The Generation Professionals Group is for utility professionals who work in biomass, coal, gas/oil, hydro, natural gas, or nuclear power generation fields. 


CFC Destruction of Ozone - Major Cause of Recent Global Warming!

Bob Ashworth's picture
Sr. VP

Mr. Ashworth is a chemical engineer and has presented over 50 technical papers on fuels and fuel related subjects. Relating to the subject of global warming, he has written two papers, "CFC...

  • Member since 2004
  • 143 items added with 31,878 views
  • Sep 4, 2009 12:00 pm GMT

There has been a lot of discussion about global warming. Some say anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions caused the earth to warm. Others say there is no abnormality at all, that it is just natural warming. As you will see from the data presented and analyzed, a greater than normal warming did occur in recent times but no measurements confirm an increase in CO2 emissions, whether anthropogenic or natural, had any effect on global temperatures. There is however, strong evidence that anthropogenic emissions of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were the major cause of the near recent abnormal warming.

CFCs have created both unnatural atmospheric cooling and warming based on these facts:

  • CFCs destroyed ozone in the lower stratosphere-upper troposphere causing these zones in the atmosphere to cool 1.37 oC from 1966 to 1998. This time span was selected to eliminate the effect of the natural solar irradiance (cooling-warming) cycle effect on the earth's temperature.
  • The loss of ozone allowed more UV light to pass through the stratosphere at a sufficient rate to warm the lower troposphere plus 10" of the earth by 0.48 oC (1966 to 1998).
  • Mass and energy balances show that the energy that was absorbed in the lower stratosphere- upper troposphere hit the lower troposphere-earth at a sustainable level of 1.71 x 1018 Btu more in 1998 than it did in 1966.
  • Greater ozone depletion in the Polar Regions caused these areas to warm up some two and one-half (2 ½) times that of the average earth temperature (1.2 oC vs. 0.48 oC) rise. This has caused permafrost to melt, which is releasing copious quantities of methane, estimated at 100 times that of manmade CO2 release, to the atmosphere. Methane in the atmosphere slowly converts to CO2 and water vapor and its release has contributed to higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
  • There is a temperature anomaly in Antarctica. The Signey Island landmass further north, warmed like the rest of the Polar Regions; but south at Vostok, there has been a cooling effect. Although the cooling at Vostok needs to be analyzed in more detail, because of the large ozone hole there, black body radiation from Vostok (some 11,400 feet above sea level) to outer space is most likely the cause. Especially, since this phenomenon occurred over the same period that stratospheric ozone destruction took place.
No Empirical Evidence for CO2 Causing Global Warming

Recent empirical data (1) show that atmospheric CO2 concentrations have no discernible effect on global temperature, see Figure 1. The temperature plots shown are from two sources; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) Microwave Sounding Unit (MSU) and the United Kingdom's (UK) Hadley Climate Research Unit. The CO2 plot is from the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii. A certified meteorologist developed the temperature -- CO2 concentration graph from the data sources.

While CO2 levels increased some 20 ppmv over the past 10 years, global temperatures did not increase as predicted by the IPCC models -- they fell! The earth's temperature from 1998 to 2008 dropped by 0.7 to 0.8 oC depending on which temperature set is chosen for comparison.

Besides a carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere, concentration of methane has increased 2.5 times from pre-industrial time (700 ppbv) to 1,745 ppbv in 1998 (2). In 2000, methane concentrations leveled off at 1755 ppbv and currently are slowly dropping. Two years earlier, stratospheric CFC concentrations leveled off and started to drop slowly, so methane emissions look like they are tied to depletion of ozone. Where is the methane coming from? A recent study (3) showed that the permafrost is melting in North Siberia and is releasing methane from the surface of thawing lakes that has been sequestered there since the Pleistocene era (10,000 to one million years ago). Further, the researchers' estimate that methane carbon is being emitted at a rate some 100 times the rate of carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels. Methane (CH4) slowly converts to CO2 in the atmosphere and this is the most likely cause for increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere.

Ozone Loss Effect

Stratospheric ozone has been diminished by CFCs and other refrigerants-propellants released into the atmosphere. These compounds are broken down by the sun's UV rays and release chlorine and bromine molecules that destroy the ozone. Scientists estimate that one chlorine atom can destroy 100,000 ozone molecules over its life in the stratosphere. With less ozone in the stratosphere, more UV rays hit earth, warming it up and increasing the risk of skin cancer. The protective ozone layer extends from 8 km (upper troposphere) up throughout the whole stratosphere.

The annual mean stratospheric ozone concentration above Antarctica (4) as measured at the British Antarctic Survey Station in Halley Bay (Latitude 76 south, Longitude 26 west) was 319 Dobson Units (standard measurement of ozone concentration) in 1956. In 1995, the mean value was 212 Dobson Units, showing an average drop of 33% from 1966. Although not as severe, ozone concentrations, north of the Arctic Circle, have dropped as well.

It is well known that the warming of the stratosphere is caused by the reaction of ultraviolet light with ozone. Energy is absorbed and ozone (O3) converts to diatomic (O2) and (O) nascent oxygen. Conversely, ozone loss decreases the amount of UV light absorbed and thus causes the stratosphere to cool. The direct effect of ozone concentration on temperature is shown in Figure 2 (5). Excluding the volcanic eruptions of El Chichon, Pinatuba, and others, whenever stratospheric ozone concentration drops, the temperature drops with it and vice versa. This effect is shown clearly from 1995 to 2005.

The legendary hypotheses (6) of Paul Crutzen, Sherwood Rowland, and Mario Molina led to CFCs being banned because they were destroying stratospheric ozone. In 1978, the USA banned the use of CFCs in hair sprays and other aerosols. Then in 1987, the world governments, through the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), agreed to limit the production and release of a variety of CFCs at a meeting in Montreal, Canada. Since then the agreement has become known as the Montreal Protocol. CFC production was stopped in developed countries but not in developing countries. It will be produced in China, Mexico and other developing countries until 2010.

CFC's and CCl4 are nearly inert in the troposphere and have lifetimes of 50-200+ years. Total stratospheric organic chlorine is currently a little over 3 ppbv. It is different in the stratosphere; the major source of CFC decomposition there is photolysis (7) reaction with ultraviolet (UV) light radiation. Ultraviolet light has wavelengths in the 200-400 nanometer (nm) range.

