stubble jumping redneck

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

Global Cooling...

...and I do mean global:

Weather Bulletin 3: International Cold Spell

"...cold weather has claimed the lives of five Marylander’s between mid-November and Mid-December."

[---]

"The Japan Times reports that six people died during extremely heavy snow which blanketed much of Japan December 5-7. The blizzard left more than 1,200 people in the Tokushima Prefecture cut off from the rest of the nation as roads were blocked due to snow, falling trees and rocks. More than 45 inches of snow fell in the Sukayu area of Japan, and 38 inches of snow covered the village of Okura."

[---]

"Just across the Sea of Japan, South Korea also suffered from bitterly cold weather and unusual amounts of snowfall with Seoul experiencing fall temperatures of 13 degrees below zero. Snow and strong winds knocked down power lines in eight towns across two districts leaving more than 37,000 families shivering in the cold."

[---]

"Meanwhile parts of India are also experiencing unusually cold weather. Mountainous tribal areas were 15 to 20 degrees below freezing point while Keylong, Manali and Kalpa recorded a low of 19 degrees , 26 degrees and minus 29 degrees respectively. As a result, lakes and other natural sources of water like springs, creeks and tributaries of major rivers are frozen in high altitude areas.

Even the nation’s capital experienced temperatures seven degrees below average for this time of year. Four peoples deaths have been attributed to the cold weather."

The next ice age cometh?

Related.

Climate Custers’ Last Stand…Top German Climate Scientists See No End To “Warming Pause”. Now Concede Oceans A “Major Climate Factor” - See more at: http://notrickszone.com/2014/12/19/climate-custers-last-stand-top-german-scientists-see-no-end-to-warming-pause-now-concede-oceans-a-major-climate-factor/#sthash.lEnZCeph.dpuf

Labels: AGW, AGW scam, CAGW, global cooling

Monday, January 02, 2012

God Help Us...

...if global warming is still on the agenda next year at this time. This scam has been a harder one to kill than I'd expected it to be. I guess when careers and grants are on the line, the con artists have found it necessary to double down. Here is a great article on what's known and not known - and what's up:

Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!

"...in discussing the surface temperatures generally reported for the latter part of the 20th century; they form the science basis for prosperity-killing international climate policy."

[---]

"...the scientific conclusions derived from such temperatures are not real, but I don't imply that the values themselves have been purposefully altered or adjusted. We simply don't have any information to support such an accusation.

But I do claim that the commonly reported and accepted warming between 1978 and 2000 is based only on thermometers from land surface stations and is not supported by any other evidence that I could find. Specifically, ocean data (from 71% of the earth's surface) and global atmospheric data (as recorded by satellites and independent balloon-borne radiosondes) do not show such a warming at all. In addition, most proxy data, from non-thermometer sources such as tree rings, ocean sediments, ice cores, stalagmites, etc., show no warming during this same crucial period. (One has to be careful in this analysis since the year 1998 shows a major warming spike caused by a Super-El Niño. But by 1999 and 2000, temperatures had returned to pre-1998 values.)

Now, I am well aware of the fact that the recent release of the temperature data from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project does show a warming trend from 1978 to 2000. Many would jump to the conclusion that this represents confirmation of the existence of global warming -- or even of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). However, that would be an error in logic.

What the BEST result shows is that surface thermometers from the land area of the globe (about 29% of the earth's surface) show a warming trend. But this is not global warming. And BEST director Professor Rich Muller explicitly disclaims that his trend results indicate a human cause.

He also correctly points out that many of the weather stations used are badly distributed, mostly in the U.S. and western Europe, and possibly subject to local heating effects, such as urban heat islands. He cautions that a third of his monitoring stations show a cooling, not a warming. And that 70% of the U.S. stations are poorly situated and don't satisfy the requirements of the U.S. Weather Service."

[---]

"While we can applaud the fact that the BEST results agree with other analyses of weather station data, we still need to explain why they don't agree with atmospheric trends that are close to zero, or with ocean data that show no appreciable warming.

As a first step, the BEST data are ideally suited for a number of internal checks. For example, one would like to see if the number of stations changed appreciably between 1970 and 2000, and if their "demographics" changed -- which might lead to the formation of artificial trends.

There are many other such tests that can be performed. They might help us discover why land surface data disagree with all other data; thereby, we may get a better handle on whether the planet is really warming. We note here that the BEST results do not show any warming trend in the 21st century -- even though carbon dioxide levels have been rising more rapidly than before."

[---]

"Professor Muller and his colleagues do not claim that their results indicate a human source for warming -- unlike the IPCC, the U.N. Science Panel, which has claimed to be 90%-99% sure that the late-20th century warming is anthropogenic. But if there is no warming between 1978 and 2000, then IPCC's case collapses -- and so do all policies built on the IPCC conclusion.

But this whole matter has really moved beyond any academic discussion. Industrialized nations that signed the Kyoto Protocol (including the U.S., which did not ratify) have already wasted hundreds of billions of dollars on policies based on the acceptance of the IPCC claim that greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide from the burning of oil, gas, and coal) are responsible for a reported warming -- which may not even exist.

(By now it should be obvious that [1] the enshrined temperature limit of +2 degC [beyond which climate disasters are supposed to set in] is based on fiction and has no scientific basis. As an annual global average temperature, so climate models tell us, it would mean warmer winter nights in Siberia and Canada -- perhaps -35 degrees instead of -40 -- and little warming in the tropics. [2] It should also be obvious that even strenuous and economy-killing efforts at mitigation will have little effect on atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, let alone on climate. If a demonstration is needed, just look at the lack of warming since 1998, in spite of rapidly rising levels of greenhouse gases.)

As is evident from the Climategate e-mails, a small group of scientists, mainly in the U.K. and U.S., have managed to freeze out contrary evidence from being published in the scientific literature or in IPCC reports. The self-described "Team" members brazenly discuss strategies and action plans to further "The Cause." Unfortunately, they have largely succeeded -- and continue to influence publications, thanks to some key journalists and editors. In consequence of this evident conspiracy, it is hardly surprising that politicians, the media, and the general public are receiving entirely wrong information about supposedly catastrophic effects of a future warming.

The just-concluded Durban conference, the 17th in an annual series, demonstrates clearly that the whole discussion is no longer about science, but instead is all about money. 1) How to assure continuing government careers for nearly 200 delegations, with annual vacations paid by taxpayers. (2) How to transfer $100 billion a year from industrialized nations to LDCs (or more precisely, to their kleptocratic rulers), using "climate justice" or "climate guilt" (depending on who is doing the talking). (3) How to gain a national advantage by setting differential emission limits of CO2 -- supposedly to keep the planet from reaching a "dangerous" level of warming."

On the other hand, some could be worried that their heads will roll if they don't keep up the facade.

There's more at the link.

Labels: AGW, global warming

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Yes, I Do Believe We Are...

UPDATED AND BUMPED: Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years

"The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, the data was issued last week without fanfare by the Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. It confirms that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997."

Say what? The MET Office? The University of East Anglia?? Saints preserve us. They're now backtracking as if Climategate never happened.

"Meanwhile, leading climate scientists yesterday told The Mail on Sunday that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.

Solar output goes through 11-year cycles, with high numbers of sunspots seen at their peak.

We are now at what should be the peak of what scientists call ‘Cycle 24’ – which is why last week’s solar storm resulted in sightings of the aurora borealis further south than usual. But sunspot numbers are running at less than half those seen during cycle peaks in the 20th Century.

