Lawmakers Seek to Stop Climate Probe as ‘Significant Error’ Revealed

Interesting to see these two stories on the same day. On one hand (continuing the recent, lengthy series of scandal-ridden ‘scientific’ revelations), activist climatologists are forced (again) to admit their errors that, of course, originally erred on the side of supporting manmade warming. On the other hand, activist politicians are trying to block efforts by other politicians to investigate just such scandals, perpetrated by just such activist scientists.

But we’re supposed to still believe this nonsense amid all of the scandals and empirical evidence to the contrary or risk being labeled as ‘deniers’ or some other equally silly social insult. Amazing how this group is able to set the agenda for what’s politically correct in terms of childish name-calling.

If you still believe in this, the tooth fairy will be coming to visit you soon too.

WASHINGTON (AFP) – A climate change study that projected a 2.4 degree Celsius increase in temperature and massive worldwide food shortages in the next decade was seriously flawed, scientists said Wednesday.

The study was posted on the website of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and was written about by numerous international news agencies, including AFP.
But AAAS later retracted the study as experts cited numerous errors in its approach.

"A reporter with The Guardian alerted us yesterday to concerns about the news release submitted by Hoffman & Hoffman public relations," said AAAS spokeswoman Ginger Pinholster in an email to AFP.

"We immediately contacted a climate change expert, who confirmed that the information raised many questions in his mind, too. We swiftly removed the news release from our Web site and contacted the submitting organization."

[From Climate change study had 'significant error': experts - Yahoo! News]

RICHMOND, Va. - A power struggle is unfolding in Virginia over climate change research.
Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has been taking the University of Virginia to court to get information on a climate change researcher who once worked at the school.

Now several members of the State Assembly say they've had enough and have introduced legislation to rein in Cuccinelli's investigation.

Cuccinelli, a global warming skeptic, is looking into whether UVA professor Michael Mann manipulated data to show that there has been a rapid, recent rise in the Earth's temperature.

[From Va. lawmakers look to stop climate change probe - wtop.com]

Al Gore Emerges From Hiding (sort of)

Al Gore has been keeping a low-profile ever since the mounting climate scandals that occurred before and after Copenhagen, where he was embarrassed by a typical alarmist exaggeration that was, once again, exposed as a lie by climate skeptics (a.k.a., "deniers"). He's been challenged for years to debate credible authorities and scientists on CO2's role in climate warming, but he usually manages to elude any forum that isn't tightly controlled by his thugs and political operatives.

He was shredded by Apple's stock holders just the other day for his global warming orthodoxy in the face of all these scandals, even though he was reelected to Apple's board (no surprise there...Apple is run by left-leaning folks out on the Left Coast).

So, feeling the need to respond to all the criticism, what does Al Gore do? He writes an OP-ED piece for the liberal New York Times, of course. Since no one can answer him directly in an opinion piece, I will take this opportunity to respond to his bullshit (trite and repetitive) below, point-by-point. And there's no way I could do a better job than some of the great skeptical scientists out there. But here goes...

But unfortunately, the reality of the danger we are courting has not been changed by the discovery of at least two mistakes in the thousands of pages of careful scientific work over the last 22 years by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In fact, the crisis is still growing because we are continuing to dump 90 million tons of global-warming pollution every 24 hours into the atmosphere — as if it were an open sewer.

[From Op-Ed Contributor - We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change - NYTimes.com]

Just two mistakes? Careful scientific work? Carbon is global warming pollution that's making our atmosphere into a sewer? Sorry, Al, but you're ignoring the mound of scandals recently revealed. There weren't just a few mistakes. There were many, along with multiple instances of unethical scientific practices.

But the scientific enterprise will never be completely free of mistakes. What is important is that the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged.

Hey, thanks for finally admitting that there are mistakes and errors in the evidence that, according to you, proves "thuh duh-bate is over." What's important to examine is the nature of these "mistakes." These aren't just mistakes; they're blatant attempts to politicize a supposedly scientific report by scattering it with "evidence" that amounts to nothing more than propaganda and fear.

