Het andere boek van de Sky Dragon-slayers.

• Klimaatverandering en de imaginaire link met overbevolking:
  Population, or at least overpopulation, is central to arguments of environmentalism and the Club says that we have to stop growth, especially growth engendered by fossil fuels. We need a new world order. One member  of the Club with the contacts and organizational abilities to tackle such an incredible objective was Maurice Strong.
• De rol van Maurice Strong "socialistische kapitalist":
  He told Maclean's magazine in 1976 that he was “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” Presumably this justifies the duplicity in a socialist making a great deal of money as an industrialist. He also warned that, “…if we don't heed his environmentalist warnings, the Earth will collapse into chaos.”You need two components to carry out your plan. One is a scientific agency; the other is a global political agency that can bypass national governments. Strong's experience told him the United Nations (UN) was his vehicle. Elaine Dewar, wrote about Strong in her book “Cloak of Green”12 and concluded that he liked the UN because, “He could raise his own money from whomever he liked, appoint anyone he wanted, control the agenda.” The challenge was two fold. Advance the political agenda and provide the scientific evidence to provide legitimacy. Organization of, and appointment as, first Secretary General of the United Nations Environmental Program established in 1972 provided the political platform. Out of that agency and in conjunction with the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to provide and advance the scientific evidence.
• De manipulaties van het IPCC (geleerd van Strong):
  The manipulation and politics didn't stop there. The Technical Reports of the three Working Groups are set aside and another group prepares the Summary for Policymakers (SPM). A few of the scientists prepare a first draft, which is then reviewed by government representatives. These scientists effectively control the SPM and always included key people all later identified in the email scandal known as Climategate. A second draft is produced, and then a final report is hammered out as a compromise between the scientists and the individual government representatives. It was this process that allowed Michael Mann, author of the infamous and scientifically flawed “hockey stick”, to be a lead author of the Paleoclimate chapter (2)24 section and of the SPM for the 2001 IPCC Report. It's not surprising that the “hockey stick” is front and centre in the SPM. It became pivotal evidence in convincing politicians and the public that the present was warmer than the past. Section 2.3 is titled, “Is the recent warming unusual?” This question confronts the challenge made by the few skeptics with a public voice about past climate. Control of the research done by IPCC was supplemented by the need to counteract growing critiques of their claims. The SPM is then released at least three months before the science report. Most of the scientists involved in the science report see the Summary for the first time when it is released to the public. The time between its release to the public and the release of the Technical Report is taken up with making sure it aligns with what the politicians/scientists have concluded. Here is the instruction in the IPCC procedures.
• De verandering in temperatuur kan perfect verklaard worden door "cloud albedo", waarom vertrouwen op een stof die zo weinig aanwezig is in de atmosfeer zoals CO2?
  Thus, except for the influence of cloud albedo, no assumptions are needed regarding the detailed composition of the atmosphere in order to explain the observed modest variations in 20th Century temperatures of the Earth's atmosphere. This analysis supports the earlier conclusion (1) that it implausible to expect that small changes in the concentration of any minor atmospheric constituent such as carbon dioxide can significantly influence the radiative equilibrium between the Sun, the Earth, and free space.
• Hoe propagandisten onderscheiden van wetenschappers?
  There is a simple way to tell the difference between propagandists and scientists. If scientists have a theory they search diligently for data that might actually contradict the theory so that they can fully test its validity or refine it. Propagandists, on the other hand, carefully select only the data that might agree with their theory and dutifully ignore any data that disagrees with it.
• Data tonen dat temperatuurwijzigingen VOORAFGAAN aan wijzigingin in CO2:
  The same Vostok data show that changes in temperature always precede the changes in atmospheric CO2 by about 500-1500 years.
• CO2 is onschuldig:
  Carbon dioxide (CO2), at less than 400 parts per million by volume, does not and can not influence either the atmospheric temperature or the climate in any measurable way. Only laboratory experiments with heat lamps can make carbon dioxide do what climate change proponents want it to do: warm the flasks that contain CO2. Yet this is not principally how the open atmosphere gets heated and no laboratory experiment can mimic actual air dynamics or be extrapolated to represent them.
• Teruggestraalde energie kan niet voor hogere temperaturen zorgen; dit zou immers in strijd zijn met de eerste wet van de dynamica (behoud van energie: energie kan dus niet worden vernietigd, noch gecreëerd, enkel van vorm veranderen):
  But, critically important, re-radiated energy cannot make a heat source any warmer than it was in the first place! If it could, we would have found the holy grail of energy, a perpetuum mobile whereby more energy is extracted than what goes in.
