The great global warming myth

Left-wing Env. Scientist Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a ‘corrupt social phenomenon…strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass’

2010-07-27T07:42:00.000-07:00

Left-wing Env. Scientist Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a ‘corrupt social phenomenon…strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass’

The Great global warming update:

YouTube - Is Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty?

2010-07-19T15:21:00.000-07:00

YouTube - Is Obama Poised to Cede US Sovereignty?

Climate scientists hit out at 'sloppy' melting glaciers error | Environment | The Guardian

2010-06-09T03:42:00.000-07:00

Climate scientists hit out at 'sloppy' melting glaciers error | Environment | The Guardian

The Next Climate-gate?

2010-02-11T17:11:00.000-08:00

The Great global warming update:

By John Lott

A new report points to a sharp reduction of weather stations by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in cooler locations around the world since 1990. Could that be why global temps have seen a steady rise over the last 20 years?

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.

D’Aleo and Watts show that the jumps in measured global temperature occur just when the number of weather stations is cut. But there is another bias that this change to more urban stations also exacerbates. Recorded temperatures in more urban areas rise over time simply because more densely populated areas produce more heat. Combining the greater share of weather stations in more urban areas over time with this urban heat effect also tends to increase the rate that recorded temperatures tend to rise over time.

Their report provides examples of how the systematic elimination of stations and unexplained adjustments in temperature data caused measured temperatures to rise for Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Norway, Sweden, and the United States. Many adjustments change what would have been a drop in temperatures into an increase. Take New Zealand, where D’Aleo and Watts note: “About half the adjustments actually created a warming trend where none existed; the other half greatly exaggerated existing warming.”

D’Aleo and Watts also criticize how these data adjustments are often unexplained or poorly documented. In one case involving James Hansen at NASA a Freedom of Information Act request has been unanswered for over two years.

The report details other fascinating temperature biases. For example, Siberia has experienced one the greatest increases in recorded warming. A large drop in the number of stations and the some missing data can explain part of the change, but apparently during the Soviet-era areas with lower recorded temperatures received more fuel and money, creating a real incentive for weather stations to lie.

The D’Aleo and Watts’ report also helps answer some puzzling questions about the report. One of the major ones questions has been the divergence in temperature data recorded by satellites in space and down here on the ground. That difference was very small when satellites first started being used during the 1980s but has grown over time, with ground observations showing a rise in temperature relative to the satellite data. The urban warming effect may also explain why land warming has between so much greater than ocean warming.

All three terrestrial global-temperature datasets (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/ National Climatic Data Center, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and University of East Anglia) really rely on the same measures of surface temperatures. These three sources do not provide independent measures of how the world’s temperatures have changed over time. The relatively small differences that do arise from these three institutions result from how they adjust the raw data.

Flawed data leads to flawed conclusions. Whether these errors were made on purpose or by accident ultimately doesn’t matter. Especially with tens of trillions of dollars at stake, science should be more transparent than this. But we can only draw one conclusion: the studies based on that data, no matter the number, are ultimately unreliable.

Global Warming: The Other Side | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Coleman's Corner

2010-02-03T02:27:00.000-08:00

If you still think it exists, please watch this.

Global Warming: The Other Side |
KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA
| Coleman's Corner

Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen - Times Online

2010-01-31T02:35:00.000-08:00

Climate chief was told of false glacier claims before Copenhagen - Times Online

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

2010-01-01T04:14:00.000-08:00

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

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.

However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.

Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.

To assess whether the airborne fraction is indeed increasing, Wolfgang Knorr of the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Bristol reanalyzed available atmospheric carbon dioxide and emissions data since 1850 and considers the uncertainties in the data.

In contradiction to some recent studies, he finds that the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide has not increased either during the past 150 years or during the most recent five decades.

2009-12-19T03:47:00.000-08:00

The Great global warming update:

Let It Snow, Let It Snow, Let It Snow...

Oh the weather in Denmark's frightful,

But the irony's so delightful,

That everywhere Al Gore goes,

It just snows and it snows and it snows.

When will Al ever see the light?

Will he ever go out in the storm?

Or does his tin hat still fit too tight?

And he still thinks the world's gettin' warm.

The conference is slowly dying,

And the moonbats are all good-bying,

Global warming has no place to go,

Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow!

John Coleman | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Latest Headlines

2009-12-17T17:10:00.000-08:00

John Coleman |
KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA
| Latest Headlines

2008-12-29T06:26:00.000-08:00

The Great global warming update:

2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved
Looking back over my columns of the past 12 months, one of their major themes was neatly encapsulated by two recent items from The Daily Telegraph.

By Christopher Booker Last Updated: 7:40AM GMT 29 Dec 2008

Polar bears will be fine after all Photo: AP
The first, on May 21, headed "Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts" , reported that the entire Alpine "winter sports industry" could soon "grind to a halt for lack of snow". The second, on December 19, headed "The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation" , reported that this winter's Alpine snowfalls "look set to beat all records by New Year's Day".
Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.
First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.
Ever shriller and more frantic has become the insistence of the warmists, cheered on by their army of media groupies such as the BBC, that the last 10 years have been the "hottest in history" and that the North Pole would soon be ice-free – as the poles remain defiantly icebound and those polar bears fail to drown. All those hysterical predictions that we are seeing more droughts and hurricanes than ever before have infuriatingly failed to materialise.
Even the more cautious scientific acolytes of the official orthodoxy now admit that, thanks to "natural factors" such as ocean currents, temperatures have failed to rise as predicted (although they plaintively assure us that this cooling effect is merely "masking the underlying warming trend", and that the temperature rise will resume worse than ever by the middle of the next decade).
Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.
Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world. As we saw in this month's Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and "environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times.

Al Gore Places Infant Son In Rocket To Escape Dying Planet

2008-08-02T04:03:00.001-07:00

The Great global warming update:

clipped from www.theonion.com

Young Gore sets out for his new home, where the sky is clear, the water is clean, and there are no Republicans.

EARTH—Former vice president Al Gore—who for the past three decades has unsuccessfully attempted to warn humanity of the coming destruction of our planet, only to be mocked and derided by the very people he has tried to save—launched his infant son into space Monday in the faint hope that his only child would reach the safety of another world.

"I tried to warn them, but the Elders of this planet would not listen," said Gore, who in 2000 was nearly banished to a featureless realm of nonexistence for promoting his unpopular message. "They called me foolish and laughed at my predictions. Yet even now, the Midwest is flooded, the ice caps are melting, and the cities are rocked with tremors, just as I foretold. Fools! Why didn't they heed me before it was too late?"