UV-A light is a low energy light and only about 5% of the UV-A light is absorbed by ozone. Most reaches the surface of the Earth. UV-B light is of moderate energy and ozone absorbs most of the UV-B light before it reaches the surface of the Earth. UV-C light is a high energy UV light. Both ozone and oxygen molecules absorb the UV-C light before it can reach the Earth's surface. Therefore, when there is low stratospheric ozone, more UV (A, B & C) light from the sun passes through the atmosphere to hit earth and heat it up.

CFC chlorine can take other reaction paths, but this is believed to be the predominant ozone destruction cycle. Though the concentration of CFCs is only around 3 ppbv in the stratosphere, one chlorine atom can destroy some 100,000 ozone molecules during its lifetime there. Since the 1960's the stratosphere has cooled (8), see Figure 3. The data suggest that the cooling is due to a loss of ozone.

When CFC refrigerants started to be produced and released into the atmosphere in the sixties, the stratosphere started to cool. The exceptions to cooling occurred during the times of the major volcanic eruptions of Agung, El Chichon and Mt. Pinatubo.

In 1998, the stratosphere was 1.37 oC cooler than it was in 1966. This 1966 to 1998 time span was chosen for analysis to negate the solar irradiance cycle and large volcanic eruption effects. The increase in stratospheric temperature from major volcanic eruptions lasts only two to three years; then the temperature goes back to where it would have been if there were no eruptions. As the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere cooled (1966 to 1998), the troposphere and earth warmed (9) by 0.48 oC see Figure 4.

In the Arctic, from 1966 to 1998 (10), the surface temperature increased 2 ½ times the average global temperature (1.2 oC vs. 0.48 oC), see Figure 5. The much colder than normal stratospheric temperatures cause even a greater loss of ozone and thus make the Polar Region stratospheres even cooler. This is why polar landmasses have warmed more than the rest of the earth. Ice crystals that form provide a surface for chemical reactions that change chlorine compounds that do not react with ozone (e.g. hydrogen chloride) into more active forms that do:

The change in ozone depletion chemicals in the stratosphere versus time (11), including future concentration projections is shown in Figure 6. Because of the Montreal Protocol implementation, CFC concentrations peaked in the late nineties and then started dropping slightly.

The line at 2 ppb corresponds to the time when ozone depletion was first detected (1980). It also shows when major ozone recovery is anticipated (2050 to 2060). Figure 7 shows a correlation of CFC concentration and average stratosphere and earth temperature plotted versus time.

The author plotted this graph based on data from Figures 4, 5 and 6. As shown by the vertical lines, in a logical sequence, CFC concentration started to drop first causing a reduction in stratospheric cooling and then a reduction in earth warming. When one sees like trends, it is a good indication that the trends are related to one another.

Large solar heating-cooling cycle variations occur every 80,000 to 110,000 years, but the sun's thermostat also changes in shorter term cooling-warming cycles of approximately 11 years (12), see Figure 9. The period chosen for analysis to negate this effect as mentioned previously was from 1966 to 1998. At these two points in time, the solar irradiance hitting the earth was approximately the same (1368.8 W/m2).

According to NASA (13), the lower stratosphere and upper troposphere, both of which have cooled together, extends from 19 km down to 8 km above the surface of the earth with the lower troposphere being in the 0 to 8 km elevation. Knowing how much the lower stratosphere-upper troposphere cooled and how much the lower troposphere-earth warmed, mass and energy balances could be made to determine how much more radiant energy hit the earth in 1998 compared to 1966.

Table 1 show mass and energy balances for the lower stratosphere-upper troposphere (19 km down to 8 km above sea level). The balances were made by first calculating the mass of gas in the lower stratosphere-upper troposphere. Then the recorded average temperature for the lower stratosphere-upper troposphere for 1966 and 1998 was used. The lower stratosphere-upper troposphere was 1.37 oC cooler in 1998 than it was in 1966. By subtracting the energy in the lower stratosphere-upper troposphere found in 1966 from that found in 1998 the loss in UV light energy absorption could be calculated. The amount of stratospheric heating from UV-B light in 1998 was 1.7123 x 1018 Btu less than it was in 1966.

The mass and energy balance in Table 2 shows the effect of that additional energy being absorbed by the troposphere/earth in 1998 compared to 1966. The lower troposphere temperature in 1966 (484oR) was used as a base and the added UV light (1.7123 x 1018 Btu) energy passing through the lower stratosphere/upper troposphere was added to the earth/troposphere. Using that increase in UV light energy, after heating the lower troposphere up by 0.48o C there was enough energy left over to heat up ten inches of earth plus water by 0.48 oC. This matches the recorded earth temperature rise from 1966 to 1998.

Added UV light hitting earth accounts for observed warming from 1966 to 1998 (0.48 oC or 0.863 oR)


Many factors influence the earth's temperature. From a scientific analysis, the effect of CO2 is very minimal as shown by an earth temperature drop of around 0.7 to 0.8 oC from 1998 to 2008 during a period when CO2 concentration in the atmosphere increased some 20 ppmv. It should be obvious to anyone analyzing climate change that climate-driving forces, other than CO2 control the earth's temperature. Chlorofluorocarbon destruction of stratospheric ozone correlates nicely with both the stratosphere cooling and earth warming anomalies seen over the time span from 1966 to 1998. CFCs appear to be the dominant cause of greater than normal earth warming. One can account for most, if not all of the 0.48oC rise in earth's temperature from 1966 to 1998 with the additional UV light that hit the earth due to loss of ozone in the stratosphere.


(1) D'Aleo, J. S., "Correlation Last Decade and This Century CO2 and Global Temperatures Not There" Data used to develop graph:
NASA microwave sounding unit for temperature of lower troposphere:
Hadley Met Centre for the temperature of the land and oceans:
and Scripps monthly CO2 concentrations from the Mauna Lao, Hawaii Observatory:

(2) Houghton, J.T., et. al.,"Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis Contribution of Working Group I to the
Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Cambridge University
Press, UK, pp 944, 2001.

(3) Walter, K.M., et al. "Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming",
Nature 443, 71-75, Sept. 7, 2006.