• Menselijke activiteit draagt maar 3% aan totale emissies waarvan 98% reeds binnen het jaar geabsorbeerd wordt:
  Secondly and of equal importance is the fact that human activities constitute about 3% of the yearly emissions total. More than 98% of this total is absorbed within a year (thus contradicting the long residence claim). Since 1.5% is left over, which is recorded as the increase of atmospheric CO2, the human contribution is only 3% of this 1.5%.
• Geen opwarming tussen 2000 en 2010:
  Third is the inconvenient fact that the world hasn't been warming for more than a decade now (2010), despite a steady and ever climbing carbon dioxide level, proof enough by itself that no influence over global temperatures is to be gained from extra atmospheric carbon dioxide.
• De enige echte bron van warmte is de Zon:
  The only worthwhile source of warmth for planet earth is our Sun, warming all of the land and all of the seas, which then warm the atmosphere – not the other way around; the atmosphere does not warm the earth,  other than during short-term exceptional weather conditions such as the Sirocco winds over the Canary Islands.
• De rol van vulkanen:
  Volcanoes add a small amount of heat locally as and when they erupt and sometimes may cause temporary global cooling until the ash and other material has settled back to earth. Erupting underwater volcanoes will  add some warmth to the sea, but in the bigger picture, it is only the sun that adds global warmth to our planet. The atmosphere is mostly warmed up from the heat that radiates off the surface of the earth. During the day, the atmosphere in fact helps to cool the earth and, depending where on earth you are, during the night the atmosphere will either continue to cool the earth (at the poles and in dry deserts) or keep the earth warm (at the equator). Water vapor helps to maintain some of the daytime warmth during the nighttime, the greater the humidity, and the greater the capacity of the atmosphere to maintain temperature. At no stage though does water vapor add warmth to the atmosphere and neither does carbon dioxide – only in closed test flasks in a laboratory, but under no circumstances in the open atmosphere in which we all live.
• De onkunde van Westerse regeringen:
  All Western governments subscribed to the ideals without understanding the deeper meaning of the hidden agendas and lured by the promise of huge subsidies, taxation and green job creation schemes.
• Onwetenschappelijke aannames zijn aan de orde van de dag:
  A lot of obscurantism has been thrown at the nature of radiant energy in order to make the weird propositions of greenhouse theory seem plausible. The unalterably downward flow of thermal energy is the very essence of the second law of thermodynamics, for instance, but academics will try to argue that the 2nd law of physics only applies to “whole systems”, not to heat transfer in each and every particular.
  That's obscurantism, a practice that's gotten so common in science that anyone who states a matter plainly is now suspected of being a fake. A sad irony for it's been the academics, the pros, who have tripped all over themselves to explain and defend a theory that the evidence keeps contradicting. So what has this left us  with?
  Just a sour attitude toward science that “if it's incomprehensible, it must be true.” If glass lets visible wavelengths of sunlight in but doesn't let invisible long-wavelengths (infrared) out, thus raising the  temperature inside, then glass thermometers have been misleading us for centuries. According to that same theory then, glass thermometers necessarily register an extra “greenhouse effect” and not the true temperature. In reality, however, no extra heating would come about even IF the glass were trapping infrared. The thermometer would simply take longer to adjust to changes of temperature. But it would NOT record a higher-than-actual temperature. As a thermos demonstrates, trapping heat doesn't raise the temperature, it only sustains it.
• De vergelijking met een broeikas ("greenhouse") is misleidend:
  An actual greenhouse, whether made from glass or plastic sheeting, reaches higher temperatures inside than outside due to the restriction put on the internal air mass to disperse its acquired heat within the rest of the open atmosphere. Even a wooden garden shed is warmer inside than the air outside. The air mass in turn has gained its heat from the total contents of the greenhouse, such as the soil or other ground cover material and all other objects within the space of the actual greenhouse. All matter within the confined space will absorb sunlight and cause the air within the confined space to warm up, initially by conduction, followed by convection. The contents of the greenhouse thus gain their heat from direct sunlight, which is made up of a full spectrum of electro-magnetic radiation including infrared.
