The world's leading authority on climate change announced Saturday it is appointing an independent committee to investigate whether it needs to change its procedures to ensure it practices rigorous science.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, beset in recent months by a string of allegations of factual mistakes and improper scientific behavior in the preparation of its high-profile reports, said it will share details of how the independent review will work in early March.
A story in The Wall Street Journal on Friday detailed the IPCC's current effort to resuscitate its reputation and a longstanding tension within the organization between the desire by policy makers for clear, usable conclusions about climate science and the massive complexities of that science, many aspects of which scientists continue to debate.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Friday, February 26, 2010
Empirical evidence be damned, unless it makes their case...and by "their" I mean the alarmists. Remember, the satellite data record is young, and it, too, is subject to scrutiny. Try to ignore the fact that you're freezing to death out there, America.
How the heck does this jibe with the recent Reuter's article?
CLIMATE scientists yesterday stunned Britons suffering the coldest winter for 30 years by claiming last month was the hottest January the world has ever seen.
The remarkable claim, based on global satellite data, follows Arctic temperatures that brought snow, ice and travel chaos to millions in the UK.
His extraordinary claims came after the World Meteorological Organisation revealed 2000 to 2009 was the hottest decade since records began in 1850.
But UK forecaster Jonathan Powell, of Positive Weather Solutions, said: “If it is the case and it is borne out that January was the hottest on record, it is still no marker towards climate change.
“It’s all part of a cyclical issue and nothing should be read too deeply into that.
Thursday, February 25, 2010
I can only say WOW. And this is via Reuters; it doesn’t completely let go of the ‘we unquestionably have manmade warming’ line, but it’s the first U.S. media outlet I’ve seen which goes this far. Now if the Ass. Press (abbreviation intentional) would just stop the advocacy journalism and report on all the scandals, facts, and scientific truth regarding manmade climate change, we skeptics might get somewhere. But truthfully, it’s getting to the point where the holdouts like the AP and MSNBC will not be able to stop the avalanche of evidence—empirical and scientific—that demonstrates just how stupid and false this hoax is. Remember when U.S. media outlets ignored the Monica Lewinsky scandal (to protect Clinton) while Drudge broke the story? The public is becoming more and more wise to the trickery. The British press has covered the scandals and lies exposed recently, while most of the American media has ignored it all. After all, the U.S. mainstream media can’t be seen to admit that they’ve been feeding the American public a load of bull (which they’ve been doing).
Note what Reuters admits. They make a point about discovering the exact cause of cooling for ten years (which they laughably call ‘lack of warming’) from 1999-2008, while Dr. Hansen’s GISS has recently said—stupidly—that the last decade (through 2009) was the ‘warmest on record.’ Yes, the same alarmist Dr. Hansen who had to retract a similar pronunciation in October 2008, when skeptics scrutinized his data and discovered errors (good thing for skeptics, eh?). So climate scientists don’t even agree on what year or decade was the ‘warmest’ as a baseline. They don’t agree because it’s all based on ‘smoke and mirrors’—computer models fed temperature data from ground stations that—themselves—skew the data. Garbage-in, garbage-out.
I know what’s causing the cooling. It’s called natural climate variability, which will create warming periods (as it has in the past BEFORE manmade emissions) and cooling periods (as it has in the past BEFORE manmade emissions). In other words, this is all bullshit, just as the Global Cooling scare of the 1970s was. And I’m not even a climate scientist...I’m a molecular biologist. The ethics of science are the same for us all.
What’s amazing are the number of people apparently willing to just accept whatever line they’re fed by authority figures and their media lapdogs, without question. We’re just going to allow a group of politicians to regulate and tax CO2 (which we exhale with every breath) because a “consensus” of 60 scientists (versus >31,000 skeptical scientists) say we “must act now!” Aspirant, opportunistic politicians are always looking for openings such as that, for fear manifests a requirement for their intervention and subsequent consolidation of power (and wealth...right, Al Gore?).
The point of this article is to lament the crisis faced by alarmist climate scientists in continuing to convince everyone that “the debate is over” and “the consensus says” and “we must act NOW.” Once you sheep stop believing the lie, their little research grant boondoggle will begin to dry up. Politicians will move on to the next boondoggle, but we MUST make unethical scientists pay the price for betraying their profession in order to endorse radical political stances by warping science. We can all agree to take care of the Earth (because it’s the right thing to do) without violating our integrity, ethics, and lying to ourselves.
* Exact causes unknown for lack of warming from 1999-2008
* The underlying reason for cold winter not known
* Climate science in focus after email scandal, errors
By Gerard Wynn and Alister Doyle
LONDON/OSLO, Feb 25 (Reuters) - Climate scientists must do more to work out how exceptionally cold winters or a dip in world temperatures fit their theories of global warming, if they are to persuade an increasingly sceptical public.
At stake is public belief that greenhouse gas emissions are warming the planet, and political momentum to act as governments struggle to agree a climate treaty which could direct trillions of dollars into renewable energy, away from fossil fuels.
Public conviction of global warming’s risks may have been undermined by an error in a U.N. panel report exaggerating the pace of melt of Himalayan glaciers and by the disclosure of hacked emails revealing scientists sniping at sceptics, who leapt on these as evidence of data fixing.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Trying to walk the truth high-wire, the AP is trying to prove its journalistic integrity by covering the fact that the U.N.’s IPCC must examine and likely revise its temperature data. Why must the IPCC examine and revise its own data? Because it has been shown to be full of errors and alarmist hype, and we’re using their Nobel-winning, erroneous reports to drive global governance of carbon emissions. This global governance of carbon will cost each person in our country dearly. We must ENSURE that it’s not all a lie and we must not simply trust some government-anointed “consensus” because they said, “trust us, we’re right...skeptics are wrong.” Oh yeah, prove us skeptics wrong BASED ON scientific data. The paltry number comprising the “consensus” has been shown to lack integrity in recent accumulating scandals in climatology.
