The Rangitikei Guardians Inc.

Smart Meter Removal has begun in California!

Source: Canada Free Press

California�s Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) has quietly begun replacing Smart Meters with analog meters for citizens reporting adverse health effects. Consumer rights and other groups demanded immediately that their wireless devices be removed from their homes.

Joshua Hart of stopsmartmeters.org reported the good news just as PG&E deploys the last phase of its smart meters in California. The Department of Energy�s promise that the smart grid and smart meters will lower electricity costs has proven incorrect; on the contrary, the utility costs have skyrocketed.

Millions of customers were unhappy with their Smart Meters. They are surveillance devices in homes, without a search warrant, which is a violation of privacy. Fires, explosions, and health issues ranging from nausea, dizziness, heart palpitations, headaches, tinnitus, insomnia, and radiation exposure associated with powerful wireless devices that transmit information 6-8 per minute constantly, have plagued the stealthy and deceptive installation.

California�s counties and cities have demanded a stop to smart meter installation and some local governments passed laws prohibiting wireless meters. Nevada�s Pacific Utilities Company (PUC) called for investigation into the adverse health effects and other smart meter issues.

Recently, the California Public Utilities Commission President Michael Peevey assured customers that the utility �will provide for you to go back to the analog meter if that�s your choice.� The problem is that most Americans have no idea how damaging these smart meters are and an even larger group of Americans have never heard of it or see it as a contribution to �save� the planet because that is how these meters were sold to the public.

The tired rhetoric said that the smart grid and smart meters save the planet from doom and gloom, reduce waste by cutting your electricity at peak usage, eliminates the reader who must go to each home to calculate their monthly consumption, reduces your carbon footprint, and it will make the planet �green.� The reality is very far from the disingenuous promises.

Californians� electric bills have almost tripled and lawsuits ensued. Marylanders swelter without electricity six hours at the peak of summer and almost freeze six hours in the dead of winter. An analog meter user who insisted on keeping it has to pay $35 each month to have his meter read by the power company. Thousands of customers across the country are having severe health issues from radiation that are not being addressed.

Millions are having issues with the power company selling wireless data collected from their homes via smart meters to third parties. Anybody with a handheld device can capture information from your home and sell it to a third party. The utility company knows if you are home, if you are away, if you are on vacation, which lights are turned on, which appliances, which computers, TVs, and other devices in your home.

Caitlin Phillips of Santa Cruz, Ca, who had suffered severe headaches and other symptoms from her smart meter, became the first person for whom PG&E re-installed on October 28, 2011 the classic analog meter. Caitlin Phillips had told the Wellington Energy installer, a subcontractor of PG&E, that she did not want a smart meter. �When I returned home later, I discovered a smart meter on my house. That night I awoke to severe anxiety, headache, and buzzing in my teeth, and realized the new smart meter was on the other side of the wall from my bed.�

Caitlin received help from �Stop Smart Meters� group who referred her to sources to obtain an analog meter and a person to install it. Her symptoms disappeared immediately after the analog meter was installed.

Caitlin spoke to a commission meeting in San Francisco about her ordeal and, a week later PG&E crews replaced her temporary analog meter with an official PG&E analog meter. Her frustration, pain, and suffering were finally over.

An �opt-out� proceeding is currently overseen by an Administrative Law Judge at the California Public Utilities Commission. �There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people suffering in their homes from forced �smart� meter radiation,� said Joshua Hart, Director of the grassroots organization Stop Smart Meters!

PG&E and other utilities have responded to health complaints by replacing wireless �smart� meters with digital meters that are �wireless-ready.� These digital meters have been associated with health problems from �dirty electricity� frequencies that pass into a home via the electrical wiring. Digital meters have been rejected by customers who still report health issues after installation. (Joshua Hart)

Susan Brinchman, Director of the San Diego based Center for Electrosmog Prevention, said, �At this point, the burden of responsibility is on the utilities to demonstrate that any new meter they want to install on our homes is safe. Communities have the right to retain analog meters at no extra charge.�

While California is pushing back the not so smart wireless technology, places like northern Virginia are going full steam ahead with the installation. Dominion Power has completed placing 100,000 smart meters in a pilot phase in three counties.

