Archive for December, 2009


December 31, 2009

For any non-scientist interested in the climate debate, there is nothing better than a ready primer to guide you through the complexities of atmospheric physics – the “hardest” science of climatology. Here we outline the essential points made by Dr. Gerhard Gerlich, a respected German physicist, that counter the bogus theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

Before going further, it’s worth bearing in mind that no climatologist ever completed any university course in climatology–that’s how new this branch of science really is. Like any new science the fall-back position of a cornered AGW proponent is the dreaded “appeal to authority” where the flustered debater, out of his or her depth, will say, “Well, professor so-and-so says it’s true – so it must be true.” Don’t fall for that proxy tree-ring counter’s gambit any longer. Here is the finest shredding of junk science you will ever read.

In a recently revised and re-published paper, Dr Gerlich debunks AGW and shows that the IPCC “consensus” atmospheric physics model tying CO2 to global warming is not only unverifiable, but actually violates basic laws of physics, i.e. the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics. The latest version of this momentous scientific paper appears in the March 2009 edition of the International Journal of Modern Physics.

The central claims of Dr. Gerlich and his colleague, Dr. Ralf Tscheuschner, include, but are not limited to:

1) The mechanism of warming in an actual greenhouse is different than the mechanism of warming in the atmosphere, therefore it is not a “greenhouse” effect and should be called something else.

2) The climate models that predict catastrophic global warming also result in a net heat flow from atmospheric greenhouse gasses to the warmer ground, which is in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Essentially, any machine which transfers heat from a low temperature reservoir to a high temperature reservoir without external work applied cannot exist. If it did it would be a “perpetual motion machine” – the realm of pure sci-fi.

Gerlich’s and Tscheuschner’s independent theoretical study is detailed in a lengthy (115 pages), mathematically complex (144 equations, 13 data tables, and 32 figures or graphs), and well-sourced (205 references) paper. The German physicists prove that even if CO2 concentrations double (a prospect even global warming advocates admit is decades away), the thermal conductivity of air would not change more than 0.03%. They show that the classic concept of the glass greenhouse wholly fails to replicate the physics of Earth’s climate. They also prove that a greenhouse operates as a “closed” system while the planet works as an “open” system and the term “atmospheric greenhouse effect” does not occur in any fundamental work involving thermodynamics, physical kinetics, or radiation theory. All through their paper the German scientists show how the greenhouse gas theory relies on guesstimates about the scientific properties involved to “calculate” the chaotic interplay of such a myriad and unquantifiable array of factors that is beyond even the abilities of the most powerful of modern supercomputers.

The paper’s introduction states it neatly:

(a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

This thorough debunking of the theory of man made warming disproves that there exists a mechanism whereby carbon dioxide in the cooler upper atmosphere exerts any thermal “forcing” effect on the warmer surface below. To do so would violate both the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. As there is no glass roof on the earth to trap the excess heat, it escapes upward into space.Thus we may conclude that the common sense axioms are preserved so that the deeper the ocean, the colder the water and heat rises, it does not fall. QED.

John Sullivan

It has never been so funny to be on the other side of AGW.


December 31, 2009

The U. S. “Public” Broadcasting System (PBS) has a long history of promoting materialistic philosophy disguised as empirical science. In 1980, PBS brought us Carl Sagan’s thirteen-part Cosmos series, which featured Sagan—in the name of Science—assuring us that “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”

In 2001, PBS broadcasted the seven-part series Evolution. The first episode featured atheist philosopher Daniel Dennett praising “Darwin’s dangerous idea,” which according to Dennett “eats through just about every traditional concept”—including the concept of God. (Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, p. 63) At the time, the Discovery Institute published a scene-by-scene viewer’s guide that documented the flawed science and anti-religious bias of the series, yet PBS’s Evolution is still being used to indoctrinate students in U. S. public schools. My son’s high school biology teacher used it; her favorite episode was the fifth, “Why Sex?”, in which an evolutionary psychologist confidently claimed that artistic achievements such as Handel’s Messiah are produced by “our sexual instincts for impressing the opposite sex.”

Now PBS is about to jump on the departing Darwin Year bandwagon with another special, “What Darwin Never Knew,” scheduled to air on December 29.