Of course, the point the AP misses (what a surprise) is that THIS RENEWED SELF-SCRUTINY by the IPCC WAS A RESULT OF SKEPTICISM! If skeptics weren’t asking for raw data from the “consensus” to examine (and researching Hansen’s claims, and reading ten years of CRU emails, and so on), none of the errors, manipulations, cover-ups, obstructions, and lies would have been discovered, and the global warming scare cult would go along as it has for years—unchecked and unquestioned.
But, predictably, the AP takes the alarmist’s advocacy tactic of criticizing the skeptic or “denier,” if you will. Ad hominem attacks refuse to address the central issue: Show me unquestionable proof that atmospheric carbon has warmed the Earth in the last 200 years and continues to do so.
It's interesting to see the contrast between the AP's story and the one from Fox News. Fox actually gives some time to the scandals that the AP just tries to gloss over and bury.
GENEVA -- World weather agencies have agreed to collect more precise temperature data to improve climate change science, officials said Wednesday, as U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged environment ministers to reject efforts by skeptics to derail a global climate deal.
Just one year ago a pronouncement from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC) was all that was needed to move nations and change environmental policies around the world. But today, the panel's creditability and even its very existence are in question.
In the wake of its swift and devastating fall from grace, the panel says it will announce "within the next few days" that it plans to make significant though as yet unexplained changes in how it does business.
Monday, February 22, 2010
The scandals relating to all things manmade-climate-change continue to mount. This new NOAA agency was just announced several days ago, and it turns out that the appointed head of the nascent agency is responsible for some data obstructionism of his own in relation to his work with the IPCC and the scientists at East Anglia, including the disgraced Phil Jones.
The scientist who has been put in charge of the Commerce Department's new climate change office is coming under attack from both sides of the global warming debate over his handling of what they say is contradictory scientific data related to the subject.
Thomas Karl, 58, was appointed to oversee the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center, an ambitious new office that will collect climate change data and disseminate it to businesses and communities.
But Roger Pielke Sr., a climatologist affiliated with the University of Colorado who has crossed horns with Karl in the past, says his appointment was a mistake. He accused Karl of suppressing data he submitted for the IPCC's most recent report on climate change and having a very narrow view of its causes.
The IPCC is charged with reviewing scientific data on climate change and providing policy makers and others with an assessment of current knowledge.
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Another British media piece on the rising tide of recent global warming scandals that the U.S. mainstream media REFUSES to acknowledge or cover (except for Fox News, which still won't cover it very much). As certain scientists have been exposed, they're now frantically turning to damage control measures to mitigate the harm to themselves personally. I predicted this would happen a long time ago.
Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.
The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.
Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: "It's one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science." He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study's conclusion.
Climate alarmists conjured a world where nothing was certain but death, taxes and catastrophic global warming. They used this presumed scientific certainty as a bludgeon against the skeptics they deemed "deniers" -- a word meant to have the noxious whiff of Holocaust denial.
All in the cause of hustling the world into a grand carbon-rationing scheme. Any questions about the evidence for the cataclysmic projections, any concerns about the costs and benefits were trumped by that fearsome scientific "consensus," which had "settled" the important questions.
A funny thing happened to this "consensus" on the way to its inevitable triumph, though: Its propagators have been forced to admit fallibility.
It has been a bad—make that dreadful—few weeks for what used to be called the "settled science" of global warming, and especially for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that is supposed to be its gold standard.
First it turns out that the Himalayan glaciers are not going to melt anytime soon, notwithstanding dire U.N. predictions. Next came news that an IPCC claim that global warming could destroy 40% of the Amazon was based on a report by an environmental pressure group. Other IPCC sources of scholarly note have included a mountaineering magazine and a student paper.
Since the climategate email story broke in November, the standard defense is that while the scandal may have revealed some all-too-human behavior by a handful of leading climatologists, it made no difference to the underlying science. We think the science is still disputable. But there's no doubt that climategate has spurred at least some reporters to scrutinize the IPCC's headline-grabbing claims in a way they had rarely done previously.
Take the rain forest claim. In its 2007 report, the IPCC wrote that "up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state."
Alarmists at the New Scientist, sensing their reputations are in big trouble following all the recent mounting scandals (including Climategate), have decided to respond by creating "Denier-gate" out of thin air (as if they hadn't done that years ago). However, Jo Nova does a phenomenal job of parrying the ad hominem attacks against climate skepticism by turning the tables on the global warming cultists. She keeps bringing them back to the fundamental question: Is CO2 in its current quantity within our atmosphere warming the planet? Let's talk evidence, not "debate's over," not bluster, swearing, name-calling, etc.
And spot the appearance of the mythical “HUGE body of evidence”. Can anyone at New Scientist find that one mystery paper with empirical evidence showing that carbon causes major warming? Just ONE? That’s major warming, not minor. And that’s empirical, i.e., by observation, not by simulation.
This is the paragraph where New Scientist proves it has become Non Scientist:
“If we are going to judge the truth of claims on the behavior of those making them, it seems only fair to look at the behavior of a few of those questioning the scientific consensus. There are many similar examples we did not include. We leave readers to draw their own conclusions about who to trust.”
Alarm bells are ringing from Galileo’s grave. We’re trying to figure out if the world is warming due to man-made carbon right? New Scientist’s method is not to look at the evidence, but to look at the behavior of the sceptics. Did you see the black hole of ad hominem that this once esteemed journal just stepped into? Logic and reason were reduced in a flash to a naked singularity. Follow its reasoning through the black hole, and you don’t emerge on the other side.
Did you see the black hole of ad hominem that this once esteemed journal just stepped into?
