Planet’s Temperature Controls CO2 Emissions, not Humans

Human emissions do not control the climate or the planet’s CO2 levels.

by Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
August 5, 2011

In recent days, it was revealed that NASA’s satellite data for the years of 2000 through 2011 showed Earth’s atmosphere had allowed more heat to be released into space than previously presented by climate change alarmists. The latest study was published in the peer-reviewed Remote Sensing Science Journal. Although United Nations sponsored studies and those of other climate change alarmist organizations warned us about how global warming would dramatically increased in the coming years, the study published on Remote Sensing proves otherwise, which should at least make some room for the alarmists to review their numbers.

Given the fact more heat was released into space than previously thought, the planet’s atmospheric CO2 concentrations seem to be a less important factor when it comes to planetary temperature increases. Atmospheric CO2 traps less heat than alarmists said it does. One of the co-authors of the study, Dr. Roy Spencer, from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and says that what is called real world data from NASA’s Terra satellite contradict previous assumptions fed into alarmist computer models. “The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show. There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans.”

Along with the study cited above, comes a new study from Professor Murry Salby who is the Chair of Climate Science at Macquarie University. Professor Salby observed C12 and C13 ratios and CO2 levels around the world for the past two years. The results of his observations conclude that man-made emissions have only a small effect on global CO2 levels. Man-made emissions do not control climate and neither do they control CO2 levels. Professor Salby related his findings in a speech called: “Global Emission of Carbon Dioxide: The Contribution from Natural Sources” Listen to Professor Salby’s conference here.

As it has been proven previously, the oceans and large green areas of the planet emit more CO2 into the atmosphere than all human activity. Industrialization emits about 5 gigatons of CO2 per year, while the oceans emit 90 gigatons and plant life on land emit some 6o gigatons.

“It is often asserted that we can measure the human contribution of CO2 to the air by looking at the ratio of C12 to C13. The theory is that plants absorb more C12 than C13 (by about 2%, not a big signature), so we can look at the air and know which came from plants and which came from volcanos and which came from fossil fuels, via us. Plants are ‘deficient’ in C13, and so, then, ought to be our fossil fuel derived CO2. The implication is that since coal and oil were from plants, that “plant signature” means “human via fossil fuels”. But it just isn’t that simple. We are 5.5 and plants are putting 121.6 into the air each year (not counting ocean plants). There is a lot of carbon slopping back and forth between sinks and sources. Exactly how closely do we know the rate of soil evolution of CO2, for example?”

While satellite measurements tell us the planet let out more heat than it was believed by climate change alarmists, they also help us localize “hotspots” for CO2 emissions. The ‘novelty’ with satellite observations is that large cities in heavily industrialized countries are not part of those “hotspots”. The main sources of CO2 emissions are places with large areas covered by vegetation like the Amazon, tropical areas, southeast Asia, and tropical Africa.

As data shows, more CO2 concentrations are  found when the planet experiences warming due to phenomena such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). Conversely, less concentration of CO2 is recorded when the planet experiences more volcanic activity because the large clouds of ash that the volcanoes emit help to keep the planet cooler. So, during warmer years, the levels of CO2 were smaller, while in colder years the concentrations were larger. Temperature controls CO2 levels in the atmosphere, not human emissions.

The failure of the climate models usually taken as proof to argue that the planet is experiencing global warming or that human activity is responsible for climate change is the fact those climate models are prepared to assume that human CO2 emissions, that result from industrialization are responsible for the warming and the changes in climate. As it has been abundantly proven, climate changes occur through centuries or millenia, not decades or years.

Professor Salby believes that temperature variations explain the different CO2 concentrations.

The NASA Terra satellite data support other NOAA and NASA data that indicated that atmospheric humidity and cloud formation do not increase in the way climate alarmists say they do. “Both the NASA ERBS and Terra satellite data show that for 25 years and counting, carbon dioxide emissions have directly and indirectly trapped far less heat than alarmist computer models have predicted.”