According to PBS, the special will offer “answers to riddles that Darwin couldn’t explain. Breakthroughs in a brand-new science—nicknamed ‘evo-devo’—are linking the enigmas of evolution to another of nature’s great mysteries, the development of the embryo. NOVA takes viewers on a journey from the Galapagos Islands to the Arctic, and from the explosion of animal forms half a billion years ago to the research labs of today. Scientists are finally beginning to crack nature’s biggest secrets at the genetic level. The results are confirming the brilliance of Darwin’s insights while revealing clues to life’s breathtaking diversity in ways the great naturalist could scarcely have imagined.”

“Confirming the brilliance of Darwin’s insights…” Oh, really? Darwin was completely wrong about the nature of inheritance; it took Gregor Mendel (who was unconvinced by Darwinism) to set things straight. Darwin was also wrong about the origin of variations; he (like Lamarck) thought that they came from use and disuse. When Darwinists finally embraced Mendelian genetics in the 1930s and molecular genetics in the 1950s, they assumed that embryo development is controlled by a genetic program encoded in DNA. Accidental mutations in DNA, they believed, could then alter the program and modify embryo development to produce the raw materials for evolution.

In the 1980s, however, biologists discovered that many of the genes involved in embryo development are similar in many different types of animals—from fruit flies to humans. Since differences in development were supposedly due to differences in genes, the similarities seemed paradoxical, but a new discipline called “evolutionary developmental biology,” or evo-devo (pronounced eevo-deevo) attributed them to inheritance from a common ancestor. Now evo-devo is all the rage among Darwinists.

Yet the paradox remains. If the developmental genes of insects and mammals are similar, then—as Italian geneticist Giuseppe Sermonti puts it—why is a fly not a horse?

The standard Darwinian answer still attributes differences to DNA mutations. But biologists have now generated all possible developmental mutations in fruit flies, and the evidence shows that there are only three possible outcomes: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. Not even a new species of fruit fly, much less a horse fly or a horse. Evo-devo has not come close to cracking “nature’s biggest secrets.” In fact, there is growing evidence that DNA contains only a small part of the program for embryo development.

Jonathan Wells


December 23, 2009

The Climategate Emails describe how a small band of climatologists cooked the books to make the last century seem dangerously warm. The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD. The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world – Wikipedia – in the wholesale rewriting of this history.


But the UN’s official verdict that the Medieval Warm Period had not existed did not erase the countless schoolbooks, encyclopedias, and other scholarly sources that claimed it had. Rewriting those would take decades, time that the band members didn’t have if they were to save the globe from warming.

Instead, the band members turned to their friends in the media and to the blogosphere, creating a website called “The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are doing the rounds” in aid of “combating dis-information,” one email explained, referring to criticisms of the hockey stick and anything else suggesting that temperatures today were not the hottest in recorded time. One person in the nine-member team – U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley – would take on particularly crucial duties.

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it – more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred – over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

National   Post


December 21, 2009

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:


December 17, 2009

The newest amendment to the US Constitution:

“…sovereignity belongs to  Goldman Sachs and a few other Wall Street Banks’ managers.”


December 10, 2009

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:


December 8, 2009

The whores partying in Copenhagen are raping you all wildly !

“The greenhouse/global warming theory states that as more carbon dioxide is pumped into the air, the atmosphere’s ability to vent excess heat to space will diminish. This is the mantra of global warming alarmism. More carbon dioxide means more heat gets clogged up in the climate system and the earth gets warmer and warmer. From this we have conjured up all the various climate disasters, movies, concerts, fixes, and swindles, with their varied political and economic benefactors and victims.

Enter 2009 and a new study by Dr. Richard Lindzen and Yong-Sang Choi from MIT that uses temperature data from satellites. As background we start with the predictions. The climate models say that as the oceans warmed by one degree Celsius from the 1980s into the 1990s, the amount of heat escaping to space would decrease. More heat would be trapped in the atmosphere, ultimately due to the burning of fossil fuels. The warming of the oceans was natural and part of the large multi-decadal temperature changes that have been known for years. Now if only we had a way to measure the amount of heat going out to space, then we could get some answers. We do, it’s called the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment Satellite (ERBE). It was in orbit above the earth measuring outgoing long wave radiation (heat) for 16 years from the mid 1980s to the late 1990s. This is very significant. Now we had a tool, and real world data, that we could compare to the computer model predictions. It is the ultimate climate system umpire.The results from the Lindzen and Choi study were stunning. The computer models, all 11 of them, predicted that as the oceans and atmosphere warmed, the amount of heat escaping to space should decrease by 3 watts per square meter. If this were true, then the theory of manmade global warming would have a strong footing. But the satellite data used by the Lindzen and Choi inflicted a bone crushing blow to this assumption. As the oceans and atmosphere warmed, the measurements showed that the amount of heat escaping to space increased by 4 watts per square meter from the mid 1980s to the late 1990s. All the computer models were wrong.”