Who to trust indeed? Let’s trust people who can reason, and scientists who don’t hide their data. It doesn’t matter how “sceptics behave”; it matters whether the data can be independently analyzed and interpreted; whether the conclusions are robust. But, since the data is g-o-n-e , no one can verify anything. So in a way, it does come down to “trust”: In the new quasi-religious form of science, you have to trust those who hold the global data. Isn’t postmodern “science” an awful lot like the old religions?
First, every skeptic should read and practically memorize these volumes, so that you can deftly parry any stupid, leftist global warming attack uttered by global warming cultists (those bits of "science" that they've learned from carefully selected sources like the mainstream media, politicians, and alarmist scientists).
Next, every global warming believer should challenge their own religious orthodoxy and read these volumes. We've heard all of your alarmist arguments before (since the news media trumpets this baloney from sunup until sundown). Now it's time to monitor your own thoughts and feelings as you read these wonderful pamphlets and expose your brains to something other than the "consensus" view; in other words: REAL SCIENCE. That stuff that the U.N., NASA, EPA, NOAA, Al Gore, and the media have neglected to tell you.
Send your friends these links. Save the PDFs for self-study. Spread the word. Our U.S. news media isn't doing the job it once did; it picks advocate positions and attempts to propagandize the public. This is why we need bloggers like Joanne to expose this hokey shit for what it is.
Joanne does a great job of covering all the relevant points (much better than I ever have here in this blog); like me, she's doing all this for NOTHING, because she hates seeing real science hijacked by politics. You'll notice good coverage of ad hominem attacks (i.e., labels like "denier" used to associate climate skepticism with the evils of the Holocaust), which you can also read about in Carl Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit.
This booklet has captured attention around the world.
Donors have paid for over 160,000 copies so far in the US, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden and soon in Germany. Volunteers have translated it into German, French, Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish, Turkish, Portuguese Danish, Japanese and Balkan. (Versions in Dutch, Spanish, and possibly Italian are on the way). Updates are placed here, along with translations, as well as places to read comments and links to the web-pages where each part of the handbook will be discussed.
Who is Jo Nova? Here you go:
Joanne has 15 years of experience in explaining science as a professional speaker, TV host, radio presenter and book author.
Making sense of science.
Jo Nova is a science communicator, she’s presented science on TV, radio, on stage, in cartoons, exhibitions, reports and now in her blog which over 200,000 people visited in 2009.
After winning prizes in her science degree in molecular biology, Joanne joined the Shell Questacon Science Circus and spent five years touring Australia first as a performer, then as manager of the half million dollar exhibition with a team of twelve. As an associate lecturer at ANU Joanne helped to develop the Graduate Diploma in Science Communication in its earliest years.
[From About « JoNova]
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Even though Thulsa Doom Obama is refusing to acknowledge reality, business interests that once bought into the hoax (many because it was a boondoggle on which they didn’t want to miss out) are now beginning to turn their backs on intrusive government global warming “solutions,” following recent revelations and scandals involving the “science” behind manmade climate change.
Empirical evidence is also turning more believers into skeptics, even though the alarmist faithful are doing their best to contain the damage following all of the record winter weather. Whereas alarmists once touted empirical weather events that they felt made the case for manmade climate change (little or no snow, heat waves, melting ice, Lake Erie not freezing, hurricanes, tornados, stronger thunderstorms, and all sorts of other ridiculous ills unrelated to weather), they now say that antithetical weather data being experienced (i.e., record snow, record cold, record ice, Lake Erie freezing again, etc.) IS STILL PROOF of global warming.
So, empirical weather data (whatever the temperature involved) is now irrelevant as proof, whereas empirical weather data associated with warmer temperatures was once touted on a daily basis as proof. And you’re not supposed to notice the contradiction; and if you do notice, they’ll tell you how you’re wrong for noticing (because the myth must be kept alive at all costs—too much is at stake for the players). The “precious Earth” is the last thing on their greedy, power-hungry minds, believe me.
They really need to put the crackpipe down. The sheep are waking up.
DALLAS, Feb 16 (Reuters) - Texas and several national industry groups on Tuesday filed separate petitions in federal court challenging the government's authority to regulate U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
Texas, which leads U.S. states in carbon dioxide emissions due to its heavy concentration of oil refining and other industries, will see a major impact if U.S. mandatory emissions reductions take effect.
In December, the Environmental Protection Agency ruled that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide endanger human health, opening the door for the agency to issue mandatory regulations to reduce them.
Texas said it had filed a petition for review challenging the EPA's "endangerment finding" with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Texas has also asked the EPA to reconsider its ruling.
"The EPA's misguided plan paints a big target on the backs of Texas agriculture and energy producers and the hundreds of thousands of Texans they employ," Texas Gov. Rick Perry said.
Several companies are quitting an influential lobbying group focusing in on legislation, despite the administratin's push to use the budget to pass greenhouse gas legistlation. WSJ's Grainne McCarthy reports in the News Hub.
Oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. said Tuesday they won't renew their membership in the three-year-old U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a broad business-environmental coalition that had been instrumental in building support in Washington for capping emissions of greenhouse gases.
The move comes as debate over climate change intensifies and concerns mount about the cost of capping greenhouse-gas emissions.
On a range of issues, from climate change to health care, skepticism is growing in Washington that Congress will pass any major legislation in a contentious election year in which Republicans are expected to gain seats. For companies, the shifting winds have reduced pressure to find common ground, leading them to pursue their own, sometimes conflicting interests.
More empirical evidence. I actually saw one story that tried to say it freezes over every year, as if minimizing the damage this bit of empiricism does to global warming. So much for melting ice. But remember...LOL...this freezing is PROOF of warming too, just as melting is PROOF of warming. Clever, eh?
Following a cold snap in the Northeast, Lake Erie's surface is virtually frozen over for the first time in about 14 years.
The ice ranges in thickness between paper thin along the northern shore and several inches along the southern shore, where many people are ice skating.
Although the ice cover is considered complete, prevailing winds have created some cracks in the ice.
