Talk About a 'Bone Head': Brand Deniers!

This liberal lunatic starts off his piece by wanting to physically brand climate change 'deniers' and 'skeptics' the way that Nazis tatooed Jews during the Holocaust, an event in which many liberals these days no longer believe--secretly--happened, partly because they're Palestinian sympathizers who clandestinely loath Zionists, who are, ironically, very liberal in their politics. Weird, huh?

But, I digress. One is left wanting to ask (no pun intended) the question: Why does this author want to "Scarlet Letter" a group of people who question a semi-religious theory based on REAL scientific stipulations in which the alarmists simply dismiss (like this writer does)? What's the point of that? To make them targets of violence? To ostracize them? To make them targets of social discrimination and hate? This sort of thing isn't new when it comes to so-called deniers and the liberals who hate them.

You see, these climate alarmists are unhinged, left-learning people. The truly frightening part is that they're unaware that they're unhinged. This one starts off by wanting to DISCRIMINATE against a group of people based on their audacity to question the CONSENSUS. Branding human beings is a form of discrimination, but these liberals only accept discrimination when it fits their purposes, and then they attempt to hide their discrimination in new terminologies and paradigms to confuse the easily confusable among us.

On the other hand, these morons have NOT had their orthodoxy shaken one iota, even after all the countless scandals, empirical evidence, and scientific evidence to the contrary. All they have left is fear...and they continue trying to use it against the clueless masses.

Strange how the author is concerned about the planet we will leave our children and grandchildren while seemingly UNCONCERNED about the REAL, STINKING ECONOMY we're giving to them RIGHT NOW!!! And guess what? Green fad bull shit enacted for a trumped up lie WILL ONLY MAKE THE ECONOMY WORSE!!! But hey...that's what liberals wanted to cool the planet down, remember?

Surely it's time for climate-change deniers to have their opinions forcibly tattooed on their bodies.

Not necessarily on the forehead; I'm a reasonable man. Just something along their arm or across their chest so their grandchildren could say, ''Really? You were one of the ones who tried to stop the world doing something? And why exactly was that, granddad?''

On second thoughts, maybe the tattooing along the arm is a bit Nazi-creepy. So how about they are forced to buy property on low-lying islands, the sort of property that will become worthless with a few more centimetres of ocean rise, so they are bankrupted by their own bloody-mindedness? Or what about their signed agreement to stand, in the year 2040, lashed to a pole at a certain point in the shallows off Manly? If they are right and the world is cooling - ''climate change stopped in the year 1998'' is one of their more boneheaded beliefs - their mouths will be above water. If not …

***

Aside from the frothing fringe of the environmental movement, no one is secretly pleased about global warming. We'd all rather it just went away. Who needs to feel guilty about having a long shower, flying to Paris or eating T-bone steak?Who needs to be worried about their children and grandchildren and the way we are pushing the burdens of our time on to them?

[From The dangers of bone-headed beliefs]

Relevant Global Mean Temperatures

Fantastic blog and post by one of the 'skeptical' scientists that liberals say don't exist. He's talking about the urban island effect and its influence on global mean temperature increases that have the 'consensus' shitting their pants (or, more truthfully, taking us all for a ride). Take a minute and read this...

After having digitized the old data and after a few subtle statistical manipulations, one of their conclusions is that the airport in Nairobi, Kenya gives the dominant warming signal in the most well-known surface temperature datasets. This confirms the familiar warming influence of tarmac and other urban achievements.

[From The Reference Frame: Which global mean temperature is relevant?]

"Attacks" on Climate Research Attacked

I'll see your 250 scientists and raise you about 31,000 more SKEPTICAL scientists. Sorry guys, but the cat is out of the bag with all the scandals. And NOTHING YOU CAN DO could prevent catastrophe, even if there was a catastrophe...and there isn't.

(Reuters) - More than 250 U.S. scientists on Thursday defended climate change research against "political assaults" and warned that any delay in tackling global warming heightens the risk of a planet-wide catastrophe.

[From Scientists decry assaults on climate research | Reuters]

Poll: American Global Warming Concerns Decline Further

Of course, this poll only addresses the question about global warming overall. In other words, the poll answers the question about whether global warming is believed to be occurring. It’s a good question. Natural climate change seems to be pushing temperatures the other way, unless you believe the alarmists’ silly, revisionist excuses for why we’ve had several years of record-setting cold winters and summers.