As a third caveat to the global warming and climate change debate, an article dated July 19, 2011 from The Register, reveals how the chief of the world’s leading physics lab at CERN in Geneva prohibited scientists to talk about the results of recent experiments that prove how solar energy particles determine cloud formation in our planet. The CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets”) experiment uses CERN’s proton synchrotron to examine nucleation.

CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer managed to tone down the fact that solar activity is the main driver of climate in the solar system, saying that “cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.”Heuer added that if the results were published, they would be turned into tools for political debate.

The CLOUD experiment are based on previous experiments by physicist Henrik Svensmark. “He demonstrated that cosmic rays provide a seed for clouds. Tiny changes in the earth’s cloud cover could account for variations in temperature of several degrees. The amount of Ultra Fine Condensation Nuclei (UFCN) material depends on the quantity of the background drizzle of rays, which varies depending on the strength of the sun’s magnetic field and the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field.”

Veteran science editor Nigel Calder says that CERN’s policy to remain politically correct when it comes to the global warming or climate change debate is not surprising. He adds that it is a common occurrence for organizations like CERN not to want to discuss the results of experiments or observations that do not support their theories. “It’s OK to enter ‘the highly political arena of the climate change debate’ provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark’s heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation.”

These three examples of how more recent solid science proves that the alarmist-driven global warming movement has been lied to does not even consider the infamous Climategate emails that showed the corruption of a section of the scientific community. Is there any need for further evidence to disprove the fake global warming alarmism? There is certainly a stronger need to keep on studying climate and how it changes without proposing insane global weather modification practices such as employing nuclear weapons to reverse climate change, the spraying of toxic chemicals to block the sun from driving life on the planet, propose population reduction as a way to curb CO2 emissions, de-industrialize the planet to keep it for the animals as they are equaled to humans, adopt genetically modified organisms to feed the world because it has a smaller CO2 footprint and a host of other demented practices now being proposed by failed politicians, governments and international organizations.

Clean Energy Boom Heading to the Abyss

By. Devon Swezey
Breakthrough Institute
July 11, 2011

The global clean energy industry is set for a major crash. The reason is simple. Clean energy is still much more expensive and less reliable than coal or gas, and in an era of heightened budget austerity the subsidies required to make clean energy artificially cheaper are becoming unsustainable.

Clean tech crashes are nothing new. The U.S. wind energy industry has collapsed three times before, first in the mid 1990s and most recently in 2002 and 2004 when Congress failed to extend the tax credit that made it profitable. But the impact and magnitude of the coming clean tech crash will far outstrip those of past years.

As part of its effort to combat the economic recession, the federal government pumped nearly $80 billion in direct investment and tax credits into the clean energy sector, catalyzing an unprecedented industry expansion. Solar energy, for example, grew 67% in the United States in 2010. The U.S. wind energy industry also experienced unprecedented growth as a result of the generous Section 1603 clean energy stimulus program. The industry grew by 40% and added 10 GW of new turbines in 2009. Yet many of the federal subsidies that have driven such rapid growth are set to expire in the next few years, and clean energy remains unable to compete without them.

The crash won’t be limited to the United States. In many European countries, clean energy subsidies have become budget casualties as governments attempt to curb mounting deficits. Spain, Germany, France, Italy and the Czech Republic have all announced cuts to clean energy subsidies.

Such cuts are not universal, however. China, flush with cash, is bucking the trend, committing $760 billion over 10 years for clean energy projects. China is continuing to invest in low-carbon energy as a way of meeting its voracious energy demand, diversifying its electricity supply, and alleviating some of the negative health consequences of its reliance on fossil energy.

If U.S. and European clean energy markets collapse while investment continues to ramp up in China, the short-term consequences will likely be a migration of much of the industry to Asia. As we wrote in our 2009 report, “Rising Tigers, Sleeping Giant,” this would have significant economic consequences for the United States, as the jobs, revenues and other benefits of clean tech growth accrue overseas.

In the long-term, however, clean energy must become much cheaper and more reliable if it is to widely displace fossil fuels on the scale of national economies and become a commercially viable industry.

