The Next Climate Scandal

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.

[From FOXNews.com - The Next Climate-gate?]

Speaking of Bad Computer Models

I was just having a discussion with a global warming believer about climate computer models in the comments of an earlier blog post (see Sagan's Baloney Detection Kit); this is a timely story. Remember, models don't mean a damn thing if they're programmed wrong or are fed bad data: Garbage-in equals garbage-out. That's why computer models that predict hurricane strength and likely landfall locations are filled with uncertainty until just before the storms make landfall. And a hurricane--complicated though it is--pales compared to the complexity of the worldwide climate. This is also why we still can't accurately forecast local weather more than 5-days out (and those forecasts are often wrong). Plus, a computer model--just like statistics--can be made to paint any picture in the hands of a clever, devious scientist.

Computer models that predict climatic warming due to manmade gas emissions are WRONG, and given the political environment today, likely VERY BIASED and therefore UNBELIEVABLE.

A BBC weather forecaster has suggested that the Met Office's super-computer has a 'warm bias' which has stopped it predicting bitterly cold spells like the one we have just endured.

Paul Hudson said the error may have crept into the computer's climate model as a result of successive years of milder weather.

His claim was rejected by the Met Office but other experts said there could be flaws in the system, which was first developed 50 years ago.

[From Met Office computer accused of 'warm bias' by BBC weatherman | Mail Online]

Atmospheric CO2 Remains at Pre-Civil War Levels

1850. The beginning of the Industrial Revolution and just before the Civil War kicked off. Today's CO2 levels haven't changed since then IN THE ATMOSPHERE! Where does it go? The oceans absorb it, of course.

Alarmist scientists aren't going to like that this little tidbit got out there in a scientific journal.

ScienceDaily (Dec. 31, 2009) — Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.

[From No rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide fraction in past 160 years, new research finds]

Ostriches Fall Back On Tainted Climategate Data

There hasn't been warming since 1998 (according to their baseline), and yet we're being told this will be the warmest decade on record?!?

Someone is full of BS, and I don't think it is the climate skeptics; it's the scientists whose reputations are on the line, and their not going to go down without a fight.

"The e-mails, however, demonstrate that a cabal of supposed 'cream-of-the-crop' climate scientists were indeed successful in getting editors of journals that had published contrarian views fired and that they conspired to boycott journals that did not bend to their wishes -- therefore ensuring that such views would not be adequately represented in IPCC Assessment Reports," Sensenbrenner wrote.

But supporters of putting curbs on fossil fuel emissions say that despite the questionable nature of the e-mails, they don't undermine the science, and point to the latest data from the very agencies wrapped up in the scandal.

[From FOXNews.com - Sensenbrenner to Tell Copenhagen: No Climate Laws Until 'Scientific Fascism' Ends]

It's the Sun, Stupid (again)

You needn't be a climatologist to understand the statistical problems with manmade global warming theory. To say the last 200 years are the warmest in Earth's history (or equally disturbing assertions such as this decade is the warmest ever--laughable), it means you have to accept THEIR baseline--the level or range considered to be 'normal' that can then be used to show dramatic shifts--either up or down--in the data. Remember, the Earth is 4.5 billion years old, and humans have existed for a "gnat's length" comparatively. The Industrial Revolution--the genesis of the blame period that lasts until present day--was just about 200 years ago.

Finally, to acquire the baseline of normalcy, data (of which 150 years worth has now been deleted by the CRU at East Anglia) must be manipulated to account for numerous variables. So, they take 30 years of satellite observations, tree ring data, current day temperatures, and so on (each with their own potential measurement problems or SOURCES OF ERROR) and use computer models to produce the baseline of 200 years through which they claim to show we humans, through our modern ways, are heating the Earth to the breaking point. Never mind that they can IN NO WAY account for all the variables in the complex climate system. We can't even do it now with 100% certainty when predicting a hurricane's landfall point; we can only supply a probable range. We can't even accurately predict weather five days out, even with our technology and arrogant so-called 'brainpower.'

But the climate alarmist-scientist establishment doesn't want you to remember the Medieval Warm Period. They once produced graphs for the IPCC that omitted this period and tried to dream of ways to extricate it from history. You see...the Medieval Warm Period, where life really prospered before the follow-on mini ice age, is an INCOVENIENT TRUTH to climate alarmists.