2008-07-24T15:55:00.000-07:00

The Great global warming update:

clipped from www.theonion.com

Rotation Of Earth Plunges Entire North American Continent Into Darkness

NEW YORK—Millions of eyewitnesses watched in stunned horror Tuesday as light emptied from the sky, plunging the U.S. and neighboring countries into darkness. As the hours progressed, conditions only worsened.

Satellite view at 4:50 p.m. EST shows the sun disappearing from the sky.

At approximately 4:20 p.m. EST, the sun began to lower from its position in the sky in a westward trajectory, eventually disappearing below the horizon. Reports of this global emergency continued to file in from across the continent until 5:46 p.m. PST, when the entire North American mainland was officially declared dark.

As the phenomenon hit New York, millions of motorists were forced to use their headlights to navigate through the blackness. Highways flooded with commuters who had left work to hurry home to their families. Traffic was bottlenecked for more than two hours in many major metropolitan areas.

Across the country, buses and trains are operating on limited schedules and will cease operation shortly after 12 a.m. EST, leaving hundreds of thousands of commuters in outlying areas effectively stranded in their homes.

Despite the high potential for danger and decreased visibility, scientists say they are unable to do anything to restore light to the continent at this time.

"Vast gravitational forces have rotated the planet Earth on an axis drawn through its north and south poles," said Dr. Elena Bilkins of the National Weather Service. "The Earth is in actuality spinning uncontrollably through space."

Bilkins urged citizens to remain calm, explaining that the Earth's rotation is "utterly beyond human control."

"The only thing a sensible person can do is wait it out," she said.

Commerce has been brought to a virtual standstill, with citizens electing either to remain home with loved ones or gather in dimly lit restaurants and bars.

"I looked out the window and saw it getting dark when I was still at the office working," said Albert Serpa, 27, a lawyer from Tulsa, OK, who had taken shelter with others at Red's Bar and Grill. "That's when I knew I had to leave right away."

Ronald Jarrett, a professor of economics at George Washington University who left his office after darkness blanketed the D.C. metro area, summed up the fears of an entire nation, saying, "Look, it's dark outside. I want to go home," and ended the phone interview abruptly.

Businesses have shut their doors, banks are closed across the nation, all major stock exchanges have suspended trading, and manufacturing in many sectors has ceased.

Some television stations have halted broadcasting altogether, for reasons not immediately understood.

Law-enforcement agencies nationwide were quick to address the crisis.

Enlarge Image

Houston-area victims flee their workplaces ahead of the growing wave of darkness.

Said NYPD spokesman Jake Moretti: "Low-light conditions create an environment that's almost tailor-made for crime. It's probably safe to say we'll make more arrests in the next few hours than we have all day."

Darkness victims describe hunger pangs, lassitude, and a slow but steady loss of energy, forcing many to lie down. As many as two-thirds of those believed afflicted have fallen into a state of total unconsciousness.

Many parents report that their younger children have been troubled, even terrified, by the deep darkness. To help allay such fears, some parents are using an artificial light source in the hallway or bedroom.

As of 2 a.m. EST, the continent was still dark, the streets empty and silent. However, some Americans remained hopeful, vowing to soldier on despite the crisis.

"I don't plan on doing anything any different," said Chicago-area hospice worker Janet Cosgrove, 51. "I'm going to get up in the morning and go to work."

delusions

2008-07-10T03:23:00.001-07:00

The Great global warming update:

clipped from www.news.com.au

Doomed to a fatal delusion over climate change

Andrew Bolt

July 09, 2008 12:00am

PSYCHIATRISTS have detected the first case of "climate change delusion" - and they haven't even yet got to Kevin Rudd and his global warming guru.

Writing in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, Joshua Wolf and Robert Salo of our Royal Children's Hospital say this delusion was a "previously unreported phenomenon".

"A 17-year-old man was referred to the inpatient psychiatric unit at Royal Children's Hospital Melbourne with an eight-month history of depressed mood . . . He also . . . had visions of apocalyptic events."

(So have Alarmist of the Year Tim Flannery, Profit of Doom Al Gore and Sir Richard Brazen, but I digress.)

"The patient had also developed the belief that, due to climate change, his own water consumption could lead within days to the deaths of millions of people through exhaustion of water supplies."

2008-06-13T08:39:00.000-07:00

The Great global warming update:

clipped from www.kusi.com

John Coleman's Comments Before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce

Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas
by John Coleman

by John Coleman

You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.

The future of our civilization lies in the balance.

Read Mr. Coleman's rebuttel here

2008-05-22T06:55:00.001-07:00

The Great global warming update:

clipped from www.americanthinker.com

Gore Celebrates Israel's 60th With Whoppers

After delivering a scientifically inept global warming lecture in Tel Aviv on Tuesday, greenhouse gasbag Al Gore presented Israel with a 60^th birthday gift of custom tailored, regionally-targeted Globaloney.

As adaptable to his surroundings as any desert snake, the shameless Nobel laureate told conference attendees that plunging water levels in their lakes and rivers were the result of -- guess what? Quothe the Goracle:

"In this region of the world, the water crisis is one of the most important manifestations of the global climate change crisis."

In reporting the story, the Associated Press offered this explanation for his reasoning:

"Water levels in Israel's major bodies of water are dropping quickly. The level of the Dead Sea, the lowest point on earth, has receded about 3 feet (1 meter) each year for the past 25 years. The Jordan River, the biblical location of Jesus' baptism, is only a few feet (centimeters) [sic] deep in some places."

2008-05-19T04:40:00.000-07:00

The Great global warming update:

clipped from michellemalkin.com

31,072 scientists John McCain needs to talk to

By Michelle Malkin • May 19, 2008 07:14 AM

This morning at the National Press Club, The Petition Project will release the names of more than 31,000 scientists who reject the Gore Theory of Manmade Global Warming. Dr. Arthur Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine spearheaded the project:

clipped from michellemalkin.com

Where: Holeman Lounge at the National Press Club, 529 14th St., NW, Washington, DC

Why: the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) will announce that more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition rejecting claims of human-caused global warming. The purpose of OISM’s Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of “settled science” and an overwhelming “consensus” in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climate damage is wrong. No such consensus or settled science exists. As indicated by the petition text and signatory list, a very large number of American scientists reject this hypothesis.

