Cool Life In The UK Test images

A few nice Life in the UK Test images I found:

Jaguar 3.8 S: Hood ornament & “3.8 LITRE” badge
Life in the UK Test

Image by Chris Devers
This one has the badge Jaguar 3.8 LITRE on the hood (bonnet), and Jaguar 3.8 S on the trunk (boot). The overall design looks a bit different than the Mark II, and in fact it turns out that this is an S-Type. So, quoting from Wikipedia: Jaguar S-Type (1963-68):

• • • • •

The Jaguar S-Type was produced from 1963-68 as a technically more sophisticated development of the Jaguar Mark 2. It sold alongside the Mark 2, as well as the Jaguar 420 following its release in 1966. The 1960s S-Type should not be confused with the retro-styled Jaguar S-Type sold from 1999.

Contents

[hide]

1 History
2 Development
•• 2.1 Engines
•• 2.2 Mechanical
•• 2.3 Suspension
•• 2.4 Styling
•• 2.5 Bodyshell
•• 2.6 Interior
3 Performance
4 Production developments
5 Sales performance
6 Specifications
7 Diecast Models
8 References
•• 8.1 Further reading
9 External links

Manufacturer
Jaguar Cars

• Production
1963–1968
3.4-litre S-Type – 9,928
1963–1968
3.8-litre S-Type – 15,065

• Successor
Jaguar XJ6

Class
Sports saloon

Body style(s)
4-door saloon

Layout
FR layout

Transmission(s)
4-speed manual; 4-speed manual/overdrive; or 3-speed automatic options available

Wheelbase
2,730 mm (107 in)

• Length
4,750 mm (187 in)

• Width
1,683 mm (66 in)

• Height
1,416 mm (56 in)

Curb weight
1,625 kg (3,583 lb)

• Related
Jaguar Mark 2
Jaguar Mark X
Jaguar 420

History

The Jaguar Mark 2 was introduced in 1959 and sold throughout most of the 1960s. It had a live rear axle and was powered by the XK six-cylinder engine first used in the Jaguar XK120 of 1948. In the Mark 2 the engine was available in 2.4, 3.4 and 3.8 litre capacities.

In 1961 Jaguar launched two new models. The full size Jaguar Mark X saloon (pronounced "mark ten") used Jaguar’s new independent rear suspension and a triple SU carburettor version of the 3.8 litre XK engine. The other new car for 1961 was the Jaguar E-Type sports car, which shared the same 3.8 litre engine as the Mark X but used a scaled down version of the independent rear suspension.

Having released the Mark X, with its many technical refinements, Jaguar boss Sir William Lyons expected the Mark 2 would need updating with similar features if it was to retain its place in the market. Accordingly, work began on developing the S-Type (codenamed "Utah Mk III", the Mark 2 having been “Utah Mk II”) as soon as development work was finished on the Mark X.

The S-Type was a major redevelopment of the Mark 2. It used a mid-scale version of the Mark X independent rear suspension to replace the Mark 2′s live rear axle and featured longer rear bodywork, among other styling and interior changes. The S-Type was available with either 3.4 or 3.8 litre XK engines but only in twin carburettor form because the triple carburettor setup would not fit into what was essentially still the Mark 2 engine bay.

By the time of the S-Type’s release in 1963, the Mark 2 remained an unexpectedly strong seller despite its age. Although the Mark X was selling less well than hoped, especially in its intended market of the USA, Sir William decided to retain all three models in the Jaguar range concurrently. The Mark X was renamed “420G” in 1966 and was joined by another new model, the 4.2 litre 420. The 420 was developed to replace the S-Type but because some demand remained for the S-Type, all four saloon models (Mark 2, S-Type, 420 and 420G) remained on sale until the arrival of the Jaguar XJ6 in 1968. The XJ6 replaced all but the 420G in the Jaguar range.

Development

Engines

No new engines were developed for the S-Type. It was first released with the twin carburettor variant of the 3.8 litre XK engine, the same as that which had powered the 3.8 litre Mark 2 but which was no longer offered on the Mark 2 after the release of the S-Type. The 3.8 litre was the only engine offered on S-Types sold into the US market.

The lower powered 3.4 litre S-Type used the same 3.4 litre engine as the Mark 2. It was released a few months after the 3.8S and was not made available at any stage on Jaguar’s press demonstrator fleet in the UK. Whereas the 3.4 litre remained the most popular engine option for the Mark 2, the 3.8 litre S-Type outsold the 3.4S in the ratio 3 to 2.

Mechanical

Despite the S-Type’s weight gain of 152 kg (335 lb) over the Mark 2, no changes were deemed necessary to the Dunlop four-wheel disc braking system.

Major changes were made to the S-Type’s steering system. The Burman power steering system in the Mark 2, with its 4.3 turns lock-to-lock, was regarded as being excessively low geared and lacking in road feel. In the S-Type it was replaced by a higher-geared Burman unit of 3.5 turns lock-to-lock, which linked the input shaft and hydraulic valve by a torsion spring to improve its ‘feel’.

The heating and ventilating system of the Mark 2 was not considered adequate for the more upmarket S-Type and was replaced with an improved system. Separate control of ventilation direction was provided for both driver and front seat passenger. Warm air could also be directed to the rear passengers through an outlet situated on the propellor shaft tunnel cover between the two front seats.

Suspension

A key element of the Mark X that Jaguar wanted to include in the S-Type was its sophisticated, and by then widely acclaimed, independent rear suspension. The suspension was a revelation at the time of its introduction, and remained the benchmark against which others were judged until the 1980s. Essentially a double wishbone setup, it used the driveshaft as the upper wishbone. It carries the drive, braking, suspension and damping units in a single fabricated steel crossbridge, which is isolated from the bodyshell by rubber blocks. Including this suspension in the S-Type necessitated the development of a new crossbridge suitable for its 54” track, coming as it did between the 58” track of the Mark X and 50” track of the E-Type.

The S-Type used the same subframe mounted, coil sprung, twin wishbone front suspension as the Mark 2.

Styling

Sir William wanted to introduce some of the Mark X’s sleeker and sharper lines into the S-Type but with limited time and money available, most effort was applied to restyling the rear bodywork. The S-Type was given extended rear bodywork similar to that on the Mark X, which also gave it a much larger boot than the Mark 2. Relatively minor changes were made to the frontal styling of the car in an attempt to balance the longer rear styling but the overall affect at the front was still very rounded. The only change made to the centre section was to flatten and extend the rear roofline, which made the car look larger and helped to give rear seat passengers slightly more headroom.

The styling of the S-Type was regarded by many of those who worked on it as being not altogether successful. The mismatch between the horizontal lines of its rear styling and the rounded front was least flattering when viewing the car from the front quarter. Ref. [1] quotes Cyril Crouch, Assistant Chief Body Engineer at Browns Lane during development of the S-Type, as saying “We ourselves appreciated what an ugly looking car it was, and when it came out there was a …’Is that the best you can do?’ sort of thing! People like myself had to take the stick for producing such an abomination! Perhaps I shouldn’t call it that, but I think everyone was very pleased to see the end of the S and move on to the 420. It seemed an odd-looking vehicle.”