�There are hundreds of thousands- if not millions- of people suffering in their homes from forced �smart� meter radiation,� said Joshua Hart, Director of the grassroots organization Stop Smart Meters! �The utilities must respond promptly to all requests that analogs be returned. The alternative is that people will increasingly turn to independent professionals to remove unwanted �smart� meters from their homes, a reasonable action we assert is within our legal rights. Protecting your family�s health is not tampering.�

Energy strategy ignores modern science, wastes money

Tuesday, 30 August 2011, 5:08 pm Press Release: New Zealand Climate Science Coalition

The New Zealand Energy Strategy 2011-2021 announced by the government today ignores recent climate evidence and portends a huge waste of money at a time when the country can least afford it. This comment today from energy analyst, Bryan Leyland, spokesman for the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition.

�The target of 90% renewable energy is both unrealistic and unnecessary,� says Mr Leyland. �The huge amounts of money on expensive and largely ineffective new renewable energy technologies cannot succeed in controlling the climate.

�First, all the major temperature records tell us the world has not warmed for between 10 and 15 years. The climate models that predicted rapid warming over this period, have proved to be wrong.

�Second, more and more independent climate scientists around the world are in agreement that emissions of carbon dioxide have little or no influence on whether the Earth warms, so the burning of fossil fuels will have no measurable effect on our climate. New Zealand has enough coal and lignite to provide low cost electricity for more than 1000 years, so there is absolutely no need to waste time and money on costly generation methods such as wind turbines and solar panels. Plus, we still have low cost renewable resources such as hydro and geothermal which have not yet been fully exploited.

�It is now well accepted that sunspots are declining and that we may be heading for a period when there will be no sunspots. Past history tells us that, when this happens, the world cools quite severely. So the sunspots tell us that the world is likely to cool while the climate modelers ignore the evidence and still predict warming, �Mr Leyland continued.

�Recent evidence from an experiment carried out at CERN in Geneva, tends to confirm previous research that cosmic rays trigger the formation of clouds. A 1% change in cloud cover can account for all the temperature variations we have experienced over the last century. Climate models still cannot model cloud formation accurately.

�Given all these uncertainties and the continued failure of the world to warm, the only rational strategy is to put our Emissions Trading Scheme on hold, by zero rating it to remove the costs being imposed on all New Zealanders, but leaving the legislation in place until the rest of the world decides whether such impositions are either effective or justified.

�Meantime, our government should continue to encourage research into all available forms of energy, with special emphasis on those that have a good chance of being economically viable in the near future,� Mr Leyland concluded.

WIND FARM SWINDLE

By: Tony Elliott writing for The Cypress Times
Published 26/06/2011

The duping of Americans by the environmentalist movement continues, as wind farms use as much electricity from the fossil fuel grid as they produce. This article comes from reliable research derived for what I call the Wind Farm Swindle. The proof that it is a swindle, has been gathered from the very annals of the wind farm movement and from the companies involved in Turbine produced electricity itself.

If you've ever driven close to the huge wind turbine, I'm sure some of you have wondered how long it must take for the wind to start turning such large blades on some of these windmills and how they are stopped, when the wind gets too high for them to operate.

You won't hear anybody in the environmental movement or the renewable energy business tell you this, but as it turns out, all wind turbines use about the same amount of grid electricity as they produce. Large wind turbines require huge amounts of fossil fuel grid electricity to operate. Wind farms have to use electricity from the grid and of course, this large amount of grid electricity is never accounted for in relation to output figures.

Wind turbine functions that use fueled derived electricity are as follows:

yaw mechanism (to keep the blade assembly perpendicular to the wind; also to untwist the electrical cables in the tower when necessary) -- the nacelle (turbine housing) and blades together, weigh 92 tons on a GE 1.5-MW turbine

blade-pitch control (to keep the rotors spinning at a regular rate)

lights, controllers, communication, sensors, metering, data collection, etc.

heating the blades -- this may require 10%-20% of the turbine's nominal (rated) power

heating and dehumidifying the nacelle -- according to Danish manufacturer Vestas, "power consumption for heating and dehumidification of the nacelle, must be expected during periods with increased humidity, low temperatures and low wind speeds"

oil heater, pump, cooler, and filtering system in gearbox

hydraulic brake (to lock the blades in very high wind)

thyristors (to graduate the connection and disconnection between generator and grid) -- 1%-2% of the energy passing through is lost

magnetizing the stator -- the induction generators used in most large grid-connected turbines require a "large" amount of continuous electricity from the grid to actively power the magnetic coils around the asynchronous "cage rotor" that encloses the generator shaft. At the rated wind speeds, it helps keep the rotor speed constant, and as the wind starts blowing it helps start the rotor turning (see next item); in the rated wind speeds, the stator may use power equal to 10% of the turbine's rated capacity in slower winds, possibly much more.