Analysis by experts at NASA and the University of Arizona – derived from magnetic-field measurements 120,000 miles beneath the sun’s surface – suggest that Cycle 25, whose peak is due in 2022, will be a great deal weaker still.

According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.

However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid."

But, but, but,...that's not what we've been told by our betters.

"Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide."

Oh, I see. I knew there had to be an explanation. /sarc

Yes folks. The great climb-down-while-covering-your-ass is in full swing.

=======Original Post Starts Here========
...winning:

No Need to panic about global warming

"A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed."

[---]

"In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.

Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2."

[---]

"Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse."

RTWT

PS: I wonder how long it will take useful idiots like Saskboy to climb down. I don't expect they will ever admit they were wrong or duped. They'll just quietly slink away, hoping we don't notice.

Labels: AGW scam, global warming, IPCC, useful idiotry

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Busted: Catastrophic Climate Change Cash Cow

Or, the MSM is lying to you. (Updated)

The other day I was arguing my position on the global warming scam with a committed warm monger in the comments at Inside the CBC. If you've never been to that website and you want to take on CBC's loyal lefties, go for it. You'll have great fun. The lefties have been under serious and heavy attack about all sorts of CBC shenanigans. You'll notice that they all belie a deep seated fear that CBC could not make it as a privately funded network, but they are loath to come right out with it. But I digress.

In one particular thread, one of the warm mongers put forth the tired old meme about climate skeptics being in the pocket of big oil. I challenged him to look into the sources of funding that drives the warmest camp. I know he won't, so I've done a bit of investigating for myself.

Enjoy:

Climate of Fear, Global Warming Alarmists Intimidate Dissenting Scientists into Silence Richard Lindzen, April 2006

"Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.

But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."

Great global warming funding scheme Marc Morano, August 2007

(Newsweek) "Reporter Eve Conant, who interviewed Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, was given all the latest data proving conclusively that it is the proponents of man-made global warming fears that enjoy a monumental funding advantage over the skeptics. (A whopping $50 BILLION to a paltry $19 MILLION and some change for skeptics – Yes, that is BILLION to MILLION)"

[---]

"...but the Magazine chose instead to focus on how skeptics have reportedly received a paltry $19 MILLION from ExxonMobil over the last two decades.

[--]

"The U.S. alone has spent $30 billion on federal programs directly or indirectly related to global warming in just the last six years, according to one estimate. ($5.79 billion in 2006 alone) Adding to this total is funding from the UN, foundations, universities, foreign governments, etc. Huge sums of money continue to flow toward addressing climate fears. In August, a State Treasurer in California "proposed a $5 billion bond measure to combat global warming," according to the Sacramento Bee. Even if you factor in former Vice President Al Gore's unsubstantiated August 7, 2007 assertion that $10 million dollars a year from the fossil fuel industry flows into skeptical organizations, any funding comparison between skeptics and warming proponents utterly fails."

[---]

"Gore to launch $100 million a year multimedia global warming fear campaign. Gore alone will now be spending $90 million more per year than he alleges the entire fossil fuel industry spends, according to an August 26, 2007 article in Advertising Age."

[---]

"“[Newsweek] alleges that a few scientists were offered $10,000 (!) by Big Oil to research and publish evidence against the theory of manmade global warming. Of course, the vast majority of mainstream climate researchers receive between $100,000 to $200,000 from the federal government to do the same, but in support of manmade global warming,”"

[---]

"Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon. No man-made global warming, the money dries up.

Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund, have raked in billions of dollars. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams,..."

"In other words, many people have discovered they can benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest."

[---]

"The [climate] alarmists also enjoy a huge financial advantage over the skeptics with numerous foundations funding climate research, University research money and the United Nations endless promotion of the cause. Just how much money do the climate alarmists have at their disposal? There was a $3 billion donation to the global warming cause from Virgin Air’s Richard Branson alone. The well-heeled environmental lobbying groups have massive operating budgets compared to groups that express global warming skepticism. The Sierra Club Foundation 2004 budget was $91 million and the Natural Resources Defense Council had a $57 million budget for the same year. Compare that to the often media derided Competitive Enterprise Institute’s small $3.6 million annual budget. In addition, if a climate skeptic receives any money from industry, the media immediately labels them and attempts to discredit their work. The same media completely ignore the money flow from the environmental lobby to climate alarmists like James Hansen and Michael Oppenheimer. (ie. Hansen received $250,000 from the Heinz Foundation and Oppenheimer is a paid partisan of Environmental Defense Fund) The alarmists have all of these advantages, yet they still feel the need to resort to desperation tactics to silence the skeptics." (Dr. Fred) Singer June, 2007.

Climategate: Follow the Money Bret Stephens December 2009

"Consider the case of Phil Jones, the director of the CRU and the man at the heart of climategate. According to one of the documents hacked from his center, between 2000 and 2006 Mr. Jones was the recipient (or co-recipient) of some $19 million worth of research grants, a sixfold increase over what he'd been awarded in the 1990s.

Why did the money pour in so quickly? Because the climate alarm kept ringing so loudly: The louder the alarm, the greater the sums.

Thus the European Commission's most recent appropriation for climate research comes to nearly $3 billion, and that's not counting funds from the EU's member governments. In the U.S., the House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California—apparently not feeling bankrupt enough—devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal.

And all this is only a fraction of the $94 billion that HSBC Bank estimates has been spent globally this year on what it calls "green stimulus"—largely ethanol and other alternative energy schemes—of the kind from which Al Gore and his partners at Kleiner Perkins hope to profit handsomely."

The Money Trail Joanne Nova, March 2010

"For all the smears of big money funding the "deniers", the numbers reveal that the sceptics are actually the true grassroots campaigners, while Greenpeace defends Wall St."

[---]

"The big-money side of this debate has fostered a myth that sceptics write what they write because they are funded by oil profits. They say, follow the money? So I did and it's chilling. Greens and environmentalists need to be aware each time they smear with an ad hominem attack they are unwittingly helping giant finance houses."

[---]

"Money for the Climate Industry: The US government spent $79 billion on climate research and technology since 1989 - to be sure, this funding paid for things like satellites and studies, but it's 3,500 times as much as anything offered to sceptics. It buys a bandwagon of support, a repetitive rain of press releases, and includes PR departments of institutions like NOAA, NASA, the Climate Change Science Program and the Climate Change Technology Program. The $79 billion figure does not include money from other western governments, private industry, and is not adjusted for inflation. In other words, it could be…a lot bigger."

[---]

"For direct PR comparisons though, just look at "Think Climate Think Change": the Australian Government put $13.9 million into just one quick advertising campaign. There is no question that there are vastly more financial rewards for people who promote a carbon-made catastrophe than for those who point out the flaws in the theory."

[---]

"What the US Government has paid to one side of the scientific process pales in comparison with carbon trading. According to the World Bank, turnover of carbon trading reached $126 billion in 2008. PointCarbon estimates trading in 2009 was about $130 billion."

Ultimately the big problem is that there are no grants for scientists to demonstrate that carbon has little effect. There are no Institutes of Natural Climate Change, but plenty that are devoted to UnNatural Forces."

[---]

"Unpaid sceptics are not just taking on scientists who conveniently secure grants and junkets for pursuing one theory, they also conflict with potential profits of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Barclays, Morgan Stanley, and every other financial institution or corporation that stands to profit like the Chicago Climate Exchange, European Climate Exchange, PointCarbon, IdeaCarbon (and the list goes on… ) as well as against government bureaucracies like the IPCC and multiple departments of Climate Change."