The Sun. We are currently in a cooling trend on Earth that is measurable. The Sun, consequently, has some of the lowest measureable activity in recent history. Coincidence? That's hard to swallow.

The paper highlights a few scientists, including Professor Henrik Svensmark, a physicist at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen, who said the recent warming period was caused by solar activity.

Svensmark said that the last time the world experienced such high temperatures, during the medieval warming period, the Sun and the Earth were in a similar cycle.

Professor Nils-Axel Morner, a geologist from Stockholm University, said sea-level rise has also been exaggerated by the "climate alarmists" using computer models.

He said observational data from lake sediments, coast lines and trees show sea levels have remained stable.

[From Global Warming Caused by Solar Radiation, Argue Some Scientists - Biology | Astronomy | Chemistry | Physics - FOXNews.com]

Leaked 'Scientist' Emails: AGW is a Fraud

This will come as no surprise to most readers of this blog, but some of you cult-following, Kool-Aid drinking nutjobs will come up with no end of excuses (e.g., taken out of context, etc.) to cover up this damaging bit--actually damaging pile--of correspondence coming from the 'consensus' scientists who've scared you into believing their lies.

Why do these climate scientists need global warming to be 'real' and for research to continue? Because they like getting paid for their dumb shit. Research grants will keep rolling in so long as politicians--who can also benefit from this mythological religion--can keep the crap rolling along.

But the weather isn't cooperating. It's kind of hard to prop up bull shiza when the temperatures haven't risen in 10 years, while CO2 keeps going up.

Hundreds of emails and documents exchanged between world's leading climate scientists stolen by hackers and leaked online

Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world's leading climate scientists during the past 13 years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today.

The computer files were apparently accessed earlier this week from servers at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, a world-renowned centre focused on the study of natural and anthropogenic climate change.

Climate change sceptics who have studied the emails allege they provide "smoking gun" evidence that some of the climatologists colluded in manipulating data to support the widely held view that climate change is real, and is being largely caused by the actions of mankind.

[From Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists | Environment | guardian.co.uk ]

UW-M Scientists: Climate Variability is Natural

Unfortunately, these poor scientists and really smart people (yes, smarter than Al Gore) will be ignored or eviscerated by the national mainstream media; their theory, however correct, clever, or revolutionary, will not matter to the alarmist believers and scientists out there who need to continue the Green Fad for as long as possible. They don’t want their little cash cow to be milked dry, and they don’t want their reputations thrown under the bus (though they already are under the bus—they just haven’t realized it yet).

There is natural climate variation; there is no manmade climate change, no matter how hard they try to poof it into existence.

UW-Milwaukee Study Could Realign Climate Change Theory

MILWAUKEE -- The bitter cold and record snowfalls from two wicked winters are causing people to ask if the global climate is truly changing.

The climate is known to be variable and, in recent years, more scientific thought and research has been focused on the global temperature and how humanity might be influencing it.

However, a new study by the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee could turn the climate change world upside down.

Scientists at the university used a math application known as synchronized chaos and applied it to climate data taken over the past 100 years.

***

"But if we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand -- first the natural variability of climate -- and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural," Tsonis said.

Obama Moves Towards "Bias-Free" Science?

I nearly swallowed my tongue when I read this article, but it plays on a theme seen months ago in the media. The media--and their highly favored Democrats--will accuse of others of what they do themselves, in order to throw an easily manipulated public off the scent of a rat. Eventually, the public will grow tired of blaming every ill of the current administration on the previous administration; at some point, Obama will be accountable to Americans for his actions and results, whether the media cooperates or not.

This article focuses more on embryonic stem cells (something I have no interest in debating), but by merely observing reality, it's easy to determine that some in the media and left-leaning politicians openly espouse one side of global warming "science" while attempting to silence scientific and empirical criticism of climate alarmism. Heck, Bush himself was an advocate of this nonsense. There are political and financial costs if the theory is proven wrong. Science is and always will be about debate; it's not about declaring one side incorrect simply due to a collective majority opinion—the popular sentiment of the moment (something I still question as reality--thousands of scientists say AGW is bull but get no press coverage at all).

