Paul's Music Page

Excerpts from Peter Doerel's letter to the European Commissioner for Environment published on Feb. 21, 2001

"(...)There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of CO2, methane, or other "greenhouse gases" is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause a catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric CO2 produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environment of the earth. (...)"

Fragments from the book "Freispruch für CO2" ("Not Guilty Verdict For CO2") by Dr Wolfgang Thüne:

(my own translation from German)

"... there is no 'climate science', because the 'climate' is not a fact. It is rather an 'illusion' being diverted by the fact called WEATHER."

"(...) The greenhouse effect is and remains an invented, theoretical, ideological and unnatural idea. Newton's law of cooling applies for all physical bodies, including the Earth. The 'warming' of the Earth in colder surroundings is absolutely impossible! The Earth can be warmed only 'from outside'. The only celestial body which comes in consideration here is the Sun.(...)"

"(...) A CO2 molecule can never absorb the heat radiation of the Earth to 'warm 'the atmosphere. (...) On the grounds of kinetic theory of gases this is absolutely impossible"

"(...) Every physicist knows, that according to Stephan-Boltzmann law and Planck's law, in spectral range of 8 - 14 µm, the ability of the Earth atmosphere to absorb, is insignificant. Therefore, this spectral range is also called the 'atmospheric window'. Through this window, 72 to 90 percent of the radiation by the Earth surface is emitted directly to the space. As a result, there can be no heat accumulation under the fictitious glass roof at the altitude of 6,000 m. ... The greenhouse effect is a pure fabrication. (...)"

"(...) The climate research is pure statistics and not a physical matter. It is past and not future oriented. Climatology is not a natural science in a strict sense ..."

"(...) The Earth is no greenhouse. The atmosphere cannot be compared to a glass roof. It builds no fixed boundaries compared to walls and roof of a greenhouse. The air, warmed at Earth surface ,cannot be blocked up under a clear sky ...".

"(...) The gas atmosphere, due to its spectral characteristics, is similar to a large-mesh net, which, as is generally known, do not 'warm', because it cannot hold back the warmth passing through those meshes. We can now examine how much of the radiated energy is absorbed by the atmosphere and how much of it must be purposeful re-emitted to compensate the energy loss of the radiating body. This would be the case only with 100 percent back reflection. The furthermore resulting 'warming' is absolutely impossible and would imply that the atmosphere has its own energy source, which is not the case! (...)"

Excerpt from the Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski
Chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection
Warsaw, Poland

written for the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in March 2004:

"(...) Improper manipulation of data, and arbitrary rejection of readings that do not fit the pre-conceived idea on man-made global warming is common in many glaciological studies of greenhouse gases. In peer reviewed publications I exposed this misuse of science. Unfortunately, such misuse is not limited to individual publications, but also appears in documents of national and international organizations. For example IPCC not only based its reports on a falsified "Siple curve", but also in its 2001 report used as a flagship the "hockey curve" of temperature, showing that there was no Medieval Warming, and no Little Ice Age, and that the 20th century was unusually warm. The curve was credulously accepted after Mann et al. paper published in NATURE magazine. In a crushing criticism, two independent groups of scientists from disciplines other than climatology (i.e. not supported from the annual pool of many billion "climatic" dollars), convincingly blamed the Mann et al. paper for the improper manipulation and arbitrary rejections of data. The question arises, how such methodically poor paper, contradicting hundreds of excellent studies that demonstrated existence of global range Medieval Warming and Little Ice Age, could pass peer review for NATURE? And how could it pass the reviewing process at the IPCC? The apparent scientific weaknesses of IPCC and its lack of impartiality, was diagnosed and criticized in the early 1990s in NATURE editorials. The disease, seems to be persistent. (...)"

Music is the most universal language