The reasonable sales success of the S-Type prior to the release of the Jaguar 420 suggests that not everyone was as offended by its styling as Mr Crouch. Nevertheless, the 420 did ‘finish the job’ in a styling sense by adding to the car a squarer, four-headlamp front end more like that of the Mark X.

The list of the significant styling differences between the Mark 2 and S-Type is as follows:

• the tail was extended, with styling features similar to the Mark X only scaled down
• the Mark 2′s spats over the rear wheels were deleted and the rear guards brought lower over the wheels and reshaped
• new slimline bumpers were used front and rear, the front bumper still featuring a dip to reveal the full depth of the radiator grille
• wraparound indicators and low mounted sidelights were added at the bottoms of the front wings
• the foglamps were recessed more deeply into the wing fronts
• the grille was given a thicker surround and centre bar
• the headlamps were given a small peak, making the car look longer and thus going some way to balancing the longer tail
• the roofline was extended rearwards slightly to make it look flatter and the rear window became more upright.

Bodyshell

Starting with the Mark 2’s monocoque bodyshell, Jaguar’s engineers had to alter it to accommodate the independent rear suspension’s extra bulk and weight and the extended rear bodywork. Structural changes at the front were minimal and no changes at all were made to the inner scuttle, windscreen or dashboard structure.

A list of the significant structural differences between the Mark 2 and S-Type is as follows:

• the Mark 2’s underbody reinforcing rails were extended to the rear of the car and enclosed, sweeping up and over the space for the rear suspension assembly
• the boot floor was double-skinned and ribbed for additional strength
• the spare wheel well was relocated centrally in the boot floor (it was on the left in the Mark 2)
• the lid of the new longer boot (trunk) was secured by two catches rather than the single catch of the Mark 2
• the 12 gallon fuel tank was removed from under the boot floor and replaced by two 7 gallon tanks inside each rear wing
• new front wings were made to carry the frontal styling changes listed above
• new attachment points were made for the new wings and bumpers
• new wheelarches were made to match the new front guards and rear structure

Interior

The S-Type’s interior again reflected the styling of the Mark X but included features unique to the S-Type, not all of which found their way into the 420. Changes to the rear seat accommodation gave the impression of far greater room than in the rear of a Mark 2 and changes to the front of the cabin also gave the impression of greater luxury.

The list of interior differences between the Mark 2 and S-Type includes:

• a scaled down Mark X walnut veneer dashboard with a pull-out map tray below the centre section. The veneer extended to the dashboard centre section, which in the Mark 2 was black vinyl covered
• a full width parcel tray was fitted below the dashboard
• new controls were provided to go with the improved heating and ventilation system
• the front seats were widened to give the appearance of being almost full width, and each was provided with an inboard armrest.
• the centre console was redesigned to suit the wider front seats and rear compartment heating arrangements
• the door trims were given horizontal fluting
• Mark X type armrests were added to the front doors along with a map pocket
• the rear doors were given new armrests with a flip-top ashtray and magazine pocket
• the front seats were given a new fore and aft adjustment mechanism that raised the rear of the seat as it was moved forwards
• the backs of the front seats lost the Mark 2’s picnic trays and were made thinner, to the benefit of rear seat passenger legroom
• the rear seat had a 50 mm (2.0 in) thinner squab and its backrest was more steeply angled, further benefitting headroom already enhanced by the slightly higher rear roofline. These changes did, however, leave longer legged rear seat passengers in a fairly uncomfortable ‘knee-high’ posture.

Performance

A contemporary road test by Autosport magazine [2][3] was typical in describing the ‘on paper’ performance of the 3.8 S-Type as slower than the 3.8 litre Mark 2 but its actual cross country performance as faster. Despite its extra weight, the S-Type’s independent rear suspension allowed it to corner faster than the Mark 2, especially on uneven surfaces. Other benefits ascribed to the rear suspension were better traction and a much smoother ride for rear seat passengers. Some enthusiasts rued the loss of the Mark 2’s “driftability” and noted that the S-Type suffered more body roll during high speed cornering but the consensus was that the S-Type provided significant improvements over the Mark 2 in roadholding, safety and ride comfort.

Ref. [4] concluded its test report on a 3.8S with these words, "It can be a convenient family car, a businessman’s express, a sports coupe, and a grand tourer. The latter two classifications come particularly clear to anyone who spends much time with the car in the wet, when the surefootedness of its all independent suspension and the Dunlop RS-5 tires makes its responsive handling an absolute revelation. The S-Type represents a great step forward for what has always been a fine automobile." The RS-5 cross-ply tyres were soon to be replaced by much better Dunlop SP41 radials, further enhancing the car’s handling and grip.

Recorded performance figures obviously differed between testers and gearbox options but for the purposes of comparison, the following contemporary data are typical:

3.4 Mark 2 automatic
0-60 mph 10.0 sec
Max speed 118 mph (190 km/h)

3.4S manual/overdrive
0-60 mph 13.9 sec
Max speed 115 mph (185 km/h)

3.8S manual/overdrive
0-60 10.3 sec
Max speed 125 mph (201 km/h)

3.8S automatic
0-60 mph 11.5 sec
Max speed 116 mph (187 km/h)

Production developments

Several significant changes were made to the S-Type’s interior and mechanicals during its six years in production.

Of the various performance enhancing mechanical changes, most were applied to both the 3.4S and 3.8S at the same time. These were:

• In June 1964 the original Dunlop RS5 cross-ply tyres were replaced with Dunlop SP41 radials, removing the former’s tendency to squeal under hard cornering and providing higher limits of adhesion with more gradual breakaway at the limit.
• In October 1964 the brakes were given a bigger servo, requiring lower pedal pressures.
• Also in October 1964, the Moss four-speed manual gearbox with no synchromesh on first gear was replaced with Jaguar’s own all-synchromesh four speed gearbox. Revised gear ratios improved acceleration and a more compact Laycock A-type overdrive unit was fitted (when the overdrive option was specified)
• A very few of the last S-Types built had the same Marles Varamatic variable ratio power steering that was available on the 420 and 420G. Detail of the Varamatic steering system can be found in the Jaguar 420 article.

The only production development not shared by both the 3.4S and 3.8S was that the Powr-Lok limited slip differential option ceased to be available on the 3.4S when the 1967 cost saving trim revisions were introduced.

In 1966 a dashboard switch was provided for the heated rear window, which had previously remained “on” as long as the ignition was on, leading to instances of flat batteries.

Reflecting a tougher economic climate (and similar changes made to the Mark 2s in 1966), all S-Types made from late 1967 onwards had Ambla upholstery instead of leather, and tufted carpets instead of woven. As part of the same revisions, dummy horn grilles replaced the foglamps in the front wings and the S-Type adopted the 420′s new pattern wheel trim rings and hubcaps.