(4) Halley Bay ozone data taken by the British Antarctic Survey,

(5) United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) Vital Ozone Graphics, p. 13, ISBN 978-92-807-2814-9

(6) Nobel Prize in Chemistry, The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, October 11, 1995.

(7) Zander, R. et. al., "The 1985 chlorine and fluorine inventories in the stratosphere based on ATMOS
Observations at 30 degrees North latitude", J. Atmos. Chem. 15, 171, 1992.

(8) HadAT2 radiosonde developed by the United Kingdom Met Office Hadley Centre, maintained by Peter Thorne
and Holly Titchner. Hosted by Met Office Hadley Centre for
Climate Change.

(9) Brohan, P., 2006: Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new
dataset from 1850, J. Geophysical Research 111, D12106, doi: 10.1029/2005JD006548

(10) "Impacts of a Warming Arctic: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, ACIA Overview Report", Cambridge
University Press, 2004

(11) "Australia State of the Environment 2001 Independent Report to the Commonwealth Minister for the
Environment and Heritage, p. 27.

(12) Lean, J. 2000, Evolution of the Sun's Spectral Irradiance Since the Maunder minimum. Geophysical Research
Letters, Vol. 27, No. 16, pp.2425-2428, Aug. 15, 2000

(13) Duan, A. (2007), "Cooling trend in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere over China",
Geophys. Res. Lett., 34

Bob Ashworth's picture
Thank Bob for the Post!
Energy Central contributors share their experience and insights for the benefit of other Members (like you). Please show them your appreciation by leaving a comment, 'liking' this post, or following this Member.
More posts from this member
Spell checking: Press the CTRL or COMMAND key then click on the underlined misspelled word.
Bob Amorosi's picture
Bob Amorosi on Sep 24, 2009
Also Bob, in my opinion, this article also presents evidence that at the very least the value 168 of incident solar radiation on the earth’s surface has increased marginally due to ozone depletion, especially at the poles. So again on average across the globe, the rate of heating during the day is marginally higher as a result.
Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Sep 24, 2009
Jim and Len: Please give us the equations you use to calculate this back radiation effect.

Isn't it true that as the sky density increases, less energy will hit earth because there is more energy input to the earth than what radiates away, therefore it will create a cooling rather than warming effect.

Back in 1971 here was the contention of John Holden, current Obama energy czar). He said, "There is reduced transparency of the atmosphere to incoming light as a result of urban air pollution (smoke, aerosols), agricultural air pollution (dust), and volcanic ash. This screening phenomenon is said to be responsible for the present world cooling trend—a total of about 0.2°C in the world mean surface temperature over the past quarter century. This number seems small until it is realized that a decrease of only 4°C would probably be sufficient to start another ice age. Moreover, other effects besides simple screening by air pollution threaten to move us in the same direction. In particular, a mere one percent increase in low cloud cover would decrease the surface temperature by 0.8°C. (They haven't blamed increased could cover on CO2 yet have they?) We may be in the process of providing just such a cloud increase, and more, by adding man-made condensation nuclei to the atmosphere in the form of jet exhausts and other suitable pollutants (So if we burn more biomas that has a higher H/C ratio than coal we increase water vapor - how is this helpful. Also, water vapor acts similarly to CO2 reagarding radiation absorption and emission, so why do we need to do this again? )

Holdren now says the opposite. He argued one way and now the other. He was more scientific before he became politicized by Gore and Company. He helped make the charts and graphs for Al Gore’s film "An Inconvenient Truth" I call it a Convenient Lie!

However, always watch out for alarmists, know that they always have hidden agendas and it always translates to someone making more money!

One last point, there is no need to store CO2, Mother Nature already does that with increased plant growth. The IPCC stated that 98.5% of the CO2 produced is absorbed by nature. Pretty efficient process I would say.

Michael Keller's picture
Michael Keller on Sep 24, 2009
Len, I merely pointed out your assertion that "... IPCC is an organization of ... all practising climate scientists" is false. Your reply was not germane to my point.

You appear to have difficulty separating fact from fiction and conjecture while being prone to exageration.

Bob Amorosi's picture
Bob Amorosi on Sep 24, 2009

I assume by increased sky density you mean "optical" density, or optical opaqueness. Increased cloud cover or volcanic ash or dust and smoke from air pollution I agree completely could very easily have larger cooling effects than GHGs are having warming. Just ask the owner of a real greenhouse who must strive keep the glass panels on it clean if he wants the maximum interior warming effect from sunlight.

Volcanic ash and dust from air pollution however tend to dissipate and fall back to earth far faster than GHGs disappear from the atmosphere. So GHG warming effects don't go away as fast and get masked temporarily as pointed out in your article when there were some years the data you present were heavily weighted in favor of effects by major volcanic eruptions.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Sep 24, 2009
Bob: Where does the added energy come from when the only energy input cited is from the sun and is 168 watts/M^2. There is core earth energy I think that amounts to around 3% of the total heat but they don't show that. Also, as I wrote before, what equations do you use to calculate back radiation. Did they just make those up.

The only equations I know of calculate the net energy flow from the hotter to cooler surface. The NASA temperature versus altitude shows 30C at sea level decreasing linearly to around -70C at 17,000 meters then increasing approximately linearly from 17,000 meters to -20C at around 38,000 meters and then it starts dropping again.

Since heat transfer is always from the hotter to cooler body using the T^4 differences there is no way the sky can heat the land and oceans. It is always the other way around.

Also the higher up you go the lower the atmospheric density so less mass to radiate energy.

Bob Amorosi's picture
Bob Amorosi on Sep 24, 2009

I didn't calculate any of the numbers to explain the IPCC diagram, I only understand what they are trying to illustrate. I am not a physicist or climatologist, or chemist for that matter. My admittedly simplistic interpretation of the diagram is based on several analogies I am familiar with.

The earth and atmosphere essentially act like an IR energy storage shell around the earth, where IR energy radiates back and forth inside that shell between the earth's surface and the atmosphere. A certain level of solar energy enters this shell from incident solar on the daylight side of the earth, but a lesser level leaks into outer space on both sides of the earth. Surely if there were no leakage back into space, the temperature in the shell would continually rise, and the levels of energy radiating back and forth between the atmosphere and earth's surface would continually grow to far exceed the incident solar level coming into it.

