-temperature profiles, or measurements at several depths in each spot, with pressure-protected thermometers.

Roemmich and his colleagues compared Challenger temperatures with data from the modern-day Argo project, which uses 3,500 free-drifting floats to measure the temperature and salinity, or salt content, of the world's oceans every 10 days. The comparison showed a 1.1-degree Fahrenheit (0.59-degree Celsius) temperature increase at the ocean's surface over the last 135 years, a result corroborated by a large body of sea-surface temperature data that goes back more than 100 years. [The World's Biggest Oceans and Seas]

Read the rest of the article here.

By Paul Joseoh Watson, Infowars.com

A new paper to be published in Ethics, Policy & Environment argues that serious consideration should be given to mass drugging the population to make them more environmentally conscious while also proposing that babies should be genetically engineered to be smaller in order to reduce their carbon footprints.

In an interview with The Atlantic the lead author of the paper, New York University bioethics professor S. Matthew Liao, argues that humans need to be be subjected to "biomedical modifications" in order to help combat climate change.

Followed to their logical conclusion, Liao's proposals outstrip anything Aldous Huxley wrote about in Brave New World, a 1932 dystopian novel about a future scientific dictatorship that seeks to drug, genetically manipulate, and medically induce humanity into complete slavish subservience.

Expressing regret that carbon taxes will do nothing to reduce carbon emissions, Liao suggests other methods, including "pharmacologically induced meat intolerance" where people would take drugs which would trigger extreme nausea or wear patches that would "stimulate the immune system to reject common bovine proteins."

In order to reduce an individual's "carbon footprint" and make sure they consume less, Liao suggests that a policy similar but more flexible to China's one child policy be introduced, where parents can choose between having one large child, two medium sized children or three small children.

This would be accomplished by "preimplantation genetic diagnosis," where embryos would be implanted based on height, or by using "drugs that reduce or increase the expression of paternal or maternal genes in order to affect birth height."

Asked if genetic manipulation of babies is ethical or fair, Liao responds by citing the need to address "climate change" as the more pressing moral concern.

By Fred Singer, AmericanThinker

Global warming has re-entered public consciousness in recent days, partly because of the buzz surrounding the release of warming results from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project. The reaction of the "warmistas" has been jubilant, yet hilariously wrong. Will they ever learn?

They've latched on to the BEST result as their last best hope for rescuing misbegotten schemes to control emissions of the greenhouse gas CO2. Leading the pack has been the Washington Post (Oct. 25), whose columnist tried to write off Republican presidential candidates Bachmann, Cain, and Perry as "cynical diehards," deniers, idiots, or whatever.

I sent the WP a letter pointing out obvious errors, but I got a peculiar response. It turned out that they were willing to publish my letter, but not my credentials as emeritus professor at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. Apparently, they were concerned that readers might gain the impression that I knew something about climate.

Unfortunately, it has become expedient (for those who condemn CO2 as the cause of warming) to deride their opponents with terms like "climate deniers." A complacent and inattentive media has made the problem worse, by giving the impression that anyone who doesn't buy the CO2 hypothesis doesn't believe that climate changes, and hence is a total Luddite. Even the WSJ got carried away. Prof. Richard Muller, the originator and leader of the BEST study, complained to me that some eager editor changed the title of his op-ed (Oct. 21) to "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism" from his original "Cooling the Global Warming Debate. "

Read the rest of the article here.

Unadjusted data of long period stations in GISS show a virtually flat century scale trend

Abstract
The GISS dataset includes more than 600 stations within the U.S. that have been in operation continuously throughout the 20th century. This brief report looks at the average temperatures reported by those stations. The unadjusted data of both rural and non-rural stations show a virtually flat trend across the century.

The Goddard Institute for Space Studies provides a surface temperature data set that covers the entire globe, but for long periods of time contains mostly U.S. stations. For each station, monthly temperature averages are tabulated, in both raw and adjusted versions.

One problem with the calculation of long term averages from such data is the occurrence of discontinuities; most station records contain one or more gaps of one or more months. Such gaps could be due to anything from the clerk in charge being a quarter drunkard to instrument failure and replacement or relocation. At least in some examples, such discontinuities have given rise to "adjustments" that introduced spurious trends into the time series where none existed before.

It seems like scientists keep rediscovering something that was discovered over 230 years ago

By Elmer Beauregard

Since I've been doing this blog I keep posting study after study about the effects of CO2 on plants. Another study just came out today put out by the University of Michigan. Last week there was this study about how plants gobble up more CO2 than thought. I think these are good studies and I agree with them because they show that CO2 is not a pollutant but rather a trace gas without which there would be no life on this planet. But didn't Joseph Priestley and others prove that in the late 18th century?

I remember learning about photosynthesis and the carbon cycle in 8th grade science and I thought it was the coolest thing. To me it showed that our planet was designed with very intricate and symbiotic systems that could produce and sustain life, surely these systems couldn't have happened by accident. But why after all this time does science seem to be questioning the integrity of these systems?

It could be they are just doing it for the money, they know that politicians are gullible and are easily scared into forking over big dollars to "save" the planet. But after talking to a few true believers at the AGS Convention, I think there may be another reason.

By Elmer Beauregard

I don't know about you but I am getting tired of the lame stream press saying that the skeptics don't believe in science. Like this article at the Voice of America, by the way they only have one comment posted and its by a warmist. I tried commenting and it hasn't been "approved" yet.

The NIPCC just released what I think is a very scientific study dispelling a lot of the Global Warming fear mongering. On the other hand I recently came across this video of Lisa Jackson, EPA head, where she says, "Greenhouse gases are pollution".