There's that word consensus again. That's Al Gore's (and many alarmists') favorite tactic of deflection when attempting to avoid debate. But the 'overwhelming consensus' is a lie. Even if it was true, consensus opinion has nothing to do with real science, as history has shown us again and again. The maverick in science (like Galileo) is usually proved correct when confronting the consensus's foregone conclusion.

And furthermore (if there were a consensus), does anyone out there REALLY believe this group of politically-connected believers remains UNCHANGED? The so-called consensus is running for the hills because of all the scrutiny. On the contrary, the "consensus" is QUITE changed, Al.

[The panel's scientists] probably underestimated the range of sea-level rise in this century...

That's not what this article just said. Scientists have just withdrawn some of the estimates of supposed human-induced sea-rising. More fallout from the scandals, because now people are paying attention and not just accepting what these climate fear mongers say anymore.

For example, January was seen as unusually cold in much of the United States. Yet from a global perspective, it was the second-hottest January since surface temperatures were first measured 130 years ago.

Actually, the idiots said this January was the warmest on-record...not second warmest (get your facts straight, Al). Temperature records of 130 years should be, to any scientist, a problem when discerning longterm climate patterns and using them to make predictions. First, how accurate were the records of 130 years ago? They're not even accurate today (see reasons why here). Second, it's a statistical no-no to look at such a small range of time (130 years) to pronounce climate doom, considering the climate history of Earth spans of 4.5-billion years.

Similarly, even though climate deniers have speciously argued for several years that there has been no warming in the last decade, scientists confirmed last month that the last 10 years were the hottest decade since modern records have been kept.

Really? Did the alarmist scientists confirm this assertion the same way they've unethically confirmed everything else related to global warming? We can see that they're track record of unethical behavior runs deep and goes back at least 10 years.

Since we've already inserted the obligatory, debate-avoiding word consensus, let's make sure we use the Holocaust-doubting, ad hominem rejoinder and call us climate skeptics "deniers." Yes, a certain subset of alarmist scientists did just, laughably, make the claim that 2000 through 2009 was the warmest decade "on-record." However, disgraced IPCC scientist Phil Jones (CRU scandal) recently admitted that there has been no warming in 15 years, and he even--FINALLY--admitted that there was probably a global medieval warm period and even other earlier periods of global warming in Earth's history that preceded the industrial age. Therefore, the Earth has warmed in the distant past for reasons other than those extolled by you, Al, oh great 'creator of Internet.'

...yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere — thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States.

This is the warming-causes-cooling-and-warming tactic used in climate revisionism, and not ALL scientists have agreed with this. There are many problems with this assertion, but let's just take one that flies in the face of something Al just said a few paragraphs ago. If increased evaporation due to warming has caused all this darn record snow (and record freezing cold), rain, and tropical cyclones we've seen, wouldn't that increased evaporation also prevent the seas from rising? (Which, itself, has already been debunked.) The problem is that you and your ilk have long used empirical evidence when it suits your propaganda needs (i.e., supposed empirical weather events that you associate with climate warming). When antithetical weather appears, you either claim that La Nina is involved (that's masking warming) or you ridiculously claim that the cold weather is being caused by warming. That's what I call climate revisionism. It's called "global warming"...not "regional warming, when it suits my theory."

Here is what scientists have found is happening to our climate: man-made global-warming pollution traps heat from the sun and increases atmospheric temperatures. These pollutants — especially carbon dioxide — have been increasing rapidly with the growth in the burning of coal, oil, natural gas and forests, and temperatures have increased over the same period. Almost all of the ice-covered regions of the Earth are melting — and seas are rising. Hurricanes are predicted to grow stronger and more destructive, though their number is expected to decrease. Droughts are getting longer and deeper in many mid-continent regions, even as the severity of flooding increases. The seasonal predictability of rainfall and temperatures is being disrupted, posing serious threats to agriculture. The rate of species extinction is accelerating to dangerous levels.