[---]

"Greens don't appear to notice that they fight tooth and nail for a market in a "commodity" which isn't a commodity and that guarantees profits for big bankers. The public though are figuring it out."

"Commissioner Bart Chilton, head of the energy and environmental markets advisory committee of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), has predicted that within five years a carbon market would dwarf any of the markets his agency currently regulates: "I can see carbon trading being a $2 trillion market." "The largest commodity market in the world." He ought to know.

It promises to be larger than the markets for coal, oil, gold, wheat, copper or uranium. Just soak in that thought for a moment. Larger than oil.

Richard L. Sandor, chairman and chief executive officer of Climate Exchange Plc, agrees and predicts trades eventually will total $10 trillion a year." That's 10 thousand billion dollars."

[---]

"Those resorting to this vacuous, easily refutable point should be shamed into lifting their game. The ad hominem argument is Stone Age reasoning, and the "money" insult they throw, bounces right back at them — a thousand-fold."

Fraudsters. All of them. When the whitewashing inquiries are done, after a class action suit against the blacklisters (which is sure to come) is over, it's time to get serious about the misuse of all that money.

Labels: AGW scam, CBC, global warming, media bias

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Back to Plimer - Chapter 2 - HISTORY

I've quoted Plimer and posted some vids before. But now it's time to quote a few of the gems from the chapters of Heaven and Earth: global warming the missing science that I've read, so far. (Admittedly, it's taking me forever to read it. I spend way too much time on the net.) Some of it is pretty scary, like the following, from the chapter on "History":

"Evidence suggests that the shift from interglacial to glacial conditions occurred in only 400 years." (pg.37)

[---]

"The change from warmth to the bitter cold of the Younger Dryas took less than 100 years and maybe only a decade." (pg. 43)

[---]

"It appears that the end of the Younger Dryas took place over 40-50 years in three different steps, each about five years duration. Other data indicates a warming of 7 degrees C in only a few years, half of the warming taking place in a 15-year period. Such a warming rate is far higher than even the most alarmist catastrophic warming suggested by models of human-induced global warming." (pg. 46)

[---]

"Climate change is a powerful causal agent for the evolution of civilization. Global cooling is generally associated with a collapse of civilization, whereas global warming is associated with great advances in civilization." (pg. 55)

[---]

"History shows us that global warming gives us nothing to fear. If we need to fear something, then the best candidate is a global mega-drought associated with cooling and driven by solar activity. It's happened before and it will happen again." (pg. 55)

Yikes!

"The Vikings, who were already great mariners, sailed north and west and established settlements in Greenland, Iceland and North America....The ice-free North Atlantic meant that the Vikings could travel and they called Newfoundland "vinland" because of the vineyards there. Cattle, sheep and barley were grown in Greenland, tree roots could penetrate soil that was once tundra, fishing for cod and seals took place on ice-free seas, burials could be undertaken in soils that were not frozen, villages were established and the Pope sent a bishop to Greenland to care for his Norse flock." (pg. 65)

[---]

"The Doomsday Book of England shows where grapes were grown, in places where no grapes could now be cultivated for wine production. England, now a cool damp place, was warmer and drier in the Medieval Warming. England thrived and its population grew from 1.4 million to 5.5 million. France's population tripled to 18 million.

Vineyards in Germany were up to 780 metres above sea level whereas today the maximum altitude is 560 metres above sea level. Temperature usually decreases by 0.6 to 0.7 per 100 metres of altitude gained, so the average mean temperature must have been 1.0 to 1.4 degrees C warmer than now. Settlements, land clearing and farming in valleys and slopes spread 100 to 200 metres higher in altitude in Norway, again suggesting that summer temperatures were 1 degree C higher than now. Tree lines moved upslope in the Medieval Warming and the stumps and roots are still preserved above the current tree line in many alpine areas. Stumps and logs of Larix sibirica 30 metres above the current tree line in the Polar Urals have been dated and show that at 1000 AD the tree line was higher than now. This treeline receded around 1350 AD, indicating the effects of the following Little Ice Age." (pg. 65-66)

Many of the CO2 alarmists have claimed past warming was localized to northern latitudes, but sorry pals, it ain't so.

"Examination or temperature indicators in boreholes in Australia has given a 500-year record of temperature. The 17th Century was the coolest in the 500 year period, with warming in the 19th and 20th Centuries. The warming of Australia over the past five centuries is only about half that experienced by the continents of the Northern Hemisphere. More importantly, the Australian and South Pacific data shows that the Little Ice Age was global. This is contrary to the suggestion that the Little Ice Age was restricted to the Northern Hemisphere and was caused by a weakening in the Gulf Stream. Stalagmites in a cave in the Makapansgat Valley of South Africa show that the region was 1 degree C cooler from 1300 to 1800 AD. The lowest temperatures recorded in South Africa were in the Maunder and Sporer Minima. Again it is clear that the Little Ice Age was global and not regional." (pg. 80)

[---]

"The Little Ice Age brought famine, disease, death, depopulation, war and social disintegration. The previous cooling, the Dark Ages, did the same. Over the last 1000 years in Europe, there is a correlation between violence, conflict, cold weather and precipitation. Cold times bring violence, war, depopulation and human misery." (pg. 86)

[---]

"The evidence from history, archaeology and science is overwhelming. It shows substantial changes in climate over the last 130,000 years. Many of these changes are cyclical and coincidental with solar cycles. These changes are rapid. The evidence from geology is also overwhelming. Since the explosion of multicellular life (at 542 Ma) [Ed: "Ma" means "million years ago"], there were times when Earth was far colder and far warmer than now. It also includes times when atmospheric CO2 was far higher than now. (pg. 86)"

And that's just a tiny smattering of the gems referred to in Chapter 2 of Plimer's book, which cites 400 historical and scientific sources. But perhaps the best of the best is his final sentence on page 99:

"History cannot be rewritten just because it does not fit a computer model with a pre-ordained conclusion."

Take that, Saskboy. I'd like to see you, or for that matter, Brad Wall go mano-mano with Ian Plimer.

Next up. Chapter 3 THE SUN. You'll have to wait until tomorrow, though.

Labels: AGW scam, Plimer's da Man, Saskboy

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Global Warming: An Answer to Dennis Brown

(Warning: This is going to be a long one.)

A few days ago, I was commenting on a CBC website on the issue CBC's bias and in the course of the debate, a fellow by the name of Dennis Brown and I had an exchange about global warming. (Ya, we had drifted off topic, but one of the most consistent and egregious areas of CBC bias occurs in its coverage of the global warming scam, which is to say, they don't cover it.)

Anyway, Dennis appears to be not only intelligent but a Class "A" gentleman, certainly by comparison to many other loyal CBCers who comment on various stories, in any case. His response is copied below. I promised to respond to him on my blog, but on Saturday morning, when I was all fired up to compose a reply, I lost access to the internet. Sasktel's trusty technicians have just fixed the problem (I was undergoing some deep withdrawal pains, believe me, so thanks, guys).

So, anyway, here goes. Dennis's remarks are in blue. I've bolded the points to which I am responding. In my response, I am going to quote at length from an Australian scientist, Ian Plimer's book Heaven and Earth: Global warming, the missing science (Taylor Trade Publishing, 2009)

First, Dennis's reply:

"I realize I didn’t address Louise’s points on what she calls “the AGW scam”. In my previous post, I wanted to present my thoughts on the Erin report. Let’s look at the links on the climate change issue that Louise has provided. In the first one, a story that appeared May 29 in the Times of London, a small group of scientists affiliated with the Royal Society has demanded that the Society revoke a statement made by the previous head of the Society, Lord May, that “the debate on climate change is over.”

