President Obama's Science Advisor By Norm Kalmanovitch, P.Geoph.
When President Barack Obama appointed John Holdren as science advisor in December 2008 he made it perfectly clear that there would be zero tolerance for misrepresentation of science when he stated "The truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources-it's about protecting free and open inquiry. It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It's about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it's inconvenient-especially when it's inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. That will be my goal as President of the United States-and I could not have a better team to guide me in this work." These words essentially mark the end of the climate change issue, because there are no actual facts that support the premise.
When President Barack Obama appointed John Holdren as science advisor in December 2008 he made it perfectly clear that there would be zero tolerance for misrepresentation of science when he stated "The truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources-it's about protecting free and open inquiry. It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It's about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it's inconvenient-especially when it's inconvenient. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. That will be my goal as President of the United States-and I could not have a better team to guide me in this work."
These words essentially mark the end of the climate change issue, because there are no actual facts that support the premise and "the free and open inquiry" that had been denied to all the top level scientists attempting to get the facts to the public should see the truth flood the press. (example http://www.john-daly.com/history.htm)The global temperature in 2007 was cooler than that of 2006, which in turn was cooler than 2005; so it is false to claim in December 2007 that the Earth is warming rapidly. Global CO2 emissions in 2007 were higher than in 2006, which in turn had higher emissions than 2005 and in fact emissions have been increasing at an accelerated rate since the increase in industrial activity after the Second World War; so no scientist could ethically state in December 2007 that they were 90% certain that this non existent warming was caused by humans.
In December 2007 212 scientists in support of the IPCC signed their name to the Bali Declaration (http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/news/2007/Bali.html) that stated "The 2007 IPCC report, compiled by several hundred climate scientists, has unequivocally concluded that our climate is warming rapidly, and that we are now at least 90% certain that this is mostly due to human activities." Of the 212 scientists who put their name to this document 67 were American scientists and as a first step of his mandate ensuring that "facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology" Holdren must get each of these scientists to publicly revoke their support for the Bali Declaration because by scientific standards it is patently false.
The reason scientists thought that the Bali Declaration was valid with regard to global temperature was that the IPCC had misrepresented the fact that there had been no warming since 1998 by using a decadal average to represent the global temperature. The global temperature for 2008 was so cool that even the "father of global warming" was forced to admit that this was so, because even his GISS global temperature data clearly showed this to be fact. When 2008 was added to the decadal average, the global temperature spike from the el Niño of 1998, was no longer included, and now even the decadal average used by the IPCC to hide the fact that the globe is currently cooling also shows this cooling.
Officially the globe is cooling using annual, five year and now decadal averages for global temperature so it is clear that there is no current danger from global warming, regardless of its cause. There is also no indication that global warming will return any time soon, and in fact most scientific investigations predict that the cooling will continue until the end of solar cycle 25 over 20 years from now.
After the war ended in 1945, CO2 emissions from fossil fuels were about 5.5gigatonnes. In 2008 they had grown to over 31gigatonnes at an accelerating rate of increase. Remarkably 1945 was part of a cooling trend that lasted until 1975, at which time the Earth warmed for the next 23 years until 1998 when global warming ended, and there has been no global warming since. In spite of the accelerating five fold increase in CO2 emissions over these 63 years there has only been 23 years that have been part of a warming trend and 40 years that have been part of cooling trends. If there is any correlation between CO2 emissions and global temperature it would be negative indicating that CO2 emissions correlate with global cooling, yet this correlation is the entire basis for the hypothesis that CO2 emissions have caused global warming.
All the physical data demonstrates both that the globe is currently cooling and there is no correlation of increased CO2 emissions with global warming, so Holdren is ethically bound by the mandate given him to inform President Obama that there is no scientific validity to the global warming hypothesis and there is no reason to reduce CO2 emissions other than by basic energy conservation practices such as improving fuel efficiency.
To date Holdren has not followed through on this mandate of adherence to science protocol, and it is critical that he do so immediately because the current climate change policy is in direct conflict with any hopes of economic recovery. The economy may be run by the financial institutions and markets, but it is powered by energy; and in its current state the economy cannot afford to switch from CO2 emissions producing energy sources to such sources as wind and solar that produce energy at five to ten times the cost. Each megatonne of CO2 emissions represents 2152 gigawatt hours of energy generation. If this is generated by coal at 2cents/kwh it is $43million, for wind power which costs between 10cents and 20cents/kwh this jumps to between $215million and $430million, and solar voltaic at 30cents/kwh would cost $645million. The USA CO2 emissions for 2008 was about 6000megatonnes, so replacing fossil fuels with either of these sources would cost the economy of the USA between $1.29trillion/year for wind power and $3.87trillion/year for solar voltaic power.
President Obama appointed two top scientists to advise him; John Holdren on science, and Stephen Chu on energy. Both of these gentlemen are physicists and Stephen Chu is even a Nobel Prize laureate in physics, yet neither has questioned the fact that everything stated as a rational for CO2 emissions causing global warming and for this greenhouse effect induced atmospheric warming to cause destruction from sea level rise is contrary to the basic laws of physics. The CO2 molecule is linear and symmetrical so it does not have a permanent dipole moment limiting its effect on the Earth's thermal radiation to a single narrow wavelength band centred on 14.77microns. Spectral measurements taken by the Nimbus 4 satellite in 1970 when the CO2 concentration was 325ppmv clearly shows that most of the energy in this band that would normally escape into space had already been blocked by this low concentration of CO2.
With only 10% of the energy left in this band for CO2 to "capture", the maximum further warming effect possible from CO2 is no more than 10% of the 3.4°C greenhouse effect already caused by CO2. The sole support for the global warming premise is models that predict a minimum of 2°C from just a doubling of CO2 and this is physically impossible. Why was this never challenged, and more importantly why haven't these two gentlemen questioned the scientific validity of these models considering the consequences to the economy of not having done so? I am a geophysicist with no particular stature or academic credentials and I did not have any difficulty mounting a challenge to the climate models. (http://icecap.us/images/uploads/HANSENMARSCHALLENGE.pdf)
Perhaps the most important words uttered by President Obama that will save the economy are in the speech appointing John Holdren ". It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It's about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it's inconvenient-especially when it's inconvenient."
The entire global warming issue is based on evidence that is twisted and obscured by politics and ideology, and even when 31,000 scientists, including over 9,000 scientists with doctorates, sign the Oregon Petition stating that there is no basis to the AGW hypothesis; no one is listening to what they say.
Norm Kalmanovitch, P.Geoph. Calgary Canada
Norm Kalmanovitch earned a Bachelor of Science in Geology from McGill University in 1970.
Kalmanovitch is a licensed professioinal geophysicist with The P.Geoph. designation. The "P.Geoph." is a professional license allowing its holder to practice geophysics in Alberta, Canada, and take responsibility for that work. Only geoscientists licensed with The Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA), or those practising under the direct supervision of a P.Geoph. licensed with APEGGA, have a legal right to practice geophysics in Alberta.