  The only true “greenhouse gas” is air itself (oxygen and nitrogen). Gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide have gained the reputation of being “greenhouse gases” (GHGs) because they do react to radiation at various frequencies and thus gain heat directly from sunlight as well as via conduction. In laboratory tests this means that any enclosed space of air heats up more when there are more of these GHGs present in the space of the enclosure of the experiment. But there is no experiment possible that mimics the open atmosphere, by definition!
• Zogenaamde broeikasgassen gaan de warmte van de zon zelfs verder verspreiden tenminste in een open atmosfeer, het tegenovergestelde dus van wat beweerd wordt:
  In the open atmosphere, the so-called GHGs actually work to increase the scattering of any solar heat, quite the opposite of what we are led to believe. Imagine an actual greenhouse with low humidity and another one with high humidity (any difference in level will prove the point). Actual experiments have proven that a greenhouse with lower humidity takes less energy to heat. This is obvious as water vapor, a celebrated GHG, in reacting to energy warms up but then dissipates this energy to the air that's holding it - quite the opposite of what we are led to believe, heat is not “trapped” – it is dissipated. Carbon dioxide reacts in the same way to water vapor and dissipates any acquired energy. See below for further information about absorption. Carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas; it does not absorb infrared or near-infrared in a way that a sponge absorbs water and it does not transmit visible light - it is transparent to visible light.
  Any energy that hits a carbon dioxide molecule will create, at the same instant, an equal and opposite emission spectrum, giving the casual observer the false illusion that energy has been “absorbed”, whereas it has merely been scattered. Some of the energy that hits the carbon dioxide molecule may well increase the temperature of that molecule (depending on how the energy hits the alignment of the molecule), but that gained heat (theoretical only, can not be measured in the open atmosphere) will also be instantly dissipated by means of conduction with surrounding air molecules and at less than 400 parts in a million parts of air, those 400 carbon dioxide molecules would collectively need to reach several hundreds of degrees to warm the million parts of air by even a fraction of a degree, all at the same time, all over the world, all the time …. (all the while when the warmer air is rising and sharing its gained heat with ever higher altitude molecules of air and trace gases).
• Broeikasgassen kunnen warmte niet absorberen, er is geen mechanisme voorhanden. Global warming is a hoax:
  There is no physical mechanism by which a gas can absorb energy without at the same instant creating an equal and opposite emission spectrum and in the open atmosphere of our planet there is in any case nowhere for energy to hide, other than in ice or water. Carbon dioxide can not absorb and preserve energy. At no stage is cooling prevented and even if it was, that would not increase the originally achieved maximum temperature. A blanket can at best maintain your body temperature, it can not add heat and give you a fever; it does not make you warmer, it just keeps you warmer.
  The earth would be warmer if there was to be no water vapor in the atmosphere and by some margin (but only during the hours of sunshine of course).
  Observational evidence can be seen on a daily basis when comparing maximum temperatures in deserts that have coastal fringes (e.g. Sahara, Namib and Atacama), where it will be seen that there is a direct link between humidity and maximum as well as minimum daily temperatures.
• De afwezigheid van waterdamp creëert een WARMERE aarde:
  Absence of water vapor allows more of the sun's radiation to reach the ground and thus create a warmer earth locally when compared to an atmosphere that holds greater water vapor and is at the same latitude. Conversely, the absence of water vapor will allow greater cooling at night whilst high humidity areas benefit from greater preservation of warmth, a sort-of “greenhouse effect” in reverse. 3. That statement only holds true in high humidity areas and then only during the hours of darkness. The presence of water vapor creates a cooler daytime atmosphere and a less cold (not warmer) atmosphere at night. At no stage is heat added nor created by the presence of water vapor or any other substance. In any case, earth is already enveloped in the perfect “blanket”: the vacuum of space - void of matter and having no temperature of itself, we could not ask for a better insulation. As per #1 above, a blanket can at best maintain your body temperature, it can not give you a fever and neither can a thermos make its contents warmer.
• De rol van zonnestraling:
  If ever there was equilibrium between temperatures on earth and solar irradiance, the weather as we know it would cease to be. As is, solar radiation often varies more from mile to mile along any longitude or latitude than anyone could ever imagine and all climate related “averages” are purely mathematical entities that bear no relation to the actual situation at almost any point on our planet other than perhaps the coldest areas of the poles during their respective long periods of winter darkness when there is not enough energy entering the local climate system to create the greater variations witnessed in more temperate climate zones. Just looking at the maximum and minimum temperature of a particular place in a moderate climate zone and deriving an “average daily temperature” from such observations bears no resemblance to the ever-changing temperatures throughout the day. In between the observed maximum and minimum temperature of the day, it could have hailed or snowed or rained or have been overcast in several episodes. The struggle to reach equilibrium is what makes the weather so unpredictable and equilibrium can never be reached.