Monday, February 15, 2010
In the wake of the death of global warming, this is a nice site to see.
If you want to peruse all of the emails leaked in the Climategate scandal, you can go here to this new site and do just that. This information has all been made available for you via whistleblower or hacker action (no one knows for certain); this information WOULD NOT have been made available via the FOIA, as we've seen is the pattern with climate alarmists (they hide and destroy the data).
Anyway, go and search for the word "skeptic" and enjoy. You'll see just how intolerant of contrary opinion these ivory tower a-holes are.
While you're at it, Jo Nova does a great job of placing Climategate within a 30-year chronological perspective:
So, how does this jibe with disgraced CRU (IPCC) scientist Phil Jones' admission just yesterday that there has been no significant warming for 15 years and other studies that show no warming since 1998 even with increasing CO2? Good question. Stories like these keep the warming alarmists out there believing in the myth, even after numerous scandals and empirical evidence to the contrary.
Let's look at the problems with the proclamations in this article (since alarmists will just accept what it says without question). The first problem is the source--alarmist radical Dr. James Hansen at NASA's GISS. Much has been written about him by skeptics, including in this blog. He is the one who said that oil executives should be put on trial and wrote a letter to Thulsa Doom Obama urging a carbon tax to redistribute wealth. Sound like a level-headed, unbiased climate scientist to you, whose only concern is scientific truth?
Next, let's look at his past assertions and the erroneous data behind them. Hansen is the scientist who called October 2008 the hottest October on record and then had to publicly recant that contention after mathematical mistakes were found in his data (and those errors were ONLY DISCOVERED because SKEPTICS SCRUTINIZED HIS NUMBERS). Hansen has proven time and again that he is a climate radical, and therefore, biased. Amazing that skeptics are often denigrated (even after being vindicated in their scrutiny of his work), while chumps like Hansen are just continually accepted as 'bringers of truth.' No one has put two-and-two together here. Why isn't the media questioning this proclamation after his past mistakes are a matter of record?
The problems with surface temperature measurements and sweeping contentions drawn from those data (such as the contention made here) were just recently discussed in the news. First, the "next climate scandal" discussed NOAA's >75% reduction in temperature monitoring stations that occurred in 1990 (and, surprise...most of those were stations in cooler areas). Second, the "urban island effect" is a factor, though it is often poo-poo'd away by alarmists as irrelevant. However, if you've ever watched professional tennis events like the Australian Open or U.S. Open, the players and commentators will often discuss how much warmer it is on the court, simply because of the reflected sun and heat energy coming off the concrete and onto players (this is almost common sense). If you live in a hot part of the country, do an experiment yourself; wait until the hottest part of the day (usually 1600 or so) and see which is warmer: your driveway or the grass in your yard? Use your hand or thermometer...doesn't matter. Clearly, urban areas will be hotter than non-urban areas, regardless of how alarmists might try to cover up that fact. An accurate temperature measurement in or around urban areas is problematic.
The next problem with Hansen and GISS is that, much like the scandal-ridden CRU's refusal to release data, Hansen has continually blocked attempts to release data for independent verification under the Freedom of Information Act. NASA is currently being sued to release more data. If they ever do, I assert that skeptical scrutiny will uncover more errors, just as they have before with Hansen and all the recent IPCC report errors.
The point here is that these calculations (or any others) by the radical alarmist, Dr. Hansen, should not be given full credence absent careful scrutiny. Unfortunately, the alarmists and media organizations with interests (like the BBC) in continuing the global warming myth will simply accept what GISS says without the slightest question. Much like the now debunked CRU data and IPCC reports, GISS's proclamations will be taken as gospel by those who don't want their religious-like belief in manmade climate change disrupted.
The 2000s were the warmest decade on record according to analysis by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
Goddard's surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.2°C (0.36°F) per decade over the past three decades and a rise of 0.8°C (1.5°F) since 1880 since reliable record-keeping began in 1880.
2005 was the warmest year of the past decade and, by NASA's estimate, is the warmest year since 1880 (the U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization gives 1998 that title). 2009 was only slightly cooler than 2005, although it was the warmest year on record in the Southern Hemisphere. 2010 is expected to be even warmer due, in part, to the return of El Niño, a cyclical phenomenon.
[From The warmest decade on record]
Sunday, February 14, 2010
Only the staunchest nutjobs will continue to herald this bullshit as truth now, after the revelations in this article, multiple climate scandals, and recent admissions that the science IS NOT settled by disgraced CRU scientist Phil Jones.
Will the U.S. media take up these stories, or will they bury them? The world is watching, MSNBC. Though that didn't stop you with the Monica Lewinsky scandal either.
The headline of the article below: WORLD MAY NOT BE WARMING, SAY SCIENTISTS
The IPCC faces similar criticisms from Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Canada, who was invited by the panel to review its last report.
The experience turned him into a strong critic and he has since published a research paper questioning its methods.
“We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias,” he said.
Such warnings are supported by a study of US weather stations co-written by Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist and climate change sceptic.
His study, which has not been peer reviewed, is illustrated with photographs of weather stations in locations where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment.
ATLANTA (AP) - Several areas across the Deep South might soon be glazed with another coating of snow.
The National Weather Service says 2 to 4 inches could fall late Sunday and early Monday across southern Tennessee and northeastern Alabama, while 1 inch to 2 inches could fall in parts of northern and central Georgia.
Mountainous portions of Georgia and the Carolinas could get up to 3 inches.
This is GROUNDBREAKING! This SHOULD rock the world of green fanatic alarmist believers and skeptics alike, but the question remains: Will the world media--especially the U.S. media--report on this story and its significance, or will they ignore it like they do with so many other stories that don't fit their agenda?