Breaking the Boom-Bust Cycle

Why is the United States still locked in this self-perpetuating boom-bust cycle in clean energy? The problem, according to a new essay by energy experts David Victor and Kassia Yanosek in this week’s Foreign Affairs, is that our system of clean energy subsidization is jury-rigged to support the deployment of only the least-risky and most mature clean energy technologies, while lacking clear incentives for continual innovation that could make clean energy competitive on cost with conventional energy sources. Rather, we should “invest in more innovative technologies that stand a better chance of competing with conventional energy sources over the long haul.” According to Victor and Yanosek, nearly seven-eighths of global clean energy investment goes toward deploying existing technologies that aren’t competitive without subsidy, while only a small share goes to encouraging innovation in existing technologies or developing new ones.

This must change. Rather than simply subsidize production of current technologies, we need a comprehensive energy innovation strategy to develop, manufacture, and deploy riskier but more promising clean energy technologies that may eventually compete with fossil energy at scale. Instead of rewarding companies for building the same product, we should reward companies who continuously improve designs and cut costs over time.

Such a federal strategy will require major federal investments, but of a different kind than the subsidies that have driven the clean tech industry in years past. For starters, we must dramatically ramp up funding for early-stage clean energy research and development. A growing bipartisan group of think tanks and business leaders have pushed an investment of at least $15 billion annually in energy R&D, up from its current $4 billion level.

Targeted funding is needed to solve technology challenges and ensure that innovative technologies can develop and improve. One key program that helps fulfill this need is ARPA-E, which funds a portfolio of innovative technology companies and helps connect them with private investors. But ARPA-E’s budget has continually been under assault in budget negotiations, hampering its ability to catalyze innovation in the energy sector and limiting its impact.

We also need to invest in cutting-edge advanced manufacturing capabilities and shared technology infrastructure that would help U.S. companies cut costs and improve manufacturing processes. As the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology wrote in a report released last week, manufacturing is vital to innovation, “because of the synergies created by locating production processes and design processes near to each other.” Furthermore, bringing down manufacturing costs, such as by supporting shared infrastructure for small firms, or offering financing for the adoption of innovative technologies in manufacturing, will be a key component of reducing the costs of new clean energy innovations.

Lastly, the nation’s hodgepodge of energy deployment subsidies is in dire need of reform. As Breakthrough and colleagues wrote in “Post-Partisan Power,” we need an energy deployment regime that demands and rewards innovation, rather than just supporting more of the same. Brookings’ Mark Muro (a co-author or PPP) expands, “targeted and competitive deployment incentives could be created for various classes of energy technologies that would ensure that each has a chance to mature even as each is challenged to innovate and locate price declines.” Rather than create permanently subsidized industries, such investments would “provide the opportunity for opportunity for all emerging low-carbon energy technologies to demonstrate progress toward competitive costs,” while speeding commercialization.

It is clear that the current budgetary environment in the United States presents challenges to the viability of the fast-growing clean energy industry. But it also presents an opportunity. By repurposing existing clean energy policies and investing in clean energy innovation, the United States can be the first country to make clean energy cheap and reliable, a distinction that is sure to bring major economic benefits in a multi-trillion dollar energy market.

Green Policies in Spain are a Total Failure

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
May 19, 2010

Pajamas Media has received a leaked internal assessment produced by Spain’s Zapatero administration. The assessment confirms thspain's green economye key charges previously made by non-governmental Spanish experts in a damning report exposing the catastrophic economic failure of Spain’s “green economy” initiatives.

On eight separate occasions, President Barack Obama has referred to the “green economy” policies enacted by Spain as being the model for what he envisioned for America.

Later came the revelation that Obama administration senior Energy Department official Cathy Zoi — someone with serious publicized conflict of interest issues — demanded an urgent U.S. response to the damaging report from the non-governmental Spanish experts so as to protect the Obama administration’s plans.

Most recently, U.S. senators have introduced the vehicle for replicating Spain’s unfolding economic meltdown here, in the form of the “American Power Act.” For reasons that are obvious upon scrutiny, it should instead be called the American Power Grab Act.

But today’s leaked document reveals that even the socialist Spanish government now acknowledges the ruinous effects of green economic policy.