I wonder, after proper education on all sides of scientific climate theory—including the skeptical views on CO2 and scientific data backing those views, whether the public would accept the core premise of global warming alarmists, which is really the only central issue in my opinion. That question is, “Do you think manmade CO2 is warming the Earth?”

Because global warming and global cooling, as part of natural climate variability, DO HAPPEN. That’s not at issue. The issue is whether capitalist-driven greenhouse gas emissions (i.e., CO2) are driving temperatures, and whether socialist solutions to offset capitalism and thus “decrease warming” (because oil is the lifeblood of worldwide economies) will really do anything except raise energy prices and harm economies (and we’ve seen multiple instances in the news where liberals have said we need to cool our economy to fight global warming).

In other words, only the leftiest of liberals seem unable to discern (actually they’re just pretending) the political connection to this so-called “science.” It’s clear in the data (and in the recent scandals – i.e., “hide the decline”) that CO2 may rise AFTER warming and that it eventually reaches a saturation point (i.e., the point at which it no longer has any warming properties on the atmosphere). So many aspects of real science are avoided in debate with the words “consensus says.”

PRINCETON, NJ -- Gallup's annual update on Americans' attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question.

[From Americans' Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop ]

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?]

Alarmists Want To 'Gut Credibility' of Skeptics

These so-called 'scientists' are just clueless. They're sitting atop scandal after scandal, including the IPCC report that is CHOCK FULL of political BS (not science), and they're going to 'fight back against political skeptics.' Sorry clowns, but in many instances you're fighting back against scientific skeptics (like myself), who are tired of seeing you hijack science to advance a world government takeover of environmental policy (and thus, economies...because as environmental policies advance, economics are harmed).

Undaunted by a rash of scandals over the science underpinning climate change, top climate researchers are plotting to respond with what one scientist involved said needs to be "an outlandishly aggressively partisan approach" to gut the credibility of skeptics.

In private e-mails obtained by The Washington Times, climate scientists at the National Academy of Sciences say they are tired of "being treated like political pawns" and need to fight back in kind. Their strategy includes forming a nonprofit group to organize researchers and use their donations to challenge critics by running a back-page ad in the New York Times.

[From FOXNews.com - Climate Scientists Plan to Hit Back at Skeptics]

U.N.'s IPCC to Create 'Independent' Review Panel

Really? Why didn't they just do this (and this) to begin with, before all the scandals were revealed BY SKEPTICS?

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.

[From Climate Panel to Appoint Committee to Review Its Procedures - WSJ.com]

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'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]

Searchable Climategate Email Database and Chronology

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.

http://www.EastAngliaEmails.com

While you're at it, Jo Nova does a great job of placing Climategate within a 30-year chronological perspective:

http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/climategate-30-year-timeline/

NASA Alarmist: Last Decade Warmest

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]

Global Warming House of Cards Finally Falls

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.

In a related story, see this blog entry (and news link) on other problems with worldwide temperature measurements.

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.

[From World may not be warming, say scientists - Times Online ]

Climategate: CRU's Jones Admits Science NOT SETTLED!

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.

[From Climategate U-turn: Astonishment as scientist at centre of global warming email row admits data not well organised | Mail Online]

Bill Nye: Skeptics Are Unpatriotic

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.

You know what? At least debate is finally happening now; I guess Al Gore's proclamation of debate being over doesn't hold water.

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.

[From FOXNews.com - Global Warming Debate Heats Up in Wake of Record Snowstorms]

Skeptics, Alarmists Clash Over Record Blizzards

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.

[From FOXNews.com - Global Warming Debate Heats Up in Wake of Record Snowstorms]

Record Winter Weather "Caused" by Warming

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.

[From Snowfall Shatters Record, Leaves 180,000 Without Power | NBC Dallas-Fort Worth ]

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.

[From Rare snowflakes start falling from Miss. to Fla.]

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.

[From Rare snowfall in Rome as cold snap grips Italy - Yahoo! News]

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.

[From OU Student Collecting Pictures of Snow in All 50 States - NewsOn6.com - Tulsa, OK - News, Weather, Video and Sports - KOTV.com | ]

U.N. Climate Chief Admits Flawed Prediction on Glaciers

I've already written about this, but here it really hits the fan. What I find funny (in the news over this story) is that pundits simply say that this gives fodder to the "deniers" and strengthens the "denial machine." They take this and turn it around as a negative about "deniers" and skeptics, like myself. Amazing how mounting proof of this utter hoax is turned into a negative about me and my fellow skeptics, simply because we notice the mounting evidence of the hoax and dare to bring it up.