It is evident that 31,072 Americans with university degrees in science - including 9,021 PhDs, are not “a few.” Moreover, from the clear and strong petition statement that they have signed, it is evident that these 31,072 American scientists are not “skeptics.”

Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM)

2008-05-11T08:12:00.001-07:00

The Great global warming update:

clipped from www.ncdc.noaa.gov

Climate Summary

April 2008

The average temperature in April
2008 was 51.0
F. This was -1.0
F cooler
than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the
29th coolest
April in 114
years.
The temperature trend for
the period of record (1895 to present) is
0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

2008-05-07T03:53:00.001-07:00

The Great global warming update:

clipped from www.americanthinker.com

Gore's Myanmar Words as Inopportune as they were Repulsive

Marc Sheppard

Thirty days after Steve McIntyre caught NASA cooking climate history again - this time in a feeble attempt to somehow conceal the alarmist-embarrassing downward trend since 1998 -- Al Gore shamelessly portrayed Saturday's Myanmar cyclone catastrophe as a ‘consequence' of global warming.

A mere 16 days after NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory confirmed that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation's cool phase shift would likely bring colder temperatures for as many as the next 20-30 years, Gore told NPR that the "trend toward stronger and more destructive storms appears to be linked to global warming and specifically to the impact of global warming on higher ocean temperatures." This just 6 days after a German study also predicted cooler ocean temperatures due to the Meridional Overturning Circulation entering a weak cycle, and in spite of there being absolutely no empirical evidence of a global warming / storm strength link.

American Thinker: Are Global Warmists Pulling a Cool Fast One?

2008-05-05T04:44:00.000-07:00

American Thinker:
By Marc Sheppard

Mounting evidence of lower temperature trends despite rising atmospheric CO2 levels is becoming a real problem for the greenhouse gas crowd. And reports that the cooling appears to follow a period of dormant solar activity aren't likely to ease their anxieties.

Indeed, without an immediate alarmist course correction, years of 'the science is settled' campaigning could prove for naught, as prolonged temperature dips decimate the primary anthropogenic argument. After all, Lord Gore has shouted the IPCC's proclamation of a 0.3°C warming over the next decade from virtually every rooftop. Given new data projecting the contrary, he and his green hordes will need to find a way to not only explain the error, but keep the AGW dream alive.

And perhaps they have.

On April 21st, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory confirmed that an impending phase shift in a natural climate event would likely bring colder temperatures for as many as the next 20-30 years, noting that:

'The shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, with its widespread Pacific Ocean temperature changes, will have significant implications for global climate. It can affect Pacific and Atlantic hurricane activity, droughts and flooding around the Pacific basin, marine eco"

Bush Raises Temp On Global Warming -

2008-04-16T09:17:00.000-07:00

"Bush Raises Temp On Global Warming
By Tony Blankley
April 16, 2008

The last months of a presidential administration are often dangerous. Presidents -- looking to their legacies -- go to desperate lengths to try to enhance their reputations for posterity. A pungent example of such practices by the Bush administration was reported above the fold on the front page of The Washington Times Monday: 'Bush prepares global warming initiative.'

Oh, dear. Just as an increasing number of scientists are finding their courage to speak out against the global warming alarmists and just as a building body of evidence and theories challenge the key elements of the human-centric carbon-based global warming theories, George W. Bush takes this moment to say, in effect: 'We are all global alarmists now.'

It reminds me of the moment back in 1971 when Richard Nixon proclaimed, 'We are all Keynesians now' -- eight years after Milton Friedman had published his book 'A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1960' and about an hour and a half before a consensus built that Friedman's work consigned Keynes to the dustbin of economic history.

Now it is Bush's turn to be the last :man to join a losing proposition. In how many ways is this proposal not useful?

read on her
Tony Blankley -- GOPUSA

.

Americans for Prosperity - Americans for Prosperity Foundation :: AFP Presents the Hot Air Tour

2008-04-11T14:18:00.000-07:00

Free trip to Washington to fight ignorance and stupidity.

What: Rally against unaffordable climate change schemes

Where: Upper Senate Park/Union Station Plaza (map here)

When: 11:30 AM; Monday, April 21

Popcorn. T-shirts. Lunch. Ice Cream. It's all on us! Don't miss out on this important event!

Americans for Prosperity - Americans for Prosperity Foundation :: AFP Presents the Hot Air Tour

Global temperatures 'to decrease'

2008-04-04T01:30:00.000-07:00

"Global temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007 due to the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.

The World Meteorological Organisation's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.

This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

But experts have also forecast a record high temperature within five years.

'Variability'

La Nina and El Nino are two great natural Pacific currents whose effects are so huge they resonate round the world.

El Nino warms the planet when it happens, La Nina cools it. This year, the Pacific is in the grip of a powerful La Nina.

It has contributed to torrential rains in Australia and to some of the coldest temperatures in memory in snow-bound parts of China.

LA NINA KEY FACTS
La Nina 2008 Forecast (Source: UK Met Office Hadley Centre)
La Nina translates from the Spanish as 'The Child Girl'
Refers to the extensive cooling of the central and eastern Pacific
Increased sea temperatures on the western side of the Pacific means the atmosphere has more energy and frequency of heavy rain and thunderstorms is increased
Typically lasts for up to 12 months and generally l"

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature :

The Epicycles of Global Warming

2008-03-10T05:04:00.000-07:00

When True Believers begin to harbor doubts, they don't immediately give up the faith. It's too scary; too much pride and money has been invested; too many jobs and reputations are on the line; and they need to find a new reason to live. So they always try to add on new wrinkles and qualifications to their crumbling story.

Today that's happening with the global warming cult.

"Human-caused global warming" has now officially been re-named "climate change" to explain the inconvenient truth that the winter of 2007-8 was the coldest in a century, in spite of all those tons of "greenhouse gas" being spewed into the air from all the new factories in China and India. Worldwide temps dropped 0.6 of a degree C in one year. That may not sound like a lot, but it's more than all the ballyhooed warming in the preceding century.

American Thinker: The Epicycles of Global Warming

2008-02-25T05:18:00.000-08:00

The Great global warming update:

Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back

Are the world's ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory?

Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.

The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind’s alleged impact on the global climate.

Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years.

As winter roars in across the Northern Hemisphere, Mother Nature seems to have joined the ranks of the skeptics.

