I think James makes some really valid points here and I’m glad that he is again speaking out.


James Hansen  27 January, 2011



“The scientific method requires objective analysis of all data, stating evidence pro and con, before reaching conclusions. This works well, indeed is necessary, for achieving success in science. But science is now pitted in public debate against the talk-show method, which consists of selective citation of anecdotal bits that support a predetermined position.”



 “Today most media, even publicly-supported media, are pressured to balance every climate story with opinions of contrarians, climate change deniers, as if they had equal scientific credibility.”



 “Media are dependent on advertising revenue of the fossil fuel industry, and in some cases are owned by people with an interest in continuing business as usual. Fossil fuel profiteers can readily find a few percent of the scientific community to serve as mouthpieces — all scientists practice skepticism, and it is not hard to find some who are out of their area of expertise, who may enjoy being in the public eye, and who are limited in scientific insight and analytic ability.”



 “Distinguished scientific bodies such as national science academies, using the scientific method, can readily separate charlatans and false interpretations from well-reasoned science. Yet it seems that our governments and the public are not making much use of their authoritative scientific bodies. Why is that?

I believe that the answer, and the difficulty in communicating science to the public, is related to the corrosive influence of money in politics and to increased corporate influence on the media.”


Sky:  With 24.2 million millionaires about it is not unbelievable that some might be corrosive!


“Some clarification of what this is about, the secret efforts of Lords, the wealthy, the privileged, to dupe the public in our democracies into supporting their continued and growing privileges, is provided by this news article and press release:”




“Clive Hamilton, professor of public ethics atAustralia’s Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, has backed Mr Montague’s case.

Professor Hamilton is a long-time critic of think-tanks promoting outlying views on the risks of human-caused climate change, including the Melbourne-basedInstituteofPublic Affairs.

‘The public should know who is funding climate denial so they can properly judge the information put out by organisations like the Global Warming Policy Foundation,’ he said.”

“TheUK’s Charity Commission, which regulates charities in theUK, is being asked to release a document that would show the start-up funders of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, chaired by formerUKchancellor Lord Nigel Lawson.

Launched in November 2009, the foundation has consistently challenged the mainstream scientific view that human emissions of greenhouse gases represent a significant risk to the planet and societies.”


“Mr Montague, who has worked for national newspapers the Sunday Times and the Daily Mail in the UK, said because Lord Lawson’s charity was lobbying heavily for changes in climate change and energy policy, this could affect the lives of ‘millions of people’.

‘Climate change will have dramatic impacts inAustralia,’ he told brisbanetimes.com.au.

‘Therefore it would be unfair on the people ofAustraliafor aUKthink-tank to be trying to influence government policy that’s funded by unknown sources.’”

”In interviews, Lord Lawson, whose daughter is TV chef Nigella, described wind farms as ‘primitive and inefficient’, dismissed climate change computer models as “clearly rubbish” and claimed scientists were not in agreement about the risks of rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

During the debate, co-sponsored by The Spectator Magazine and the free-market think-tank the Institute for Public Affairs, Lord Lawson said anyone who claimed carbon dioxide was ‘pollution’ or ‘dirty’ was ‘either ignorant or a liar.’

Poll: Should climate change think-tanks on both sides of the debate be forced to declare who is funding their work?

Poll form

  1. Please select an answer. Yes, it would reveal conflicts of interest
  2. No, it would not change the credibility of think-tanks’ claim

Yes, it would reveal conflicts of interest


No, it would not change the credibility of think-tanks’ claims


Total votes: 1061.

Sky:  If we, speaking for non-professional climatologists, are to be able to sift through the propaganda and find something near the truth, we must be familiar with the fundamentals.  Find below some background on the source of the Earth’s surface heat and what keeps us from being permanently frozen as we would be without the greenhouse effect. 




Solar Radiation

Solar radiation drives atmospheric circulation. Since solar radiation represents almost all the energy available to the Earth, accounting for solar radiation and how it interacts with the atmosphere and the Earth’s surface is fundamental to understanding the Earth’s energy budget.