Using the generator as a motor (to help the blades start to turn when the wind speed is low or, as many suspect, to maintain the illusion that the facility is producing electricity when it is not, particularly during important site tours.) It surely seems possible that the grid-magnetized stator must work to help keep the 40-ton blade assembly spinning. Along with the gears which increase the blade rpm some 50 times for the generator, not just at cut-in (or for show in even less wind) but at least some of the way up towards the full rated wind speed; it may also be spinning the blades and rotor shaft to prevent warping when there is no wind. (1)

What all this amounts to is, each wind turbine actually uses more than 60% of its rated capacity in its own operation. Thus, each wind farm as a whole, produces only less than 25% of its annual rated capacity. This means that wind farms use twice the amount of grid electricity for every amount of wind-generated electricity produced.

I'm sure this is news to most Americans, who thought and naturally assumed that wind turbines only produced electricity and it never occurred to a normal person that these devices would actually require Fossil Fueled electricity to operate. Since no records of electricity usage is ever kept at these wind farms, this alarming fact has never become public knowledge.

Since it is admitted by everyone that wind generated electricity only amounts to around 1% of our total produced electricity, these hidden facts bring that figure down to a negative percentage at best. Using more electricity than it produces, green electricity is the reason for Cap and Trade, since green credits can be bought and sold to the highest bidder.

Killing perhaps millions of endangered bird species per year, degrading human health in the same manner as is experienced with people living near high voltage power lines. Ruining many of the earth's most scenic spots, with these huge steel monstrosities and above all, doing nothing in alleviating any fossil fuel electricity usage is the reason these expensive and dangerous eyesores must go.

In today's economy, we cannot afford to spend billions of dollars on a Nigerian like fraud, such as the wind farm swindle.

(1) In large rotating power trains such as this, if allowed to stand motionless for any period of time, the unit will experience "bowing" of shafts and rotors under the tremendous weight. Therefore, frequent rotating of the unit is necessary to prevent this. As an example, even in port Navy ships keep their propeller shafts and turbine power trains slowly rotating. It is referred to as "jacking the shaft" to prevent any tendency to bow. Any bowing would throw the whole train out of balance with potentially very serious damage when bringing the power train back on line. 'In addition to just protecting the gear box and generator shafts and bearings, the blades on a large wind turbine would offer a special challenge with respect to preventing warping and bowing when not in use. For example, on a sunny, windless day, idle wind turbine blades would experience uneven heating from the sun, something that would certainly cause bowing and warping. The only way to prevent this would be to keep the blades moving to even out the sun exposure to all parts of the blade. 'So, the point that major amounts of incoming electrical power is used to turn the power train and blades when the wind is not blowing is very accurate, and it is not something the operators of large wind turbines can avoid.

The Social and Economic Impact of Rural Wind Farms

The report from the Australian Federal Senate Inquiry into the impacts of wind farms has been released. While falling short of calling for a moratorium on wind farm development, the committee has furnished a number of recommendations.

The committee acknowledged that there is a significant ultra-low frequency (infrasound) component in the noise and vibration generated by a wind turbine and that current sound measuring methods are failing to identify this emanation.

The results of an Italian study were presented which showed that infrasound in the region of 1.7Hz can be detected as far as 11kms from a windfarm.

Regarding the NZ Standard 6808 - Wind Farm Noise, the report says "It is concluded that wind farm noise prediction, as implemented under NZS6808 (the New Zealand wind farm standard) is not adequate in assessing potential adverse effect and implementation of the standard does not and will not provide an acceptable level of amenity. Application of the standard does not provide a conservative assessment of sound levels that may be experienced under different meteorological conditions."

To read the full report, please click here.

The Green Thing

In the line at the supermarket, the cashier told the older woman that she should bring her own grocery bag because plastic bags weren't good for the environment. The woman apologized to her and explained, "We didn't have the green thing back in my day."

The clerk responded, "That's our problem today. The former generation did not care enough to save our environment."

She was right, that generation didn't have the green thing in its day.

Back then, they returned their milk bottles, soft drink bottles and beer bottles to the shop.. The shop sent them back to the factory to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. They were recycled.

But they didn't have the green thing back in that customer's day.

In her day, they walked up stairs, because they didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. They walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time they had to go two blocks.

But she was right. They didn't have the green thing in her day.