December 3, 2009

This content is password protected. To view it please enter your password below:


December 2, 2009

Ben Bernanke is on yet another self-serving mission to save his job. Please consider The right reform for the Fed an op-ed by Ben Bernanke in the Washington Post.

Here is Bernanke’s entire article (in italics) with my comments interspersed in plain type. Most of my comments are made straight to Ben Bernanke, but they apply in general to all central bankers.

Bernanke: For many Americans, the financial crisis, and the recession it spawned, have been devastating — jobs, homes, savings lost. Understandably, many people are calling for change.

Mish: Ben, the reason people are calling for a change is that you and the Fed wrecked the economy. You did not see a housing bubble, nor did you foresee a recession. I would also like to point out your selective memory loss about your role in bailouts. To refresh your memory, please refer to Bernanke Suffers From Selective Memory Loss; Paulson Calls Bank of America “Turd in the Punchbowl” for details.

Bernanke: Yet change needs to be about creating a system that works better, not just differently. As a nation, our challenge is to design a system of financial oversight that will embody the lessons of the past two years and provide a robust framework for preventing future crises and the economic damage they cause.

Mish: No Ben, we need a system that works differently. You have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you and the Fed are incompetent and cannot be trusted.

Ben here is a compilation of your own statements made from 2005-2007 proving you have no idea what you are talking about.

Bernanke: These matters are complex, and Congress is still in the midst of considering how best to reform financial regulation. I am concerned, however, that a number of the legislative proposals being circulated would significantly reduce the capacity of the Federal Reserve to perform its core functions.

Mish: Hello Ben, exactly what is that core function? Is it a dual mandate of price stability and full employment by any chance? Pray tell exactly how badly did you blow that? Did you succeed at either? Is it mission impossible in the first place?

Bernanke: Notably, some leading proposals in the Senate would strip the Fed of all its bank regulatory powers. And a House committee recently voted to repeal a 1978 provision that was intended to protect monetary policy from short-term political influence. These measures are very much out of step with the global consensus on the appropriate role of central banks, and they would seriously impair the prospects for economic and financial stability in the United States.

Mish: What Global consensus? Other Central bankers? What about the consensus of those who saw this coming? Pray tell why should anyone listen to those who were wrong every step of the way?

John Hussman has the right idea in Bernanke Sees A Recovery – How Would He Know? “We continue to expect a fresh acceleration of credit losses as we enter 2010. It would be best if we faced these challenges with more thoughtful leadership.”

Bernanke: The Fed played a major part in arresting the crisis, and we should be seeking to preserve, not degrade, the institution’s ability to foster financial stability and to promote economic recovery without inflation.

Mish: Ben, you sound like an arsonist taking credit for helping put out a fire, before the fire is even out, after you lit the match and tossed on the gas in the first place. For all the problems you have caused, don’t you at least have the decency to show a little humility?

Bernanke: The proposed measures are at least in part the product of public anger over the financial crisis and the government’s response, particularly the rescues of some individual financial firms. The government’s actions to avoid financial collapse last fall — as distasteful and unfair as some undoubtedly were — were unfortunately necessary to prevent a global economic catastrophe that could have rivaled the Great Depression in length and severity, with profound consequences for our economy and society. (I know something about this, having spent my career prior to public service studying these issues.) My colleagues at the Federal Reserve and I were determined not to allow that to happen.

Mish: Ben, that is your self-serving assertion that you saved the world. Care to debate the subject?

All the Austrian economists would disagree.

Many others disagree as well. Please see Hussman Accuses the Fed and Treasury of “Unconstitutional Abuse of Power” for one such example.

Bernanke: Moreover, looking to the future, we strongly support measures — including the development of a special bankruptcy regime for financial firms whose disorderly failure would threaten the integrity of the financial system — to ensure that ad hoc interventions of the type we were forced to use last fall never happen again.

Mish: Ben, it takes a lot of gall to say that while you are doing nothing to dismantle too big to fail enterprises such as Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, Citigroup, etc. Moreover, given that you could not see the housing bubble come or the internet bubble coming, and given that you still believe that bubbles are best dealt with after they blow up, your words are meaningless.

Bernanke: The Federal Reserve, like other regulators around the world, did not do all that it could have to constrain excessive risk-taking in the financial sector in the period leading up to the crisis. We have extensively reviewed our performance and moved aggressively to fix the problems.