The humiliated Dr. Phil Jones of East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit (CRU), who is at the center of the Climategate scandal that broke just before Copenhagen's climate conference, has since resigned his position and NOW admits information that NO alarmist scientist will want public, lest we skeptics "seize on" it. LOL! "Skeptics seize on" is the new buzz phrase that all lefty news organizations like to use now in an attempt to sideline us skeptics.
Though his admission that there has been NO SIGNIFICANT WARMING SINCE 1995 is Earth-shattering, the fact that he admits that the Medieval Warm Period was possibly global (and that there were other similar pre-industrial warm periods) is tremendous. It means that one of the alarmist elites has finally said that the SCIENCE MAY NOT BE SETTLED. Did you hear that, Al Gore?!!? One of your own has spoken, after he was caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.
The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
Professor Jones has been in the spotlight since he stepped down as director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit after the leaking of emails that sceptics claim show scientists were manipulating data.
He also agreed that there had been two periods which experienced similar warming, from 1910 to 1940 and from 1975 to 1998, but said these could be explained by natural phenomena whereas more recent warming could not.
Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.
But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’. He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.
He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Empirical evidence. We've just been told that the recent record blizzards are not proof that global warming isn't real; on the contrary, we're now told that this record cold weather is PROOF of global warming. Really? Climate revisionism at its best.
Here, liberal American politicians (in the recent past) proclaimed LACK OF SNOW as proof of manmade global warming. So, which is it? It's ridiculous that contrary empirical evidence (i.e., lack of snow and too much snow) is used to validate global warming; it's fairly easy to see the frantic 'grasping at straws' that's now happening, due to recent cold weather and scandals. You can't have it both ways (though you're now trying), liberals.
My 9-year-old daughter is smart enough to see the hypocrisy and BS level of this obvious contradiction.
Curious why certain media outlets refuse to entertain contrarian views on climatology and global warming theory? The same reason that many scientists and politicians must intensely resist the exposure of global warming as a hoax. Untarnished professional reputations among scientists mean continued climate research grants. Certain politicians stand to lose elections and power if global warming is debunked.
The media? Well, here you go. When a media organization's retirement pension is invested in global warming, one must ask whether reporting will be entirely unbiased?
About the Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC)
“The Institutional Investors Group on Climate Change (IIGCC) is a forum for collaboration on climate change for European investors. The group’s objective is to catalyse greater investment in a low carbon economy by bringing investors together to use their collective influence with companies, policymakers and investors. The group currently has over 50 members, including some of the largest pension funds and asset managers in Europe, and represents assets of around €4trillion. A full list of members is available on the membership page.”
On the members page we find:
BBC Pension Trust
See what's happening? Government control of your lives will take hold where you will allow it. When government arrogantly assumes it knows better than you what's good for you, you should be very afraid. We've seen similar moronic solutions to the "climate emergency" before. These leftists act as if no climate scandals have recently unfolded.
Going green will not be optional in Cambridge, Mass., if the Cambridge Climate Congress has its way. It will be mandatory.
There will be congestion pricing to reduce car travel. Curbside parking will be eliminated. There will be a carbon tax "of some kind," not to mention taxes on plastic and paper bags. And the Massachusetts city, home of Harvard University and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, will advocate vegetarianism and veganism, complete with "Meatless or Vegan Mondays."
Those are just some of the proposals put forth by the Congress, which was created in May 2009 to respond to the "climate emergency" plaguing Cambridge. Once the Congress settles on its recommendations, they will submitted to the City Council.
Oh yeah, Bill Nye The Science Guy? Well, alarmists are socialists trying to force radical wealth redistribution in the world to "solve" the problem of global warming. In other words, alarmists believe that capitalism's use of fossil fuels has put us in this mess. Ye shall know them by the company they keep...and since Bill Nye hangs with Heidi Cullen and Rachel Maddow, I guess we know where he stands--he's a leftist.
I dug Bill Nye when I was a kid (when he taught science and not politically-tinged science); I'm not a fan anymore. Bite my ass, Bill.
Bill Nye, the Science Guy, agrees, going so far as to tell MSNBC's Rachel Maddow that scientists who doubt climate change's manmade origins are unpatriotic. "If you want to get serious about it, these guys claiming that the snow in Washington disproves climate change are almost unpatriotic -- it's as if they're denying science," Nye said.
Yes scandals and empirical evidence have hampered your efforts to indoctrinate people, alarmists. The lopsided propaganda machine, where manmade global warming theory is unassailable and not open to scrutiny, is in trouble. it's about time.
The scandals have destroyed your "warming trend" evidence, because data relied on in IPCC reports has been tainted by both recent IPCC report revelations and Climategate. Why won't you guys admit this? Because reputations must be saved, that's why. Notice how this has become a battle of hearts and minds? It's NOT SCIENCE at all. It's politics masquerading as science.
"It's absurd for the 'anti-science side' to say we're in a cooling trend when we're in an overall warming trend," says Romm of the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank. "Heavy snow is not evidence that climate science is false," he added, noting that "the snow we've seen is entirely consistent with global warming theory."
But Patrick J. Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and state climatologist for Virginia for 27 years, disagrees. "Global warming simply hasn't done a darned thing to Washington's snow," he wrote on National Review, adding that "if you plot out year-to-year snow around here, you'll see no trend whatsoever through the entire history."
Politicians are jumping on the bandwagon, too. "It's going to keep snowing in DC until Al Gore cries 'uncle,'" tweeted Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.
Global warming advocates feel under attack as skeptics use the record-setting snowstorms -- and the recent discoveries of errors in the U.N.'s climate science study, a growing scandal called climate-gate -- to question the theory that climate change is a manmade problem.
Do you know what's truly hilarious? Watching lefty environmentalists and media types practically chew their tongues off in acerbic consternation at skeptics for "seizing on" all this record cold winter weather as evidence that global warming is bullshit (because it is). Hence comes the excuse that alarmist scientists "predicted" this all along--global warming would cause both extremely warm as well as extremely cold weather events. Merely climate revisionism (trying to force events to match the theory).