• Klimaat "wetenschap" is contradictio in terminis:
  5. A brand new Law of Physics here, where parts within a system can behave contrary to the 2nd Law but the whole obeys. Only in “climate science” can such chicanery be accepted as academic judgment. Thermal energy cannot flow into itself, only into something that has less energy than itself. That's a law of nature, not a law of“systems”. 6. A photon will not be able to raise the temperature of the object it is hitting if that object is at an equal or higher energy level. In IPCC graphics, that photon warms the earth and the process starts again - quite impossible (see IPCC graphic below). As per #5 above: Thermal energy cannot flow into itself, only into something that has less energy than itself. That's a law of nature, not a law of “systems”.
• Nogmaals:
  Thermal insulation in the setting of our open atmosphere does not make the system one degree warmer than it would be without that insulation (the widely accepted “insulation” being the “greenhouse gases”, not the air itself (nitrogen, oxygen)). For a given energy input, a resultant maximum temperature is achieved and  regardless of the amount or type of insulation, that maximum temperature can not be increased. As per #1 above, a blanket can at best maintain your body temperature, it can not give you a fever and a thermos does not make the contents warmer, it merely slows down the rate of cooling.
  An “infrared greenhouse effect” (whatever next?) would need “greenhouse gases” to hang on to received radiation and only water has that ability which is best seen during the hours of darkness, not whilst the sun is adding energy, when in fact water and water vapor keep soaking up energy and prevent the atmosphere from warming up as much as it would without water and water vapor (quite the opposite to what is being proposed).
  A 77 degree average surface temperature due to the purely radiative impact of the greenhouse effect? Radiant units do NOT combine in reality - 101 W/m2 directed at a blackbody that's radiating 100 W/m2 raises its energy to 101 W/m2, not 201 - but in the much heralded Kiehl-Trenberth budget they DO combine. 
  In the reality of our open atmosphere it is thus the case that the only actual “greenhouse gas” is air itself (oxygen and nitrogen), whose presence allows an actual greenhouse to warm up. But quite opposite to an actual greenhouse, during the hours of sunshine it is this same air that keeps our open atmosphere cooler (compare the moon), whilst during the hours of darkness it prevents the atmosphere from cooling too rapidly (compare the moon). At no stage is our atmosphere warmer than it could possibly be due to the presence of water vapor, or carbon dioxide for that matter. Trapped heat can never make the source of the heat hotter than it was in the first place - how could it?
• Geloven ze zelf wel in hun onzin?
  If carbon dioxide really is such a danger to mankind, as the US EPA would have us believe, then the upcoming 2012 Olympic Games should be cancelled, as well as all other big sporting events, as well as all road transport and all air transport and all coal- and gas-fired power stations should be shut down, all boats and trains to be halted – in fact, we might as well stop breathing too. Clearly there is no need for such drastic action and clearly atmospheric carbon dioxide at even 400 ppmv is not dangerous at all, why, when we breathe out the level is a whopping 50,000ppmv. From the word go, the UN IPCC has provided us with scenarios based on the principle of perpetuum mobile by clearly indicating that the earth is getting warmer due to re-radiated infrared energy from the increased levels of carbon dioxide. That scenario can not physically exist. The sun provides the energy to warm the earth and the only possible effect that carbon dioxide could have on the atmosphere is to increase heat dispersion and thus cause cooling. But at 400 ppmv the effect would not be measurable. As a further rebuttal of the influence of carbon dioxide over the climate, the alleged IPCC greenhouse effect is a non-existent effect. No greenhouse, whether made from glass, plastic, cardboard or steel will reach a higher inside temperature due to the magic of re-radiated infrared energy. If it did, engineers would have long ago been able to design power stations made from air, mirrors and glass, extracting more energy out of it than was put into it - if only!
• Conclusie:
  In conclusion, then, a century after Rutherford's momentous lecture, I urge the reader to consider nothing but the facts before them. Those facts are that carbon dioxide does not and can not cause global warming, the currently accepted paradigm notwithstanding.