Lord May’s science specialty is chemical engineering and theoretical physics. Heavy stuff but not climatology or meteorology. Sir Alan Rudge, leader of the dissenters, has a specialty in electrical engineering. Again heavy stuff but not in the field where the observations, measurement and analysis must be done.

This is absolute nonsense. Climate is influenced by chemical composition of the atmosphere and most certainly all earth sciences come under the general field of physics. And besides that, Lord May was the Head of the Society. That doesn't make him anything more than an officer of the organization. It doesn't imply that he has any more or any less expertise in the field of climatology than anyone other member of the Society. He was simply filling a role on the executive, which almost every organization worth it's salt must have in order to carry out its business.

Back to Plimer's book, though. You should buy it, Dennis. My copy is 492 pages and a bit, with ample footnotes on virtually every page to thousands of peer-reviewed articles which have appeared in the scientific and other (most notably historiographic) literature. Dr. Plimer is "Australia's best known geologist." Among his many other publications is the book, A Short History of Planet Earth. In other words, he knows his stuff and he's done his research.

And while you're at it, buy a copy of the book for CBC's Dr. Fruitfly, who is a geneticist, not a climatologist and a copy for Bob McDonald, whose field of expertise I don't know, but it sure ain't climatology. In any case, neither of them are practicing scientists. They are TV personalities and I bet they haven't published a peer-reviewed scientific paper in years, if ever.

Any Yanks reading this, I would suggest you send a truckload of Plimer's book to both of Algoracle's mansions, 'cause he sure isn't a climatologist, either. He ain't even a scientist, but he is invested up to his ears in green technology. No conflict of interest, there, is there, Dennis. I'm all for investing in green technology, but not for non-existent problems.

Before I quote Plimer words themselves, though, I will take a little snippet from the back cover:

"This book's 504 pages and over 2,300 references to peer-reviewed scientific literature and other authoritative sources engagingly synthesize what we know about the Sun, Earth, ice, water, and air. Importantly, in a parallel to his 1994 book challenging "creation science", Telling Lies for God, Ian Plimer describes Al Gore's book and movie An Inconvenient Truth as long on scientific "misrepresentations." "Trying to deal with these misrepresentations is somewhat like trying to argue with creationists," he writes, "who misquote, concoct evidence, quote out of context, ignore contrary evidence, and create evidence ex nihilo."

That's right, Dennis, your heroes are the new "creationists".

The information on the back cover also says, "Ian Plimer, twice winner of Australia's highest scientific honor, the Eureka Prize, is professor in the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide and is author of six other books written for the general public in addition to more than 120 scientific papers." So, Dennis, how do Dr. Fruit Fly and Bob McDonald measure up on that score? My hunch is they ignore at will any scientific paper that contradicts the narrative.

Back to Dennis:

The Global Warming Policy Foundation, with which Rudge is affiliated, has its own controversies to deal with, its funding sources private, and temperature graphs on its website showing data contrary to actual measurements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_Foundation#Temperature_graph

So the fact that one non-specialist in the field made a sweeping statement of opinion as if it were official consensus in the field, and the fact that a representative of a climate skeptic advocacy group dissents doesn’t really settle any science question, does it?

Dennis seems to believe that the earth is something completely separate from the climate. Not so my friend. Climate is influenced by the entire earth system, no less than the atmosphere where the dreaded bogey man, CO2, is supposedly driving rapid climate change, as well as the sun.

What I can agree with is that the CBC should have reported this as political controversy under the politics or international section. Not hidden away in the science section.

The second link is to a conference sponsored, not by a gathering of climate researchers or even the Royal Society, but by the Heartland Institute, whose mission statement reads:

Heartland’s mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. Such solutions include parental choice in education, choice and personal responsibility in health care, market-based approaches to environmental protection, privatization of public services, and deregulation in areas where property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.

Maybe free market theoreticians know more about climate change than chemists or physics professors? The Heartland has its own list of critics and controversies:

Similarly, SourceWatch reports contributions to Heartland by ExxonMobil and implies improper influence, but again presents no evidence of this occurring. Walter Buchholtz was a public relations advisor for ExxonMobil during his service on The Heartland Institute’s Board of Directors, and like Marden, he helped persuade his company to contribute to Heartland. He never exerted improper influence on any Heartland staff, and his company never gave more than 5 percent the organization’s annual receipts.

http://www.heartland.org/about/truthsquad.html

At least the Heartland is up front about its funding, which is more than you can say about the GWPF.

I didn’t find these stories covered on the CBC website. Does that constitute bias? No, but in my opinion it constitutes negligence. If there are climate skeptic organizations or promoters of climate change controversies with unclear funding or qualifications, I’d want to know about it, wouldn’t you?

Funding sources have absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the science is solid, Dennis. Peer review, does. If you want to believe that funding sources imply dishonest or biased science, then you must also take into account who receives funding from green technology industries and also explain away the evidence produced in the Climategate emails that suggests warmist scientists took great pains to prevent proper peer review of their published findings. Better luck next time.

Now, to quote some key passages from Plimer's book, from the introduction alone:

"The IPCC gathered many climatologists, meteorologists, environmentalists and political activists and published several voluminous publications, the first of which was in 1990. These reports comprised a three-part scientific report under IPCC's directed headings. Three working groups had authors who contributed to a series of chapters under the guidance of lead authors and a lead chapter author. These people are touted as the 2500 scientific experts who constitute a consensus.

In the 1996 report on the impact of global warming on health, one contributing author was an expert on the effectiveness of motorcycle helmets. That author had also written on health effects of mobile phones. Other authors were environmental activists, one of whom had written on the health effects of mercury poisoning from land mines. If a land mine explodes, the last thing one thinks about is the health effects of mercury poisoning. In the 2007 report, the health effects of global warming were expertly dealt with by two lead authors, one of whom was a hygienist and another a specialist in coprotlites (fossil faeces). Those who drove the publication of the chapters on the health effects of global warming had no formal expertise in the chapters' subject material, especially tropical diseases. In fact, the expert opinions of tropical disease scientists were ignored by the other lead authors with no expertise in the field." (pg. 19-20)

Gives a whole new meaning to "shit happens", doesn't it, Dennis. But to continue with Plimer:

"The second stage of the IPCC process is that the draft Summary for Policymakers is submitted to governments, each of which can insist upon changes. These changes are made behind closed doors, the scientists who wrote three bulky volumes have no avenue for objection to political changes, and the final draft of the Summary forms the basis for a negotiating process and is not a peer review process. It is the process of politics. ---The IPCC process is related to environmental activism, politics and opportunism. It is unrelated to science." (pg. 20)

Now, to the really good stuff. This one puts the lie to Dennis's belief that only climatologists have the authority to pontificate on climate change:

"Climate science lacks scientific discipline. Studies of the Earth's atmosphere tell us nothing about future climate. An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentiology, tectonics, paleontology, glaciology, climatology, meterorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history." (pg. 15)

Here's more:

"The history of temperature change over time is related to the shape of the continents, the shape of the sea floor, the pulling apart of the crust, the stitching back together of the crust, the opening and closing of sea ways, comet dust, impacts by comets and asteroids, volcanic activity, bacteria, soil formation, sedimentation, ocean currents and the chemistry of air. If we humans, in a fit of ego, think we can change these normal planetary processes, then we need stronger medication." (pg. 11)

[---]