As the Express notes, scientists are saying the northern Hemisphere has endured its coldest winter in decades, adding that snow cover across the area is at its greatest since 1966. The newspaper cites the one exception — Western Europe, which had, until the weekend when temperatures plunged to as low as -10 C in some places, been basking in unseasonably warm weather.

via newsmax

2008-02-13T06:54:00.001-08:00

The Great global warming update:

2008-01-01T09:47:00.000-08:00

The Great global warming update:

'The fact is that the global temperature of 2007
is statistically the same as 2006 and every year since 2001'

From the new statesman

Global warming stopped? Surely not. What heresy is this? Haven’t we been told that the science of global warming is settled beyond doubt and that all that’s left to the so-called sceptics is the odd errant glacier that refuses to melt?

Aren’t we told that if we don’t act now rising temperatures will render most of the surface of the Earth uninhabitable within our lifetimes? But as we digest these apocalyptic comments, read the recent IPCC’s Synthesis report that says climate change could become irreversible. Witness the drama at Bali as news emerges that something is not quite right in the global warming camp.

With only few days remaining in 2007, the indications are the global temperature for this year is the same as that for 2006 – there has been no warming over the 12 months.

But is this just a blip in the ever upward trend you may ask? No.

The fact is that the global temperature of 2007 is statistically the same as 2006 as well as every year since 2001. Global warming has, temporarily or permanently, ceased. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming – the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend hundreds of billions of pounds needlessly.

In principle the greenhouse effect is simple. Gases like carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere absorb outgoing infrared radiation from the earth’s surface causing some heat to be retained.

Consequently an increase in the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases from human activities such as burning fossil fuels leads to an enhanced greenhouse effect. Thus the world warms, the climate changes and we are in trouble.

The evidence for this hypothesis is the well established physics of the greenhouse effect itself and the correlation of increasing global carbon dioxide concentration with rising global temperature. Carbon dioxide is clearly increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere. It’s a straight line upward. It is currently about 390 parts per million. Pre-industrial levels were about 285 ppm. Since 1960 when accurate annual measurements became more reliable it has increased steadily from about 315 ppm. If the greenhouse effect is working as we think then the Earth’s temperature will rise as the carbon dioxide levels increase.

But here it starts getting messy and, perhaps, a little inconvenient for some. Looking at the global temperatures as used by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UK’s Met Office and the IPCC (and indeed Al Gore) it’s apparent that there has been a sharp rise since about 1980.

The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from 370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued.

For the past decade the world has not warmed. Global warming has stopped. It’s not a viewpoint or a sceptic’s inaccuracy. It’s an observational fact. Clearly the world of the past 30 years is warmer than the previous decades and there is abundant evidence (in the northern hemisphere at least) that the world is responding to those elevated temperatures. But the evidence shows that global warming as such has ceased.

The explanation for the standstill has been attributed to aerosols in the atmosphere produced as a by-product of greenhouse gas emission and volcanic activity. They would have the effect of reflecting some of the incidental sunlight into space thereby reducing the greenhouse effect. Such an explanation was proposed to account for the global cooling observed between 1940 and 1978.

But things cannot be that simple. The fact that the global temperature has remained unchanged for a decade requires that the quantity of reflecting aerosols dumped put in our atmosphere must be increasing year on year at precisely the exact rate needed to offset the accumulating carbon dioxide that wants to drive the temperature higher. This precise balance seems highly unlikely. Other explanations have been proposed such as the ocean cooling effect of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation or the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

But they are also difficult to adjust so that they exactly compensate for the increasing upward temperature drag of rising CO2. So we are led to the conclusion that either the hypothesis of carbon dioxide induced global warming holds but its effects are being modified in what seems to be an improbable though not impossible way, or, and this really is heresy according to some, the working hypothesis does not stand the test of data.

It was a pity that the delegates at Bali didn’t discuss this or that the recent IPCC Synthesis report did not look in more detail at this recent warming standstill. Had it not occurred, or if the flatlining of temperature had occurred just five years earlier we would have no talk of global warming and perhaps, as happened in the 1970’s, we would fear a new Ice Age! Scientists and politicians talk of future projected temperature increases. But if the world has stopped warming what use these projections then?

Some media commentators say that the science of global warming is now beyond doubt and those who advocate alternative approaches or indeed modifications to the carbon dioxide greenhouse warming effect had lost the scientific argument. Not so.

Certainly the working hypothesis of CO2 induced global warming is a good one that stands on good physical principles but let us not pretend our understanding extends too far or that the working hypothesis is a sufficient explanation for what is going on.

I have heard it said, by scientists, journalists and politicians, that the time for argument is over and that further scientific debate only causes delay in action. But the wish to know exactly what is going on is independent of politics and scientists must never bend their desire for knowledge to any political cause, however noble.

The science is fascinating, the ramifications profound, but we are fools if we think we have a sufficient understanding of such a complicated system as the Earth’s atmosphere’s interaction with sunlight to decide. We know far less than many think we do or would like you to think we do. We must explain why global warming has stopped.

David Whitehosue was BBC Science Correspondent 1988–1998, Science Editor BBC News Online 1998–2006 and the 2004 European Internet Journalist of the Year. He has a doctorate in astrophysics and is the author of The Sun: A Biography (John Wiley, 2005).] His website is www.davidwhitehouse.com

2007-09-25T01:56:00.000-07:00

The Great global warming update:
Global harming: Ethanol, anti-nuke consequences
Sunday, Sep. 23, 2007
Two items published last week in, of all places, The New York Times, underscore the problems with plunging ahead with global warming "solutions" that bring with them unintended and costly consequences.
The first was an editorial addressing the high costs of ethanol. It may finally be dawning on even some of the enviro-extremists that these costs include a doubling of corn prices this year, which has led to sharp increases in dairy and poultry prices.
The Times apparently wakes up to this problem only when it involves world food prices, "threatening misery for the poorest countries."
Yes, misery, and environmental costs, too. Ethanol made from corn (as opposed to Brazilian sugar cane) costs energy to make, soaks up valuable farmland, and does little to lower greenhouse gas emissions. It also makes food here at home more expensive. Remember that, New Hampshire voter, when you see Presidential candidates falling all over themselves in Iowa to pledge ethanol subsidies for all.
Speaking of New Hampshire, folks hereabouts may take special interest in a Times Magazine piece by the authors of the recent "Freakonomics" best-seller.
The story concerns nuclear power and how "The China Syndrome" scare-mongering anti-nuke film of 1979, starring Jane Fonda, coupled with media hype over the Three Mile Island nuclear accident, did so much to cripple the nuclear industry in the United States.
The authors point out that as a result, "instead of becoming a nation with clean and cheap nuclear energy, as once seemed inevitable, the United States kept building power plants that burned coal and other fossil fuels. Today such plants account for 40 percent of the country's energy-related carbon-dioxide emissions."
Supporters of the Seabrook nuclear plant (reduced to one unit as a result of such hysteria) may take some solace in the authors' observation, "Anyone hunting for a global-warming villain can't help blaming such (fossil) power plants -- and can't help wondering too about the unintended consequences of Jane Fonda."
Oh, and like the surviving Seabrook plant, a second plant at Three Mile Island continues to quietly and reliably turn out nuclear power. Its owner, the Exelon company, says it is producing electricty costing 1.3 cents per kilowatt-hour. Coal's cost? Two-point-two cents, not counting the deaths each year of more than 30 miners.
Again, something to keep in mind when political candidates, local and national, start spouting their "green" policies.
Via "the Union Leader"