Consensus opinions in science have proven notoriously wrong in history, and maverick thinkers—those bucking the majority--are usually those who create science that is NEARLY impregnable (with the understanding that no science is entirely incontrovertible). Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is nearly unassailable; global warming theory is NOWHERE near the quality of relativity theory (or even Marx’s evolutionary theory), and AGW involves MANY directly observable effects—empirical evidence. It's really quite sad that I even must type this for the morons out there.

Science must embrace debate; it's the only part of science that ensures continued advancement (i.e., criticisms of colleagues—REAL peer review, not cultish peer review). Labeling and name-calling the critics of scientific theories as an exercise in political correctness is absurd and will fail in the long run.

A move toward bias-free science

The 15,000 scientists and engineers who protested the manipulation, suppression, and distortion of research during the Bush administration no doubt welcomed President Obama's pledge last week to restore scientific integrity to the White House.

***

With earnest words and the stroke of a pen, it was goodbye to George W. Bush's "sound science," and welcome to Obama's "soundest science."

***

"The politicization of science is a risk across the political spectrum," said panel member Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado. "The Bush administration had especially heavy-handed controls, but science and politics come into conflict in every administration."

News Flash: Stars and Politicians are Science Illiterates

Of course, this news piece (and others like it) never mention the words "global warming," because the news media is scientifically illiterate on that subject. They're illiterate because they've forgotten a central tenant of science--DEBATE SHOULD NEVER BE DISCOURAGED OR FEARED.

When it comes to global warming, the media, the celebrities, the politicians, and even some of the scientists (those who've forgotten an openness to debate) are NO BETTER than you either.

Scientific illiteracy all the rage among the glitterati - Science, News - The Independent:

When it comes to science, Barack Obama is no better than many of us. Today he joins the list of shame of those in public life who made scientifically unsupportable statements in 2008.

Closer to home, Nigella Lawson and Delia Smith faltered on the science of food, while Kate Moss, Oprah Winfrey and Demi Moore all get roastings for scientific illiteracy.

The Celebrities and Science Review 2008, prepared by the group Sense About Science, identifies some of the worst examples of scientific illiteracy among those who profess to know better – including top politicians.

Skeptical scientist profile: Dr. John Brignell

I've been wanting to do this for sometime, because I've linked to Dr. Brignell's warmlist page a countless number of times.

From his CV:

Professor Emeritus (ESD)

John Brignell was educated at Stationers’ Company’s School and began his career as an apprentice at STC. He studied at Northampton Engineering College (which became The City University, London) and took the degrees of BSc(Eng) and PhD of London University. He joined the staff at Northampton and was successively Research Assistant, Research Fellow and Lecturer. He worked in a number of areas including dielectric liquids and computer aided measurement, co-authoring a book "Laboratory on-line computing" in 1975. He was for ten years Reader in Electronics at The City University and held the Chair in Industrial Instrumentation at Southampton for twenty years from 1980. He has researched and written extensively in the area of sensors and their applications, and in 1994 co-authored a book with Neil White on "Intelligent sensor systems". He had an extensive private consultancy practice for many years and has advised some of the larger international companies, as well as many small ones in the UK, on all aspects of industrial instrumentation. He pioneered the use of a number of technologies in sensing, such as thick film, and latterly turned his attention to the considerable possibilities of micro-engineering. He was elected Fellow of IOP, InstMC, IEE and RSA. In 1994 he was awarded the Callendar Silver Medal by InstMC. He served on the ISAT Committee of IoP from its inception and was the founding chairman of the first joint professional group of the IEE (J1), having served on both its predecessors (E1 and C11).

What Dr. Brignell has done is simple genius--keep a linked list of actual media stories and articles that purport to show the horrors--both past, present, and future--associated with manmade global warming and climate change.

Simply reading the mass of links is mind-boggling; in my opinion, visiting this one page is all that one needs to do to understand how stupid this global warming hoax is.

Dr. Brignell goes further with his entire Number Watch site--he's showing us how the media can misbehave when using numbers and statistics. Thank you, Dr. Brignell, for being brave enough to stick your neck out in this politically correct environment. As he says:

Number Watch - All about the scares, scams, junk, panics, and flummery cooked up by the media, politicians, bureaucrats, so-called scientists and others who try to confuse you with wrong numbers.

