"I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.

FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.

When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.

The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.

But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:

1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.

Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.

If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.

3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.

4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.

None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance."

Entire article: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

Dr. David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005

"Considerable presence" of skeptics

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.  The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science.  The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."
The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling.   A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."

Link to remainder of article:

http://www.dailytech.com/Myth+of+Consensus+Explodes+APS+Opens+Global+Warming+Debate/article12403.htm

Why we should ALL vote Republican this November!

br>

So it begins.

We'll see how long this blog keeps up.  Not because it would be deleted or anything, or because I am busy and have a life outside of the internet (hint: I don't), just because I forget to maintain things.  Which would probably be why there is a goldfish floating at the top of a bowl next to me right now.

Know what needs to come back?  Old School Nickelodeon.

Old School Nickelodeon was amazing back in the day.  Rocko's Modern Life, Doug (before Disney anally raped the series), Rugrats (before that Chinese girl joined), Angry Beavers, The Adventures of Pete and Pete, and Salute Your Shorts were all amazing shows that had a certain sense of humor that is sorely lacking in today's Nickelodeon.  Maybe it is because I am older and don't find those things as funny anymore.  But I doubt it.  It is because Nickelodeon went down hill.  Instead of Pete and Pete, we have shows like Drake and Josh that go for the obvious humor that Pete and Pete was above.  Instead of having innuendos like Chokey Chicken on Rocko's Modern Life, we have lousy alliteration like the Krusty Krab on spongebob square pants.

Not only that, but Old School Nickelodeon had gameshows for kids.  Wild and Crazy Kids was amazing.  Legends of the Hidden Temple was also amazing, because each and every kid wanted to go into the temple.  Not only that, but each kid had a favorite team.  And of course, there were always the prizes of BK Ratch-teks and trips to Universal Studios (in Orlando, Florida).  In its place, we have some pedophile band titled Naked Brothers Band.  What the hell Nickelodeon?  You make Rocko's Modern Life change Chokey Chicken because its a masturbation reference, but you allow "Naked Brothers Band" on there?  Why?  Why have you forsaken me Nickelodeon?  You were my childhood.  Now you are nothing. 

------------------------------------------

Now, I don't try to be a music expert or anything like that, but I heard two decent bands tonight,

Eyeshine  -  Former Power Ranger Johnny Yong Bosch's band.  Nothing too special, but a decent listen. 

Jounce

Danny Tamberelli's band.  Like Eyeshine, nothing too special.  A little softer, still a decent listen. 

As some of you know, Prince did a cover of Creep by Radiohead at Coachella and subsequently forced Google/YouTube to pull the video down for copyright infringement (of a song he doesn't own). Well some video sites still have balls, so here it is on Dailymotion:

http://www.dailymotion.com/related/8946133/video/x58nz5_creep-a-coachella_creation

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull introduces Shia LaBeouf to the Indiana Jones world and is completely predictable.  

This installment goes the Area 51 route and ties it to South American alien conspiracies.  While not ground breaking (if you expected that) or even as good as the first three, it is entertaining and is does a good job of wrapping up the Indy Franchise, while giving nods to the characters and films that came before it (Keep an eye out for the Ark in the first 20 minutes).

Indy is not quite the action hero he once was but Ford does a good job of portraying  Jones as an archaeologist who realizes his best days are behind him.  I didn't quite get the whole "Colonel Henry Jones" international spy angle that they alluded to but it was more or less inconsequential to the overall story. 

The film teases you at some point about the potential continuation of the franchise, but I think everyone realized this was the end and quite frankly it needed to be. 

The movie was fun and it was an Indy worship fest, bringing everything full circle and adding closure to some loose ends. It wasn't the best Indy movie or even the best movie but Indy fans will be entertained.  The sad thing is, there isn't much to say about this film.  Cate Blanchette comes off as very Boris and Natasha ("Look, Moose and Squirrel!") but the film overall is just a sensory pleaser and does have the same "it" factor of the priors.  The action lacked at times and the character development was non-existant.  LaBeouf was a caricature of the era's greaser movement and all of the other characters and story angles seemed to fit into neat little cubby holes.