"If we look at the history of CO2 over time, we see the atmospheric CO2 content has been far higher than at present for most of time. Furthermore, atmospheric CO2 follows temperature rise - it does not create a temperature rise. To argue that human emissions of CO2 are forcing global warming requires all the known, and possibly chaotic, mechanisms of natural global warming to be critically analysed and dismissed. This has net even been attempted. To argue that we humans can differentiate between human induced climate changes and natural climate changes is naive. To argue that natural climate changes are slow and small is contrary to evidence. The slogan "Stop climate change" is a very public advertisement of absolute total ignorance as it is not cognisant of history, archaeology, geology, astronomy, ocean sciences, atmospheric sciences and the life sciences." (pg. 12)

[---]

"The level of scientific acceptance of human-induced global warming is misrepresented. Furthermore, the claim by some scientists that the threat of human-induced global warming in 90% certain (or even 99%) is a figure of speech reflecting the speaker's commitment to the belief. It has no mathematical or evidential basis. It is comparable to the 100% certainty professed by religious devotees that theirs if the one and only true faith. My experience of dealing with blindingly obvious arguments against creation "science" was that data and logic were treated with anger, rejection and hostility. Scientific arguments were never addressed. With some rabid environmentalists, human-induced global warming has evolved into a similar religious belief system, disconnected from Nature, and it evolved to fill a yawning spiritual vacuum in the Western world. Contrary scientific data and conclusions are greeted with anger, rejection and hostility. As more contrary data is aired, the defence of the indefensible produces grimmer and grimmer future climate scenarios. The scientific arguments are not addressed. These are the characteristics of a fundamentalist religion." (pg. 14-15)

[---]

"The IPCC continued to claim a consensus of scientists despite the fact that the UN Climate Change Bulletin in 1996 reported that only 10% of the 400 American, Canadian and German climate researchers expressed strong agreement that they are "certain that global warming is a process already underway". Some 48% of those surveyed stated they did not have faith in global climate forecast models. This finding was confirmed in 1997 by a survey of climatologists employed by 50 states in the USA. Nevertheless, the IPCC and the media still claimed a consensus as support for their findings.

One of the persistent problems that the IPCC faced was the Little Ice Age (1280-1850 AD) and the Medieval Warming (900-1300 AD). Evidence from a great diversity of sources showed that during the Medieval Warming, the global temperature was a few degrees higher than today. This created a problem for the IPCC because there were no major CO2 emitting industries at that time. The solution was simple and elegant - change history. By creating ex nibilo a "hockey stick" graph that showed that the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming did not exist and that temperature started to rise dramatically in the early 20th Century, clearly a result of industrialisation. In the 2001 version of the IPCC's report, the "hockey stick" was used as proof that we were all doomed to fry and it was all our fault." (pg. 22)

[---]

"The warm climate of Greenland 1000 years ago allowed the growing of grain, sheep and cattle. This warm climate could not have resulted from human emissions of CO2. A few hundred years later, the bitterly cold weather of the Little Ice Age could not have derived from a decrease in human emissions of CO2. There must be other causes of warming and cooling. How can we know that the slight warming since 1850 is due to humans adding CO2 to the atmosphere? Furthermore, there have also been coolings since 1850. There must be other global-scale natural processes at work and the question must be asked: Does atmospheric CO2 have anything at all to do with climate?

If CO2 derived from modern industrialisation is the culprit for global warming, then why did global temperature increased from 1918 to 1940, decrease from 1940 to 1976, increase from 1976 to 1998 and decrease from 1998 to the present? Throughout this period, humans were adding increasing amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere. The IPCC does not explain the temperature variations in the 20th century. There was alarm in the 1970s that the decreasing temperature was heralding another ice age. This was an important lesson from which nothing was learned. After 1976, temperature started to rise and again there was alarm, this time that there was going to be a period of global warming. Then temperatures started to fall after 1998. There is now silence. It is not possible to make computer model forecasts of climate change for the year 2040, 2100 or 2300 based on a few decades of data.

If we change the time scale and look at the last 6 million years, for 3 million years it was warmer than now. For the other 3 million years there was an increase in the magnitude of high-frequency warm and cold cycles. During the last three warm cycles, it was 5C warmer than now. Past natural climate changes have been partly cyclical and partly unpredictable and have nothing to do with human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere." (pg. 24-25)

[---]

"The year of 2008 was an exceptionally cold year. By the end of January 2008, blizzards and cold temperatures in China had killed 60 people, millions lost electricity service, nearly a million buildings were damaged, airports were closed and Hong Kong had the second longest cold spell since 1885. In February 2008, cold weather in Vietnam destroyed 40% of the rice crop and killed 33,000 head of livestock. In Mumbai (India), the lowest temperature for 40 years was recoded. In the USA, International Falls (Minnesota) set a new record (-40 C) breaking the old record (-37 C) set in 1967. In Reading (Pennsylvania), the temperature stayed below -40 C for six consecutive days for the first time since the 18th Century. Alaskan glaciers grew. On October, 29 2008, the USA beat or tied 115 low-temperature records for that date. Alaska, which was unusually warm in 2007, recorded -32C for that night, beating the previous low by 2C.

In the first week of December 2008, blizzards closed roads and schools, across northern England and Scotland. Large parts of the UK were blanketed with snow for the third time in the 2008-09 winter. At the time the UK government's Committee on Climate Change issued its first report on how Britain is to handle the terrifying threat of runaway global warming. Nature certainly has a keen sense of humour." (pg. 26-27)

That reminds me of my trip to Edmonton, Alberta, in mid-December (just six months ago). On the day I left to come home again, the Edmonton International Airport reported a temperature of -51C. That tops (or should I way "bottoms") the day I was in Flin Flon, Manitoba in the 1990s when the temp dipped to -50 C. Global warming, my ass.

Another passage from Plimer:

"If human emissions of CO2 have forced warming in the late 20th Century, then those making such a claim need to show that this warming is above and beyond natural warming. This not been done." (pg. 34)

Regarding the "alarming" rapidity of supposed AGW, Plimer has this to say in Chapter One:

"The change from warmth to the bitter cold of the Younger Dryas (ED: The period in earth history from 12,900 to 11,600 before the present) took less than 100 years and maybe only a decade."(pg. 43)

[---]

"It appears that the end of the Younger Dryas took place over 40-50 years in three different steps, each of about five years duration. Other data indicates a warming of 7 C in only a few years, half of the warming taking place in a 15-year period. Such a warming rate is far higher than even the most alarmist catastrophic warming suggested by models of human-induced global warming. The warming was to temperatures similar to those today. Humans, plants and animals adapted to rapid intense warming and rapid sea level rise after the Younger Dryas. This post-Younger Dryas warm period lasted for 2600 years. (pg. 46)

And finally, one more quote from the good Dr. Plimer:

"We humans on Earth have never had it better. Compared with 100, 200 or 500 years ago, we Westerners live longer, have a better diet, are wealthier, are healthier and the elderly have far better health care. Even in the Third World, times are far better than before, despite population increase. The daily food intake has increased by 38% since the 1960s to 2666 calories per person per day despite the fact that the population in those countries has increased by 83%. Food prices have decreased by 75%. Improved agricultural production and freer trade have guaranteed that a smaller proportion of the Third World starves. In the 1970s, 16% of people in the Third World subsisted on less than $1 per day. Now it is 6%. Those living on $2 per day dropped from 39% to 18%. Life expectancy has also improved. In China, it has increased from 41 years in the 1950s to 71 today; in India it has increased from 39 to 63. In both countries the lifespan of 2 billion people has been almost doubled. In 1900, the average life expectancy globally was 31 years. Now it is 67 years. There is a long way to go, but never in human history have so many people been liberated from the clutches of starvation and poverty.