Sales performance

Though introduced in 1963, only a small number of S-Types was produced in that year. The S-Type did not manage to overtake the Mark 2’s production figures until 1965. It repeated the feat in 1966, the year in which the Jaguar 420 and its badge-engineered partner the Daimler Sovereign were introduced. In 1967 the 420/Sovereign outsold both the S-Type and the Mark 2, despite a resurgence in the latter’s sales that year. Both the Mark 2 and 420/Sovereign easily outsold the S-Type in 1967 and 1968. Sales of the S-Type in 1968, its last year of production, fell below four figures. Top seller in 1968 was actually the venerable Mark 2, potential buyers of both the S-Type and 420/Sovereign hanging back to wait for the new Jaguar XJ6.

Introduced late in 1968, the Jaguar XJ6 was slightly larger than the S-Type and 420/Sovereign and swept them both from the Jaguar range along with the Mark 2. The 420G continued to be available until 1970.

Production figures for each year of the S-Type’s life were:

1963 – 43
1964 – 7,032
1965 – 9,741
1966 – 6,260
1967 – 1,008
1968 – 909

Specifications

Engine
Jaguar 6 cylinder in line, iron block, alloy head

Capacities
3.4 L (3442 cc) or 3.8 L (3781 cc)

Bore/Stroke
3.4 L (83mm x 106mm) or 3.8 L (87 mm x 106 mm)

Valves
DOHC 2 valves per cylinder

Compression Ratio
8:1 (7:1 and 9:1 optional)

Max. Power
3.4 L 210 bhp (157 kW; 213 PS) @ 5500 rpm or 3.8 L 220 bhp (164 kW; 223 PS) @ 5500 rpm

Max. Torque
3.4 L 216 lb·ft (293 N·m) @ 3000 rpm or 3.8 L 240 lb·ft (325 N·m) @ 3000 rpm

Carburettors
Twin SU HD6 (1.75in)

Suspension
Front independent, with wishbones, coil springs with telescopic dampers and anti-roll bar
Rear independent, with lower wishbone and driveshaft as upper link, radius arms and twin coil springs with telescopic dampers

Steering
Recirculating ball, worm and nut; power assistance optional

Brakes
Servo assisted discs on all four wheels, inboard at rear

Body/Chassis
Monocoque bodyshell with bolted front subframe, five seater saloon, front engine rear wheel drive

Tyres/Wheels
6.40 x 15 crossply or 185 x 15 radial, 5.0in rim, five-stud disc wheels with wire spoke optional

Track
Front=1,403 mm (55 in) Rear=1,378 mm (54 in)

Diecast Models

The S-type was modelled by Spot-on in the 1960s.

References

^ Taylor, James. "Jaguar S Type and 420 – The Complete Story", Crowood, ISBN 1-85223-989-1
^ "Autosport" magazine – 7 August 1964
^ "Jaguar S Type & 420 – ‘Road Test’ Limited Edition", Brooklands Books ISBN 1-85520-3456
^ "Car and Driver" magazine Road Research Report – June 1964

Further reading

• Ball, Kenneth. "Jaguar S Type, 420 1963-68 Autobook", Autopress Ltd ISBN 0-85147-113-7
• “Used cars on test: 1964 Jaguar S-Type 3.8". Autocar vol 127 (nbr 3725): Pages 28 – 29. 6 July 1967.
• "Buying secondhand: Jaguar S-Type and 420". Autocar vol 142 (nbr 4089): pages 44 – 46. date 8 March 1975.
• Harvey, Chris. "Great Marques – Jaguar", Octopus Books Ltd ISBN 0-7064-1687-2

Cool Life In The UK Test images

A few nice Life in the UK Test images I found:

Operation The Heat Is On 94
Life in the UK Test

Image by Anonymous9000
Last month the cult blatantly stole a Clearwater Anon’s ridiculous scientology "volunteer ministers" jacket during our protest, which had been donated a few months before by an ex-sci who had seen our earlier protests in Clearwater and realized what the cult was telling her about Anonymous didn’t jive with what she saw on the protest signs. She went home, did her homework on the internet, found out the truth about the cult and soon blew from (aka- left) staff. The jacket was a gift of thanks from this ex to Clearwater Anons.

This month Anons showed up in our own "Vulture Ministers" T-shirts to mock their "Volunteer Ministers", which also had "Anonymous Volunteer Protester" logos on the back. Special thanks to London, UK Anons for the shirts. That’s the cult’s Fort Harrison building in the background, the first one they bought in Clearwater back in the 70′s.

I’ve got news for you cultists, especially Peter "Peetie" Mansell, the cult’s OSA (Office of Special Affairs, their laughably named investigative arm) chief dufus in Clearwater . You pulled it in and we still run this.

July 2010 was the 30th consecutive month of peaceful global protests against the scientology cult’s criminality and human rights abuses. With our brutal Florida summers now in full swing and the heat being put on scientology from multiple fronts this summer Clearwater, Florida went with Operation: The Heat is On. Recently in the Tampa Bay area the St. Petersburg times continued it’s investigative expose on scientology with front page coverage detailing coerced abortions among other things. Expect more on that front shortly. Also in Tampa Bay new weekly interviews with ex-scientologists are being aired on Hillsborough Community College’s Hawk Radio 1520 AM. In Australia Senator Nick Xenophon secures inquiry in to a public benefit test for charities and religion, which if adopted will specifically challenge the cult’s charitable status there. In Italy the authorities raided the cult’s Org in Turin for nine hours. Investigators are said to have found secret archives with files on magistrates, policemen, journalists, and relatives of former followers. And of course there’s several pending lawsuits by former members against the cult for human trafficking, forced abortions, etc.

But no where is the heat being put on the scientology cult as much as Australia.

June 28-29 2010 Australian public benefit test
Australian Senate link: www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/economics_ctte/public_ben…
Xenu TV coverage: www.xenutv.com/blog/?p=4902
June 29th ABC coverage www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/29/2939759.htm?sectio…
July 1st A Current Affair coverage: www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAf4W26-cKU&feature=player_em…
Complete Day 1 Video & Transcripts: forums.whyweprotest.net/318-senator-xenophon-scientology/…
Complete Day 2 video: forums.whyweprotest.net/318-senator-xenophon-scientology/…

July 8 2010 Today Tonight
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctngHrqRmrA

Additionally, two long time, high level cultists blew in the last couple weeks:
Marsha Pearlman Sorensen
Karen De La Carriere/Jentzsch, the former wife of apparently missing (read: RPF’ed) cult president Herber Jentzsch.

All faces of those unmasked are blurred to protect them from the cult’s "Fair Game" policy of harassing it’s critics. These are brave people of all ages and walks of life, standing shoulder to shoulder with ex-Scientologists to bring the truth TO YOU.