After Climategate, years-long record cold empirical data, Copen-faken, Hansen's climate retractions, and now this admission, the cult members in the media still aren't willing to entertain the idea that they've been royally had.

The UN’s top climate change body has issued an unprecedented apology over its flawed prediction that Himalayan glaciers were likely to disappear by 2035.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said yesterday that the prediction in its landmark 2007 report was “poorly substantiated” and resulted from a lapse in standards.

[From UN climate chief admits mistake on Himalayan glaciers warning - Times Online ]

IPCC Scientist Uses U.N. Guards to Silence Reporter: Climategate

Still believe those Climategate revelations are meaningless? If they're so meaningless, why do people like this U.N. dufus and Al Gore continue to avoid debate at all costs by resorting to armed goons and turning off microphones?

In the words of the great Jedi Master Yoda to the evil Emperor Palpatine:

"If so powerful you are... why leave?"

A Stanford Professor has used United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him “inconvenient questions” during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen.

Professor Stephen Schneider’s assistant requested armed UN security officers who held film maker Phelim McAleer, ordered him to stop filming and prevented further questioning after the press conference where the Stanford academic was launching a book.

McAleer, a veteran journalist and film maker, has recently made a documentary “Not Evil Just Wrong’ which takes a sceptical look at the science and politics behind Global Warming concerns.

[From Big Government » Blog Archive » UN Security Stops Journalist’s Questions About ClimateGate]

Shock: Many Scientists Disagree on Global Warming

Yes, surprise, surprise indeed. I've been saying this all along, but it's good to see someone else say the same thing. There is no unassailable agreement or consensus. That assertion...along with manmade global warming...is a MYTH! This is only a surprise if you just accept the mainstream media's assertions that debate is over.

As the Climate-gate controversy continues to grow, amid charges of hiding and manipulating data, and suppressing research by academics who challenge global warming, there is one oft-repeated defense: other independent data-sets all reach the same conclusions. "I think everybody is clear on the science. I think scientists are clear on the science ... I think that this notion that there's some debate . . . on the science is kind of silly," said President Obama's Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, when asked about the president's response to the controversy on Monday. Despite the scandal, Britain's Met, the UK’s National Weather Service, claims: "we remain completely confident in the data. The three independent data sets show a strong correlation is highlighting an increase in global temperatures."

But things are not so clear. It is not just the University of East Anglia data that is at question. There are about 450 academic peer-reviewed journal articles questioning the importance of man-made global warming. The sheer number of scientists rallying against a major intervention to stop carbon dioxide is remarkable. In a petition, more than 30,000 American scientists are urging the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto treaty. Thus, there is hardly the unanimity among scientists about global warming or mankind's role in producing it. But even for the sake of argument, assuming that there is significant man-made global warming, many academics argue that higher temperatures are actually good. Higher temperatures increase the amount of land to grow food, increase biological diversity, and improve people's health. Increased carbon dioxide also promotes plant growth.

[From FOXNews.com - Surprise, Surprise, Many Scientists Disagree On Global Warming]

Climate Science Fiction of 1970s

Many of us skeptics have seen the Newsweek, Time, and the New York Times stories about the coming ice age from the mid-1970s. Just so you know, that wasn't just media-fed fear. Government-connected climate scientists were saying the same things then and wrote a textbook about it. LOL! Are we really all this dumb? Apparently so. It looks like it took an email leak to bring this Goliath down.

Many of you are too young to remember, but in 1975 our government pushed "the coming ice age."

Random House dutifully printed "THE WEATHER CONSPIRACY … coming of the New Ice Age." This may be the only book ever written by 18 authors. All 18 lived just a short sled ride from Washington, D.C. Newsweek fell in line and did a cover issue warning us of global cooling on April 28, 1975. And The New York Times, Aug. 14, 1976, reported "many signs that Earth may be headed for another ice age."

OK, you say, that's media. But what did our rational scientists say?

In 1974, the National Science Board announced: "During the last 20 to 30 years, world temperature has fallen, irregularly at first but more sharply over the last decade. Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end…leading into the next ice age."

***

Remember how Galileo recanted his preaching about the earth revolving around the sun? He, of course, was about to be barbecued by his leaders. Today's scientists merely lose their cash flow. Threats work.

[From The Fiction Of Climate Science - Forbes.com]