Many environmentalists have a romantic view of the past and do not acknowledge the enormous struggle to stay alive in past times when unemployment, famines, disease, high child mortality, shortened lives and bitter cold dominated everyday life.

Don't give me the environmental romantic view about the good old days. They were not." (pg. 27)

Well said, Dr. Plimer. So, Dennis, if we have to reduce our "carbon footprint", I say the first step would be to dismantle that pack of hypocrites that infest the CBC.

Related: Shucks. We'll have to come up with a revised list.

Labels: AGW scam, CBC, Left, leftards, leftards and leftards, media bias, Plimer's da Man, useful idiotry

Sunday, July 27, 2014

Cooling. Warming. Cooling. Warming. Cooling. Warming. Take Your Pick

July playing it cool again when it comes to temperatures

"Keep the sweatshirts handy this week because temperatures are going to be below average as July wraps up and possibly stay that way through August."

Earth sees hottest June on record since 1880, NOAA says

"The world’s heat record was broken for a second consecutive month. With the exception of Antarctica, new temperature highs were recorded on every continent."

NOAA quietly changes past climate data

"Global warming supporters have been accused in the past of doctoring statistics to bolster their claims. Now the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been caught doing the opposite, altering data to make the past appear warmer and the present cooler.

The summer of 2012 was a scorcher. More than half of the country experienced drought and wildfires as temperatures soared. According to the NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, “average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895.” The previous record for warmest July had been set in 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F.

"The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century."

NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record

"The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, criticized for manipulating temperature records to create a warming trend, has now been caught warming the past and cooling the present.

July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the U.S. during a summer that was declared “too hot to handle” by NASA scientists. That summer more than half the country was experiencing drought and wildfires had scorched more than 1.3 million acres of land, according to NASA.

According to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in 2012, the “average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895.”

“The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F,” NOAA said in 2012.

This statement by NOAA was still available on their website when checked by The Daily Caller News Foundation. But when meteorologist and climate blogger Anthony Watts went to check the NOAA data on Sunday he found that the science agency had quietly reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record in the U.S."

NOAA Confirms The US Has 10 Years of Global Cooling

"The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century."

NOAA quietly changes past climate data

"The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.

Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting issues and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States. Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record. USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005. Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.

According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all – at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago. Instead, the United States has cooled by approximately 0.4 degrees Celsius, which is more than half of the claimed global warming of the twentieth century."

NOAA: Climate change is getting worse

"Greenhouse gas emissions, sea levels, global temperatures and super storms all are trending upward, NOAA said."

Labels: AGW scam, CAGW, global cooling, global warming

Tuesday, October 07, 2014

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Democrats at Risk of Global Warming Election Backlash

"Recent polling numbers may induce Republicans on the November ballot to turn certain Democrats’ obsession with global warming into a Republican weapon, slamming Democrats for ignoring much more important issues.

Several Democratic politicians and funding groups are attempting to make global warming a key issue in the November elections even though the public considers global warming a very low priority. To date, Republicans in such elections have assumed a low-key approach, trusting the global warming attacks will not find much political traction. Recent polling numbers, however, may induce Republicans to be bolder on the issue.

In mid-August, Gallup asked more than 1,000 American adults the following open-ended question: “What do you think is the most important problem facing the country today?” Gallup listed the top 12 responses, which accounted for 99 percent of the answers. Global warming did not make the list. If any of the 1,032 American adults answered global warming, the answer failed to reach even the 1 percent threshold.

In another poll released in late August, the Pew Research Center and USA Today presented more than 1,500 American adults with a list of nine potential threats to the United States and asked the respondents to indicate which ones they consider to be “major threats.” Global warming ranked dead last among Republicans and Independents, but first among Democrats.

When Democrats and Republicans have strong differences of opinion on a particular issue, polling among independents typically offers clues regarding who should and will emphasize the issue. Given that independents side with Republicans on the relative unimportance of global warming claims, it would seem most likely Republicans would push the issue and Democrats would not. Nevertheless, moneyed interests and environmental extremists have convinced some Democrats to emphasize their unpopular global warming views in the current election cycle."

Labels: America, Americans, Democrats, elections, global warming, Republicans

Monday, March 25, 2013

A Confession...

...that we really didn't need:

Global Warming was never about climate change!

"Opening remarks offered by Maurice Strong, who organized the first U.N. Earth Climate Summit (1992) in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, revealed the real goal: “We may get to the point where the only way of saving the world will be for industrialized civilization to collapse. Isn’t it our responsibility to bring this about?”

Former U.S. Senator Timothy Wirth (D-CO), then representing the Clinton-Gore administration as U.S Undersecretary of State for global issues, addressing the same Rio Climate Summit audience, agreed: “We have got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Wirth now heads the UN Foundation which lobbies for hundreds of billions of U.S. taxpayer dollars to help underdeveloped countries fight climate change.)

Also speaking at the Rio conference, Deputy Assistant of State Richard Benedick, who then headed the policy divisions of the U.S. State Department said: “A global warming treaty [Kyoto] must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect.”

In 1988, former Canadian Minister of the Environment Christine Stewart told editors and reporters of the Calgary Herald: “No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…climate change [provides] the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”

In 1996, former Soviet Union President Mikhail Gorbachev emphasized the importance of using climate alarmism to advance socialist Marxist objectives: “The threat of environmental crisis will be the international disaster key to unlock the New World Order.”

Speaking at the 2000 UN Conference on Climate Change in the Hague, former President Jacques Chirac of France explained why the IPCC’s climate initiative supported a key Western European Kyoto Protocol objective: “For the first time, humanity is instituting a genuine instrument of global governance, one that should find a place within the World Environmental Organization which France and the European Union would like to see established.”"

[---]

"For starters, let’s begin with two different views by some of the same researchers that are reported in the same year regarding whether there is a discernible human influence on global climate.

First, taken from a 1996 IPCC report summary written by B.D. Santer, T.M.L Wigley, T.P. Barnett, and E. Anyamba: “…there is evidence of an emerging pattern of climate response to forcings by greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols…from geographical, seasonal and vertical patterns of temperature change…These results point towards human influence on climate.”

Then, a 1996 publication “The Holocene”, by T.P. Barnett, B.D. Santer, P.D. Jones, R.S. Bradley and K.R. Briffa, says this: “Estimates of…natural variability are critical to the problem of detecting an anthropogenic [human] signal…We have estimated the spectrum…from paleo-temperature proxies and compared it with…general [climate] circulation models…none of the three estimates of the natural variability spectrum agree with each other…Until…resolved, it will be hard to say, with confidence, that an anthropogenic climate signal has or has not been detected.”

In other words, these guys, several of whom you will hear from later, can’t say with confidence whether or not humans have had any influence at all…or even if so, whether it has caused warming or cooling!

IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”

The late Stephen Schneider, who authored The Genesis Strategy, a 1976 book warning that global cooling risks posed a threat to humanity, later changed that view 180 degrees, serving as a lead author for important parts of three sequential IPCC reports. In a quotation published in Discover, he said: “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, on the other hand, we are not just scientists, but human beings as well. And like most people, we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that, we need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of the doubts we might have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”

Kevin Trenberth, a lead author of 2001 and 2007 IPCC report chapters, writing in a 2007 “Predictions of Climate” blog appearing in the science journalNature.com, admitted: “None of the models used by the IPCC are initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed state.”