But don’t take my word for it, educate yourself about what TIME Magazine called "The Cult of Greed and Power":
www.whyweprotest.net
www.xenu.net
www.exscientologykids.com

Operation The Heat Is On 96
Life in the UK Test

Image by Anonymous9000
Last month the cult blatantly stole a Clearwater Anon’s ridiculous scientology "volunteer ministers" jacket during our protest, which had been donated a few months before by an ex-sci who had seen our earlier protests in Clearwater and realized what the cult was telling her about Anonymous didn’t jive with what she saw on the protest signs. She went home, did her homework on the internet, found out the truth about the cult and soon blew from (aka- left) staff. The jacket was a gift of thanks from this ex to Clearwater Anons.

This month Anons showed up in our own "Vulture Ministers" T-shirts to mock their "Volunteer Ministers", which also had these "Anonymous Volunteer Protester" logos on the back. Special thanks to London, UK Anons for the shirts. That’s the cult’s Fort Harrison building in the background, the first one they bought in Clearwater back in the 70′s.

I’ve got news for you cultists, especially Peter "Peetie" Mansell, the cult’s OSA (Office of Special Affairs, their laughably named investigative arm) chief dufus in Clearwater . You pulled it in and we still run this.

July 2010 was the 30th consecutive month of peaceful global protests against the scientology cult’s criminality and human rights abuses. With our brutal Florida summers now in full swing and the heat being put on scientology from multiple fronts this summer Clearwater, Florida went with Operation: The Heat is On. Recently in the Tampa Bay area the St. Petersburg times continued it’s investigative expose on scientology with front page coverage detailing coerced abortions among other things. Expect more on that front shortly. Also in Tampa Bay new weekly interviews with ex-scientologists are being aired on Hillsborough Community College’s Hawk Radio 1520 AM. In Australia Senator Nick Xenophon secures inquiry in to a public benefit test for charities and religion, which if adopted will specifically challenge the cult’s charitable status there. In Italy the authorities raided the cult’s Org in Turin for nine hours. Investigators are said to have found secret archives with files on magistrates, policemen, journalists, and relatives of former followers. And of course there’s several pending lawsuits by former members against the cult for human trafficking, forced abortions, etc.

But no where is the heat being put on the scientology cult as much as Australia.

June 28-29 2010 Australian public benefit test
Australian Senate link: www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/economics_ctte/public_ben…
Xenu TV coverage: www.xenutv.com/blog/?p=4902
June 29th ABC coverage www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/29/2939759.htm?sectio…
July 1st A Current Affair coverage: www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAf4W26-cKU&feature=player_em…
Complete Day 1 Video & Transcripts: forums.whyweprotest.net/318-senator-xenophon-scientology/…
Complete Day 2 video: forums.whyweprotest.net/318-senator-xenophon-scientology/…

July 8 2010 Today Tonight
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctngHrqRmrA

Additionally, two long time, high level cultists blew in the last couple weeks:
Marsha Pearlman Sorensen
Karen De La Carriere/Jentzsch, the former wife of apparently missing (read: RPF’ed) cult president Herber Jentzsch.

All faces of those unmasked are blurred to protect them from the cult’s "Fair Game" policy of harassing it’s critics. These are brave people of all ages and walks of life, standing shoulder to shoulder with ex-Scientologists to bring the truth TO YOU.

But don’t take my word for it, educate yourself about what TIME Magazine called "The Cult of Greed and Power":
www.whyweprotest.net
www.xenu.net
www.exscientologykids.com

Cool Life In The UK Test images

Check out these Life in the UK Test images:

A man’s point of view
Life in the UK Test

Image by DFID – UK Department for International Development
Wilson Sauto, 38, a home based counsellor in Kamunhukamwe village, Nyanga.

Wilson says, "men want to be thought of as strong and virile. They think being HIV positive is weak and they won’t admit to being unwell. I know many HIV positive men. They come to me for advice but they still don’t want a test. So I assist. I explain it’s better now than later.

"The first step is acceptance. Then you can see a future and a life. Then you can plan your job, medical treatment, and physical health. And you can also make a plan with your partner. I have been HIV-positive for four years but my wife is HIV-free."

To find out more about how the UK government is tackling the spread of HIV and AIDS in developing countries, please visit: www.dfid.gov.uk/wad2010

Words and pictures supplied by the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation, which is partly funded by the UK Government.

(YES SORRY FOR USING THIS ONE AGAIN) BUT IT WORKS WITH WHATS POSTED BELOW
Life in the UK Test

Image by SS&SS
SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore
Climate Depot Exclusive: 321-page ‘Consensus Buster’ Report set to further chill UN Climate Summit in Cancun

Wednesday, December 08, 2010By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
Link to Complete 321-Page PDF Special Report

INTRODUCTION:

More than 1,000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report’s release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.

The more than 300 additional scientists added to this report since March 2009 (21 months ago), represents an average of nearly four skeptical scientists a week speaking out publicly. The well over 1,000 dissenting scientists are almost 20 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.

The chorus of skeptical scientific voices grew louder in 2010 as the Climategate scandal — which involved the upper echelon of UN IPCC scientists — detonated upon on the international climate movement. "I view Climategate as science fraud, pure and simple," said noted Princeton Physicist Dr. Robert Austin shortly after the scandal broke. Climategate prompted UN IPCC scientists to turn on each other. UN IPCC scientist Eduardo Zorita publicly declared that his Climategate colleagues Michael Mann and Phil Jones "should be barred from the IPCC process…They are not credible anymore." Zorita also noted how insular the IPCC science had become. "By writing these lines I will just probably achieve that a few of my future studies will, again, not see the light of publication," Zorita wrote. A UN lead author Richard Tol grew disillusioned with the IPCC and lamented that it had been "captured" and demanded that "the Chair of IPCC and the Chairs of the IPCC Working Groups should be removed." Tol also publicly called for the "suspension" of IPCC Process in 2010 after being invited by the UN to participate as lead author again in the next IPCC Report. [Note: Zorita and Tol are not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.]

Other UN scientists were more blunt. A South African UN scientist declared the UN IPCC a "worthless carcass" and noted IPCC chair Pachauri is in "disgrace". He also explained that the "fraudulent science continues to be exposed." Alexander, a former member of the UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters harshly critiqued the UN. "’I was subjected to vilification tactics at the time. I persisted. Now, at long last, my persistence has been rewarded…There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. I rest my case!" See: S. African UN Scientist Calls it! ‘Climate change – RIP: Cause of Death: No scientifically believable evidence…Deliberate manipulation to suit political objectives’ [Also see: New Report: UN Scientists Speak Out On Global Warming -- As Skeptics!] Geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook, a professor of geology at Western Washington University, summed up the scandal on December 3, 2010: "The corruption within the IPCC revealed by the Climategate scandal, the doctoring of data and the refusal to admit mistakes have so severely tainted the IPCC that it is no longer a credible agency."