Picture your car engine - the engine block stores heat input from the combustion process, and without a radiator to exhaust heat energy at a high rate into the air, the engine will overheat while it runs in spite of some heat leakage radiating from the block directly into the air. The latter cools the engine’s temperature albeit slowly when engine combustion (and the water pump) are shut off.

So to answer your question, there is no added energy input to the system other than incident solar, but that doesn't exclude greater levels of energy flowing, and higher temperatures achieved inside the system due to heat storage.

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Sep 24, 2009
Bob Ashworth's nonsense doesn't merit response. He clearly has not even a beginning of an understanding of the actual carbon cycle on earth.

I'll reply to Micheal Keller: When I stated that "the IPCC" consists of "all practicing climate scientists the world over", I was referencing that fact that no matter who publishes legitimate science relevant to global warming, the many selected report writers will include their results in IPCC reports. You may or may not choose to contribute to the drafting or editing of those reports when asked, for a broad variety of reasons including grandstanding PR attempts, but if the science you publish is correct and relevant it will be included (and if it is not it will not), thus "all practicing climate scientists the world over" is accurate.

Jim Beyer's picture
Jim Beyer on Sep 24, 2009

A photon HAS NO TEMPERATURE!!! It only has a frequency. Photons from the sun are emitted with a spectral distribution close to that of a black body of about 5800 K.

Since the "hotter surface" is 5800K, there is quite a bit of 'upside' to the current temperature of the earth, at least in theory.

Note how ordinary sunlight can be concentrated using a parabolic mirror to reach a temperature that can boil water or even melt iron. This is with NO enclosed surfaces (actual greenhouse) that limits cooling by convection.

If what you are suggesting is true, then there would be no way one could boil water with sunlight and a parabolic mirror, or even burn paper with a magnifying glass. But both of these activities can be readily performed.

Bob Amorosi's picture
Bob Amorosi on Sep 24, 2009

Simple but highly effective examples that any casual reader understands, nicely put. You would make a good teacher because good teachers are the ones that can put complex things into easy-to-understand words for their students.

To add, a photon has no temperature although its frequency is a direct measure of the energy that it carries. i.e. UV photons carry more energy than IR photons do.


Bob Ashworth is clearly passionately against CO2 causing global warming, and I disagree with him on that. But my subtle point is we all must face that the atmosphere has both increased CO2 and ozone depletion happening, and the result we see in the earth's climate is caused by both. It is likely impossible to separate the effects of each through empirical observation, the question is how much is each contributing relative to each other I suppose.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Sep 24, 2009
It is amazing how you guys never answer my questions. I ask you questions and get irrelevance back. My nonsense doesn't deserve an answer Len because you have no answer. Show me the equation for back radiation, any of you. Why doesn’t this deserve an answer. That is what you based your whole greenhouse effect on. If you can’t provide the equation then you are not qualified to say it is there.

Methinks there is none. If there is none how did the IPCC come up with its nonsense of how much back radiation was occurring from a cooler sky to a warmer earth and how could you accept such nonsense without proving to yourself it was there?


Jim Beyer's picture
Jim Beyer on Sep 24, 2009

I'm pretty sure I'd be the teacher that the kids would get big laughs at in imitating... :)

To add to your point to Len, another issue has been the decrease in particulates in the air since the 60's (due to improved air pollution laws and cleaner diesel engines) that has allowed more light to reach the earth and thus warmed it further. Some believe that this had been masking some of the GW that had occurred in the decades before the 90's. So maybe we need to crank up those diesels...

Jeff Presley's picture
Jeff Presley on Sep 24, 2009
I typed this up yesterday, thought I'd hit the submit button and went on to other things. Now I see it didn't post but nothing of substance has occurred in the meantime so here's my response to Len. BTW I wouldn't have to be talking at this level if I didn't believe I had a remedial student on the other end, I wouldn't need to spend time clarifying obvious scientific principles. Len was so smart he only needed 2 weeks and 3 posts to get his "hee hee point".

Hmm, let me try this one more time. Thermal mass and heat capacity are sometimes used interchangeably. Therefore you are telling me something I already told you. However, and English fails us here, SPECIFIC heat capacity DOES NOT EQUAL heat capacity. To really do this right, which no one here has the time or inclination to do, one would need to determine the specific heat capacities of ALL the earth's surfaces then multiply them by the mass furthermore accounting for any albedo effect. However, since over 70% of the earth's surface is water one can get close enough for government work (and IPCC work IS government work) by just using ITS specific heat capacity, which Bob did. Also the albedo of water is substantially lower than most earth surfaces, so the EFFECTIVELY heated percentage on the basis of solar radiation is obviously higher than even 70%

And to finally put your re-radiation argument to the bed it so richly deserves, let us ask ourselves how much WARMER the earth is because of all the tremendous energy re-radiating from the MOON onto our planet. Let's see, moon vacuum, intervening space, vacuum, MUST be warming us up no? Since we all know the earth ISN'T warmed by the moon, so-called re-radiation cannot be much of an effect no?

Now if you want to say the atmosphere acts as an insulator, that's fine with me, but will fail your AGW argument rather quickly.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Sep 24, 2009
One more point, this whole greenhouse bullshit is based on there being a greenhouse signature in the atmosphere where it is hotter up 8-12 km than it is on earth.

The only problem is that once again the IPCC computer program that predicted this was flat wrong. See Figure 6 in my paper that was on Energypulse in May under emissions and environmental. The IPCC predicts a hot spot but there is none. Look at the IPCC graph compared to the actual temperature profile that is there. They predicted the temperature of the earth would go up with increased CO2, it went down. They predicted a hot zone in the atmosphere. There is none.

