FEATURED COMMENTARIES

WHO HAS THE BURDON OF PROOF, BELIEVERS OR SKEPTICS?
2016 Dec 1 from Murray Hall
Mr. Griffin,
Global warming is real. Please provide your facts and proof that global warming is a lie! I look forward to receiving your response.

REPLY BY GEG:
Hello Murray.
This is in response to your request for me to provide proof that global warming is a lie. It is an axiom of logic that it is impossible to prove a negative. For example, it is impossible to prove that Queen Elizabeth never uttered a cuss word or that ghosts don’t exist. The best one can do is to show that there is no hard evidence that the Queen cussed or that ghosts exist. To demand that a person produce proof of a negative is not logical because the task is impossible.

The other side of the argument, however, is different. If one says the Queen DOES cuss or that ghost DO exist, we are entitled to see a video recording of her doing so (with witnesses who independently confirm it) and to experience a convincing demonstration of a ghostly visit.

Bringing this to the scientific realm, it is impossible to prove that gold cannot be created out of lead, so asking someone to prove it is illogical. That does not mean we should assume that gold-from-lead is possible, but merely that we understand that a negative is not subject to proof. On the other hand, if someone says that gold CAN be derived from lead, we have every right to ask that person to prove it while we watch. If he fails to do so, then it is reasonable to question the validity of his claim.

I mention this to put perspective on your illogical expectation that I should prove a negative hypothesis (that global warming does not exist). However, this also puts perspective on a logical expectation for me to expect you to prove that global warming DOES exist. You are the one who is asserting a hypothesis subject to proof by scientific method, so let us see it. If you cannot produce it, or if what you offer is shown to be fatally flawed, then it is reasonable to question it.

The burden of proof is on those who claim that anthropogenic global warming is real, not on those who question it. That means the entire discussion hinges on the quality of the scientific evidence in support of AGM. However, as will be demonstrated at our conference (Global Warming, an Inconvenient Lie), the quality of that evidence is so low that it must be graded as junk science.

It is too late to register for this event, but please watch Need to Know News for the announcement of a free broadcast on the Internet of the entire program. If you cannot catch that, and if you want to acquire a video of the event, eventually it will be available in DVD.

________________________

THE ALKA-SELTZER OCEAN
2016 Dec 2 from Professor Will Happer (Princeton)
[This is in response to Burt Maupin’s belief that CO2 is causing acidification of the ocean. This belief undoubtedly was influenced by NOAA, the United States National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration. NOAA says:

“…CO2 absorbed by the ocean is changing the chemistry of the seawater, a process called OCEAN ACIDIFICATION.” Elsewhere on NOAA’s web site, it states: “… continued ocean acidification is causing many parts of the ocean to become undersaturated with these minerals [calcium carbonate], which is likely to affect the ability of some organisms to produce and maintain their shells.”

Please note the phrase “is likely to”. This is speculation. If there is evidence to support this, it is not provided. This theory is scientifically challenged in the reports attached to Professor Happer’s reply, below:]

Dear Burt and Ed, Burt asks a very good question about ocean pollution. None of us want to pollute the ocean. We should not be dumping real pollutants in the ocean. But CO2 is not a pollutant and it cannot acidify the ocean, which is very basic (alkaline) because of the mixture of salts in it. Ocean chemistry is similar to that of “alka seltzer” (sodium bicarbonate).

I have attached two paper on CO2 and “ocean acidification.” One, by Patrick Moore, a founder of Greenpeace [in Canada], is written for non-technical readers. The second, by myself and the late Roger Cohen, is written for nerds. The message of both is the same. If anything, more CO2 will make the oceans more productive, just as they were in the geological past when CO2 levels were much higher than today. In fact, those historic levels were higher than any that could be produced today by burning all the economically available fossil fuels.
Article by Moore
Article by Happer & Cohen

_____________________________

SHELL FISH ADAPT TO CO2 AND pH CHANGES
2016 Dec 2 from The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Dear Mr Maupin,
There is no need to worry about ocean “acidification”. The oceans are and, under anything like modern conditions must remain, pronouncedly alkaline. The pH or acid-base scale, which is logarithmic, runs from 0-14, where 7 is neutral. Values below 7 are acid and values above 7 are alkaline. For calibration, rainwater is pronouncedly acid at pH 5.4, while seawater is pronouncedly alkaline at pH 7.9.