Selected Highlights of the Updated 2010 Report featuring over 1,000 international scientists dissenting from man-made climate fears:

“We’re not scientifically there yet. Despite what you may have heard in the media, there is nothing like a consensus of scientific opinion that this is a problem. Because there is natural variability in the weather, you cannot statistically know for another 150 years.” — UN IPCC’s Tom Tripp, a member of the UN IPCC since 2004 and listed as one of the lead authors and serves as the Director of Technical Services & Development for U.S. Magnesium.

“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!” — NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

“Please remain calm: The Earth will heal itself — Climate is beyond our power to control…Earth doesn’t care about governments or their legislation. You can’t find much actual global warming in present-day weather observations. Climate change is a matter of geologic time, something that the earth routinely does on its own without asking anyone’s permission or explaining itself.” — Nobel Prize-Winning Stanford University Physicist Dr. Robert B. Laughlin, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1998, and was formerly a research scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

“In essence, the jig is up. The whole thing is a fraud. And even the fraudsters that fudged data are admitting to temperature history that they used to say didn’t happen…Perhaps what has doomed the Climategate fraudsters the most was their brazenness in fudging the data” — Dr. Christopher J. Kobus, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering at Oakland University, specializes in alternative energy, thermal transport phenomena, two-phase flow and fluid and thermal energy systems.

“The energy mankind generates is so small compared to that overall energy budget that it simply cannot affect the climate…The planet’s climate is doing its own thing, but we cannot pinpoint significant trends in changes to it because it dates back millions of years while the study of it began only recently. We are children of the Sun; we simply lack data to draw the proper conclusions.” — Russian Scientist Dr. Anatoly Levitin, the head of geomagnetic variations laboratory at the Institute of Terrestrial Magnetism, Ionosphere and Radiowave Propagation of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“Hundreds of billion dollars have been wasted with the attempt of imposing a Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that is not supported by physical world evidences…AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks.” — Brazilian Geologist Geraldo Luís Lino, who authored the 2009 book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon Was Converted into a False World Emergency.”

"I am an environmentalist,” but “I must disagree with Mr. Gore” — Chemistry Professor Dr. Mary Mumper, the chair of the Chemistry Department at Frostburg State University in Maryland, during her presentation titled “Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming, the Skeptic’s View.”

“I am ashamed of what climate science has become today.” The science “community is relying on an inadequate model to blame CO2 and innocent citizens for global warming in order to generate funding and to gain attention. If this is what ‘science’ has become today, I, as a scientist, am ashamed.” — Research Chemist William C. Gilbert published a study in August 2010 in the journal Energy & Environment titled “The thermodynamic relationship between surface temperature and water vapor concentration in the troposphere” and he published a paper in August 2009 titled “Atmospheric Temperature Distribution in a Gravitational Field.” [Update December 9, 2010]

“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” — Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring's quote.]

“Those who call themselves ‘Green planet advocates’ should be arguing for a CO2- fertilized atmosphere, not a CO2-starved atmosphere…Diversity increases when the planet was warm AND had high CO2 atmospheric content…Al Gore’s personal behavior supports a green planet – his enormous energy use with his 4 homes and his bizjet, does indeed help make the planet greener. Kudos, Al for doing your part to save the planet.” — Renowned engineer and aviation/space pioneer Burt Rutan, who was named "100 most influential people in the world, 2004" by Time Magazine and Newsweek called him "the man responsible for more innovations in modern aviation than any living engineer."

“Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” — Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

“We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” — Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

“There are clear cycles during which both temperature and salinity rise and fall. These cycles are related to solar activity…In my opinion and that of our institute, the problems connected to the current stage of warming are being exaggerated. What we are dealing with is not a global warming of the atmosphere or of the oceans.” — Biologist Pavel Makarevich of the Biological Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

“Because the greenhouse effect is temporary rather than permanent, predictions of significant global warming in the 21st century by IPCC are not supported by the data.” — Hebrew University Professor Dr. Michael Beenstock an honorary fellow with Institute for Economic Affairs who published a study challenging man-made global warming claims titled “Polynomial Cointegration Tests of the Anthropogenic Theory of Global Warming.”

“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.” — South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.

End Selected Excerpts

#

The rapidity of the global warming establishment’s collapse would have been unheard of just two years ago. Prominent physicist Hal Lewis resigned from American Physical Society, calling "Global warming the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life." UK astrophysicist Piers Corbyn was blunt about what Climategate revealed: "The case for climate fears is blown to smithereens…the whole theory should be destroyed and discarded and UN conference should be closed."

Even the usually reliable news media has started questioning the global warming claims. Newsweek Magazine wrote in May 2010 about the "uncertain science" and how "climate researchers have lost the public’s trust" from a "cascade of scandals" from the UN IPCC. Newsweek compared the leaders of the climate science community to "used-car salesmen. "Once celebrated climate researchers are feeling like the used-car salesmen" and the magazine noted that "some of IPCC’s most-quoted data and recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, newspaper articles…Just as damaging, many climate scientists have responded to critiques by questioning the integrity of their critics, rather than by supplying data and reasoned arguments." For full list of Climategate related scandals See: Climate Scandals: List Of 94 Climate-Gates — 94 climate-gates total — 28 new gates — 145 links to reports with details

As the global warming edifice crumbled in 2010, the movement lost one of its leading lights due to the Climategate revelations. Dr. Judith Curry, the chair of Earth & Atmospheric Sciences at GA Institute of Tech, explained her defection from the global warming activist movement. "There is ‘a lack of willingness in the climate change community to steer away from groupthink…’ They are setting themselves up as second-rate scientists by not engaging,” Curry wrote in 2010. Curry critiqued the UN IPCC for promoting "dogma" and clinging to the "religious importance" of the IPCC’s claims. "They will tolerate no dissent and seek to trample anyone who challenges them," Curry lamented. "The IPCC assessment process had a substantial element of schoolyard bullies, trying to insulate their shoddy science from outside scrutiny and attacks by skeptics…the IPCC and its conclusions were set on a track to become a self fulfilling prophecy," Curry wrote. Curry called the Climategate fallout nothing short of a "rather spectacular unraveling of the climate change juggernaut…I immediately realized that [Climategate] could bring down the IPCC…I became concerned about the integrity of our entire field…While my colleagues seemed focused on protecting the reputations of the scientists involved and assuring people that the ‘science hadn’t changed." [Note: Curry is not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.] Also see: ‘High Priestess of Global Warming’ No More! Former Warmist Judith Curry Admits To Being ‘Duped Into Supporting IPCC’ – ‘If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic’] [Note: There were many Cilmategate inquiries that sought to downplay Climategate, but they fell short of their goal and were labeled as nothing more than the "global warming establishment exonerating the global warming establishment." See here, here, and here. The InterAcademy Council (IAC) was the most competent of the inquires.]