Mish: Ben you acted the way all regulators act: Doing nothing while Rome burns, then attempting to prevent Rome from burning after it has already burnt to the ground.

Ben, in case you did not notice, the market already shut down subprime mortgages, pay option ARMS, HELOCs, and excessive credit card debt. Your feeble cries are too little, too late. At best your efforts would prevent the last problem, but not the next one. The market has already prevented the last problem privately, even as Fannie and Freddie are once again taking on excessive risk as government entities.

The first thing any regulator in his right mind would do would be to shut down Fannie and Freddie, yet you and the Fed feed the beast, bloating your balance sheet with garbage in the process.

Bernanke: Working with other agencies, we have toughened our rules and oversight. We will be requiring banks to hold more capital and liquidity and to structure compensation packages in ways that limit excessive risk-taking. We are taking more explicit account of risks to the financial system as a whole.

Mish: Ben, wake me up when you decide to eliminate Fractional Reserve Lending because until you do, you can never eliminate the problem.

Bernanke: We are also supplementing bank examination staffs with teams of economists, financial market specialists and other experts. This combination of expertise, a unique strength of the Fed, helped bring credibility and clarity to the “stress tests” of the banking system conducted in the spring. These tests were led by the Fed and marked a turning point in public confidence in the banking system. There is a strong case for a continued role for the Federal Reserve in bank supervision. Because of our role in making monetary policy, the Fed brings unparalleled economic and financial expertise to its oversight of banks, as demonstrated by the success of the stress tests.

Mish: Stress tests?! You are actually bragging about stress tests?! Those stress tests that predicted a worst case scenario of unemployment of 9.8% in 2010 when I called for that in August of 2009?! How many times have you had to revise your stress test estimates? 3 times and counting by any chance?

Bernanke: This expertise is essential for supervising highly complex financial firms and for analyzing the interactions among key firms and markets. Our supervision is also informed by the grass-roots perspective derived from the Fed’s unique regional structure and our experience in supervising community banks.

Mish: Your expertise is needed to supervise community banks?! Oh really? Let’s consult the latest FDIC Quarterly Banking.

“The number of insured institutions on the FDIC’s ‘Problem List’ rose from 416 to 552 during the quarter, and total assets of “problem” institutions increased from $299.8 billion to $345.9 billion. Both the number and assets of ‘problem’ institutions are now at the highest level since the end of 1993.”

Pray tell how bad would that have been if you were not an expert in such matters?

Bernanke: At the same time, our ability to make effective monetary policy and to promote financial stability depends vitally on the information, expertise and authorities we gain as bank supervisors, as demonstrated in episodes such as the 1987 stock market crash and the financial disruptions of Sept. 11, 2001, as well as by the crisis of the past two years.

Mish: Ben, did it ever occur to you that your handling of this crash is a repeat of the Fed’s mishandling of the 2001 recession?

I guess not, but it is. The Greenspan Fed, of which you were a part, blew an enormous housing/credit bubble to bail out banks from stupid loans made to dotcom companies and Latin America.

You are back at it once again, only bigger.

Your policy is and always has been to blow repetitive bubbles of increasing amplitude, each bigger than the last, hoping to bail out the system. You have learned nothing from 2001, from, Japan, or from the Great Depression.

You are a complete disgrace in your inability to learn anything from history, and unfortunately the US is held hostage to your foolish policies.

Bernanke: Of course, the ultimate goal of all our efforts is to restore and sustain economic prosperity. To support economic growth, the Fed has cut interest rates aggressively and provided further stimulus through lending and asset-purchase programs.

Mish: Cutting interest rates aggressively helped create the housing bubble, something Bernanke still has not figured out.

Bernanke: Our ability to take such actions without engendering sharp increases in inflation depends heavily on our credibility and independence from short-term political pressures. Many studies have shown that countries whose central banks make monetary policy independently of such political influence have better economic performance, including lower inflation and interest rates.

Mish: Ben, you are at your most disingenuous self when you harp about inflation. The ONLY source of inflation is the Fed and fractional reserve lending. To eliminate inflation, all that is required is to get rid of both. But you don’t want that do you?

No! You want a target of 2% inflation while ignoring asset bubbles because that is what the banks wants. You know and I know that inflation is a tax on the middle class for the direct benefit of the government and those with first access to money (banks and the already wealthy).