Solar radiation [6000K]  reaches the Earth’s surface either by being transmitted directly through the atmosphere (“direct solar radiation”), or by being scattered or reflected to the surface (“diffuse sky radiation”). About 30 percent of solar (or shortwave) radiation is reflected back into space, while the remaining shortwave radiation at the top of the atmosphere is absorbed by the Earth’s surface and re-radiated as thermal infrared (or longwave) [longwave radiation is heat radiation (4 micrometers)] radiation.


“The atmosphere is nearly transparent to short-wave radiation, but is relatively opaque to long-wave radiation” http://mysite.du.edu/~etuttle/weather/atmrad.htm


“Solar energy enters our atmosphere as shortwave radiation in the form of ultraviolet (UV) rays (the ones that give us sunburn) and visible light.”

 “Most of the energy emitted from the earth’s surface does not go directly out to space.  This emitted energy is reabsorbed by clouds and by the gases in the atmosphere.  Some of it gets redistributed by convection.  Even more energy is released into the atmosphere through condensation.  The majority of the energy is reabsorbed by the greenhouse gases such as methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, carbon dioxide and water vapor.  These gases constantly emit the sun’s energy back into the atmosphere and keep the earth a habitable temperature.  Eventually, most of the energy makes its way back out to space and Earth’s energy balance is fairly well maintained.  The energy that doesn’t make its way out is responsible for global warming.

On a global scale, the atmosphere’s circulation and weather [Sky: serves as]  an attempt to balance differences in solar energy that the earth receives across the globe.  Sunlight at the tropics is intense and direct and a lot of heating of land, atmosphere and oceans occur there.  Sunlight in the polar regions is weak and indirect and does not do a good job of heating up the region.  Currents in wind and ocean water carry energy from the tropics toward the poles to help balance out the energy differences across the globe.”

Back to:  http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/factors/radiation.html



The intensity of solar radiation striking a horizontal surface is measured by a pyranometer. The instrument consists of a sensor enclosed in a transparent hemisphere that records the total amount of shortwave incoming solar radiation. That is, pyranometers measure “global” or “total” radiation: the sum of direct solar and diffuse sky radiation. Incoming (or “downwelling”) longwave radiation is measured with a pyrgeometer. Outgoing (“upwelling”) longwave radiation is measured in various ways, such as with pyrgeometers or with sensors that measure the temperature of the surface.

Accurate estimates of albedo are especially important as albedo places a fundamental limit on the amount of solar radiation that can be absorbed by the surface. For example, albedo strongly determines the rate of melt of sea ice. Over longer periods of time, changes in components of the radiation balance can be manifested in climate change.

Here is a  clear explanation from a comment by: JohnDM  Croydon January 27, 2012 5:53 AM


“JohnDM, it’s not a climate debate you need, it’s a science lesson.


“Earth is warmed by absorption of short wave sunlight. Because of this, Earth’s temperature can remain unchanged by returning the same amount of energy to space. That is, solar shortwave energy is balanced by the earth re-radiating to space as a ‘black body’ radiator with a characteristic temperature of ~255K; that is, from space the earth’s spectrum is roughly that of a radiating body with an optical surface temperature of around 255K.

Earth’s surface cools by evaporation of excited water molecules, heat transfer to deeper sea and to polar ice caps and by convection and radiation back into and through the atmosphere. At higher altitudes, where the atmosphere gets less dense, the proportion of energy (heat) transfer by long wave ‘thermal’ (microwave) radiation increases. Observing earth’s spectrum from space has big absorption bands due to greenhouse gases in the upper atmosphere. Prominent among these is carbon dioxide (CO2).

Greenhouse gases such as H2O, CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), CFC’s, and ozone (O3) absorb, then re-emit, some longwave wavelengths. About half of the re-emitted radiation is diverted back down toward the surface, as confirmed by radiation measurements at both surface and satellite observatories. This discrepancy increases with atmospheric greenhouse gas concentration.

Heat thus accumulates at the surface, 85% of which heat warms oceans, accelerating ice melting.”