Who is more scientific? Does Lisa know that if there were no Greenhouse Gasses there would be no life on this planet? The earth would be like Mars.

By James Talylor, Forbes via Yahoo News

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Read the rest of the story here.

Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet.com

Physicists ordered not to draw conclusions from study which seeks to confirm that the sun drives climate change

In a shocking illustration of how the man-made climate change establishment has seized control of the scientific process, physicists at the CERN lab in Geneva were gagged from drawing conclusions about data that seeks to replicate studies which prove the sun is the main driver of climate change, after their boss told them that such heresy was politically incorrect.

"The chief of the world's leading physics lab at CERN in Geneva has prohibited scientists from drawing conclusions from a major experiment. The CLOUD ("Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets") experiment examines the role that energetic particles from deep space play in cloud formation. CLOUD uses CERN's proton synchrotron to examine nucleation," reports the Register.

The experiment is likely to confirm data from earlier studies which found cosmic rays are pivotal in the formation of clouds and that, "Tiny changes in the earth's cloud cover could account for variations in temperature of several degrees," an impact massively more significant than the comparatively minor level of warming caused by man-made CO2 emissions.

Suggesting that the data in the yet to be published study has validated this hypothesis, physicists involved in the project were gagged from making any interpretations of the data by their boss, not because of problems with accuracy, but because such a conclusion was not politically correct as it did not fit with the "consensus" that man is the main culprit behind climate change.

In an interview with Welt Online, Rolf-Dieter Heuer, Director General of CERN, stated, "I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them."

Heuer's reason for gagging his own scientists is that their conclusions would enter, "Immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate."

In other words, Heuer doesn't want the data to circulate freely in the public domain because it presumably contradicts the notion that man is the main driver of climate change.

Read the rest of the article.

DICK AHLSTROM, Irish Times

IT MAY seem perverse but cleaning up our air pollution problem is going to increase global warming. The cleaner the air over our cities, the more pronounced the warming effect, according to research.

An Irish scientist at NUI Galway originally initiated the research into how air pollution has a hidden beneficial side. It shows the haze that forms due to pollution, the tiny particles discharged by motor transport, and smoke from burning help to reflect back some of the solar radiation that is warming our climate.

If we manage to clean up the pollution we may also ramp up warming, said Prof Colin O'Dowd, professor of physics at Galway and also director of the Centre for Climate and Air Pollution Studies at the Ryan Institute.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8Zk6CyNL9o

eteran weather modification expert Ben Livingston is a former Navy Physicist who briefed President Lyndon B. Johnson on the effectiveness of weather control back in the 1960’s during the Vietnam era, when he was involved in cloud seeding programs that worked to slow down the advance of Vietnamese and Korean troops. Livingston asserts that asserts that hurricane control was a national priority of the government more than 40 years ago and that the technology was fully operational to control the weather at the time.

By Joseph D'Aleo, IceCap

As we reported, the eco-pressure group, the Union of Concerned Scientists, as part of a continuing misinformation campaign sponsored a teleconference yesterday with a very confused Jeff Masters of Weather Underground, opportunist Mark Serreze of NSIDC and a UCS environmentalist. Their performance was a scientific disappointment to say the least as one scientist wrote me "Masters lost all my respect. Serreze never had it". He didn't mention the UCS. It is the crazy uncle no one talks about.

The Union of Concerned Scientists recall had sponsored a workshop on Mt. Washington in 2007 in which they promised ski areas that snow would be hard to come by even in northern areas and they might consider another profession. That very winter, northern New England set a record for the greatest seasonal snow and ski areas had the best year in their history. Across the hemisphere that winter was surpassed only by 1977/78, 2009/10. Through January this winter, the Northern Hemisphere had more snow than any of those years and will rank likely in the top 5.

Read the rest of the article.

Here is a great post by Donna Laframboise, the creator of NOconsensus.org (Toronto, Canada)

This is a great article about the IPCC and how it should be defunded.

Here is an excerpt:

PROBLEMS #1, 2, and 3

The IPCC's conclusions are not based solely on painstaking studies. Nor is the IPCC's source material all published in peer-reviewed journals. In fact, 30% of the references in the IPCC's 2007 report (5,587 out of 18,531) are to grey literature - including press releases, magazine articles, and advocacy material produced by groups such as Greenpeace. Furthermore, the genuinely peer-reviewed material cited by the IPCC amounts to several thousand studies. Simple arithmetic indicates that only a fraction could possibly have appeared in the world's leading journals.

Read the complete article here.

By Elmer Beauregard

You've all probably seen this chart from Mauna Loa by now, it shows how the earth's CO2 is ever increasing. It goes from 315 ppm to 385 ppm in 50 years, an increase of about 70 PPM.

What you may not know is, mankind is only responsible for 3% of that increase, nature produced the rest, the oceans being the worst culprit by far.

If you take 70ppm and multiply it by .03 (3%) you get 2.1 or 2 parts per million, which is all that mankind is responsible for. That's it, that's what all the hubbub is about.

The magic number set by the Greeny Weenies is to get CO2 levels back down to 350 PPM, like it was in the mid 80's. But if you were to totally eliminate mankind off the face of the earth it would only bring it down 2PPM to 383 which is what it was in 2008.

Here is my version of the Mauna Loa Chart where I pan out to show a whopping 1% of the earth's atmosphere. By zooming out to show more of the atmosphere it shows that this increasing CO2 is maybe not so bad after all. Especially because it's what makes plants grow which in turn make Oxygen for us.