2007-07-01T05:10:00.000-07:00

The Great global warming update:

Al Gore pleads, "We must stop tolerating the rejection and distortion of science. We must insist on an end to the cynical use of pseudo-studies known to be false for the purpose of intentionally clouding the public's ability to discern the truth."

Gore's fantasy vs the truth

Gore fantasy; claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame.

The Truth; the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains."

Gore fantasy; claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame.

The Truth; the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine,
"Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

Gore fantasy; claims global warming is causing more tornadoes.

The Truth; Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.

Gore fantasy; claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes.

The Truth; hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past.

more truth; Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27,
that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years.

still more truth; Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.

Gore fantasy; claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts.

The Truth; the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports,

"Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."

Gore fantasy; argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet.

The Truth; according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology,
"the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain."
more truth; In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.

Gore fantasy; He claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming.

The Truth; Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades.

More truth; scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003.

Still more truth; And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.

2007-03-22T01:53:00.000-07:00

The Great global warming update:
Even the New York Times seems to be turning on Gore.
No longer drinking the Green Global warming Koolaid.

Al Gore had barely sat down in the hearing room and accepted warm greetings from legislators before critics on the Internet began calling him a showman and charlatan.

“There is strong evidence that Al Gore does not believe his own end-of-the-world hype,” Robert Ferguson of the Center for Science and Public Policy wrote in an e-mail news release. “He travels the world emitting CO2 into the atmosphere, while enriching himself with $100,000 payoffs for telling people to inflate their car tires, change their light bulbs and drive less.”

via new york times

2007-03-15T17:53:00.000-07:00

The Great global warming update:

This is the show that aired in Britain.
A must see.
"The great Global Warming swindle"

2007-03-12T04:32:00.000-07:00

The Great global warming update:

'The Great Global Warming Swindle'
Tashi Tagg
Fri, 09 Mar 2007

A juicy new documentary called The Great Global Warming Swindle has just been broadcast (on 8 March, 2007) on the UK's Channel 4.

Based on the thesis presented in the book The Chilling Star by Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark, the documentary claims that humans have absolutely no control over Global Warming and that all the hype about it is simply propoganda inspired by the huge amounts of money given to what's become a popular cause.

I caught an interview with one of the scientists involved with it on CNN on Thursday night and everything he had to say made total sense. The argument the scientists are making is that the sun impacts on clouds and clouds impact on how the suns rays get distributed, which results in changes to the earths temperature.

They're saying that carbon dioxide omissions have a miniscule, if any, impact on this process and that it's proven by the fact that most Global Warming took place prior to 1940 - before people started pumping out CO2 gasses.

The mouldy oldy Einstein dude being interviewed (I can't remember his name) said that huge amunts of information gets kept from the public about what's actually happening with the earth and used Antarctica as an example.

He referred to all the media reports about the icecaps melting and the pictures they show etc and said that these are simply around the edges of Antarctica and that at it's core it's actually getting colder. He also said that something we're never told is that the earth's global temperature has remained constant for the past five years.

Read the rest here

2007-03-06T14:05:00.000-08:00

The Great global warming update:

This is an excellent article!

A certifiable paranoiac would have a high old time tracing out the patterns behind the global warming campaign of the past month. The effort has the feel of something long planned, well scripted, and worked out to the final detail. It's hard to avoid thoughts of conspiracy when contemplating the activities of the Greens.

Not that it's necessary to believe any such thing. (In analyzing cases like this, I apply Dunn's First Law: With enough idiots, you don't need a conspiracy.) It's part of the natural order -- birds flock, insects swarm, and Greens campaign. But the actual point is, whether carefully-hatched scheme, herd instinct, or sheer accident, it's clear at this juncture that the effort has failed.

Read the rest of it here

2007-03-05T08:43:00.000-08:00

The Great global warming update:

Allegre's second thoughts
The Deniers -- The National Post's series on scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science

LAWRENCE SOLOMON, Financial Post
Published: Friday, March 02, 2007

Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming.

"By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Dr. Allegre, a renowned geochemist, wrote 20 years ago in Cles pour la geologie.." Fifteen years ago, Dr. Allegre was among the 1500 prominent scientists who signed "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming's "potential risks are very great" and demanding a new caring ethic that recognizes the globe's fragility in order to stave off "spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse."

In the 1980s and early 1990s, when concern about global warming was in its infancy, little was known about the mechanics of how it could occur, or the consequences that could befall us. Since then, governments throughout the western world and bodies such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have commissioned billions of dollars worth of research by thousands of scientists. With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.

His break with what he now sees as environmental cant on climate change came in September, in an article entitled "The Snows of Kilimanjaro" in l' Express, the French weekly. His article cited evidence that Antarctica is gaining ice and that Kilimanjaro's retreating snow caps, among other global-warming concerns, come from natural causes. "The cause of this climate change is unknown," he states matter of factly. There is no basis for saying, as most do, that the "science is settled."

Dr. Allegre's skepticism is noteworthy in several respects. For one, he is an exalted member of France's political establishment, a friend of former Socialist president Lionel Jospin, and, from 1997 to 2000, his minister of education, research and technology, charged with improving the quality of government research through closer co-operation with France's educational institutions. For another, Dr. Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution. His break with scientific dogma over global warming came at a personal cost: Colleagues in both the governmental and environmental spheres were aghast that he could publicly question the science behind climate change.

read more at the National post

2007-02-26T14:30:00.000-08:00

The Great global warming update:

POWER: GORE MANSION USES 20X AVERAGE HOUSEHOLD; CONSUMPTION INCREASE AFTER 'TRUTH'
Mon Feb 26 2007 17:16:14 ET

The Tennessee Center for Policy Research, an independent, nonprofit and nonpartisan research organization committed to achieving a freer, more prosperous Tennessee through free market policy solutions, issued a press release late Monday:

Last night, Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, collected an Oscar for best documentary feature, but the Tennessee Center for Policy Research has found that Gore deserves a gold statue for hypocrisy.