The calcite corals, among the most ancient of the calcifying (i.e. calcium-carbonate shell-making) organisms, first evolved in the Cambrian era 550 million years ago. The more delicate aragonite corals first achieved algal symbiosis 175 million years ago in the Jurassic era. Both types of coral survived the most recent period during which the ocean is thought to have been acid, about 54-million years ago. They are, therefore, capable of coping with acidity – and, indeed, they must do this, because some coral reefs are not far from the mouths of rivers that, in flood, discharge very large volumes of acid rainwater into the ocean, so that local conditions in the ocean are mildly acid.

The reason why it was originally thought that a reduction in the alkalinity of the oceans might harm calcifying organisms is that laboratory experiments added acids to seawater, dissolving the shells in the water. However, this dissolution occurred only because the introduction of the acids drove the chemical reaction in precisely the wrong direction. It is now better understood – though seldom reported in the mainstream news media – that the corals and other calcifying organisms are well able to withstand even quite large and sudden changes in ocean pH.

Furthermore, there has been no sufficiently-resolved, systemic global measurement of the pH of the oceans. There are a few short-time series for individual locations, but these data are much affected by local conditions that may not be relevant at the global scale. So there is very little in the way of evidence that the oceans are becoming less alkaline.

Nor would we expect much change: for there is already 60-70 times as much CO2 in the oceans as there is in the atmosphere, so even taking all the CO2 in the atmosphere and transferring it to the occeans would not make much difference to their acid-base balance.

Ocean “acidification”, then, is just one more scare whipped up by environmental Socialists for political purposes that have nothing to do with the environment.

_____________________________

GEOENGINEERING CAUSING WARMING?
posted 2016 Nov 26 from Valeri Hood
Dear Mr. Giffin
As long as the massive geoengineering program is on-going, how can we eliminate the idea of global warming? We are seeing the icebergs and glaciers melt at an incredible pace- I’ve seen this for myself. ‘They’ have thrown in a factor that we can’t accurately account for, as we don’t have a testing mechanism worldwide to track what they are doing to all weather systems.

I don’t really understand how anyone can say conclusively that global warming is not occurring-given geoengineering, and I don’t know how we can say that human pollution will not have an effect on the temperature.

RPLY BY GEG:
Hello Valeri.
I am glad you raised these questions. Regarding melting of the icebergs, some are melting and some are growing. The total global ice, including Arctic and Antarctic, has been growing for quite a while, but the news media talks only about those components of the total that favor the myth of global warming. You will see the scientific proof of that in the video version of our conference.

The issue of human waste and pollution is challenging. We all hate pollution, and everything possible should be done to eliminate it, but that is not an argument for global warming. I have never seen any scientific evidence that the two are related in any signicant way. Pollution and global warming are two different things and almost totally unrelated. We should be alert to the media mind-conditioning to which we are subjected in which we see images of ugly and detestable pollution while listening to the narrator speak against the horrors of global warming. It’s a trick.

In my view, the claim that geoengineering actually causes planetary warming is valid, but please note that the leaders of the global-warming theory are not calling for the end of geoengineering. In fact, most of them are repeating the line that geoengineering is a terribly dangerous thing to undertake. They warn that much could go wrong, but then they say we are running out of time to save the planet, so we have no choice but to take the risk.

Instead, the global warmists are demanding the reduction of CO2 – and, as we shall prove at the conference, CO2 does not and never could produce anywhere near the warming catastrophe being predicted. As Professor Happer at Princeton University (and others) will show, CO2 is not toxic to humans, is essential to plant growth (think agriculture) and now is at lower levels than ever before in recorded history. The truth is that the Earth needs more CO2, not less.

When people see this evidence, often they are confused, because they cannot believe that the scientists who promote the theory of global warming could make such a huge mistake. The answer is that the warmists are not real scientists – in the classical sense that they are seeking scientific truth. Rather, they have prostituted themselves and their knowledge of science to promote a political agenda. That agenda is to scare us into accepting crushing taxes and government controls to reduce an alleged ‘carbon footprint’ from CO2 supposedly to save the planet.

They claim that the global-warming skeptics are all working for the oil and coal industries. Not only is this false but, if you look carefully, you will find that almost all of the people promoting the global-warming hoax are politicians, government employees, or work for institutions that are funded by government. If you are looking for a conflict of interest, you need go no further.

This and much more will be exposed at the conference in Phoenix. It is too late to register for the event but not too late to obtain a DVD recording at low, event prices. That can be done here. Thanks for writing.