Unsurprisingly for a governmental take on a flagship program, the report takes pains to minimize the extent of the economic harm. Yet despite the soft-pedaling, the document reveals exactly why electricity rates “necessarily skyrocketed” in Spain, as did the public debt needed to underwrite the disaster. This internal assessment preceded the Zapatero administration’s recent acknowledgement that the “green economy” stunt must be abandoned, lest the experiment risk Spain becoming Greece.

The government report does not expressly confirm the highest-profile finding of the non-governmental report: that Spain’s “green economy” program cost the country 2.2 jobs for every job “created” by the state. However, the figures published in the government document indicate they arrived at a job-loss number even worse than the 2.2 figure from the independent study.

This document is not a public report. Spanish media has referred to its existence in recent weeks though, while Bloomberg and the Washington Examiner have noted the impact: Spain is now forced to jettison its plans — Obama’s model — for a “green economy.”

Remarkably, these items have received virtually no media attention.

An item which has been covered widely, however, is that President Obama is now pressuring Spain to turn off its spigot of public debt in the name of averting a situation similar to that of Greece.

Also covered widely is Obama’s promotion of the American Power Act — the legislation which would replicate Spain’s current situation in the United States.

Put simply, Obama is currently promoting a policy in the U.S. which is based on a policy that he wishes to see Spain abandon. Welcome to Obamaland, the particulars of which are explained in a fashion grandly more illuminating than this Obama-Zapatero dance in Power Grab: How Obama’s Green Policies Will Steal Your Freedom and Bankrupt America.

A translation of the leaked Zapatero government internal slide presentation: “Renewable Energy: Situation and Objectives April 2010”

1) Renewable Energy: Situation and Objectives April 2010

2) Renewable Energy Situation: The price of electricity affects household welfare

According to EuroStat data, the cost of electricity for households in Spain moved from below the European average to slightly above the average (+5% higher)

3) Renewable Energy Situation: The price of electricity determines the competitiveness of Spanish industry

Energy is a key input in industrial production processes. In basic industries (cement, industrial gases, metals, basic chemicals and steel), energy costs are three times the labor cost. The electrical cost for the Spanish industry is well above the European average (+17% higher).

4) Renewable Energy Situation: The price increase is mainly due to additional costs of renewables

The price of electricity determines the competitiveness of Spanish industry

Historical evolution of the prices of light and pool price [Appears above a graph showing a 77% price spike in industry’s price for electricity]

A price increase cannot be explained by the evolution of electricity market price (pool), which has even fallen since 2005

5) Renewable Energy Situation: The price increase is mainly due to additional costs of renewables

The increase in the over-cost paid for renewable energy explains more than 120% of the variation of the electric bill, and has offset the reduction in production costs of conventional electricity (25%)

To these direct costs of renewables must be added indirect costs, as the need for additional investment in networks to integrate renewables (about 10% of planned investment in the planning) and capacity payments to the modular backup facilities (coal and gas) that are running a smaller number of hours

6) Situation of renewable energy: renewable energy has had a positive impact …

Thanks to the increase of renewable energies in the mix:

The rate of energy supply has increased by 3 points since 2005, to 23%, and the import of energy products has been reduced 5.500M Euro (including hydraulics).

Emissions have been reduced significantly, thanks primarily to the mix of electric generation being much cleaner (less than 120 tons of CO2 emissions per GWh of oil produced).

7) Situation of renewable energy: but its evolution in recent years has been too fast

From 2004-2010 the amount of premiums [over-cost paid for renewable energy; the subsidy] has increased fivefold. Only in 2009 it doubled over the previous year to reach 5.045M€, equivalent in amount to the entire public investment in R + D + i in Spain. [The renewables subsidy equaled the entire cost of producing electricity in Spain]. The forecast for 2010 is 6.300M€ (although 5.800M€ budgeted in January). This should add 1.000M€ for cogeneration.

With operational facilities, the renewable sector will receive in the next 25 years more than 126.000M€. In this factor, it adds a commitment to continue providing input to the renewable energies in the mix to meet the European objectives, which will increase this figure significantly.