Gore’s mansion, located in the posh Belle Meade area of Nashville, consumes more electricity every month than the average American household uses in an entire year, according to the Nashville Electric Service (NES).

In his documentary, the former Vice President calls on Americans to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home.

The average household in America consumes 10,656 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, according to the Department of Energy. In 2006, Gore devoured nearly 221,000 kWh—more than 20 times the national average.

Last August alone, Gore burned through 22,619 kWh—guzzling more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year. As a result of his energy consumption, Gore’s average monthly electric bill topped $1,359.

Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, Gore’s energy consumption has increased from an average of 16,200 kWh per month in 2005, to 18,400 kWh per month in 2006.

Gore’s extravagant energy use does not stop at his electric bill. Natural gas bills for Gore’s mansion and guest house averaged $1,080 per month last year.

“As the spokesman of choice for the global warming movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk to walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home energy use,” said Tennessee Center for Policy Research President Drew Johnson.

In total, Gore paid nearly $30,000 in combined electricity and natural gas bills for his Nashville estate in 2006.

For Further Information, Contact:
Nicole Williams, (615) 383-6431
editor@tennesseepolicy.org

2007-02-25T17:12:00.000-08:00

Urgent

On Wednesday, we launched an important petition to

"Stop Albert Gore
and Reject the UN's Global Warming Treaty."

Gore is re-energizing the
movement advocating Kyoto compliance -- the biggest UN power-grab in
history.

I urge you to sign this petition now, please. We already have over
30,000 electronic signatures. We want to deliver 100,000 signatures to
the Senate by the time Al Gore reaches the podium at this Sunday's
Academy Awards.

It takes only 20 seconds to sign online, link to:
http://PatriotPetitions.US/StopGore

2007-02-23T01:59:00.000-08:00

The Great global warming update:

A History of Hoaxes

E. Ralph Hostetter

The perpetration of a hoax follows a fairly well-established pattern.

First, there's the initial propaganda stage. As skepticism increases to the point the hoax may be foiled, desperation sets in. The second stage begins by attacking the skeptics.

America is entering the second stage, and it's not very pretty.

A review of the most recent hoaxes is important.

One Hot Hoax: The Ice Age Cometh

The "ice age" hoax of the late 1970s took advantage of the general population's unfamiliarity with climate. A massive climatic change, like an ice age, normally taking centuries to develop, can be encapsulated in seconds by computers into a form that may be interpreted as short term as weather. The marketing ploy is based on fear � not the type of fear generated by such incidents as 9/11, but a distant fear of "We're all going to die."

The ice age hoax was melted away with warmer weather. However, the perpetrators were not.

The devil's workshop was still intact.

Very cleverly, the great deceivers of the "ice age" hoax turned up the thermostats on their computers and developed models which revealed a greater threat to mankind than an ice age.

It was global warming.

Unlike the ice age hoax, where there was no real identifiable cause, they found one for global warming. It was man himself and the use of the love of his life, his automobile, particularly his SUV.

And what did his automobile do for the global warming hoax? It produced carbon dioxide in its exhaust, an atmospheric gas that constitutes 378 thousandths of one percent (0.00378) or 378 parts per million. It is a trace. One part per million has been equated to one bogey in 3,500 golf tournaments.

Not seeming to get traction in the early 90s, the global warming hoax was relegated to the back burner.

The Dreaded Y2K

The hoaxers saw a bigger fish. The 20th century was soon to fade into history, a monumental event. And they identified for this hoax a cause, the computer itself.

The issue selected was the changing of the date on the computer from Dec. 31, 1999 to Jan. 1, 2000. That simple change was going to prove disastrous to the nation and its economy. Present computers would confuse the "00" date identification as being the year 1900. The computers would become confused and "crash," losing all their information. Upgrades of old computers or purchase of new computers would be necessary.

Banks would be forced to close (translation: horde cash), power plants would cease to operate (buy electrical generators), aircraft would be unable to land (don't fly) were just a few of the dire predictions. Other nations of the world had done nothing to prepare for the great catastrophe of Y2K. It turned out to be a non-event, the greatest hoax of the 20th century.

Global warming is back once again on the front burner.

The global warming hoax has passed through the "We're-all-going-to-die" phase and is now entering the next phase: "Attack the skeptics." The global warming debate degenerated several notches when Boston Globe columnist Ellen Goldman equated those who question the present dominant media hype on climate change with Holocaust deniers.

Holocaust denial is the belief that the genocide of Jews during World War II, either did not occur, or did not occur to the extent described.

Shameful Holocaust Deniers

A resolution co-sponsored by more than 100 countries was adopted by consensus in the United Nations on Jan. 26, 2007, which "rejects efforts to deny the Holocaust."

This resolution elevates the issue to a level of criminalization within the nations which endorsed the resolution, including the United States.

Holocaust denial had already been criminalized in Israel, France, Germany, and Austria. Prosecutions under racial defamation and hate laws have occurred in Canada, with resulting prison sentences. David Roberts, staff writer for Grist Magazine, wrote on Sept. 19, 2006, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and when we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for those bastards � some sort of climate Nuremberg."

The Weather Channel's communication director, Heidi Cullen, who hosts a weekly global warming program, "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society revoke the "seal of approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.

This is vicious. It could cost weathermen the loss of their careers.

Within the past several weeks, Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski, threatened to fire State Climatologist George Taylor for speaking out against the issue of global warming.

Dan Webster, an Ohio TV meteorologist, claims that 95 percent of the nation's weathermen are skeptical of man-made global warming fears. Scores of global warming skeptics seem to be coming out of the woodwork.

Of note is U.S. Sen. James Inhofe, former chairman, Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, and at present the ranking minority member of the committee. Sen. Inhofe is a long-time skeptic of the present global warming hype which he describes as the "hoax of the century."

Sen. Inhofe congratulated Czech President Vaclav Klaus for calling man-made global warming a "myth."

A list of the skeptics and skeptic organizations is too numerous to mention here. Rest assured, skepticism is increasing by leaps and bounds as the basis of global warmers' "science" is exposed.