This is data analysis. You nor they check their predictions with the actual data and in both cases here their predictions were proven to be bogus. You wouldn't let me get away with such crap so why do you let them. It is because you want desparately to believe them for some strange reason and will not let facts get in your way.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Sep 24, 2009
From Piers Corbyn:

Climate Change - "The only tipping point to come is the tipping point of public opinion against the alarmist falsity of Climate Change Policy" says climate scientist "Obama's speech to the UN's Global Warming Summit on 22 Sept was a shameful pack of alarmist falsity. The integrity of the so-called science he espouses is as low as that preached by scientists under the thumb of totalitarian regimes or certain tobacco companies in the past" said Piers Corbyn of WeatherAction long range forecasters. "But haven't we been here before? Remember the UN Security Council Feb 2003 hearing 'evidence' of Weapons of Mass Destruction to justify the Iraq war? UN weapons inspector Hans Blix was unable to find any weapons of mass destruction "The purpose of the Global Warming campaign of falsity here is clear - control by the West of world development and energy supply - imposing unnecessary technology to solve problems that don't exist and thereby imprison the developing world into reliance on a new green bubble of false value created by the West. It is rather like how GM crops can imprison poor farmers and Microsoft imprisons us all in their lorry loads of software when a spoonful would do. Its purpose in the West is as a Weapon of Mass Taxation - to back the new bubble of false value. "If they had evidence of their Global Warming claims surely world leaders would show it to the world. Yet the UN still haven't replied to the letter from 'The gang of 13' scientists in July 2008 asking for simple evidence of the UN claims on Global Warming - . "I suggest the UN appoint an Inspector of Global Warming to look for evidence and report back but do it before the tragedies instead of too late which was the case when Hans Blix finally reported back that there were no WMDs in Iraq - after the Iraq war began and after Dr David Kelly died. "It is incumbent on all who care about the integrity of science to fight for the truth and perhaps the truth is slowly getting through. The only tipping point to come in Climate Change is the tipping point of public opinion on Climate Change Policy. We will discuss how to get to this, along with advances in the Solar Weather Technique of long range weather and climate forecasting at our Climate Fools Day conference in London on October 28th* "

Bob Amorosi's picture
Bob Amorosi on Sep 24, 2009
Can someone explain the IPCC diagram's back radiation from atomosphere to earth because I don't know the physics well enough to do it.


If as you claim there is no greenhouse effect presented by the earth's atmosphere whatsoever, and all the debate on it is pure passionate BS, answer this one for us....Why does the moon which has practically no atmosphere have the coldest place in the universe on its night-time side at one of its poles, as reported just recently in the news media. After all, the moon is for all practical purposes the same distance from the sun as we are, and therefore receives virtually the same solar energy flux in watts/m^2 on its daylight side as the earth does.

Jim Beyer's picture
Jim Beyer on Sep 24, 2009

Actually a full moon DOES warm the earth a little bit. Who'd a thunk it?

Moon warms the earth

Kind of amazing, given the R^2 factor in play with that re-radiation....

Jeff Presley's picture
Jeff Presley on Sep 24, 2009
You buy that hook, line and sinker don't you? No wonder you'll believe AGW.

I'll leave you a day to think about it, then I will show you where you are completely wrong. I had to double check to make sure you hadn't sent me something from the Onion.

Jim Beyer's picture
Jim Beyer on Sep 24, 2009

Yes, those scientists are all part of my personal cabal. I hand picked them to write the research, which was then fed to the "Science" editors, also of course under my control. And I did this all 14 years ago, because like any good conspiracy, the AGW conspiracy has been going on for decades and includes millions of conspirators. Not YOU of course.... (add evil laugh here)

(This note is dripping with sarcasm, just so everyone is clear.)

------------------------------ In a paper being published today in the journal Science, researchers at Arizona State University at Tempe present evidence that the full Moon raises the temperature of Earth's lower troposphere by more than 0.03 of one degree Fahrenheit. This region of the troposphere extends from the ground to an altitude of about three and a half miles.

Polar-orbiting satellites have furnished daily tropospheric temperature measurements spanning the world since 1979, said the scientists, Dr. Robert C. Balling Jr. and Dr. Randall S. Cerveny. Their analysis of 15 years of these measurements has turned up the surprising conclusion that a very slight but statistically significant warming reaches a peak coinciding with the full Moon.

Jeff Presley's picture
Jeff Presley on Sep 24, 2009
I'm not saying they didn't reach a conclusion, I'm saying their conclusion reached was WRONG, just like AGW. There IS a reason, but they missed it, this is why Bob wants to see your math, math shows this clearly. The moon's re-radiation can be computed several ways, and its heating effect likewise defined. Tomorrow I will show you.

Appeal to authority (Woo hoo, SCIENCE MAGAZINE_) leaves me blank. They have to print something to keep the presses running, doesn't mean everything they print is RIGHT.

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Sep 24, 2009
Hi Bob Amorosi. "the question is how much is each contributing relative to each other I suppose. " -- I believe that information is in the IPCC document which I linked above, 9.23.09, (though its a multi-megabyte document I'm not willing to load at this site, what I concluded at that time was that Item d) covers ozone changes, which is likely what you(Mr Ashworth) is discussing. Note that the contribution is practically negligable.

fourth IPCC assesment report - Chapter 9 Understanding and Attributing Climate Change, on page 675, the six charts indicating the 5 main contributions to observed climate change (a to e) [QUOTE] Figure 9.1. Zonal mean atmospheric temperature change from 1890 to 1999 (°C per century) as simulated by the PCM model from (a) solar forcing, (b) volcanoes, (c) wellmixed greenhouse gases, (d) tropospheric and stratospheric ozone changes, (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing and (f) the sum of all forcings. Plot is from 1,000 hPa to 10 hPa (shown on left scale) and from 0 km to 30 km (shown on right). See Appendix 9.C for additional information. Based on Santer et al. (2003a). [/QUOTE]

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Sep 24, 2009
Cheers Jim: regarding "the decrease in particulates in the air since the 60's (due to improved air pollution laws and cleaner diesel engines)" -- i believe the graph set which I link above also addresses that, in item (e) direct sulphate aerosol forcing, also not terribly significant compared to GHG's.
Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Sep 24, 2009
Jeff: In the 9.24.09 discussion where you try to skate around your difficulty with spec heat, you introduce a discussion of albedo, which I assume is simply a further attempt to snog the unwary, as it has no relevance at all to my strong criticisms of Mr Ashworth's article. Admit it, the article is way off the mark, as I saw immediately and pointed out.
Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Sep 24, 2009
Jeff: Again, 9.24.09 "Since we all know the earth ISN'T warmed by the moon, so-called re-radiation cannot be much of an effect no?" -- No, Jeff. You're wrong again. It is very easy to experience back radiation, from earth's atmosphere. Go to a dry climate at Lat 55 and spend a month walking out each night. You'll VERY rapidly experience the large temp. swings which happen between a clear day and night versus the much milder swings between a cloudy day and night, given that the daytime temperature max would be the same on both days, about -10 degC. That difference happens because the clouds and increased atmospheric H2O on the cloudy days intercept much of the infra-red radiation from earth's surface and RE-RADIATE it in random directions, a large part BACK to earth's surface.

