That was in front of Washington State's legislature not the Senate of the Congress of the USA. It was much like someone testifying to an English County Board meeting. Now that his message is known, it's doubtful he'll ever testify before any Committee in Washington D.C.

Wonderful, of 50 states it had to happen in the only one possible to confuse with somewhere of vital importance. I stand corrected, but his testimony has not changed whoever he was telling it to.

NASA report

"For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space."

What?

Copied over:


The Washington Post

The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.

Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.

________________________________

....... I apologize, I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 90 years ago.

I have no truck with those whose main or only weapon to defend against climate sceptics is consensus, doctors were in consensus for centuries stomach ulcers were caused by excess acid (they weren't) and in the 70s we were heading for an ice age (clearly not). But the long lists of scientists I roll out every time to prove there is nothing of the sort always either is ignored altogether, gets wild accusations they work for big oil (no, they fund the winning side as you'd expect), or go to great efforts to personally attack the individual scientists themselves.

Now the German government have issued an official black list naming and shaming (in their eyes anyway) all the scientists who say man made global warming is probably not real. Do they realise they've just done something the press never have, and admitted officially there is indeed no consensus, as all these naughty experts disagree with it.

You couldn't make it up.

Germans name and shame but give credit to the opposition

As status carries the weight in this area, here is an interview with a Harvard astrophysicist who answers all the questions in ways everyone else not qualified would be vilified for. But if he's right then so are we, as it's all based on the same material, except he's qualified to interpret it directly.

Willie Soon interview

After some individual observations that individual high temperature years such as 1998, caused by the natural el nino, corresponded with years with higher annual rises of CO2, someone decided to plot them all. Every temperature peak is followed by a peak in CO2. It's funny how no one else appears to have noticed this very simple relationship but would be interested to hear anyone's explanations when they do see it.

Ole Humlum scores again

This has been explained by the Reading University's Bill Collins:

“There has been a big deal made of this being the second highest annual rise ever – but there is quite a lot of variability in CO2, due to plant ecosystems, so the last highest rise was after a very warm year.

“That was 1998 and not basically due to man-made causes but because it had been a hot year and the soils had given off a lot of CO2 and the plants had not grown strongly – so the year to year variability is often caused by the uptake of plants and trees."

It's quite hard to argue with that, and if it applies to 1998 and can be seen in all the other years, along with the given reasons, then why are we still being blamed for it?

Whole article

CFACT is the site you posted as your authority to slander the WWF. You are very big at rubbishing climate scientists for being corrupt because of where they get their funding. CFACT received $542,000 from Exxon Mobil from 1998 to 2006. It also received $3,195,500 from the Alleghany foundation which was founded by Oil Billionaire Richard Mellen Scaife. These are according to their own audits. According to your logic they are not to be trusted at all. Try applying some of your scepticism to your fellow travellers. It took me all of 5 minutes to undermine your latest rubbish so do save me some time and do some actual research.

See my reply on the African land clearances. You didn't need to say the same thing on both, I don't need it in stereo.

Enough.