Christopher Landsea, a top expert on the subject of cyclones, became astounded and perplexed when he was informed that Trenberth had participated in a 2004 press conference following a deadly 2004 Florida storm season which had announced, “Experts warn that global warming [is] likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense activity.” Since IPCC studies released in 1995 and 2001 had found no evidence of a global warming-hurricane link, and there was no new analysis to suggest otherwise, he wrote to leading IPCC officials imploring: “What scientific, refereed publications substantiate these pronouncements? What studies alluded to have shown a connection between observed warming trends on Earth and long-term trends of cyclone activity?”

Receiving no replies, he then requested assurance that the 2007 report would present true science, saying: “[Dr. Trenberth] seems to have come to a conclusion that global warming has altered hurricane activity, and has already stated so. This does not reflect consensus within the hurricane research community.” After that assurance didn’t come, Landsea, an invited author, resigned from the 2007 report activity and issued an open letter presenting his reasons."

RTWT

But we knew that, didn't we.

Related: Climate change: This is the worst scientific scandal of our generation

Look at the graph to see the evidence of global warming

"Met Office data show only a tiny change in world temperatures"

I think this thing is dead. The only reason to continue to cling to this scam is to save oneself from having to admit to being conned.

Labels: AGW scam, CAGW, doom and gloom, environuts

Friday, September 03, 2010

Plimer - Chapter 4 - THE EARTH (Part 1 - "Life")

Previously.

Took me a while, but here's the first installment of quotable quotes from the longest chapter in Plimer's book Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science, guaranteed to cause AGW freaks' heads to explode. Because the chapter is so long and chock-a-block full of good stuff, I'll break it into four or five parts, beginning with the section on "life":

"For the first 4 billion years of Earth history, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has been 3 to 100 times the current CO2 content. Life has been extracting CO2 for reefs and shells for billions of years." (pg. 156)

[---]

"As a result, the CO2 of the atmosphere has been decreasing and is near the lowest level it has been in the history of the planet. There was no "tipping" point or runaway greenhouse when CO2 and temperature were high in the past. For billions of years, the Earth's thermostat has prevented runaway greenhouse or runaway icehouse. Nothing has changed." (pg. 156)

[---]

"Isotopes of oxygen and carbon show that Earth was enjoying an equatorial glaciation at around 2400 to 2100 Ma. Life on Earth almost ceased. These times of great dearth were interspersed with great bursts of high biological productivity. These bursts of productivity were assisted by high atmospheric CO2, the release of nutrients into the oceans by glacial melt waters and warmer temperatures." (pg. 158)

[---]

"The proof that CO2 does not drive climate is shown by previous glaciations. The Ordovician-Silurian (450-420 Ma) and Jurassic-Cretaceous (151-132 Ma) glaciations occurred when atmospheric CO2 content was more than 4000 ppmv and about 2000 parts per million by volume (ppmv) respectively. The Carboniferous-Permian glaciation (360-260 Ma) had a CO2 content of about 400 ppmv, at least 15 ppmv higher than the present figure. If the popular catastrophist view is accepted, then there should have been a runaway greenhouse when CO2 was more than 4000 ppmv. Instead, there was glaciation. Clearly a high atmospheric CO2 does not drive global warming and there is no correlation between global temperature and atmospheric CO2. This has never been explained by those who argue that human additions of CO2 to the atmosphere will produce global warming." (pg. 165)

[---]

"The Cambrian explosion of life (542-520 Ma) took place in the post-glacial warm times when atmosphere CO2 was at least 25 times greater than today. (pg. 194)

[---]

"It is only by completely ignoring the history of the planet can it be claimed that global warming can produce extinction.

In modern settings, it is also suggested that increased temperature will bring more species diversity by extending the ranges of plants and animals. Replacement of high altitude forests by mixing with low altitude forests to create greater species diversity has happened in previous times of warming and would be expected in another warming event. Furthermore, if a future warmer climate had a higher atmospheric CO2 enables plants to grow better in nearly all temperatures, especially at higher temperatures. Both animals and plants are limited by the latitude and altitude cold-boundaries of their range and are not limited by the heat-limited boundaries of their range. If atmospheric CO2 is doubled, plant growth is unaffected at 10 degrees C and growth is doubled at 38 degrees C.

On a global scale, satellite measurements of vegetation between 1982 and 1999 showed that plant growth increased by 6% in a response to slightly increased rainfall and slightly increased temperature but the major change was due to slightly increased CO2. If the CO2 content, the net productivity rise of herbaceous plants is 30 to 50%, while of woody plants it is 50 to 80%." (pg. 194-5)

[---]

"There are numerous other studies of lichen, plants, butterflies, birds, plankton, marine systems and fish to show that a slight temperature rise induces species diversity, species migration and adaptation.

These observations show that planet Earth is dynamic. Life is constantly adapting to change. Life will adapt to change when temperature and atmospheric CO2 rise slightly."(pg. 196)

[---]

"In he 2001 Summary for Policymakers, the IPCC stated: "increased summer continental drying and associated risk of drought is likely over most mid-latitude continental interiors".

This Summary is for the public. The science tells a different story. There are a number of papers that suggest increased drought in central USA with global warming and others that show that, in the 20th Century in central USA: "droughts have, for the most part, become shorter, less frequent, less severe, and cover a smaller proportion of the country".

Two different data sets derived from radiometers on the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration satellites showed that between 1982 and 1999, there was a worldwide increase in photosynthesis. This is despite deforestation in Third World countries and urbanization. ... This increased photosynthesis may be due to slight global warming during this period, increased CO2 or to associated increased rainfall. In fact, there are studies that suggest a "theoretical expectation" that global warming will result in significant increases in global precipitation."

[---]

"One of the great scare campaigns is that global warming is so fast that plants and animals may not have enough time to migrate, hence there will be untold extinction. A 0.7 degrees C temperature increase in the last 100 years is very slow - the change from Younger Dryas to warmer times was 100 times faster. It is distinctly possible that the globe will not warm as fast as predicted, that the increased CO2 will allow plants to flourish in warmer temperatures and that climate change may rapidly impose natural selection thereby allow plants to flourish in warmer temperatures and that climate change may rapidly impose natural selection thereby allowing life to better adapt. Such natural selection can occur over a few decades." (pg. 206)

Interesting, isn't it. Up to the end of this section, throughout the 206 pages, Plimer has provided citational data for 1017 peer reviewed academic publications and actual original historical sources. On page 206 itself, which is only two and a half paragraphs long, those sources are: Geophysical Research Letters, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Genetica, Science and Nature Geoscience. And the AGW nutcases keep telling us to "read the literature". They should be afraid that we might actually do that.

Next up, all about volcanoes, which itself may be divided into more than one entry. It is absolutely fascinating.

Labels: AGW, AGW scam, Plimer's da Man

Thursday, October 02, 2014

Some Useful FACTS About Global Warming and Climate Change

Here are the known facts. Use them to protect yourself against the Green assault the truth (sic):

# Both the Earth and the Sun pass through natural cycles. The Sun is currently in a cycle of lower radiation as signaled by fewer sunspots representing magnetic storms.

# There is currently no global warming. The Earth has been in a cooling cycle for 19 years. No child who has passed through K-12 classes in school has experienced a single day of “global warming.”

# Not one computer model that predicted increased warming has been accurate. (Emphasis mine.)

# Carbon dioxide, (CO2) blamed for global warming, is not a “pollutant” despite a Supreme Court decision stating this. Our exhaled breath contains about 4% of CO2.

# How can carbon dioxide be called a “pollutant” when it is directly responsible for the growth of all vegetation on the planet? Without CO2 there would not be a single blade of grass or a redwood tree. Or the animal life that depends on vegetation; wheat and rice, for example, as food.