And I at least hope you're aware enough to realise that it's NOT due to any (presumeably conductive) insulation effect, as Mr Ashworth appears to claim.

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Sep 24, 2009
That is "Go to a dry climate at Lat 55 in January"
Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Sep 24, 2009
Mr Ashwoth: "Piers Corbyn ... Remember the UN Security Council Feb 2003 hearing 'evidence' of Weapons of Mass Destruction to justify the Iraq war? UN weapons inspector Hans Blix was unable to find any weapons of mass destruction" -- That is the most DISGRACEFULL piece of #$%^ revisionist history I have ever heard. Keep up that sort of crap and I might actually get angry.

From here on, EVERY time you publish or post ANYTHING here I will do my best to immediately follow it with the above quote and an explanation of how you tried to use it.

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Sep 24, 2009
Mr Ashworth's use of a revisionist and lying historical reference, in comment near end dated 9.24.09 starting From Piers Corbyn:

Mr Ashwoth: "Piers Corbyn ... Remember the UN Security Council Feb 2003 hearing 'evidence' of Weapons of Mass Destruction to justify the Iraq war? UN weapons inspector Hans Blix was unable to find any weapons of mass destruction"

You clearly and knowingly are using a reference who is flat lying about how the 2003 (war on/illegal invasion of) Iraq got started. For a long period prior, Mr. Blix had convinced the Security Council that there were no WMD in Iraq. However, the US Government did a brainwash media blitz on their own people, including the President lying (probably knowingly) in a state of the union address to congress, and topped it off with a publicly broadcast presentation by Colin Powell to the UN in which Mr. Powell explicitly lied to the council members (likely due to false information provided to him by the intelligence bodies not under his control). It ruined his reputation and his excellent chances of going further in public service, though it has been clearly documented that he and his staff were blocked in their many attempts at accessing backup data beforehand, no doubt because it didn't exist. The moves ruined worldwide trust in accuracy of US staff abroad permanently, and rightly so.

=========== Above is a sample of what I am now posting to every open thread to which Mr Ashworth has posted.

Jim Beyer's picture
Jim Beyer on Sep 25, 2009
I agree with Len on this one. One can accuse the UN of many things, but starting the Iraq war is not one of them. In that case, they turned out to be the voice of reason which unfortunately did not prevail.

Although no expert, in my opinion, the worst UN moment in recent memory was their failure to protect innocent civilians (preferring instead to protect their own soldiers) at Srebrenica. Allowing this massacre to happen helped to increase the strained relations between the Islamic nations as the West. Not something particularly desirable.....

I think the UN could have acted better in Rwanda as well, though so could the U.S.

Time and time again, when evidence presented by skeptics of AGW is challenged, the skeptics resort to tactics of obfuscation and the presentation of even less credible claims. But accusing the UN of fomenting the Iraq War is probably the lowest of low points in this regard.

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Sep 25, 2009
Agreed Jim, UN should have acted better in those cases and many others. They're hamstrung by the limitations of their structure, too many national vetos, undemocratic representation, inability to enforce dues payments etc. etc.

But trying to discredit the IPCC by blaming the Iraq war on the UN is just a mind-boggling exercise in flat-out lying.

Jeff Presley's picture
Jeff Presley on Sep 25, 2009
Len, BOB didn't do the so-called lying here so why are you so freaked out? Because someone he quoted said it? If you have an argument take it up with Corbyn, but leave this forum to its own topic if you are capable that is. The UN is a political organization, peopled by political operatives and the UN has a VERY heavy thumbprint on the IPCC. Your posturing is completely irrelevant to what happened AT THE TIME, you are the one invoking revisionist history. I don't think your intellect is capable of making the distinction however.

The US (and 40 others) went into Iraq because they were in clear violation of sanctions and because Saddam was playing a VERY dangerous game of high stakes poker. The fact that he was bluffing was irrelevant to the "call" that occurred. But all your superior intellect can come up with is to wait until AFTER THE FACT and pretend you knew it all along? I'll make a prediction, when the AGW fiasco is brought to its knees utterly and completely, you'll pretend you knew THAT all along too. You'll point to your post about the "other" sources of heating referenced on page 695 or whatever and pretend that was your stance. Unfortunately hundreds of YOUR posts will state otherwise, but you'll excuse them away, and/or simply disappear from the blogsphere.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Sep 25, 2009
Bob: The atmosphere is an insulator and averages out the day to night time temperature variations, cooling in the day from reflection of the suns heat back to space and keeping us warmer at night by providing an insulating layer around the earth. There is not back radiation of energy as the IPCC describes it, there is just less heat loss due to the insulating effect. The AGW proponents have no way of calculating back radiation yet they willy-nilly assigned values to it that violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Len: This was Piers argument to show you cannot accept at face value what the UN and our governments tell us.

Jeff Presley's picture
Jeff Presley on Sep 25, 2009
Jim, the answer is the earth's barycenter caused wobble, which brings it closer to the sun during full moon cycles.

If you run the numbers on the moon's re-radiation, it comes down to about .00015 Kelvin. BTW the moon's albedo is barely better than water's, essentially like grey asphalt. This is why I'm more than a little skeptical of taking things at face value. I honestly thank my lucky stars I was taught critical thought by the Jesuits, clearly it is missing in today's curriculum.

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Sep 27, 2009
Jeff: Now you're revising history as well.

1)"The US (and 40 others) went into Iraq because they were in clear violation of sanctions " -- Not true and you know it. Saddam's government did everything they could to prove to everyone they were in compliance with all UN requirements. I clearly recall them even publicly on television cutting up their arsenal of short-range military rockets (I recall thinking at the time what a foolish move that was militarily, since everyone knew that the US was going to invade regardless). At the time of the US invasion, they were in compliance with every UN demanded requirement. The fact that the US military could find no WMD proves their claim true.