A new record of 12.5 inches of snow in a 24-hour period was set at Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport (11.2 on Thursday) -- and flakes were still coming down after midnight. The previous daily record was 7.8 inches on Jan. 15, 1964, and Jan. 14, 1917 and the previous 24-hour record was 12.1 inches. The total for this winter, so far, is 15.7 inches, the second highest recorded in North Texas history. The highest recorded snowfall for a winter season was in 1977-78 with 17.6 inches of snow.
PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) - It took back-to-back blizzards to paralyze the nation's capital, but in the Deep South it only takes a couple inches of snow.
Flakes were falling—or threatened—Friday from Texas to the Florida Panhandle and then up along the coasts of Georgia and South Carolina, bringing a rare white landscape to spots that haven't seen snow in a decade or longer. The storm was crawling east out of Texas, where it left the Dallas area with more than a foot of snow, nearly 200 traffic accidents, thousands without power and hundreds of canceled flights.
ROME (Reuters) – Tourists took rare pictures of snow falling on the Colosseum and the Trevi fountain on Friday, and the Pope reportedly appeared at a Vatican window to watch Rome's heaviest snowfall in nearly a quarter century.
In scenes usually only glimpsed in souvenir "snow domes" Italy's capital was blanketed in white, snarling road and air traffic but delighting many Romans who rode scooters with their feet on the ground and snapped pictures with mobile phones.
NORMAN, Oklahoma -- A University of Oklahoma student is taking an extra interest in this week's snow storms in the south and northeast and is working to document the events in a very unique way.
Patrick Marsh said it's likely by the end of the week snow will be on the ground in all 50 states.
From Ardmore all the way to Dallas and even in Louisiana, the south is snowed in. For many, it's a winter wonderland in places that rarely see such weather. But none of it comes close to the mess up north where two blizzards have blown through in a week.
"...DO NOT AFFECT CORE CONCLUSIONS THAT HUMAN ACTIVITIES, LED BY BURNING FOSSIL FUELS, ARE WARMING THE GLOBE"
You'll find some version of the disclaimer listed above in every news story that MUST ADMIT flawed data or sourcing as it pertains to global warming. Why? Because they've got to keep the little fart cloud aloft somehow. Too many livelihoods, profits, and reputations are at stake to admit the lie completely.
OSLO (Reuters) - The U.N. panel of climate experts overstated how much of the Netherlands is below sea level, according to a preliminary report on Saturday, admitting yet another flaw after a row last month over Himalayan glacier melt.
A background note by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said a 2007 report wrongly stated that 55 percent of the country was below sea level since the figure included areas above sea level, prone to flooding along rivers.
The United Nations has said errors in the 2007 report of about 3,000 pages do not affect the core conclusions that human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, are warming the globe.
"The sea level statistic was used for background information only, and the updated information remains consistent with the overall conclusions," the IPCC note dated February 12 said.
Skeptics say errors have exposed sloppiness and over-reliance on "grey literature" outside leading scientific journals. The panel's reports are a main guide for governments seeking to work out costly policies to combat global warming.
We may be seeing only the very beginning of the end of this manmade global warming lie. Bring it on! It's way past due. Thanks to all the climate scandal idiots who helped us skeptics out.
Carbon dioxide is "essentially harmless" to human beings and good for plants. So now will you stop worrying about global warming?
Utah's House of Representatives apparently has at least. Officially the most Republican state in America, its political masters have adopted a resolution condemning "climate alarmists", and disputing any scientific basis for global warming.
The measure, which passed by 56-17, has no legal force, though it was predictably claimed by climate change sceptics as a great victory in the wake of the controversy caused by a mistake over Himalayan glaciers in the UN's landmark report on global warming.
But it does offer a view of state politicians' concerns in Utah which is a major oil and coal producing state.
The original version of the bill dismissed climate science as a "well organised and ongoing effort to manipulate and incorporate "tricks" related to global temperature data in order to produce a global warming outcome". It accused those seeking action on climate change of riding a "gravy train" and their efforts would "ultimately lock billions of human beings into long-term poverty".
Of course, the AP article insists that the first IPCC report is sound, but that's if you believe the data coming out of the CRU at East Anglia, a major contributor to that report. We've seen that the CRU has its own share of problems, such as destroyed data that can NO LONGER be verified or studied by peers and purposefully blocking skeptical climate scientists from prestigious publications. This means that the first report that the AP proclaims as "sound" is likely bullshit too. I know it is, because it's the report with the erroneous "hockey stick" graph that has since been proven wrong because it omits the Medieval Warm Period. Why omit that MWP? Because it doesn't fit the template of a steady-state baseline followed by precipitous warming.
WASHINGTON -- A steady drip of errors in the top report on global warming -- and the erosion they are causing in public confidence of the science behind it -- have some scientists calling for drastic changes in how future United Nations climate reports are done.
A push for reform being published in Thursday's issue of the prestigious scientific journal Nature comes on top of a growing clamor for the resignation of the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The work of the climate change panel, or IPCC, is often portrayed as one massive tome. But it really is four separate reports on different aspects of global warming, written months apart by distinct groups of scientists.
The scandals are now being revealed at an ever-increasing tempo. This one directly relates to our old friend, Dr. James Hansen. If one were a clear-thinking, non-zealot, would one ask the question on whether there could be OTHER CAUSES of supposed observed global mean temperature increase? Or would a zealot simply accept what they’re seeing without asking any probing questions? A real, ethical scientist, untainted by bias, would probe deeper and look at every possible angle. “Could something else be causing this anomaly?”