As new data and science continued to call into question man-made global warming claims, one of the movements leading fear promoters shocked the world by beginning to retreat from his dire predictions. Green guru James Lovelock warned in 2007 that, "Before this century is over, billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic." Lovelock illustrates how the climate of the climate change movement has been transformed in the last year. In May 2010, Lovelock shocked the world by announcing: "Everybody might be wrong. Climate change may not happen as fast as we thought, and we may have 1,000 years to sort it out." Lovelock went even father by noting how the science of global warming is in its infancy and "we haven’t got the physics worked out yet." "The great climate science centers around the world are more than well aware how weak their science is. If you talk to them privately they’re scared stiff of the fact that they don’t really know what the clouds and the aerosols are doing. They could be absolutely running the show. We haven’t got the physics worked out yet," Lovelock explained. Lovelock now openly praises skeptics and worries that climate fear promotion is akin to religion. In March of 2010, Lovelock said: "The skeptics have kept us sane…They have kept us from regarding climate science as a religion. It had gone too far that way." [Note: Lovelock is not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.] [Note: Even the UN has grown more uncertain about the science. See: UN Fears (More) Global Cooling Commeth! IPCC Scientist Warns UN: We may be about to enter 'one or even 2 decades during which temps cool' -- Admits 'Jury is still out' on ocean cycle's temp impact!]

More woes for the movement were felt when left-leaning environmental activists began jumping ship. See: Left-wing Env. Scientist Denis Rancourt Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a ‘corrupt social phenomenon…strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass’ & Meet the green who doubts ‘The Science’: Environmentalist Peter Taylor ‘explains why he’s skeptical about manmade global warming — and why greens are so intolerant’ & Activists at green festivals expressing doubts over man-made climate fears. “One college professor, confided to me in private conversation that, ‘I’m not sure climate change is real,’” according to a report from the New York Green Festival.

2010 saw the once vaulted UN IPCC now become the object of ridicule and scrutiny. In June 2010, Climate Scientist Mike Hulme took apart a key claim. Hulme noted that claims such as "2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate" are disingenuous. Hulme noted that the key scientific case for Co2 driving global warming was reached by a very small gaggle of people. "That particular consensus judgment, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields." [Note: Hulme is not included in the count of dissenting scientists in this report.]

In another blow to the UN IPCC’s carefully crafted image, was Scientist Dr. William Schlesinger admission in that only 20% of UN IPCC scientists deal with climate. Schlesinger said, “Something on the order of 20 percent [of UN scientists] have had some dealing with climate.” By Schlesinger’s own admission, 80% of the UN IPCC membership has no dealing with the climate as part of their academic studies. Also note, that climate requires a wide range of disciplines: See: ‘There are more than 100 expert sub disciplines involved in climate change studies’ & Science magazine confused about who is a ‘prominent climate scientist’ — ‘there is no specific climate discipline’ & Claims of ‘overwhelming majority’ of scientists exposed as laughable! ‘There are just 94 authors responsible for compiling the report in which…the [UN IPCC's] modeling case for alarm rests’

The notion of climate "tipping points", popularized by former Vice President Al Gore and NASA Scientist James Hansen, became the object of derision as well in 2010. See: 190-year climate ‘tipping point’ issued — Despite fact that UN began 10-Year ‘Climate Tipping Point’ in 1989! Climate Depot Factsheet on Inconvenient History of Global Warming ‘Tipping Points’ — Hours, Days, Months, Years, Millennium — Earth ‘Serially Doomed’

Once respected global warming stalwarts like NASA’s James Hansen descended into political and ideological activism by being arrested multiple times protesting coal use. Hansen also endorsed a book which calls for ‘"ridding the world of Industrial Civilization". Hansen declared the author "has it right…the system is the problem." Hansen did this despite the fact that the book proposes ‘"razing cities to the ground, blowing up dams and switching off the greenhouse gas emissions machine." The Grist eco-magazine writer David Roberts noted in August 2010: "’I know I’m not supposed to say this, but James Hansen managed his transition from scientist to activist terribly. All influence lost."

Energy Sec. Chu came under fire for claiming science told him what the world was going to be like 100 years from now. See: Obama’s ‘Climate Astrologer’: Energy Sec. Chu claims he knows ‘what the future will be 100 years from now’

Obama Science Advisor John Holdren found his knowledge of the science of climate change come under scrutiny after he issued a bizarre warning about the possible loss of WINTER sea ice in the arctic. See: Obama science advisor: John Holdren ridiculed for claiming Arctic could be ICE FREE IN WINTER!

The U.S. Congressional cap-and-trade bill collapse and the UN climate treaty failure has left disillusioned within the global warming movement. Gore has admitted to feeling "a little depressed." And it has left a spectacle of world leaders promising verbal non-binding agreements to limit the earth’s temp have left modern society attempting to ape primitive cultures efforts to control the climate. See: Blaming all recent weather events on man-made global warming is akin to astrology & Climate Astrology — ‘It Has Been Foretold’ of Extreme Weather: ‘UN IPCC science has a status similar to interpretations of Nostradamus and the Mayan calendars’

In addition, the scientific underpinnings and the public support around the globe has dropped so significantly that there is now open talk of moving on to the "next eco-scare" Demoted: UN officially throws global warming under the bus: UN now says case for saving species ‘more powerful than climate change’ – May 21, 2010 & Time for next eco-scare already?! As Global Warming Movement Collapses, Activists Already ‘Test-Marketing’ the Next Eco-Fear! ‘Laughing Gas’ Crisis? Oxygen Crisis? Plastics?

The carefully crafted "consensus" of man-made global warming has unraveled. See:

Prominent Geologist Dr. Easterbrook Slams Geological Society of America’s climate statement ‘as easily refuted by data that clearly shows no correlation between CO2 and global climate change’ & American Meteorological Society Members Reject Man-made Climate Claims: 75% Do Not Agree With UN IPCC Claims — 29% Agree ‘Global Warming is a Scam’ & Meteorologists Reject U.N.’s Global Warming Claims: Only 1 in 4 American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agree with UN

In 2009, the world’s largest science group, the American Chemical Society (ACS) was “startled” by an outpouring of scientists rejecting man-made climate fears, with many calling for the removal of the ACS’s climate activist editor.

A 2010 Open Letter signed by more than 130 German scientists urging German Chancellor to “reconsider” her climate views. See: ‘Consensus’ Takes Another Hit! More than 130 German Scientists Dissent Over Global Warming Claims! Call Climate Fears ‘Pseudo ‘Religion’; Urge Chancellor to ‘reconsider’ views – August 4, 2009 More than 100 international scientists challenged President Obama’s climate claims, calling them "simply incorrect." In December 8 2009, 166 scientists from around the world wrote an Open Letter to the UN Secretary-General rebuking the UN and declaring that “the science is NOT settled.” On May 1, 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of over 80 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position and more than 250 scientists urged a change in the group’s climate statement in 2010. The physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th – 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.” An American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.

Russian scientists “rejected the very idea that carbon dioxide may be responsible for global warming”. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears. International Scientists demanded the UN IPCC “be called to account and cease its deceptive practices,” and a 2008 canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled.”