Back then, they washed the baby's nappies because they didn't have the throw-away kind. They dried clothes on a line, not in a 220 volt energy gobbling machine - wind and solar power really did dry the clothes. Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing.

But that old lady is right; they didn't have the green thing back in her day.

Back then, they had one TV, or radio, in the house - not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief, not a screen the size of a cricket pitch. In the kitchen, they blended and stirred by hand because they didn't have electric machines to do everything for you. When they packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, they used a wadded up old newspaper to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap. They didn't have air conditioning or electric stoves with self cleaning ovens. They didn't have battery operated toys, computers, or telephones.

Back then, they didn't fire up an engine and burn fuel just to cut the lawn. They used a push mower that ran on human power. They used hand operated clippers to trim the shrubs. They exercised by working so they didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity.

But she's right; they didn't have the green thing back then.

They drank from a glass filled from the tap when they were thirsty instead of using a plastic bottle every time they had a drink of water. They refilled their writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and they replaced the razor blades in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull.

But they didn't have the green thing back then.

Back then, people walked or took the bus and kids rode their bikes to school or rode the school bus instead of turning their mums into a 24-hour taxi service. They had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And they didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 2,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest pizza joint.

But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful the old folks were just because they didn't have the green thing back then?

(Forwarded to us by Climate Realists - www.climaterealists.org.nz)

Doctor�s call: stop wind farm construction

By ALAN DICK 06 May, 2011 (farmonline.com.au)
A doctor campaigning on the claimed health impacts of wind farms has called for a halt to construction of wind turbines within 10 kilometres of housing until independent research is conducted.

She said research was needed, particularly on the impact of infrasound � sound below the level of normal human hearing.

Dr Sarah Laurie, medical director at the Waubra Foundation, made the call in her submission to the inquiry by the Senate Community Affairs Committee into the social and economic impact of rural wind farms.

(The Waubra Foundation was formed to generate independent research on the health effects of wind farms, in response to reported problems associated with the Waubra wind farm near Ballarat, Victoria.)

The inquiry has received almost 900 submissions and become a battleground of competing views on the value of and need for wind farms and on health impacts.

Many submissions from landholders speak of negative health effects.

But other landholders, wind farm developers and �green� organisations have talked up the need for wind farms as alternatives to burning of fossil fuels in electricity generation, and some landholders hosting wind turbines have emphasised their benign nature and the importance of the guaranteed income they provide.

Dr Laurie told the committee numerous doctors around the world who had conducted studies on their patient populations had reported health problems since wind farms started operating near their homes.

�There is absolutely no doubt these turbines, particularly at some developments, are making nearby residents very sick, and that their symptoms worsen over time.�

�This is resulting in people abandoning their homes and farms, if they can afford to.�

Dr Laurie said the �strong hypothesis� among concerned doctors, acousticians, physiologists, physicists, psychologists and others around the world was that one of the mechanisms causing ill health was low frequency sound and infrasound.

She said episodes of sleep disturbance and waking in a panicked state were being experienced by people living up to 10 kilometres from existing wind developments in South Australia and NSW.

She said research was needed to measure infrasound concurrent with indices such as sleep and blood pressure in affected residents when turbines were operating, and to compare results when the turbines were not operating.

However, wind farm companies and others, including the Australian Psychological Society, have dismissed suggestions of negative health effects from wind farms.

The latter in its submission said the Senate committee should take into consideration the �robust evidence base� which suggested wind farms did not present any major health risk,

The APS said local opposition to wind farms could be understood in terms of �place protective action�, and recommended use of �psychological principles� to explain and promote the benefits of wind farms.

The NSW Government in its submission said the World Health organisation had concluded there was no reliable evidence that sounds beneath the hearing threshold produced physiological or psychological effects.

Turbines back on agenda

By Janine Rankin writing for the Manawatu Standard.

Mighty River Power has reignited the battle over the Turitea Wind Farm with a push to add 12 extra turbines to make the project viable � despite a draft decision already being issued capping the number at 60.

The power company has asked the board of inquiry that heard its application for resource consent last year to reconvene to hear its revised plans.

Opponents who have made what they thought were final submissions on the board's draft decision are aghast at the prospect.

Submitter Detlef Klein said Mighty River Power's last-minute plea was "unbelievable". Another, Helen Harker, called it a travesty.

The board heard 10 weeks of evidence over nine months on the original proposal, ending in March last year.

It released a draft decision almost a year later, in February, that cut the number of turbines it would allow from 104 to 60.