8 ) Situation of renewable energy: Heterogeneity of renewables: costs

In 2009, the solar photovoltaic technology accounted for 53% of the extra cost of renewables, while they contributed only 11% of energy generated from these sources.

9) Situation of renewable energy: Heterogeneity of renewables: Impact on the external sector

Exports: Net exports of Spanish wind industry 1.300M€ contributed to the trade balance in 2008 and, besides, wind generation avoids fossil imports of 3.6M€.

Imports: By contrast, the PV industry growth was not gradual, hampering the formation of an auxiliary Spanish industry. In 2008 imports of photovoltaic cells and modules in Spain amounted to 5.182M€ (28.6% of net imports of crude and derivatives) as long around the 62% were imported.

10) Situation of renewable energy: Heterogeneity of renewables: Technical problems

Network Management. The proliferation of small plants and fluctuations in the availability of technologies hinder the management of the network.

11) Situation of renewable energy:

Regulatory mechanisms to support renewables have been:

– Pioneers in the world, which has allowed us to stay ahead of the industry, learn from the experience and finding some excesses.
There are numerous examples of these high returns: analyst reports, premiums accepted in other countries, over-subscription in the pre-records, facilities willing to accept lower premiums, “paper market” …

– Overly cautious about the ability of cost reduction technologies

– Inflexible, thereby preventing adjust remuneration to market signals and technological advancement

– Hardly told them by the administration in setting prices initially and have no control over the amounts … Which has caused a “bubble effect,” such as seen with photovoltaics in 2008 and the emergence of the thermal bubble (which would have continued in 2010 and successively had it not been for the pre-registration requirement imposed), as well as a sharp increase the over-costs [subsidies] paid to renewables in the form of a feed-in tariff.

12) Situation of renewable energy: Heterogeneity of renewables: International comparison

In wind power, our rates are in line with Europe. However, solar photovoltaics, Spanish retribution has been the most high, despite the higher number of hours of sun and more solar radiation.

Spain Wind € 75-84/MWh Solar €265/295/350/450/MWh

China Wind € 56-67 Solar € 121/MWh

Japan Wind € 73-89/MWh

Germany Wind € 92/MWh Solar € 287-395/MWh

France Wind € 82/MWh Solar €310-380

Italy Wind € 85/MWh Solar € 350-390

Poland Wind € 90/MWh

13) Situation of renewable energy: Recent technological developments

The investment costs of renewable energies mainly depend on its technological learning curve

The plots have experienced tremendous technological development in recent years, reducing their investment costs

Not being mature technologies, have much future room for improvement, which informs a decision to slow its current expansion

14) Situation of renewable energy: What have we done?

The Government has adapted the following initiatives:

– A new framework for PV in 2008 (RD1578/2008) that brings order to the pace of installation and marking signs ecstatic that transfer with May fast technological development gains to consumers

– Creation of a technology pre-registration for the remainder of May 2009 has allowed us to avoid the “bubble” that was generated in thermal and prevent the system being made even more untenable in 2010.

– Package of measures for the reduction to the tariff deficit with input from the traditional electric companies, consumers and government (without the contribution of renewable energy).

15) Situation of renewable energy: Difficulties in reducing the tariff deficit

– The Government is committed by law to eliminate by 2013 the tariff deficit

– Despite the evolution of the wholesale market (pool), the balance of certain items (the Iberian peninsula, nuclear waste) and higher light, the rate deficit was only slightly reduced.

16) Objectives

– Reaching 20% of final energy and 40% of electric generation from renewable sources by 2020.

– Reducing the deficit and preserve the competitiveness of industry and household welfare.

– Transfer gains in technological developments to consumers.

– Avoid speculation caused by excess profits, which damages its image and retards the construction of the plants pre-assigned (with an adverse effect on the industry).

– Mitigate the incentive for fraud that can generate the current differential between the rate and the price of the pool.

– Promote technological improvement and cost reduction, advancing the attainment of “grid parity,” which will allow greater installation of renewables until 2020.