But Al...is there a such thing as a 'saturation point'? Is there a point where increasing CO2 no longer makes a difference (i.e., holds in no more heat)? There are scientists (you haven't talked with) who agree that there is such a physical state in the atmosphere. The fact is that there is no evidence that current CO2 levels (rising though they are) are contributing to warming. Even the IPCC's erroneous, award-winning report only allots that CO2 is "probably" causing observed warming. "Probably" in science DOES NOT cut it. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas STILL, even in its presently increasing concentration. Also, our data show that tropospheric warming (i.e., in the atmosphere) has not occurred (increasing CO2 has not warmed this part of the atmosphere as predicted); all of the "warming" has been attributed to the surface level, and the temperature collection methods at the surface are problematic.

CO2 is a 'pollutant'? You're exhaling it right now with your big, fat head, Al. That means you're contaminating my atmosphere! Never mind that plants MUST HAVE CO2 to provide us with O2; even grade school science students can understand photosynthesis.

Extinctions have NOT accelerated. The last part of this bullshit paragraph falls back onto the same trite fear tactics. See the GASP! series and warmlist if you want to scare yourself to death; you can read about the THOUSANDS of ills attributed to manmade warming. Once you read them all, you'll start giggling to yourself if you have half a brain, because it's obvious how much of an overreach it all is.

The common denominator of Al's proselytizing is FEAR. Everything he writes or states is DRIPPING with fear. If you need to hear more fear on animals, read our Animal Death Watch series too.

So, where has Al Gore been? Well, just read the articles. Welcome back, Al. We DID NOT miss your stupid crap.

Al Gore won a Nobel Prize and an Oscar for his film, An Inconvenient Truth. But in the last three months, as global warming has gone from a scientific near-certitude to the subject of satire, Gore -- the public face of global warming -- has been silent on the topic.

The former vice president apparently finds it inconvenient even to answer calls to testify before the U.S. Senate. You can call him Al . . . but he won't call back.

[From FOXNews.com - You Can Call Him Al ... But Al Won't Call You Back]

Al Gore has been found. The former vice president and green guru has been MIA since the end of December, but he cropped up to be abused at the Apple stockholders meeting in Cupertino, Calif. Gore has been missing conveniently during the same period where climate scientists have come under increased scrutiny for bogus claims, doctored science and use of propaganda. Gore, the Nobel Peace Prize and Oscar winner was last seen on CBS in late December. While the TV outlets have been running archival footage of the climate advocate, he hasn’t been interviewed on air throughout the controversy.

He’s still been on the receiving end of many jokes during that time. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., said on Twitter: “It's going to keep snowing in D.C. until Al Gore cries ‘uncle.’” GOP Sen. James Inhofe’s grandkids built an igloo on the National Mall, naming it “Al Gore’s New Home.”

Now even Apple shareholders are unhappy with the Goreacle, delivering “harsh comments about former Vice President Al Gore’s record,” according to CNET. One shareholder said Gore shouldn’t be reelected to the Apple board, saying Gore “has become a laughingstock. The glaciers have not melted,” reported CNET. Gore didn’t respond directly, but his spot in the front row indicates his hibernation may be ending.

[From FOXNews.com - Why So Silent, Mr. Gore?]

AP Covers Climate Data Revision, Slams Skeptics

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.

[From UN weather meeting agrees to refine climate data - Forbes.com]

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.

[From FOXNews.com - EXCLUSIVE: U.N. Climate Panel to Announce Significant Changes]

Jo Nova Responds to New Scientist's "Denier-gate" Story

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.

The answer from alarmists is: "DENIER!! How can you question the CONSENSUS? The debate's over!" Get the picture? Where is the scientific debate?!? Without the name-calling?

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?

[From New Scientist becomes Non Scientist « JoNova]

Jo Nova's Skeptics Handbook, Vol. I and II

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.

[From The Skeptics Handbook « JoNova]

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]