2) The "and 40 others" is utter nonsense. It was a US + lapdog Britain operation start to finish. The MINUTE the basis for the original coalition was proved to be a lie, the "coalition of 40" you claim collapsed to a grand aliance of US, UK, Georgia and Poland and maybe a few other non-entities who were promised money to stay and penalties if they left. Again, revisionism.

But what's the use arguing with you, to whom facts are to be revised to suit the desired outcome? Like your later claim that changes in distance moon-to-sun due to it's orbit about the centre of the earth-moon centre of mass. That's ridiculous. For every hour the moon spend further than earth from the sun, it spends another hour closer to the sun for exactly the same reason.

But what's the point of arguing with you hacks to whom facts mean nothing, only pre-determined conclusions?

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Sep 27, 2009
Bob Ashworth: "Len: This was Piers argument to show you cannot accept at face value what the UN and our governments tell us. " -- The only thing proved in the runup to the second Iraq invasion is that one cannot trust anything the US GOVERNMENT tells them.
Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Sep 27, 2009
( If it is run by republicans)
Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Sep 27, 2009
Wikipedia - 2003 invasion of Iraq

[QUOTE]Powell later admitted he had presented an inaccurate case to the United Nations on Iraqi weapons, based on sourcing that was wrong and in some cases "deliberately misleading."[72][73][74]

The Bush administration asserted that the Hussein government had sought to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger.[75] On March 7, 2003, the US submitted intelligence documents as evidence to the International Atomic Energy Agency. These documents were dismissed by the IAEA as forgeries, with the concurrence in that judgment of outside experts. At the time, a US official claimed that the evidence was submitted to the IAEA without knowledge of its provenance, and characterized any mistakes as "more likely due to incompetence not malice".[/QUOTE] Of course it was neither incompetence or malice, but a cold tactic to try to grab control of Iraq's oil resources.

Jeff Presley's picture
Jeff Presley on Sep 28, 2009
Len, blah blah blah. Go someplace else to argue history/politics. This is Energy Central, and I know you can't help yourself, but try to keep to the topic at hand. Can't you get a girlfriend, or a life? I don't blame you for wanting to argue revisionist history, you get to get all emotional and don't have to deal with objective facts but rather subjective opinions. Physics on the other hand is entirely objective with repeatable experiments, formulas and so on to back it up. No wonder you don't want to argue physics with me, not only are you unqualified but it is difficult to get passionate about electrons.

If you want to put your total faith in the august body of the United Nations, so be it, I'm not going to join you in your delusions. My only correction to my previous post is that there were 39 other countries, not 40. Oops, off the top of my head and all.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Sep 28, 2009
Len: Strangely enough you and I agree on why we went to war in Iraq. Jeff has a valid point about sanctions but I believe it was all about the oil.

Something else that led me in this direction is that three steel structure buildings collapsed at gravity speed on 9/11 and WTC 7 was not hit by a plane. Never in the history of steel structure buildings have they collapsed that way unless demolition explosives were used to take out the supports first. Not a mention of this by the 9-11 Commission. In addition, in the analysis of floor collapse the 47 large vertical steel supports in WTC 1 and 2 were not taken into consideration. Also Rodriquez, the last man out of WTC 1, said there was an explosion in the basement before the plane hit (the 911 Commission paid no attention to his statement). I analyzed this ad nauseum as well and got little sleep for around three months after I heard Dr. Roger Jones ( a physicist at BYU) analysis of thermite exposives being used. It was very hard to accept but I finally concluded he was right. So why didn't our government find what he found?

Why - This is the answer gentlemen - work out the question! The same deviousness now being put out about CO2 causing global warming so they can increase taxes on us.

One last thing to consider in reducing CO2 emissions, for every 1000 tons of CO2 man sequesters, 727 tons of oxygen are deprived from us, our children and pets but only 272 tons of carbon are sequestered. In addition, plant growth is reduced by 1042 tons, taking food away from the We the People

Jim Beyer's picture
Jim Beyer on Sep 28, 2009

Point taken on the barycenter. Although the delta R is only about 0.001 percent. I don't know how much of a difference (the added solar flux) would make. Worth considering, though. Not horribly relevant to atmospheric reflection/re-radiation though, in any case.


It's strains even my rather loose sense of credibility that the same evil force would mastermind BOTH 9/11 AND the Global Warming Conspiracy. If that's the case, then we shouldn't be bickering, as we are the least of each other's problems.....

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Sep 28, 2009

I just evaluate data, don't have a desire to promote conspiracy. However, things look fishy here in both cases. For 9-11 they paid no attention to Rodriquez and Jones and incredibly the FBI doesn't connect Bin Laden to 9-11 on their most wanted poster yet this is who was blamed. Here, even though real temperature measurements show cooling they don't recognize that and still promote CO2 global warming. In both of these cases there are money trails. I have come to the conclusion we need to watch our government very closely, but it probably won't happen because most people are afraid to speak out. If they do they are called all kind of names.

However, Thomas Jefferson once said, “All tyranny needs to gain a foothold, is for people of good conscience to remain silent!” He also said, "If the people are afraid of their government you will have Tyranny, but if the government is afraid of its people you will have Democracy!" A very wise man Jefferson; things must have always been like they are today.

Anyway, follow your own heart and mind always. If something I have said doesn't fit through it away and forget about it.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Sep 28, 2009
If anyone is still looking at this I thought this might be of interest.

Hurricane Specialists

These include Neil Frank (chief meteorologist for Houston’s Channel 11 and former head of the National Hurricane Center), and William Gray of Colorado State. Both believe there is something wrong with the warmers’ case: their reliance on computer models. Frank notes that the models used in weather forecasting can’t be relied on for a three-day forecast, but for global warming we are asked to rely on similar but simpler models, applied to a more complex task. Gray is a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society (AMS). In a speech in Houston he noted that “climate models, while surely useful, are far from perfect…but when modelers move out onto the climate area the complexity becomes too damn much.” Gray recently noted, “Nearly all my colleagues who have been around for 40 or 50 years are skeptical as hell about this whole global warming thing.”

Other experts include James O’Brien of Florida State University, where he is a distinguished professor of meteorology/oceanography. O’Brien has served as state climatologist for Florida. He sees no correlation between hurricane intensity and global warming. Rather he sees a 30-year cycle, 15 building and 15 waning.