Mexican scientist: Get ready for next "little ice age"

Think there's "consensus"? Me thinks not. We keep hearing this one bantered about every few months. Now, wait! You mean the Sun could help vary our climate??!! No way! It's La Nina, damn you!

Translated version of http://www.milenio.com/mexico/milenio/nota.asp?id=651680:

An expert from the National Autonomous University of Mexico predicted that in about ten years the Earth will enter a "little ice age" which will last from 60 to 80 years and may be caused by the decrease in solar activity.

Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the UNAM, as argued earlier during a conference that teaches at the Centre for Applied Sciences and Technological Development.

Scientists: Are they corruptible?

The angle of the association here to global warming is actually obvious if you think about it. I've written about it many times in this blog.

We skeptics and climate realists are told to more or less "shut up" (to shut off debate) when presenting calm, deliberate, scientific points and data that counter the pseudo-scientific basis of the global warming scam; the authority used to dismiss skeptics and turn off debate--even highly-intelligent, tenured atmospheric scientists--as outliers is based on a politically- and profit-driven "consensus."

The "consensus" is very questionable, since many once part of the consensus are abandoning their old theories, and we know of at least 31,000 scientists who are brave enough to declare AGW a huge lie.

One must ask: Can scientists have corrupt motivations, and can they internally justify their actions to the point of actually harming mankind? Dr. Ivins here apparently (and allegedly) did just that and only killed himself after it was apparent he was going to be held to account.

Now, I know alarmists will attempt to say that this is what denying, outlying, "flat-earth" scientists do, but they never think to question the authoritative basis of their own beliefs--authorities like Al Gore, Heidi Cullen, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Prince Charles, James Hansen, Bill Nye, and the list goes on. These names are seen time-and-again in the media to offset the credentials of actual climatologists who question--quite sanely--the scientific basis of the global warming cult; climatologists such as Dr. Roy Spencer (UAH and formerly with NASA), Dr. William Gray (CSU) and Dr. Richard Lindzen (MIT) make sensical, well-thought counter-arguments to the alarmism, but the usual tactic from the contrary side is to "name call" and denigrate with PC terminology designed to close off debate to the public's awareness (words like "denier," "consensus," and "IPCC").

Anthrax scientist Bruce Ivins stood to benefit from a panic - Los Angeles Times:

Bruce E. Ivins, the government biodefense scientist linked to the deadly anthrax mailings of 2001, stood to gain financially from massive federal spending in the fear-filled aftermath of those killings, the Los Angeles Times has learned.

Ivins is listed as a co-inventor on two patents for a genetically engineered anthrax vaccine, federal records show. Separately, Ivins also is listed as a co-inventor on an application to patent an additive for various biodefense vaccines.

Criticism inherent in advancement of science

Okay, so what does the linked article have to do with global warming? It describes the very nature of science and research, which the anthropogenic global warming “consensus” attempts to circumvent by establishing politically correct lines of thought that are impervious to criticism or debate. “The time for debate is over,” bellows Al Gore and his brainwashed cult discipleship.

SCIENCE IS DEBATE AT IT’S VERY CORE. Science lives or dies through debate and criticism, unless you’re an alarmist scientist or politician. Then contrary voices had better shut up.

Here we see a scientist in a line of research unconnected to climatology (unless danger associated with tilapia consumption is caused by global warming too, and I’m sure they’ll claim that soon enough). This medical scientist is describing exactly what I’ve tried to convey in this blog for months—SCIENCE IS DEBATE AT IT’S VERY CORE. Science lives or dies through debate and criticism, unless you’re an alarmist scientist or politician. Then contrary voices had better shut up.

He also lets slip another interesting anecdote. When the potential to make or lose money is involved, the voices who stand to potentially lose money can become deafening in their shrill protests. The AGW parallel here involves all the business concerns related to “climate change.” Global warming is now a huge industry, from carbon credits to biofuels to hybrid cars to alternative energy to light bulbs to federally-funded climate research. There’s a lot of money to be made, so long as global warming remains “real” and unquestioned in the minds of the public (i.e., so long as they can keep most sheep believing).