Concerns about the wind farm's impact on the view of the skyline from Palmerston North led to the board's imposition of a clear path through the middle of it, with turbines allowed to the north and south.

Mighty River Power said the board had effectively cut its wind farm in two, and had made "unsupported and uninformed assumptions" that the changes it had imposed would allow an economically sustainable development.

It is asking the board to rectify that "serious deficiency".

It said the board gave no warning about the scale of changes the draft decision would demand, and said it was only fair that Mighty River Power and the other parties to the process should have a chance to meet again.

None of the 36 other submitters have had a chance to comment on Mighty River Power's counter-proposal.

The board never formally closed its hearing in March last year, but only adjourned, which left the option open to reconvene, the energy company said.

But some of the other submitters are dazed at the prospect of the process dragging on for longer.

Mighty River Power has already significantly revised its proposal once, in 2009.

Mr Klein said the expense and the energy required to participate in the drawn-out process made it difficult, if not impossible, for "Joe Bloggs" to keep up.

"This is clearly designed to see if they can wear us down.

"Everybody is tired, and I understand some people don't want to hear about it any more. But in the end this will affect everyone in New Zealand. It's about how the Resource Management Act is being used, and how taxpayers are able to take part in the process."

Palmerston North City Council chief executive Paddy Clifford said he was not surprised that Mighty River Power wanted to include extra turbines and had asked for another hearing.

The process had already been a lengthy one, despite the "call-in" process in which the Government deemed a board of inquiry should hear the application, rather than the council. Part of the rationale was to speed up the process.

Mr Clifford had no indication how much extra time the request for another hearing extension would take to consider. An Environment Ministry spokesperson would not say when the board would release a final decision or resume the hearing.

Wind turbines threaten Wisconsin bats

Areas near blades can rupture animals' lungs
Source: Tony Walter, writing for GreenBayPressGazette.Com (May 20 2011)

Wind turbine industry reports filed with the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin indicate that a significant number of bats fall victim to the turbine blades every night, which could mean crop losses.

The rate of bat mortality has a major impact on the agricultural industry, according to a U.S. Geological study recently published in Science Magazine.

The study, conducted by Boston University's biology department, estimated that insect-eating bats save the agricultural industry at least $3 billion a year.

"Because the agricultural value of bats in the Northeast is small compared with other parts of the country, such losses could be even more substantial in the extensive agricultural regions in the Midwest and the Great Plains where wind-energy development is booming and the fungus responsible for white-nose syndrome was recently detected," said Tom Kunz, an ecology professor at Boston University and co-author of the study.

White nose syndrome is a disease believed to kill and sicken bats, which first was noticed in Albany, N.Y., in 2006, according to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The source of the condition remains unclear, the agency said.

According to studies by Current Biology, National Geographic and Science Daily, bats can be killed without being struck by a turbine blade. The studies concluded that air in low-pressure areas near the tips of the blades ruptures the bats' lungs and causes internal hemorrhaging.

In PSC reports obtained by the Green Bay Press-Gazette, a post-construction bat mortality study of the Wisconsin Power and Light Company's Cedar Ridge Wind Farm in Fond du Lac County, conducted by the power company, showed that 50 bats are killed annually by each of the project's 41 turbines � about 2,050 each year.

Similarly, reports show that the 88 turbines in the Blue Sky Green Field Wind Energy Center in Fond du Lac County each kill an estimated 41 bats per year, which is a little more than 3,600 each year, according to the Wind Energy Center's post-construction study.

Each turbine in the state kills about 41 bats each year, according to estimates compiled by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.

"I can verify that bats are good natural predators of insects and definitely benefit agriculture," said Mark Hagedorn, agricultural agent for the UW-Extension.

The largest known area for hibernating bats in Wisconsin is the Neda Mine State Natural Area in Dodge County, where a census found 143,000 bats, according to the DNR.

The construction of wind turbines in Brown County has been a controversial subject for years, but most of the complaints focused on the safety and health impact on humans. The impact on bats has not been part of the debate over wind turbine construction in Brown County.

Recently, Invenergy Inc. abandoned its plans to build a 100-turbine wind farm in four southern Brown County municipalities. The town of Glenmore last month approved permits for Cenergy to build eight turbines in the town.

David Evans, Carbon Accounting Modeler, Says It�s a Scam

Source: http://joannenova.com.au/2011/03/david-evans-carbon-modeler-says-its-a-scam/
Dr David Evans� address to the Anti-Carbon-Tax rally, Perth Australia, 23 March 2011.