E. Ralph Hostetter, a prominent businessman and agricultural publisher, also is a national and local award-winning columnist. He welcomes comments by e-mail sent to eralphhostetter@yahoo.com.

2007-02-16T03:33:00.000-08:00

The Great global warming update:

Contact: David Bromwich
Bromwich.1@osu.edu
614-292-6692
Ohio State University

Antarctic temperatures disagree with climate model predictions

COLUMBUS , Ohio – A new report on climate over the world's southernmost continent shows that temperatures during the late 20th century did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models.

This comes soon after the latest report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that strongly supports the conclusion that the Earth's climate as a whole is warming, largely due to human activity.

It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.

David Bromwich, professor of professor of atmospheric sciences in the Department of Geography, and researcher with the Byrd Polar Research Center at Ohio State University, reported on this work at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science at San Francisco.

"It's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now," he said. "Part of the reason is that there is a lot of variability there. It's very hard in these polar latitudes to demonstrate a global warming signal. This is in marked contrast to the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula that is one of the most rapidly warming parts of the Earth."

Bromwich says that the problem rises from several complications. The continent is vast, as large as the United States and Mexico combined. Only a small amount of detailed data is available – there are perhaps only 100 weather stations on that continent compared to the thousands spread across the U.S. and Europe . And the records that we have only date back a half-century.

"The best we can say right now is that the climate models are somewhat inconsistent with the evidence that we have for the last 50 years from continental Antarctica .

"We're looking for a small signal that represents the impact of human activity and it is hard to find it at the moment," he said.

2007-02-14T04:07:00.000-08:00

The Great global warming update:

Contrary Evidence Piles Up

Now that the initial media blitz of "global warming" has passed, the opposition and skeptics are firing both barrels back at the hype and media-induced-hysteria.

First, we have the "global warming" debate-is-over hearings postponed...by snow and ice.

Indian experts are questioning global warming and its effect on glaciers:

Some experts have questioned the alarmists theory on global warming leading to shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers. VK Raina, a leading glaciologist and former ADG of GSI is one among them.
He feels that the research on Indian glaciers is negligible. Nothing but the remote sensing data forms the basis of these alarmists observations and not on the spot research.

Raina told the Hindustan Times that out of 9,575 glaciers in India, till date, research has been conducted only on about 50. Nearly 200 years data has shown that nothing abnormal has occurred in any of these glaciers.

You don't say.

via the Jawa report

2007-02-13T18:07:00.000-08:00

Who said that God does not have a sense of humor?:

HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER SNOW/ICE STORM
HEARING NOTICE
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”

The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.

DC WEATHER REPORT:

Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning...then a chance of snow in the afternoon. Ice accumulation of less than one quarter of an inch. Highs in the mid 30s. Northwest winds around 20 mph. Chance of precipitation 80 percent.

Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph.

2007-02-13T02:01:00.000-08:00

The Great global warming update:

Alarmists on a hot tin roof: Global warming psychology
By Robert E. Meyer (02/12/07)

An issue that has garnered much attention lately, in between the media bites about Iraq and the salacious lives of celebrities, is the controversy over global warming. Both the pro and the con side consider their opponents the heretical misfits and purveyors of junk science.

But the debate is not so much about whether the earth is actually warming, but whether the phenomenon is man-made, and must culminate in catastrophe.

While most of us lack any academic credentials to have an informed opinion on the matter, we do possess the logical faculties to philosophically cross-examine the cogency of any theory presented to us.

I remain skeptical of the alarmist approach, and wish to offer some concerns I have.

Geologists tell us that we had a glacial ice age only several thousand years ago. How did the earth warm by over several degrees without any man-made carbon dioxide to account for it?

Whenever people say: "Most credible scientists believe..." The statement following becomes subjective and almost meaningless, because unless someone first believes in particular interpretations of a given phenomenon, they won't be considered "credible" to begin with.

In general, people confuse two concepts: expertise and objectivity. Having great intelligence or specialized knowledge isn't assurance against a person remaining unbiased in their public opinions. Persons of all stripes are generally loyal to their source of income. We shouldn't assume that every expert begins their search tabula rasa, that is to say, without an agenda or wholly independent of prevailing consensus.

Why do we assume that a variance in the 5% of carbon dioxide caused by human activity is sufficient to put the climate out of kilter, but changes in the 95% of naturally produced carbon dioxide is irrelevant? Notice also, that whether it is warm or cold, global warming is given as the reason, thus inoculating the concept from falsification.

How come developing countries such as China or India are held to lesser pollution standards under the provisions of the Kyoto Treaty? Does the environment care which countries contaminate the atmosphere?

The whole psychology of catastrophe is hardly new. When my parents were young, they were told we would soon run out of the earth's supply of coal. At various times, the same was predicted of crude oil. When I was younger, I sat in science classes where documentary films were shown that predicted the earth was cooling, and that we would all need gas masks by the mid 1980's because of pollution. Such was predicted in a Newsweek editorial in the April 28th, 1975 edition. http://denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

In the 1960's we were terrorized by the specter of Paul Ehrlich, and his "population bomb" statistics. When we moved into the 1980's, we were warned of the ominous "Jupiter Effect," an event where all the planets were in orbital alignment, causing a catastrophic gravitational force for the inhabitants of earth.

In the fall of 1983, we had a Sunday night television premier of the "The Day After." The movie depicted a nuclear holocaust, and how it impacted residents of small town Kansas. The movie terrified a nation that had endured over three decades of cold-war threat. After the movie, a network anchor interviewed then Secretary of State George Shultz, asking the prophetical question borrowed from Charles Dickens story, A Christmas Carol: "Are these shadows of the way things must be, or only shadows of the way things might be"? Schultz emphatically answered "neither."

read more here

2007-02-13T01:48:00.000-08:00

The Great global warming update:

Scenes from the Climate Inquisition

By Kenneth P. Green, Steven F. Hayward
Posted: Monday, February 12, 2007

On February 2, an AEI research project on climate change policy that we have been organizing was the target of a journalistic hit piece in Britain's largest left-wing newspaper, the Guardian. The article's allegation--that we tried to bribe scientists to criticize the work of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)--is easy to refute. More troubling is the growing worldwide effort to silence anyone with doubts about the catastrophic warming scenario that Al Gore and other climate extremists are putting forth.

"Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today," read the Guardian's lead. The byline was Ian Sample, the paper's science correspondent, and his story ran under the headline "Scientists Offered Cash to Dispute Climate Study."