Scientists say ‘climate change science under assault’

The use of non-original content in this site is protected by the Fair Use Clause created in 1976, which allows for the reproduction of copyrighted materials for the purposes of commentary, criticism and education.


Is recent history not a cause for concern?  Everyone and everything in science should be under a magnifying glass, especially when fraud has been found.  Climate science has become a religion and therefore it is the scientists who have to convince us their findings are real and not manipulation of data.  By the way, scrutiny is not assault.  Also note how scientists conveniently changed global warming for  climate change and anthropogenic global warming for anthropogenic climate change.

More than 250 U.S. scientists on Thursday defended climate change research against “political assaults” and warned that any delay in tackling global warming heightens the risk of a planet-wide catastrophe.

The scientists, all members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, targeted critics who have urged postponing any action against climate change because of alleged problems with research shown in a series of hacked e-mails that are collectively known as “climate-gate.”

“When someone says that society should wait until scientists are absolutely certain before taking any action, it is the same as saying society should never take action,” the 255 scientists wrote in an open letter in the journal Science.

“For a problem as potentially catastrophic as climate change, taking no action poses a dangerous risk for our planet,” they wrote. They said they were deeply disturbed by “recent escalation of political assaults on scientists in general and on climate scientists in particular.”

Scientists sounded a similar note on Thursday before the U.S. House of Representatives panel on energy independence and climate change.

“The reality of anthropogenic climate change can no longer be debated on scientific grounds,” James Hurrell of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research told the committee. “The imperative is to act aggressively to reduce carbon emissions and dependency on fossil fuels.”

U.S. legislation aimed at cutting climate-warming pollution could be unveiled in the Senate next week.


Thousands of hacked e-mails sent between climate scientists were published just before a U.N. meeting on climate change last December in Copenhagen.

Those who doubt the existence of human-generated climate change argued that these messages showed that the climate research unit at East Anglia University in Britain had conspired to distort or exaggerate the science.

An inquiry last month cleared the British researchers of wrongdoing in the “climate-gate” case.

Even though individual scientists have been cleared, climate science is being tested, Sheila Jasanoff, ofHarvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, wrote in Science.

“It is no longer enough to establish what counts as good science; it is equally important to address what science is good for and whom it benefits,” Jasanoff wrote.

She said in an interview that the article was prompted by the fallout from “climate-gate.”

A U.S. climate scientist at Pennsylvania State University whose e-mails were released in the “climate-gate” case was targeted last month by the state of Virginia.

Michael Mann — whose research includes the so-called “hockey stick” graph that documents recent climate warming — was found not guilty by Penn State of suppressing or falsifying data or misusing information.

However, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is investigating whether Mann misused state funds when he got grants for his climate change research while at the University of Virginia.

The Anglo American Oil Fraud

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
April 18, 2010

The surplus oil production capacity could totally disappear, says the Military. Really?  Last time I checked there were numerous oil fields waiting to be discovered and exploited.  So, why is the United States military warning about peak oil again?  Can there really be a limitation to access fossil fuels?  Sure, there is.  However it is not due to lack of oil, but to lack of infrastructure to localize it and extract it for everyone to use.

Most of the scarcity talked about today originates from two different places.  The first, as mentioned before, the lack of infrastructure in many parts of the world which limits refining capacity.  Second, the fact that the oil cartel and oil companies hug the existing oil in order to make prices spike and availability to be limited.  So why is the military warning us?  Can this be the beginning of the U.S. military campaign to massively find support for an attack on Iran?

Propaganda works in many ways.  Provoking fear of war, lack of resources and apocalypse are some strategies well known today.  Just like the Military Industrial Complex brainwashed its way into two wars at the start of the new century, it is also possible it may be preparing for another conflict.  Persia is blessed with lots of oil and the establishment always had its eyes on it.  Peak oil, danger of nuclear war, and other strategic geopolitical reasons will be asserted in the following months to invade yet another country in Asia.

In the meantime, we can analyze why there may be oil scarcity in the United States and elsewhere.  Recently, Russia Today dedicated a news segment to the claim that peak oil is within two years from occurring.  Watch the report here.