Good Morning Ladies and Gentlemen.

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools and liars out of our politicians.

Let�s set a few things straight.

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now cheat and lie outrageously to maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

Let�s be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planet�s temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

The disagreement comes about what happens next.

The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans.. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.

This is the core idea of every official climate model: for each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three � so two thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors), only one third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

I�ll bet you didn�t know that. Hardly anyone in the public does, but it�s the core of the issue. All the disagreements, lies, and misunderstanding spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism. Which is why the alarmists keep so quiet about it and you�ve never heard of it before. And it tells you what a poor job the media have done in covering this issue.

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot-spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10km up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, 80s, and 90s, the weather balloons found no hot-spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

This evidence first became clear around the mid 1990s.

At this point official �climate science� stopped being a science. You see, in science empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory � that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance, otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.

But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. Surprise surprise, their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the US Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.

They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade � yet they have the gall to tell us �it�s worse than expected�. These people are not scientists. They over-estimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they cheat and lie to conceal the truth.

One way they cheat is in the way they measure temperature.

The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at wastewater plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in tenths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the US, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source. Nearly 90%! The photos of these thermometers are on the Internet; you can get to them via the corruption paper at my site, sciencespeak..com. Look at the photos, and you�ll never trust a government climate scientist again.

They place their thermometers in warm localities, and call the results �global� warming. Anyone can understand that this is cheating. They say that 2010 is the warmest recent year, but it was only the warmest at various airports, selected air conditioners, and certain car parks.

Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has leveled off.

So it�s a question of trust.

If it really is warming up as the government climate scientists say, why do they present only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results? And why do they put their thermometers near artificial heating sources? This is so obviously a scam now. So what is really going on with the climate?

The earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after WWII, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 � 30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.

We are now at an extraordinary juncture.

Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only way to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government � how exciting for the political class!

A carbon tax?

Even if Australia stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the stone age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate tenfold � in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!

Sorry, but you�ve been had.

Finally, to those of you who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: sorry, but you�ve been had. Yes carbon dioxide a cause of global warming, but it�s so minor it�s not worth doing much about. --------------------------------------------------------- Dr David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia�s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. Evans is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The area of human endeavor with the most experience and sophistication in dealing with feedbacks and analyzing complex systems is electrical engineering, and the most crucial and disputed aspects of understanding the climate system are the feedbacks. The evidence supporting the idea that CO2 emissions were the main cause of global warming reversed itself from 1998 to 2006, causing Evans to move from being a warmist to a skeptic.

House votes 244-179 to kill U.S. funding of IPCC

Posted on February 19, 2011 by Rick Piltz

Excerpts:

Just before 2 a.m. on February 19, the war on climate science showed its grip on the U.S. House of Representatives as it voted to eliminate U.S. funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The Republican majority, on a mostly party-line vote of 244-179, went on record as essentially saying that it no longer wishes to have the IPCC prepare its comprehensive international climate science assessments.

The amendment was sponsored by second-term Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-Missouri)... Leading off with a reference to the stolen climate scientists emails (�climategate�), he said:

Luetkemeyer: Scientists manipulated climate data, suppressed legitimate arguments in peer-reviewed journals, and researchers were asked to destroy emails, so that a small number of climate alarmists could continue to advance their environmental agenda.

Since then, more than 700 acclaimed international scientists have challenged the claims made by the IPCC, in this comprehensive 740-page report. These 700 scientists represent some of the most respected institutions at home and around the world, including the U.S. Departments of Energy and Defense, U.S. Air Force and Navy, and even the Environmental Protection Agency.

For example, famed Princeton University physicist Dr. Robert Austin, who has published 170 scientific papers and was elected a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Austin told a congressional committee that, unfortunately, climate has become a political science. It is tragic the some perhaps well-meaning but politically motivated scientists who should know better have whipped up a global frenzy about a phenomenon which is statistically questionable at best.

Mr. Chairman, if the families in my district have been able to tighten their belts, surely the federal government can do the same and stop funding an organization that is fraught with waste and abuse. My amendment simply says that no funds in this bill can go to the IPCC. This would save taxpayers millions of dollars this year and millions of dollars in years to come. In fact, the President has requested an additional $13 million in his fiscal 2012 budget request.

My constituents should not have to continue to foot the bill for an organization to keep producing corrupt findings that can be used as justification to impose a massive new energy tax on every American.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/02/19/house-votes-244-179-to-kill-u-s-funding-of-ipcc/