Sample spoke to one of us for five minutes to gather a perfunctory quotation to round out his copy, but he clearly was not interested in learning the full story. He found time, however, to canvass critics for colorful denunciations of the American Enterprise Institute as "the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra," with nothing but "a suitcase full of cash."

As we were completing this article, a letter arrived from senators Bernard Sanders, Pat Leahy, Dianne Feinstein, and John Kerry expressing "very serious concerns" about our alleged "attempt to undermine science." Show-trial hearing to follow? Stay tuned.

Every claim in the story was false or grossly distorted, starting with the description of the American Enterprise Institute as a "lobby group"--AEI engages in no lobbying--funded by the world's largest oil company. The Guardian reports that "AEI has received more than $1.6 million from ExxonMobil." Yes--over the last seven years, a sum that represents less than 1 percent of AEI's total revenue during that period.

The irony of this story line is that AEI and similar right-leaning groups are more often attacked for supposedly ignoring the scientific "consensus" and promoting only the views of a handful of "skeptics" from the disreputable fringe. Yet in this instance, when we sought the views of leading "mainstream" scientists, our project is said to be an attempt at bribery. In any event, it has never been true that we ignore mainstream science; and anyone who reads AEI publications closely can see that we are not "skeptics" about warming. It is possible to accept the general consensus about the existence of global warming while having valid questions about the extent of warming, the consequences of warming, and the appropriate responses. In particular, one can remain a policy skeptic, which is where we are today, along with nearly all economists.

The substantive backstory, in brief, is as follows

2007-02-12T11:23:00.000-08:00

The Great global warming update:

Chill out on climate hype

By Mark Steyn
February 5, 2007

From the "Environmental News Network": "Science is solid on climate change, Congress told." "The science is solid," says Louise Frechette, deputy secretary-general of the United Nations. "The science is solid," says California's Sen. Dianne Feinstein. "The science is really solid," says TV meteorologist Heidi Cullen. "The science is very solid."
And at that point, on "Larry King Live" last week, Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, remarked: "Heidi says the science is solid and I can't criticize her because she never says what science she's talking about." Indeed. If the science is so solid, maybe they could drag it out to the Arctic for the poor polar bears to live on now that the ice is melting faster than a coed's heart at an Al Gore lecture.
Alas, the science isn't so solid. In the 1970s, it predicted a new ice age. Then it switched to global warming. Now it prefers "climate change." If it's hot, that's a sign of "climate change." If it's cold, that's a sign of "climate change." If it's 53 with sunny periods and light showers, you need to grab an overnight bag and get outta there right now because "climate change" is accelerating out of control.
The silliest argument is the anecdotal one: "You only have to look outside your window to see that climate change is happening." Outside my window in northern New England last week, it was minus 20 Fahrenheit. Very cold. Must be the old climate change kicking in, right? After all, December was very mild, itself a sign of climate change. A few years ago, the little old lady who served as my town's historian for many decades combed over the farmers' diaries from two centuries ago that various neighbors had donated to her: From the daily records of 15 Januarys, she concluded three were what we would now regard as classic New Hampshire winters, ideal for lumbering or winter sports; eight had January thaws; and four had no snow at all. This was in the pre-industrial 18th century.
Today, faced with eight thaws and four entirely snowless Januarys, we would all run around shrieking that the great Gaia is displeased. Wake up and smell the CO2, people. We need to toss another virgin into the volcano. A virgin SUV, that is. Brand new model, straight off the assembly line, cupholders never used. And as the upholstery howls in agony, we natives will stand around chanting along with High Priestess Natalie Cole's classic recording: "Unsustainable, that's what you are."
As we say in the North Country, if you don't like the weather, wait 5 minutes. And if you don't like the global weather, wait three decades. For the last century or so, the planet has gone through very teensy-weensy warming trends followed by very teensy-weensy cooling trends followed by very teensy-weensy warming trends, every 30 years or so. And, even when we're in a pattern of "global warming" or "global cooling", the phenomenon is not universally observed -- i.e., it's not "global," or even very local. In the Antarctic, the small Palmer Peninsula has got a little warmer but the main continent is colder. Up north, the western Arctic's a little warmer but the eastern Arctic's colder. So, if you're an eastern polar bear, you're in clover -- metaphorically, I hasten to add. If you're a western polar bear, you'll be in clover literally in a year or two, according to Al Gore.
And, if you really don't like the global weather, wait half-a-millennium. A thousand years ago, the Arctic was warmer than now. Circa 982, Erik the Red and a bunch of other Vikings landed in Greenland and thought, "Wow. This land really is green. Who knew?" So they started farming it, and were living it up for a couple of centuries. Then the Little Ice Age showed up, and they all died. A terrible warning to us all about "unsustainable development": if a few hundred Vikings doing a little light hunter-gathering can totally unbalance the environment, imagine the havoc John Edwards' new house must be wreaking.
The question is whether what's happening now is just the natural give-and-take of the planet, as Erik the Red and my town's early settlers understood it. Or is it something so unprecedented we need to divert vast resources to a transnational elite bureaucrats so they can do their best to cripple the global economy and deny much of the developing world access to the healthier and longer lives capitalism brings?
To the eco-chondriacs that's a no-brainer. As Mark Fenn of the Worldwide Fund for Nature says in the new documentary "Mine Your Own Business":
"In Madagascar, the indicators of quality of life are not housing. They're not nutrition, specifically. They're not health in a lot of cases. It's not education. A lot of children in Fort Dauphin do not go to school because the parents don't consider that to be important. ... People have no jobs, but if I could put you with a family and you could count how many times in a day that family smiles. Then I put you with a family well off, in New York or London, and you count how many times people smile. ... You tell me who is rich and who is poor."
Well, if smiles are the measure of quality of life, I'm Bill Gates; I'm laughing my head off. Male life expectancy in Madagascar is 52? years. But Mark Fenn is right: those l'il children sure look awful cute dancing up and down when the big environmentalist activist flies in to shoot the fund-raising video.
If "global warming" is real and if man is responsible, why then do so many "experts" need to rely on obviously fraudulent data? The famous "hockey stick" graph showed the planet's climate history as basically one long bungalow with the Empire State Building tacked on the end. Completely false.

Page 1 of 2 next »

2007-02-12T10:30:00.000-08:00

The Great global warming update:

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis. In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions: Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?• A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.• Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...• A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice. • Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?• A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.• Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?• A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.• Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...• A: ...I am right...• Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?• A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.• Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?• A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say. [English translation from Harvard Professor Lubos Motl]