The fourth hurricane specialist, Tad Murty, with a Ph.D. in oceanography/meteorology, has spent 27 years at Canada’s Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and has been the director of the Australian National Tidal Facility. He has noted, “My colleagues in India and I put together a 200-year database. We found that the number of cyclones in the twentieth century is about half of that in the nineteenth.” Murty’s view about global warming: “This is the biggest scientific hoax being perpetrated on humanity.”

As you know I completely agree with Murty.

Len Gould's picture
Len Gould on Sep 28, 2009
Bob and Jeff: You guys, diving off into false political arguments, then chiding me for pointing out your errors. If either of you two knew any physics, i'd be happy to argue physics with you.
Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Sep 29, 2009
Len: I gave you the correlation one uses to calculate the net radiation heat transfer from a hotter to cooler body. I asked you several times to provide the correlations used for calculating back radiation, you have not. You are not alone, I have asked many others and each time I am ignored. Please for the umpteenth time where are the back radiation calculations that magically create more energy than was absorbed in the first place. If you cannot produce them then concede you are flat out wrong.
Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Oct 1, 2009
Jeff: WTC #1 and #2 had 47 steel columns in the center of the buildings as well as the ekoskeletons. WTC #7 collapsed the same way. No mention of why it collapsed.

You read the Popular Mechanics analysis. I guess they may have had someone on staff that had taken a technical course.

Read Dr. Steven Jones analysis if you like:

On page 31 you can see where a support beam was cut at a 45 degree angle with thermite. I saw Dr. Jones (his first name is Steven, not Roger as I relayed before) on TV and his testimony caused me to investigate the collapses. I also called and talked with him a few yeasr ago while he was still at BYU. He was a very humble man. I never thought about it that much before I heard his analysis.

Never let your fear of what someone will call you shut you up to what you believe to be the Truth. I have been called a lot of names over the years. This is the approach of small time politicians. If they can't debate you on an issue they call you names. When I wrote my helical travel of light paper a reviewer said I was "mad as a hatter". They couldn't prove me wrong so after 5 years of review the paper was finally published.

Take care!

Jim Beyer's picture
Jim Beyer on Oct 6, 2009
Bob and Jeff,

I don't think Bob is unbalanced, but it does make me question his common sense somewhat. The big problem with these conspiracy theories is that all the pieces only fit together if events played out as they did. What if one of the tower planes had been overcome by its passengers as happened with UA Flight 93? Then you'd have a perfectly fine tower wired to the nines with thermite. How would you remedy that??? What if the South (??) tower had fallen the other way, so that debris would not have hit WTC 7. Then you'd have a lightly damaged, non-burning building suddenly collapse. It's strains credibility.

My comments are not ridiculous. Daniel Lewin, a graduate of Israel's elite commando unit, Sayeret Matkal, was on the AA Flight 11 that crashed into the North Tower. He was killed by a hijacker long before the plane crashed. If he had succeeded, then the WTC tower might never have been hit. And why would conspirators, who presumably have such control over everything, even allow an Israeli commando on one of these flights?

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Oct 6, 2009

"I remember getting a call from the fire department commander telling me that they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said you know we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do (for WTC 7) is, is "Pull It", ahhh, and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse" ---Larry Silverstein (owner of WTC buildings).

This happened around 5:30 PM on 9-11. Videotape interview with Silverstein in the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002.

"Pull it" is a demolition term. All three towers fell into their own footprints at gravity speed (~6-7 secs.) If the towers fell over it would be a different story but they all three collapsed into their own footprints and there was molten steel for a long time under all three buildings. Molten steel is a by-product of a thermite reaction.

To this old engineer it sounds like demoiltion had to be used. WTC 7 collapsed just like WTC 1 and 2 and no plane hit it. Even though impossible, if you say jet fuel melted the steel in WTC 1 & 2, no plane hit WTC 7, and molten steel was seen under all three.

Jim Beyer's picture
Jim Beyer on Oct 6, 2009

You just completely ignored my point. You are oblivious to facts which do not suit your pre-conceptions. If 9/11 was a "stunt", then there should be some building out there that is still wired up, as it was the target for UA Flt 93. What building is that???

Look at Jeff's website. You can see clearly that the South Tower was not falling on its own footprint. The large top section disintegrated in mid-air as concrete would do when exposed to forces not planned for that configuration.

And yes, this DOES give me pause to question your judgment on other issues, including AGW.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Oct 7, 2009
Jim: WTC 7 was wired as I relayed. Didn't you see that? It would take weeks to set up such a demolition. That is the real reason they pulled it. It was ready for a plane hit. Did you see what Sileverstein said? I saw that interview shortly after it was put on TV. CBS reported that FEMA flew people into NY on 9/10. Just a coincidence?

UA Flt 93 was shot down over PA according to what Rumsfeld relayed or was that just a slip of the tongue. Here's what Rumsfeld said to our troops in Iraq: "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

Did he get everything right except for the plane in PA or was that right too? I looked at that site too. They never found any bodies there and there were only small pieces of the plane lying around. i think he told the truth.

Did you read Dr. Jones analysis compared to the Popular Mechanics article Jeff referred to?

I am done arguing on this subject. What people think of me is of no concern, except for my wife. Americans need to scrutinize everything that happens if they want liberty. It it stinks, say it stinks! Everyone is too concenred with being politically correct. I am a fan of Truth myself. You always have the right to disagree.

Jim Beyer's picture
Jim Beyer on Oct 7, 2009

Now I feel like the lawyer in "The Caine Mutiny" getting Bogart to obsess about the strawberries. I am going to stop now too, as I don't like this feeling. At all.

Bob Ashworth's picture
Bob Ashworth on Dec 4, 2009
ClimateGate has uncovered the pseudo-scientist charlatans of the IPCC. I knew they were lying all along from evaluating actual climate data. Truth is God, and truth alone triumphs.,


Get Published - Build a Following

The Energy Central Power Industry Network is based on one core idea - power industry professionals helping each other and advancing the industry by sharing and learning from each other.

If you have an experience or insight to share or have learned something from a conference or seminar, your peers and colleagues on Energy Central want to hear about it. It's also easy to share a link to an article you've liked or an industry resource that you think would be helpful.

                 Learn more about posting on Energy Central »