Ben, have you ever looked at a chart of two percent inflation over time? Here it is:

Inflation Targeting at 2% a Year

click on chart for sharper image.

Ben, Inflation targeting “works” until the ponzi scheme blows up when interest on the debt is no longer payable, the pool of greater fools runs out, attitudes towards debt and credit change, or some other stress such as global wage arbitrage and job losses interferes with the ability of consumers and businesses to take on more debt. In this case, all of the above happened.

Ben, you remain in Academic Wonderland with formulas that long ago stopped working.

Bernanke: Independent does not mean unaccountable. In its making of monetary policy, the Fed is highly transparent, providing detailed minutes of policy meetings and regular testimony before Congress, among other information. Our financial statements are public and audited by an outside accounting firm; we publish our balance sheet weekly; and we provide monthly reports with extensive information on all the temporary lending facilities developed during the crisis. Congress, through the Government Accountability Office, can and does audit all parts of our operations except for the monetary policy deliberations and actions covered by the 1978 exemption. The general repeal of that exemption would serve only to increase the perceived influence of Congress on monetary policy decisions, which would undermine the confidence the public and the markets have in the Fed to act in the long-term economic interest of the nation.

Mish: Ben, please stop lying through your teeth. If the Fed is as transparent as you say, you should not be fearing an audit. Furthermore, Ron Paul’s amendment specifically bars Congress from intervening in any aspect of monetary policy.

Your mission, is to make sure no one can ever hold you accountable for your illegal actions or to find out exactly what junk is on your balance sheet (and what it is really worth).

There is a difference between “independence” and “secrecy”. The Fed is not accountable to anyone right now and you know it.

Bernanke: We have come a long way in our battle against the financial and economic crisis, but there is a long way to go. Now more than ever, America needs a strong, nonpolitical and independent central bank with the tools to promote financial stability and to help steer our economy to recovery without inflation.

Mish: Indeed, we have come a long way thanks to Ron Paul’s Audit the Fed bill. There still is a long way to go. It is time to put in a plan to phase out fractional reserve lending and phase in a dollar backed by something rather than nothing before the Fed can do any more damage to the economy.

My Plea For Everyone

I ask everyone to read Murry N. Rothbard, The Case Against The Fed.

It is a short 151 pages, and easily understandable by all. Here is an online PDF of The Case Against The Fed and it is free courtesy of Mises.

The book covers many topics including Why Fractional Reserve Lending is Fraudulent, The Genesis of Money, The Optimum Quantity of Money, FDIC, and What Can be Done.

From the Introduction …

Money And Politics

By far the most secret and least accountable operation of the federal government is not, as one might expect, the CIA, DIA, or some other super-secret intelligence agency.

The CIA and other intelligence operations are under control of the Congress. They are accountable: a Congressional committee supervises these operations, controls their budgets, and is informed of their covert activities. It is true that the committee hearings and activities are closed to the public; but at least the people’s representatives in Congress insure some accountability for these secret agencies.

It is little known, however, that there is a federal agency that tops the others in secrecy by a country mile. The Federal Reserve System is accountable to no one; it has no budget; it is subject to no audit; and no Congressional committee knows of, or can truly supervise, its operations. The Federal Reserve, virtually in total control of the nation’s vital monetary system, is accountable to nobody—and this strange situation, if acknowledged at all, is invariably trumpeted as a virtue. …

Stop The Power Grab

It is imperative to stop the Fed’s power grab. The Fed bailed out banks and the bondholders of banks, illegally, at taxpayer expense. Moreover, the Fed would do it again in a flash. While the bondholders were made whole (the same applies to Fannie and Freddie), taxpayers are footing the bill.

Moreover the Fed has expanded its balance sheet by $trillions and no one really knows exactly what is in it, how much it is worth, or how much taxpayers might be on the hook for it.

While making claims of transparency, the Fed has fought to kill mark to market accounting at banks and the Fed certainly does not mark its own books to market. The whole thing is a huge shell game. The FDIC and the entire banking system is insolvent.

Bernanke’s self-serving mission is to make sure the Fed is not accountable for its actions and my uphill battle mission is to help move along Ron Paul’s bill so that Bernanke does not succeed.

Please contact your legislative representative once again, and let them know you want a complete accounting of the Fed, what is on the Fed’s balance sheet, and exactly what that garbage is worth, marked to market.

You can get Phone, Fax, and Email numbers from the Online Directory for the 111th Congress.

Please take this post and send it to anyone you think might read it.

Mike “Mish” Shedlock