Surprise! NOAA eliminated climate measuring stations in 1990 in the coldest areas of the world; they reduced the number from 6,000 stations down to less than 1,500 (>75% reduction)! That’s a significant event affecting the accuracy of analysis, as this data was used to look at temperature trends spanning before and after the reduction in stations. What followed eight short years after the drastic 75% station reduction was the so-called “warmest year ever.” Even with these missing stations, we’ve seen a gradual cooling since 1998, which means the ACTUAL global mean temperature average since 1998 might actually be far cooler! We’ll never know, as we’ve lost the continuity in data, just as all the raw data from those stations has now been destroyed by the CRU.
Has this been openly discussed ANYWHERE in the scientific literature? No, it hasn’t. Because alarmist scientists like Dr. Hansen are biased and depend on climate research funding, especially since space exploration is drying up. We’re dealing with scientific zealots, and they’re finally being exposed.
The global warming scandal keeps getting worse. Revelations over the few weeks show that many important assertions in the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were based on misquotes and false claims from environmental groups, not on published academic research as it was originally presented. This is on top of the recent mess regarding data, where the three most relied-on data series used by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 assessment report still have not been released. Other data simply never seem to have existed or cannot be provided to other scientists.
But probably the most damaging report has come from Joseph D’Aleo, the first Director of Meteorology and co-founder of the Weather Channel, and Anthony Watts, a meteorologist and founder of SurfaceStations.org.
In a January 29 report, they find that starting in 1990, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) began systematically eliminating climate measuring stations in cooler locations around the world. Yes, that's right. They began eliminating stations that tended to record cooler temperatures and drove up the average measured temperature. The eliminated stations had been in higher latitudes and altitudes, inland areas away from the sea, as well as more rural locations. The drop in the number of weather stations was dramatic, declining from more than 6,000 stations to fewer than 1,500.
Thursday, February 11, 2010
As predicted, the NYT steps into the fray to show their usual lefty colors. But they at least utter one truth—the cold, wintery, record-setting weather being experienced in the U.S. right now no more predicts cooling as the heat wave in Rio or lack of snow in Vancouver predicts warming. I wrote about this briefly the other day; unusual weather events have always occurred since record-keeping began. Just pick up an old almanac from the pre-industrial age if you don’t believe me.
So, can we finally admit that empirical data—often used by global warming alarmists when it supports their case (e.g., Gore’s hurricanes, Kerry’s tornados, heat waves, ice melts, etc.)—is useless in this discussion? Otherwise, skeptics like myself will tout cooler weather events (like those happening right now in the U.S. and other parts of the world) as antithetical arguments to prove a point; the point is that alarmists want to cherry-pick empirical observations to which the world pays attention, and that’s extremely disingenuous.
Instead, let’s look at the climate scientists in whom we’ve totally placed our trust to guide and propel MAJOR alterations in world governance, economies, politics, and energy consumption. These are the professionals who are supposed to uphold the highest ethics and give us nothing but untainted, unbiased scientific fact. However, scandal after scandal is currently rocking the main players in the climatology establishment (i.e., the U.N.’s IPCC and the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University), who are MOSTLY responsible for driving the climate hysteria through advocacy and political bias (much of their “evidence” IS NOT BASED IN FACT at all). Al Gore himself was recently caught in a whopper about ice melts, and it was shown that he just made that prediction up out of thin air; this is the messiah of global warming to whom the world exalts as an ultimate purveyor of climate truth, and he’s a liar.
Curious in the second story that the NYT is near collapse (as well as most other liberal news outlets), while more centrist-to-conservative outlets are doing just fine.
Skeptics of global warming are using the record-setting snows to mock those who warn of dangerous human-driven climate change — this looks more like global cooling, they taunt.
Most climate scientists respond that the ferocious storms are consistent with forecasts that a heating planet will produce more frequent and more intense weather events.
But some independent climate experts say the blizzards in the Northeast no more prove that the planet is cooling than the lack of snow in Vancouver or the downpours in Southern California prove that it is warming.
NEW YORK, Feb 10 (Reuters) - The New York Times Co (NYT.N) warned on Wednesday that print newspaper advertising will continue to decline, sending shares down nearly 9 percent, even as the company slashed costs to reach a higher-than-expected fourth-quarter profit.
The results, like that of other U.S. newspaper publishers, show that revenue declines are easing as the economy improves and advertisers are taking ginger steps back into the market. Even so, they are reducing what they spend on print media anyway, keeping newspapers' long-term futures uncertain.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
More poetic justice and irony. Baltimore breaks the snow record set in 1995. Winter weather records are broken in Chicago, D.C., and Philadelphia. Empirical evidence to stick in your global warming pipe and smoke.
Apparently, in an attempt to head-off the constant, recent chipping away at the global warming religion, the leftwing NYT will publish a story tomorrow that blames all these record winter blizzards on GLOBAL WARMING! That's right! When it's warm or there's NO SNOW outside, that's warming caused by heat-trapping, man-emitted greenhouse gases. And when there's a record-setting blizzard, that's warming caused by heat-trapping, man-emitted greenhouse gases. Nice scam, huh? When it's hot, it's warming. And when it's cold, it's warming. This way, the alarmist psychos never lose, LOL!
If we're really honest (and most of us who aren't 12 years old can remember the 1970s or much further back), these record weather events--blizzards, tornado outbreaks, hurricanes, and heat waves--have always happened. If we grab Almanacs and stare back even further, we see that THEY'VE ALWAYS HAPPENED. But those facts won't stop the Kool-aid drinkers. Just as the recent climatology scandals won't stop them.
The following Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearings have been postponed due to inclement weather this week:
- The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works will hold a hearing entitled, "Global Warming Impacts, Including Public Health, in the United States."
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Poetic justice continues to pile-on the alarmists and global warming believers out there, even amidst all the empirical data and fraud evidence to the contrary. Thulsa Doom Obama, refusing to acknowledge recent record-setting cold or climate scandal after climate scandal, is sticking to the party-line: Man’s use of fossil fuels (capitalism) is heating up the world. What would you expect from a Marxist like Obama and his Comrades?
Of course, Mother Nature and TRUTH get the last words. Sorry, TD Obama.