# There is zero evidence that carbon dioxide generated by human activities is causing catastrophic climate change. Climate is measured in centuries or shorter periods of many decades in order to determine its cycles. The weather is what is occurring where you reside and it changes every day.

# At 78% nitrogen is the most abundant gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. It is an essential building block of amino acids present in all proteins. It is a very stable, unreactive gas. Oxygen is the second most abundant gas-of-life in the atmosphere at 21%. Water vapor is the third most abundant gas-of-life in the atmosphere; it varies up to 5%, It reduces incoming solar radiation by day and reduces surface cooling at night. Carbon dioxide is the least abundant gas in the atmosphere at 0.04%.

# The assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is man-made and an urgent problem is a fiction. In May Joseph Bast,president of The Heartland Institute, cited the Zimmerman/Doran survey in which, out of 3,146 respondents, only 79 listed climate science as an area of expertise. Hardly 97%. “Surveys of meteorologists repeatedly find a majority oppose the alleged consensus,” noted Bast.

# In February, Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist, a co-founder of Greenpeace, a militant environmental group which he left in 1986, told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee “There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years.”

# Not only is the Earth not warming, but Heartland Institute analyst, Peter Ferrara, notes that “If you look at the record of global temperature data, you will find that the late 20th Century period of global warming actually lasted about 20 years, from the late 1970s to the late 1990s. Before that, the globe was dominated by about 30 years of global cooling, giving rise in the 1970s to media discussions of the return of the Little Ice Age (circa 1450 to 1850), or worse.”

# The cooling of the Earth has led to a dramatic increase in both Arctic and Antarctic ice, up 50% since 2012.

# One result of the false claims about carbon dioxide has been the Obama administration’s policies such as the refusal to permit the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline to import oil from Canada to U.S. refineries. The Environmental Protection Agency’s absurd restrictions on CO2 emissions have forced the closure of many coal-fired plants that are needed to provide low cost electrical energy. The administration has long wanted to impose a “carbon tax” on all energy use in America, a punishing and needless expense.

# The Obama administration’s climate policies are entirely political in nature. It has announced that the EPA’s process of setting new rules affecting power plants will be delayed until after the November 4 midterm elections. It is extending the public comment period until December 1. The growing discontent over similar climate and environmental policies was evident when leaders of the European Union announced it was moving away from green policies that had driven up the cost of electricity across the continent.

In a world threatened by the rise of radical Islamism, by the outbreak of diseases like Ebola, and other actual problems to be addressed, the notion that thousands would march in the belief that they and the entire rest of the Earth’s population have any effect on the climate is appalling.

What is perhaps most sad and most reprehensible are the host of world leaders who continue to maintain the lie of global warming or the misrepresentation of climate change to impose a tax on an essential element of the Earth's atmosphere.

And another thing. I have a new hero. His name is Joe Bastardi. (Note the "i" at the end of his name. That's an Italian signature. Take the "i" off and you can get what his name would mean in English.) He's an American meteorologist who isn't taking this global warming guff lying down. He's kinda cute, too. And funny. Trouble is, most of his Facebook posts are full of meteorologist speak, which is quite unintelligible to me. I did watch a vid of his presentation at the latest Heartland Foundation climate conference.

Labels: AGW, AGW scam, CAGW, global warming, Heartland Institute

Friday, August 20, 2010

The "Catastropic" Global Cooling Scare

From Newsweek, April 25, 1975

At least they weren't blaming it on humans.

And more on the modern warming "consensus":

Japanese scientists cool on theories

"Dr Maruyama said many scientists were doubtful about man-made climate-change theory, but did not want to risk their funding from the government or bad publicity from the mass media, which he said was leading society in the wrong direction."

Again, emphasis mine.

Climate 'Skeptics' Reveal horror stories of Scientific Suppression

"...a Canadian survey of scientists released on March 6, 2008 offered even more evidence that the alleged ‘consensus’ is non-existent. A canvass of more than 51,000 scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists of Alberta (APEGGA) found 68% of them disagree with the statement that ‘the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.'" According to the survey, only 26% of scientists attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” APEGGA’s executive director Neil Windsor said, “We're not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.""

And from the The International Geological Congress, held in Oslo, Norway, from August 4-14.

"During the Geologic conference, Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia of the Center of Advanced Study in Geology at Punjab University and a visiting scholar of the Geology Department at University of Cincinnati, openly ridiculed former Vice President Al Gore and the UN IPCC's coveted Nobel Peace Prize.

"I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists," Ahluwalia, a fellow of the Geological Society of India, said during a question and answer panel discussion."

Video from the conference here.

Dr. William Happer's testimony before Congress in February, 2009 [emphasis mine]:

"But what about the frightening consequences of increasing levels of CO2 that we keep hearing about? In a word, they are wildly exaggerated, just as the purported benefits of prohibition were wildly exaggerated. Let me turn now to the science and try to explain why I and many scientists like me are not alarmed by increasing levels of CO2.

The earth’s climate really is strongly affected by the greenhouse effect, although the physics is not the same as that which makes real, glassed-in greenhouses work. Without greenhouse warming, the earth would be much too cold to sustain its current abundance of life. However, at least 90% of greenhouse warming is due to water vapor and clouds. Carbon dioxide is a bit player. There is little argument in the scientific community that a direct effect of doubling the CO2 concentration will be a small increase of the earth’s temperature — on the order of one degree. Additional increments of CO2 will cause relatively less direct warming because we already have so much CO2 in the atmosphere that it has blocked most of the infrared radiation that it can. It is like putting an additional ski hat on your head when you already have a nice warm one below it, but your are only wearing a windbreaker. To really get warmer, you need to add a warmer jacket. The IPCC thinks that this extra jacket is water vapor and clouds.
Since most of the greenhouse effect for the earth is due to water vapor and clouds, added CO2 must substantially increase water’s contribution to lead to the frightening scenarios that are bandied about. The buzz word here is that there is “positive feedback.” With each passing year, experimental observations further undermine the claim of a large positive feedback from water. In fact, observations suggest that the feedback is close to zero and may even be negative. That is, water vapor and clouds may actually diminish the already small global warming expected from CO2, not amplify it."

[---]

"But the climate is warming and CO2 is increasing. Doesn’t this prove that CO2 is causing global warming through the greenhouse effect? No, the current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO2. There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. These earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels."

And here's a lovely graph showing record temperatures that were broken in July 2009:

Update on record lows - highs - rain status

Note the circle chart showing the number of record low temperatures in July 2009 (over 3000 of them) outnumber the record high temperatures by almost two to one.

Labels: AGW scam

stubble jumping redneck

Tuesday, December 23, 2014

Global Cooling...

Monday, January 02, 2012

God Help Us...

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Yes, I Do Believe We Are...

Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Busted: Catastrophic Climate Change Cash Cow

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Back to Plimer - Chapter 2 - HISTORY

Sunday, June 13, 2010

Global Warming: An Answer to Dennis Brown

Sunday, July 27, 2014

Cooling. Warming. Cooling. Warming. Cooling. Warming. Take Your Pick

Tuesday, October 07, 2014

BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Monday, March 25, 2013

A Confession...

Friday, September 03, 2010

Plimer - Chapter 4 - THE EARTH (Part 1 - "Life")

Thursday, October 02, 2014

Some Useful FACTS About Global Warming and Climate Change

Friday, August 20, 2010

The "Catastropic" Global Cooling Scare

About Me

Previous Posts

Links

Archives