Now you can see one more reason why global warming—as stupid as it is in terms of actual science—is refusing to die like it should after being completely debunked.

Wake Forest researcher triggers storm over study on tilapia fish

The study appeared in this month's issue of Journal of the American Dietetic Association, which also featured a report that offered a mixed review of the Wake findings. Chilton will have the opportunity to respond to the critical report in a coming issue of the journal.

Dr. William Applegate, the dean of Wake Forest University School of Medicine, said that criticism, including from colleagues, is an inherent, and sometimes helpful, part of the advancement of science.

"The higher the financial stake involved in a study, the greater the level of industry criticism tends to be generated," Applegate said.

Another scientist abandons CO2 theory

LOL! I love watching this happen. Rats leap from sinking ship! Details at 10!

FOXNews.com - Former Global Warming Alarmist Deals Blow to Greenhouse Gas Theory:

A former global warming alarmist and creator of the model that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol says that while global warming is real, there is no evidence that the main cause is carbon emissions. David Evans says that CO2 emissions play — at most — a minor role.

Evans writes in The Australian newspaper that if global warming was caused by CO2, scientists would have found hot spots about six miles up in the earth's atmosphere over the Tropics. Evans describes those hot spots as the signature of the greenhouse effect. He says scientists have been trying to locate them for years using thermometers attached to weather balloons.

But he says years of research "show no hot spot — whatsoever" adding that "an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming."

Dr. Spencer endures Sen. Boxer (non-PhD)

Senator Barbara Boxer (who has no scientific credentials whatsoever) challenges a leading climate scientist (formerly with NASA), AGW skeptic, and IPCC member with a political zinger and thinks that this debunks anything technical he just said? She just verified that she's a huge moron, which I already knew. This sham is so audaciously transparent!

These alarmists never debate based on scientific findings, counter-theories, fundamental climatology, or raw data such as presented in Dr. Spencer's testimony; it's always "you're in bed with big oil," "you're Rush Limbaugh's chosen climate expert," "but the consensus says...", "the IPCC says...", "you're a denier," "you're a flat-earther," or "you're an outlier." Stop name-calling and insults as your only retort to real knowledge in some lame attempt to discredit an antithetical view; to do so means you're just a zealot--arguing so that your belief isn't shaken.

Here's news for you alarmists...Roy Spencer, just like climate expert Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, is part of the UN's IPCC, even though they disagreed with what was put in those IPCC reports that made bold, questionable proclamations about man's role in the climate. They're in that group of scientists conveniently portrayed by political hacks like Boxer, Cullen, Reid, Gore, Nye, and so on as part of the "consensus," when nothing could be further from the truth! When these "consensus" scientists stand up and scream, "I didn't say that!" the political hacks are quick to jump on them with irrelevant banter in an attempt discredit and silence them. Dr. Spencer, don't you know you're just supposed to shut up and take it? That's how alarmists work.

Many from the IPCC and "consensus" have denounced the theory that manmade CO2 drives climate change. Many more are changing their minds today and recognizing they were wrong.

Wake up before these charlatans scam you for all you're worth! Please check out Dr. Spencer's site, read, and be educated. Buy his book and learn.

Don't believe that alarmists only shout, name-call, insult, or anything else except debate based on the actual scientific knowledge? Watch this video and see for yourself (warning: ADULT LANGUAGE!). This is the sort of baloney we're up against--thoughtless minors who've been brainwashed by the media, politicians, and overzealous professors. He keeps spouting "science" throughout this diatribe, but I'm still waiting to hear his "conclusive science":

Scientists begin salvaging their reputations!

Due to the importance of this, I am reprinting the entire blog post from DailyTech.com below. Now, as much as I agree with the intent of that blog post, I have to point out that the APS has not changed its overall official stance on climate change; what is true is that one forum of the APS (Forum on Physics and Society) called for a debate in its July 2008 Newsletter with this posting by the forum's editor. The arguments against AGW made by Dr. Christopher Monckton in the newsletter on climate sensitivity (how sensitive the climate is to changes in CO2) are compelling.

