Central Wisconsin Tea Party

Editor's Comments

20 Oct 2014

Latest report from SEPP 20Oct14


By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

A Modest Proposal: The 2013 Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) of the UN Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) contained an estimate of the sensitivity of the earth to a 

doubling of carbon dioxide (CO2), which is called climate sensitivity. The estimate was 1.5 –

4.5ºC. This is the same estimate as given in a 1979 report to the US National Academy of Science 

by a special group under MIT meteorologist Jule Charney. The inability to narrow this estimate 

demonstrates a lack of progress in the climate science embodied by the IPCC and its adherents 

such as the US National Climate Assessment produced by the US Global Change Research 


Since the publication of AR5, we have seen a number of papers published in various journals 

questioning the upper end of the range of climate sensitivity and suggesting it may be far too 

high. Indeed, the laboratory results on testing of the warming impact of a doubling of CO2 

indicate that the climate sensitivity would be about 1.1ºC., about 2ºF. However, these tests were 

done using dry air, no water vapor. Except for the Polar Regions and the arid bands north and 

south of the tropics (equator) water vapor is prevalent, and it is the dominant greenhouse gas.

Writing in American Thinker, SEPP Chairman S. Fred Singer is developing the concept that the 

low end of the estimate may be far too high. Among other issues, he is advocating that climate 

sensitivity should be determine empirically by using satellite temperature data, which is far more 

comprehensive than surface temperature data and not prone to adjustments such as by moving 

measuring stations and by the Urban Heat Island Effect. Indeed, there has been no effort by the 

IPCC to perform basic hypothesis testing to establish that the climate sensitivity is statistically 

significantly greater than zero using satellite data.

No doubt, this effort will create great controversy not only among global warming alarmists, but 

also among many global warming skeptics – those skeptical that CO2 is causing dangerous global 

warming, extreme weather events, etc. But, such a controversy is both healthy and necessary due 

to the failure of government-supported climate scientists to advance scientific knowledge. As 

Singer concludes in his essay: 

“I should note that I am somewhat out of step here with my fellow skeptics. Few of them would 

agree with me that the climate sensitivity (CS) is indeed close to zero. I will have to publish the 

analyses to prove my point and try to convince them. Of course, nothing, no set of facts, will ever 

convince the confirmed climate alarmists.”

See Article # 1. 

29 Jul 2014

Report on Jake Jacob`s last presentation to the CWTP in 2012 as recalled by George Kantz (retired Commander US Coast Guard)

Doc,  This is what I remember about Jake Jacobs;  His presentation was at Someplace Else Bar & Grill for the April 2012 Rally (I verified this.)  He gave a talk supported by a slide presentation.  Many of the slides came from his book.  He talked about his many years in education and how the so-called “progressives” in education over that time were essentially re-writing the history books to cast the Founding Father’s in a unfavorable light -- casting doubt on their character, debatable motivations, and generally undermining what they accomplished in their lives.  The progressives also attacked much of what has been accomplished by America including capitalism, free enterprise, slavery and race in general, women suffrage, etc., etc.  He used examples and had the proof to back it up.  I found his lecture worthwhile and his book excellent.  As I recall, the 2012 Rally was to credibly point out the dangers we faced under this President, including

Obamacare and the importance of changing the President in 2012.  That didn’t happen.


So much has happened since then to hurt the country, much of which was predicted by Jacobs and other conservatives e.g. Obamacare rollout a disaster, rule of law flouted, immigration policy worse than ever, etc.  In addition, Obama administration is scandal ridden with VA, IRS, NSA, EPA, Dept. of Interior (SWAT approach to the Cliven Bundy case), etc. Progressive policies haven’t been designed to Help America but ‘bring her to her knees!” e.g. unemployment (as seen through the Workforce Participation Rate 62.5% lowest since 1978 – Pres. Carter), real inflation rate (based on the methodology back in 1990) shows inflation at over 4% vs. the 2% reported currently by the FED. [Also, because methodological shifts in government reporting have depressed reported inflation, moving the concept of the consumer price index (CPI) away from being a measure of the cost of living needed to maintain a constant standard of living, the real 2014 inflation rate

based on the ]1980 methodology is about 8-9%!]


We also have Common Core to contend with, the constant hammering against the 2nd Amendment, attacks against Voter ID laws, the food Nazi’s, the spendthrift government, other Agenda 21 and Climate Change issues as well as the trumped-up ‘war on women’.  The Progressives are moving their agenda forward seemingly all areas simultaneously in a Cloward & Piven strategy of overwhelming the system.  They also employ Alinsky methods in a no-holds-barred approach to attack people and institutions with distortion and lies to achieve their ends.  Nothing is above reproach.  


Throughout all of this they are aided and abetted by a propaganda news media the likes we haven’t seen since the cold war days of Pravda.  Not only is news reported with the ‘progressive spin’ but many times news unfavorable to the current administration is not reported at all.


It would seem to me that Jake Jacobs has a “target rich’ environment in which to engage the Obama Whitehouse.  However, the two main targets I would think should be; 1) this President’s assault on the ‘Rule of Law’ by disrespecting the Constitution, the separation of powers, the Congress and the Supreme Court, the American people and most of our traditional allies.  Obama has used his Executive Orders to create new laws not enforce current law, 2) the problems with Common Core by virtue of his long-time experience in education.  There you go, Sid.  gk 


25 Jul 2014



18 Apr 2014


                                        CLICK ON THE LINK BELOW  


27 Feb 2014


Confessions of a ‘Greenpeace Dropout’ to the U.S. Senate on climate change

Posted on February 26, 2014 by Anthony Watts

Update: I’m making this a top “sticky post” for a couple of days, new stories will appear below this one.

Our friend Dr. Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, went before the U.S. Senate yesterday to tell his story as it relates to global warming/climate change. It is well worth your time to read. WUWT readers may recall that since Dr. Moore has decided to speak out against global warming and for Golden Rice, Greenpeace is trying to disappear his status with the organization, much like people were disappeared in Soviet Russia.

Statement of Patrick Moore, Ph.D. Before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight

February 25, 2014

“Natural Resource Adaptation: Protecting ecosystems and economies”

Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at today’s hearing.

In 1971, as a PhD student in ecology I joined an activist group in a church basement in Vancouver Canada and sailed on a small boat across the Pacific to protest US Hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. We became Greenpeace.

After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective. Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likelythat human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (My emphasis)

“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.

These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods.

Perhaps the simplest way to expose the fallacy of “extreme certainty” is to look at the historical record. With the historical record, we do have some degree of certainty compared to predictions of the future. When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.

Today we remain locked in what is essentially still the Pleistocene Ice Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5°C. This compares with a low of about 12°C during the periods of maximum glaciation in this Ice Age to an average of 22°C during the Greenhouse Ages, which occurred over longer time periods prior to the most recent Ice Age. During the Greenhouse Ages, there was no ice on either pole and all the land was tropical and sub-tropical, from pole to pole. As recently as 5 million years ago the Canadian Arctic islands were completely forested. Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.

Moving closer to the present day, it is instructive to study the record of average global temperature during the past 130 years. The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming “since the mid-20th century”, which is 1950. From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5°C over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970. This was followed by an increase of 0.57°C during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.

The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910- 1940 to “human influence.” They are clear in their belief that human emissions impact only the increase “since the mid-20th century”. Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by “human influence”, when it has no explanation for the nearly identical increase from 1910- 1940?

It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a 2°C rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species. We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing. It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age. It is “extremely likely” that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.

I realize that my comments are contrary to much of the speculation about our climate that is bandied about today. However, I am confident that history will bear me out, both in terms of the futility of relying on computer models to predict the future, and the fact that warmer temperatures are better than colder temperatures for most species.

If we wish to preserve natural biodiversity, wildlife, and human well being, we should simultaneously plan for both warming and cooling, recognizing that cooling would be the most damaging of the two trends. We do not know whether the present pause in temperature will remain for some time, or whether it will go up or down at some time in the near future. What we do know with “extreme certainty” is that the climate is always changing, between pauses, and that we are not capable, with our limited knowledge, of predicting which way it will go next.

Thank you for the opportunity to present my views on this important subject.

Attached please find the chapter on climate change from my book, “Confessions of a Greenpeace Dropout: The Making of a Sensible Environmentalist”. I would request it be made part of the record.




20 Nov 2013

20nov13.  This link from the DOD gives a list of the dead.

These deaths may be deliberate.  Who gave the orders?

You may wish you did not open the link



02 Sep 2013

 Richard S.Lindzen, Ph.D.. is an emeritus professor of Atmospheric Sciences at The Massachusetts Institute of Technology: he writes here about Global Climate Alarmism.


20 Sep 2012