One thing I do fear is that if Indiana Jones does not end here, it is in severe danger of having jumped the shark.  I enjoyed the movie and if you suspend belief, certain historical accuracies and accept the cheese factor you will too.

This movie is about as good as this review.  Despite of inner Indy fan wanting to rate this movie higher than I am going to... I give it 2 1/2 out of 5 bullwhips. 

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, the long awaited sequel to The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe does not disappoint; however, it fails to satisfy as well.  Not wasting time to develop the story, with the assumption that the viewers are familiar with the first film, the plot line sets up relatively quickly.

Prince Caspian, heir to the throne, is chased out of the kingdom by his jealous uncle with his own aspirations to the throne upon the birth of his first male heir.  Caspian unknowingly summons the 4 heroes to Narnia.  Peter, Edumund, Susan and Lucy suddenly find themselves back in a land drastically different than the one they left... 1300 years into the future.

The kids gear up for war and set about returning the throne to the rightful Prince Caspian and the land to the Narnians.  Unfortunately, the movie kind of middles for awhile and doesn't quite live up to the quick start.  The climax comes somewhat late and finds itself rushing along to the finish, not giving the final battle and the subsequent resolution adequate time to play out.  Nor does it explore the tension between Prince Caspian and the Pevensie children. 

This movie while entertaining, was not as good as the original.  For fans of the books and/or the movie, the nostaligia factor combined with the continuance of the story make it well worthwhile.  For those unfamiliar, I suggest staying away until you've come to speed. 

I gave this movie 3 out of 5 Narnians.

Speed Racer is another Wachowski movie this time starring Emile Hirsch and Christina Ricci.

This movie is not good.  That being said, it isn't exactly bad either.  It remains mostly true to the original with a few specific nods to the cartoon we all grew up loving.  It did not suck nearly as much as I thought it would.  I had actually gone to see it merely to see how my childhood was being treated!

Give up on expecting the world and you will not be disappointed.  I found myself chuckling and the movie did manage to be visually stunning while keeping the 'camp' to the expected minimums without taking itself too seriously.  Paulie Litt as 'Spritle' and the monkey 'Chim Chim' steal this movie entirely!  He looks like a tiny Andy Richter (Litt, not the monkey).  John Goodman delivers a respectable performance and teamed with Susan Sarandon make a good pairing as 'movie parents', delivering the moral values and tender moments of the storyline.  One thing I didn't quite understand is that he drives a Mach 6 during the races and the Mach 5 as his day to day car, save for the rally scenes. 

The movie may not be worth the price of full admission and popcorn but if you're looking for something easy on the brain with some entertainment value, I would definitely recommend it for a Sunday afternoon matinee. 

I give this movie 3 out of 5 checkered flags.  "Go Speed Racer Go"

Iron Man starring Robert Downey Jr. is, as of the moment, the movie of the summer by far. 

Downey Jr. is a perfect casting of Tony Stark, millionaire playboy without the darkness, agony or scruples of Bruce Wayne, merely a man who profitted on war and sees the error of his ways while coming to terms with his own ego and sense of mortality. 

Every role was played perfectly, with Gweneth Paltrow playing the part of Pepper Potts perfectly. (Try saying that 3 times real fast!).  The movie remains true to the characters, their stories and concludes very cleanly while setting itself up perfectly for possible sequels. 

If you loved Spider-Man and hated Hulk (2003) as directed by Ang Lee, you will LOVE Iron man.  Marvel's movie arm has done it again!  As a bit of an Easter Egg, I advise you to stay until the end of the credits.  You will not be disappointed.

I give this movie 4 1/2 out of 5 iron suits! "Iron Man lives again!"