We could see this coming, due to the record winter (and record cool summer) of 2007-08, climate revisionism, exaggerated claims, and the fact that more and more people worldwide are saying that this is utterly stupid.

Alarmists always spew “consensus” and “IPCC” when attempting to disallow debate with people (even really smart scientists) they consider to be “non-believers.” They’re not willing to admit it yet, but there are tens-of-thousands of “denying” scientists out there, including scientists once on the IPCC (like Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT).

We’ve seen the petition of >31,000 skeptical scientists, many who ONCE BELIEVED BUT NOW HAVE TURNED AGAINST AGW as an unassailable truth. As the article says, there is a “considerable presence of skeptics.” Al Gore can no longer claim that denying scientists are “outliers,” because the outliers are now in the thousands-upon-thousands, and this number is growing. This doesn’t include the scientists who are keeping their opinions secret because they’ve witnessed some of their colleagues professionally tarred-and-feathered for questioning manmade climate change; these guys and gals have been getting the “Scarlet Letter” treatment for years. That’s all changing now.

This scam is finally being exposed for what it is—nothing but complete garbage. I feel that, apart from the fairy tale of global warming that continues alive-and-well in the media, the tide in real scientific circles is finally turning in the direction of REAL SCIENCE and TRUTH! Real scientists see that it’s BS, and they don’t want to be among the last ones left saying that an indefensible theory is fact. Look for the floodgates to open now; it’s going to be like rats fleeing a sinking ship.

There are numerous, vexing questions. Which mainstream news source (e.g., CNN, CBS, NYT, LAT, etc.) will be the first to cover a story like this one, where the reporters seriously question the validity of global warming and the “consensus”? When will Al Gore return his Nobel Prize and Oscar after being completely exposed as the fraud and charlatan that he is? When will Heidi Cullen’s climate show be cancelled? Will Dr. Hansen lose his job at NASA for wasting government resources for over twenty years? Will the POTUS candidates acknowledge reality?

Myth of Consensus Explodes: APS Opens Global Warming Debate

"Considerable presence" of skeptics

The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming. The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science. The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

In a posting to the APS forum, editor Jeffrey Marque explains,"There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

The APS is opening its debate with the publication of a paper by Lord Monckton of Brenchley, which concludes that climate sensitivity -- the rate of temperature change a given amount of greenhouse gas will cause -- has been grossly overstated by IPCC modeling. A low sensitivity implies additional atmospheric CO2 will have little effect on global climate.

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

In an email to DailyTech, Monckton says, "I was dismayed to discover that the IPCC's 2001 and 2007 reports did not devote chapters to the central 'climate sensitivity' question, and did not explain in proper, systematic detail the methods by which they evaluated it. When I began to investigate, it seemed that the IPCC was deliberately concealing and obscuring its method."

According to Monckton, there is substantial support for his results, "in the peer-reviewed literature, most articles on climate sensitivity conclude, as I have done, that climate sensitivity must be harmlessly low."

Monckton, who was the science advisor to Britain's Thatcher administration, says natural variability is the cause of most of the Earth's recent warming. "In the past 70 years the Sun was more active than at almost any other time in the past 11,400 years ... Mars, Jupiter, Neptune’s largest moon, and Pluto warmed at the same time as Earth."

Another "flat earth" scientist debunks global warming stupidity

Just so you know, not everyone is marching in step like a zombie. Dr. Douglass at the University of Rochester is pointing out some "inconvenient truths," and Steven Milloy of junkscience.com made some great points about a subject that global warming alarmists hate to discuss--the sun and it's role in heating and cooling the Earth.

FOXNews.com - Study: Part of Global-Warming Model May Be Wrong:

Part of the scientific consensus on global warming may be flawed, a new study asserts.

The researchers compared predictions of 22 widely used climate "models" — elaborate schematics that try to forecast how the global weather system will behave — with actual readings gathered by surface stations, weather balloons and orbiting satellites over the past three decades.

The study, published online this week in the International Journal of Climatology, found that while most of the models predicted that the middle and upper parts of the troposphere —1 to 6 miles above the Earth's surface — would have warmed drastically over the past 30 years, actual observations showed only a little warming, especially over tropical regions.

"Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? It seems that the answer is no," said lead study author David H. Douglass, a physicist specializing in climate at the University of Rochester.