Scientific meetings are being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists’ equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here - Also see: UN IPCC's William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate ]

Despite these developments, global warming promoters have sought to cite a survey alleging 97% of climatologists agree with the "consensus" view. But the survey does not hold up to scrutiny. See: ‘Consensus’ claims challenged: Only 77 scientists were interviewed to get 97.4% agreement — ‘It would be interesting to learn who these individuals are’ & Climate Con: 97% ‘Consensus’ Claim is only 76 Anonymous Self-Selected Climatologists

#

This Climate Depot Special Report is not a “list” of scientists, but a report that includes full biographies of each scientist and their quotes, papers and links for further reading. The scientists featured in the report express their views in their own words, complete with their intended subtleties and caveats. This report features the names, biographies, academic/institutional affiliation, and quotes of literally hundreds of additional international scientists who publicly dissented from man-made climate fears. This report lists the scientists by name, country of residence, and academic/institutional affiliation. It also features their own words, biographies, and web links to their peer reviewed studies, scientific analyses and original source materials as gathered from directly from the scientists or from public statements, news outlets, and websites in 2007 and 2008.

The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; astrophysics, engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore. Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Abo Akademi University in Finland; University of La Plata in Argentina; Stockholm University; Punjab University in India; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.

Background: Only 52 Scientists Participated in UN IPCC Summary

The notion of "hundreds" or "thousands" of UN scientists agreeing to a scientific statement does not hold up to scrutiny. (See report debunking "consensus" LINK) Recent research by Australian climate data analyst John McLean revealed that the IPCC’s peer-review process for the Summary for Policymakers leaves much to be desired. (LINK) (LINK) (LINK) & (LINK) (Note: The 52 scientists who participated in the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers had to adhere to the wishes of the UN political leaders and delegates in a process described as more closely resembling a political party’s convention platform battle, not a scientific process – LINK)

Proponents of man-made global warming like to note how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) have issued statements endorsing the so-called "consensus" view that man is driving global warming. But both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the "consensus" statements. This report gives a voice to the rank-and-file scientists who were shut out of the process. (LINK)

The NAS has come under fire for its lobbying practices. See: NAS Pres. Ralph Cicerone Turns Science Org. into political advocacy group: million NAS study is used to lobby for global warming bill & Cicerone’s Shame: NAS Urges Carbon Tax, Becomes Advocacy Group — ‘political appointees heading politicized scientific institutions that are virtually 100% dependent on gov’t funding’ MIT’s Richard Lindzen harshly rebuked NAS president Cicerone in his Congressional testimony in November 2010. Lindzen testified: "Cicerone [of NAS] is saying that regardless of evidence the answer is predetermined. If government wants carbon control, that is the answer that the Academies will provide." [ Also See: MIT Climate Scientist Exposes 'Corrupted Science' in Devastating Critique – November 29, 2008 ]

While the scientists contained in this report hold a diverse range of views, they generally rally around several key points. 1) The Earth is currently well within natural climate variability. 2) Almost all climate fear is generated by unproven computer model predictions. 3) An abundance of peer-reviewed studies continue to debunk rising CO2 fears and, 4) "Consensus" has been manufactured for political, not scientific purposes.

Scientists caution that the key to remember is "climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables," not just CO2. UK Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London decried the notion that CO2 is the main climate driver. "As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor is as misguided as it gets," Stott wrote in 2008. Even the climate activists at RealClimate.org let this fact slip out in a September 20, 2008 article. "The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors," RealClimate.org admitted in a rare moment of candor.]

climatedepot.com/a/9035/SPECIAL-REPORT-More-Than-1000-Int…

Cool Life In The UK Test images

Some cool Life in the UK Test images:

BAC Lightning F53
Life in the UK Test

Image by alex drennan
is a supersonic jet fighter aircraft of the Cold War era, noted for its great speed and unpainted natural metal exterior finish. It is the only all-British Mach 2 fighter aircraft. The aircraft was renowned for its capabilities as an interceptor; RAF pilots described it as "being saddled to a skyrocket". English Electric was later incorporated into the British Aircraft Corporation, later marks being developed and produced as the BAC Lightning.
The Lightning was used throughout much of its service life by the Royal Air Force and the Royal Saudi Air Force. The aircraft was a regular performer at airshows and was the first aircraft capable of supercruise. The Lightning was also one of the highest performance planes ever used in formation aerobatics. The Lightning aircraft is now largely retired to museums, but three examples still fly at "Thunder City" in Cape Town, South Africa
The first operational aircraft, a pre-production P 1B (XG336), arrived at RAF Coltishall in Norfolk in December 1959. From 1960 the production F.1 served initially with 74 Squadron. An improved variant the F.2 first flew on 11 July 1961 and entered service with 19 Squadron at the end of 1962. The F.3 was first flown on 16 June 1962 and the longer-range F.6 on 16 June 1965. The versions sold to Saudi Arabia were essentially similar to the T 5 and F.6 models in UK service and this final production batch reverted to the classic natural metal external finish which lasted well in the drier Arabian climate.
During the 1960s, as strategic awareness increased and a multitude of alternative fighter designs were developed by Warsaw Pact and NATO members, the Lightning’s range and firepower shortcomings became increasingly apparent. The withdrawal of McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantoms from Royal Navy service enabled these slower but much longer-ranged aircraft to be added to the RAF’s interceptor force alongside those withdrawn from Germany which were being replaced by SEPECAT Jaguars in the ground attack role. Later the Tornado F3s also arrived to defend UK airspace. While slower and less agile than the Lightning, the Tornado carries a much larger armament load and much more advanced avionics. Lightnings were slowly phased out of service between 1974 and 1988, although much testing and modification was needed to keep them in air-worthy condition due to the high number of flight hours accumulated.
The English Electric Lightning is credited with a single kill, ironically a British aircraft – a Harrier pilot ejected and the pilot-less aircraft continued to fly. The order was given to shoot down the aircraft and the Lightning did.
In their final years of UK service all RAF Lightnings were based at RAF Binbrook in Lincolnshire and many were camouflaged to make them less conspicuous when flying at low level. They tended to defend the Flamborough Head Sector of airspace above the North Sea. These later aircraft were the single-seater F.3 and F.6 and the twin seat trainer variant T 5, all constructed by British Aircraft Corporation and distinguished from earlier versions by their flat topped fins. In their last year of service their pilots regularly pushed the aircraft to their limits as they used up their remaining fatigue life.
Many Lightnings are conserved in museum collections where their clean sleek lines are evocative of the high speeds that they once attained. The Short SB5 and a P 1A are at the RAF Museum, Cosford. The Civil Aviation Authority refused a licence for the surviving airworthy examples to perform at air shows in the UK but there are three flying in South Africa (see Operators below).
Service in the Middle East: Saudi Arabia and Kuwait
In December 1965, due to its involvement in the North Yemen Civil War and resulting conflict with Egypt, Saudi Arabia ordered 35 Lighting F.53s and six T.55s as part of the "Magic Carpet" programme. As an interim measure, five Lightning F.52s (ex-RAF Lightning F.2s) plus two Lightning T.54s (ex-RAF Lightning T.4s) were delivered to Saudi Arabia in July 1966, as well as a pre-production Lightning F.1 for ground instructional use.From 1967 the Lighting F.53s operated from the Khamis base, served by radars based at Usram. The last Lightning was delivered in 1972, during Magic Carpet phase IV. Only one plane was lost to enemy fire; it was shot down by ground fire over Yemen on 3 May 1970, just before peace was declared.
Kuwait also ordered 14 Lightnings in December 1966, comprising 12 F.53Ks and two T.55Ks. The Kuwaitis somewhat overestimated their ability to maintain such a complex aircraft, and the Lightings were phased out of service very quickly; the last ones were replaced by Dassault Mirage F1s in 1977. Thanks to this mistake, Kuwait is one of the countries richest in Lightnings on static display; according to Intelligence sources, the Al Jaber air base has three Lightings on display.