So, this schmuck alarmist in the article is going to teach us ‘children’ the difference between climate and weather. Sorry, but the weather reflects the climate. After all, their version of climate equals warmer temperatures that drive empirical changes in weather. But when the empirical part doesn’t fit their template (like all these blizzards), they poo-poo it away and lecture us for not knowing the difference between climate and weather. Or they’ll claim that warming causes the observed cooling; or they’ll claim that La Nina is masking warming.
This is what I call climate revisionism. If there’s a heat wave, hurricane, or if a chunk of ice melts somewhere in the Antarctic, however (even when it doesn’t really happen as recent scandals have shown), they’re quick to jump up and say, “See, see? Global warming!!!” The opposite empirical evidence results in all sorts of hysterical contortions on the part of alarmists, like this lecture on ‘climate’ versus ‘weather.’
As D.C. continued to dig out from Snowmageddon and is keeping an eye on another storm system, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was busy making a climate change announcement.
NOAA, part of the Department of Commerce, is going to be providing information to individuals and decision-makers through a new NOAA Climate Service office. “More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including sea-level rise, longer growing seasons, changes in river flows, increases in heavy downpours, earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons in our waters. People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision-making about virtually all aspects of their lives,” the release says.
Earlier snowmelt? That would be nice.
Turns out the release was planned prepared ahead of the snowstorm, which shut federal agencies today and forced its senders to hold a press conference by telephone instead of at the National Press Club.
Still NOT getting the message from the electorate that hates his policies, Thulsa Doom Obama continues down the path of self-righteousness and egomania. Since the flawed, scandal-ridden IPCC of the U.N. isn't enough (nor the revelations for Climategate), he's going to double-down and set up a U.S. version of the IPCC using NOAA to continue perpetuating the lie.
Researchers and leaders from around the world met last month in Denmark to discuss ways to reduce climate-warming emissions, and a follow-up session is planned for later this year in Mexico. But a U.N. report that preceded the conference in Copenhagen has been widely disputed after much of the data in it was found to have been gathered unscientifically.
"More and more people are asking for more and more information about climate and how it's going to affect them," Lubchenco explained. So officials decided to combine climate operations into a single unit.
Portions of the Weather Service that have been studying climate, as well as offices from some other NOAA agencies, will be transferred to the new NOAA Climate Service.
Monday, February 8, 2010
Dr. Michael Mann, the professor responsible for the famous (and erroneous) “hockey stick graph,” has been cleared of wrongdoing by a PSU panel that had been appointed to investigate Professor Mann’s involvement in the Climategate scandal, after his email correspondence was found among the emails from East Anglia’s CRU.
Interesting that Dr. Mann has brought in hundreds of thousands of dollars in climate research grants to Penn State University. Remember. Follow the dollars to find the rat; dollars are usually at the heart of EVERTHING that’s fishy.
But the findings and, more importantly, the focus have set off a wave of criticism accusing the university panel of failing to interview key people, neglecting to conduct more than a cursory review of allegations and structuring the inquiry so that the outcome -- exoneration -- was a foregone conclusion.
On Friday, Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Investigations Committee, charged that the Penn State's failure to settle all the charges and called into question professor Mann's work. He is demanding that all grants to the noted scientist be frozen.
Mann, according to published reports, has gotten a grant almost $550,000 in stimulus money to study climate change and is part of a nearly $2 million grant to Penn State to study the impact of climate change on various diseases.
The latest report from the IPCC is apparently scandal-ridden. More fear-mongering in the report is shown for the bullshit it is.
The U.N.'s controversial climate report is coming under fire -- again -- this time by one of its own scientists, who admits he can't find any evidence to support a warning about a climate-caused North African food shortage.
The statement comes from a key 2007 report to the U.N., and asserts that by 2020 yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% in some African countries thanks to climate change.
But this weekend, a key author of the team behind that report told The Sunday Times that he could find no evidence to support his own group's claim. The revelation follows the retraction by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035, dubbed 'Glaciergate' by commentators.
Sunday, February 7, 2010
Owners of the Toyota Prius--the goofy, little, egg-shaped "Green Fad" car--now must face the fact that all the carbon emissions they supposedly saved by driving that mercury-poisoned crap will now be lost on the carbon emissions required to repair their brakes.
Anyone want to do the math? How much carbon will be emitted when 300,000 Prius owners must haul their little puke cars in to have the brakes replaced? They'll need loaner cars while theirs is repaired. Will the loaner be another Prius, or, more likely, a run-of-the-mill gas-guzzler? How much carbon to get the new parts designed, manufactured, and then delivered to each dealer? How much carbon required in raw electricity to handle all the various details of a massive vehicle recall?
I don't believe any of that will hurt anything, but I wonder if they've pondered it themselves?
One must admit that it's ironic. It's like rain on your wedding day, or a free ride when you've already paid...
Toyota is to order a humiliating global recall of the Prius — the hybrid electric car which has become the leader of the green motoring revolution.
In a deepening of the crisis at the world’s largest car manufacturer, Toyota will this week warn 300,000 Prius owners — 3,500 of them in the UK — that the brakes on their car may fail in icy conditions or on bumpy surfaces.
Interesting that he did not think of suicide when he was engaging in unethical behaviors like manipulating data to support global warming theory, colluding with other alarmist scientists to block journal submissions from skeptical scientists, ignoring FOIA requests, and destroying baseline data (used in the aforementioned manipulations).
THE scientist at the centre of the “climategate” email scandal has revealed that he was so traumatised by the global backlash against him that he contemplated suicide.
Professor Phil Jones said in an exclusive interview with The Sunday Times that he had thought about killing himself “several times”. He acknowledged similarities to Dr David Kelly, the scientist who committed suicide after being exposed as the source for a BBC report that alleged the government had “sexed up” evidence to justify the invasion of Iraq.