FOXNews.com - It's the Sun, Stupid - Opinion:

When the international global warming alarm-ocracy gathers for its annual convention on the balmy island of Bali next week, is there any chance that the delegates will look up at the big yellow ball in the sky and ask, “Could it be the Sun, stupid?”

New research suggests that would be a great question for them to consider.

A recent study from the Journal of Geophysical Research (November 2007) reports that the sun may have contributed 50 percent or more of the global warming thought to have occurred since 1900.

Researchers from Duke University and the U.S. Army Research Office report that climate appears to be insensitive to solar variation if you accept the global temperature trend for the past 1,000 years as represented by the so-called “hockey stick” graph — which claims to show essentially unchanging temperatures between from 1000 to 1900 and then a sharp uptick from 1900 to the present. But the hockey stick-graph has been relegated to the ash heap of global warming history.

Clinton: Ignore experts when I say so

This is quite telling; I wonder if anyone else will pick up on it. Here we have an avowed believer in global warming alarmism, a theory which stands only on the authority of "consensus" experts--elites, if you will. Mrs. Clinton should be well acquainted with the subject of elitism, since she happens to be a Jedi Master of said subject.

Now, when it's politically expedient, she urges the media to discount what the experts say and embrace the opinions and desires of "average folk." The implication is that the citizenry knows better than any expert economist when it comes to lowering gas prices.

I actually agree with her on this in some respects (gas taxes stink and drive up the costs for us all), but I especially agree when applying her same standard of elitist-dismissal to global warming theory. People aren't stupid. You can tell them there's human-induced global warming until you're blue in the face (based on the fact that you’re smarter than they are and know better), but empirical evidence (never mind all the scientific evidence we’ve seen from other experts) means a lot to the average citizen. People are aware of the harsh winter we just had; they’re not dumbbells.

Clinton discounts economists in gas tax debate

Pressed to name an economist who supports her plan to temporarily suspend the federal gas tax, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said today that commuters, truck drivers and other gas customers know it would make a difference.

“We have to get out of the mindset where somehow elite opinion is always on the side of doing things that really disadvantage the vast majority of Americans,” Clinton said during an appearance on ABC’s This Week with George Stephanopoulos at the Conrad Hilton Hotel in downtown Indianapolis. “I’m not going to put my lot in with economists because I know if we did it right ... we would design it in such a way that it would be implemented effectively.”

Greenpeace founder says no proof of global warming!!!

Please put your cup down, so that you don’t blow coffee out your nose!

The founder of Greenpeace admits that there’s no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the Earth to heat up; he’s actually advocating increased use of nuclear energy, but his reasoning is still to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (because though it’s not a problem now, it could be). Wow! One must wonder when more of the alarmist ilk will start breaking ranks when it becomes overwhelmingly obvious that Al Gore is a dufus after all.

Isn't this strange? We've got Bush, Gingrich, and Robertson backing global warming solutions, while an environmentalist is saying there's no proof of manmade climate change (even though he still backs action).

Here's the thing--I BELIEVE IN CONSERVING AND PROTECTING OUR ENVIRONMENT too, because it's appropriate to be a good steward of the Earth. However, we shouldn't scare people into doing this based on a lie; it's unethical and highly elitist to do so.

Greenpeace founder now backs nuclear power | News Updates | Idaho Statesman:

Greenpeace founder Patrick Moore says there is no proof global warming is caused by humans, but it is likely enough that the world should turn to nuclear power - a concept tied closely to the underground nuclear testing his former environmental group formed to oppose.

The chemistry of the atmosphere is changing, and there is a high-enough risk that "true believers" like Al Gore are right that world economies need to wean themselves off fossil fuels to reduce greenhouse gases, he said.

"It's like buying fire insurance," Moore said. "We all own fire insurance even though there is a low risk we are going to get into an accident."

The only viable solution is to build hundreds of nuclear power plants over the next century, Moore told the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce on Wednesday. There isn't enough potential for wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal or other renewable energy sources, he said.

Australian professor calmly explains reality

So that kook-aid drinkers can understand, please play the video below:

Global Warming 101: Professor Carter Explains Climate Realism