Cool Life In The UK Test images

Check out these Life in the UK Test images:

Mixed Media Painting (Detail) by Choichun Leung / Dumbo Arts Center: Art Under the Bridge Festival 2009 / 20090926.10D.54932.P1.L1.C23 / SML
Life in the UK Test

Image by See-ming Lee 李思明 SML
SML Pro Blog: Choichun Leung / 13th Annual DUMBO Art Under the Bridge Festival NYC 2009: Part 10 of 10 / Art + Artists

Choichun Leung
2008
Part of the SCRIPTO series
www.choichun.com/scripto.html

See also Choichun Leung talks about her mixed media paintings (Flickr 720p HD video).

Choichun Leung left Wales when she was seventeen to pursue a degree in metal-smithing at Loughborough college of Art and Design in the UK, afterwhich she studied Buddhist iconography in both Beijing and the Yangkung caves in China’s Shanxi province. In 1988 she moved to London where she studied under the Ray Man Chinese Orchestra as a percussionist and a student of the Gu-qin – a traditional Chinese bass zither. Leung worked in Hong Kong as a background artist for animation film before returning to London in 1992 where she received a grant and Gold Award from the Prince of Wales’ Youth Business Trust for the most innovative new business of the year: a line of symbolic art products using the traditional technique of Chinese paper cutting.

With music and the arts always hand in hand, Leung came to New York in 1994 where she began painting seriously, worked as an assistant to artist Peter Max, and studied music composition. From that point forward, Choichun’s artwork has been inextricably entwined with her interest in music and have continued to influence each other.

As the single mother of a young daughter, Choichun moved to Germany in 2002 to write music, perform and collaborate on an audio/visual project based in Koln. Upon the invitation of a gallery in 2006 she returned to New York. Most recently Choichun has been featured in two solo exhibitions at JLA Baxter House in Manhattan and will take part in a group showing in Hamburg in November 2008. Choichun currently lives in Brooklyn, NYC .

Artist Statement Our lives are as long as we remember. Our memories are imbedded in us like DNA. But what of lives that through trauma or age have lost memory? What of the interplay of conscious thought and the sub-conscious? Which one really drives the show? My paintings are like rorschach tests in reverse, a psychological diary of that moment in time, an investigation of the relationship between past and present, reality and illusion and in effect a blue print to the past self. Through the symbolisms revealed, and the stories or objects we project into the abstract, we expose another layer of ourselves and in turn provide clues to what may not be fully aware. My paintings are simple traces of that activity, void of any meaning, but imbedded with the years of experience that shapes us, yet also holds us hostage.

Choichun never paints from sketches but instead allows the process and medium dictate. Each application is an expressive gesture evoking the emotion and inner psychology of that moment, a conflicted excavation of what may be hidden or imagined. The script like lines emerge as a non-cognitive language or what she has come to identify as ‘glyphs’ – a pictographic personal alphabet; where ‘glyphs’ document the days, weeks and months spent on a piece. The one actual reference that Choichun can identify in her work after the fact springs from her background in music and her fascination with its chaotic notes and interpretive patterns. These can be seen in the work’s fine, rhythmic and frenetic lines as well as in the heavier, poured-on, black & white ‘mono-glyphs’ which overtake the paintings like visual representations of a sound. Choichun paints on both wood panels and canvas, using liquid acrylic, aerosol, oil bars and thread . With sticks, brushes, trowels and vessels: applying the paint and then scratching through the layers to reveal what is underneath, scripting with ‘glyphs’ throughout, painting over, sanding down and repeating this process until an image is revealed or another is hidden.

www.choichun.com

13th annual D.U.M.B.O. Art Under the Bridge Festival® (Sept 25 to Sept 27, 2009)
www.dumboartfestival.org/press_release.html

The three-day multi-site neighborhood-wide event is a one-of-a-kind art happening: where serendipity meets the haphazard and where the unpredictable, spontaneous and downright weird thrive. The now teenage D.U.M.B.O. Art Under the Bridge Festival® presents touchable, accessible, and interactive art, on a scale that makes it the nation’s largest urban forum for experimental art.

Art Under the Bridge is an opportunity for young artists to use any medium imaginable to create temporary projects on-the-spot everywhere and anywhere, completely transforming the Dumbo section of Brooklyn, New York, into a vibrant platform for self-expression. In addition to the 80+ projects throughout the historical post-industrial waterfront span, visitors can tour local artists’ studios or check out the indoor video_dumbo, a non-stop program of cutting-edge video art from New York City and around the world.

The Dumbo Arts Center (DAC) has been the exclusive producer of the D.U.M.B.O Art Under the Bridge Festival® since 1997. DAC is a big impact, small non-profit, that in addition to its year-round gallery exhibitions, is committed to preserving Dumbo as a site in New York City where emerging visual artists can experiment in the public domain, while having unprecedented freedom and access to normally off-limit locations.

www.dumboartscenter.org
www.dumboartfestival.org
www.video_dumbo.org

Related SML
+ SML Fine Art (Flickr Group)
+ SML Flickr Collections: Events
+ SML Flickr Sets: Art
+ SML Flickr Sets: Dumbo Arts Center: Art Under the Bridge Festival 2009
+ SML Flickr Tags: Art
+ SML Pro Blog: Art

Major Peter Norton GC
Life in the UK Test

Image by Steve Punter
War is not
can never be
ever be
pretty
if I declare it
I must see it

Captain Norton
won a George Cross
And I shook his
one good hand
and took his picture
when I did not know
him

It is important to learn
what it is to be brave
from a man blown apart
saving his friends
I wish to know
and I hope
to learn

Lincoln made it his mission
to visit
the injured
the broken
and bloodied
he commanded
and wrote
a short address
for
Gettysburg
to affirm

That Four score and seven years ago
our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth