The following is an edited version of an article by FoxNews on December 30, 2010
Some climate scientists and environmental activists say we're one step closer to a climate Armageddon. But what’s the truth? What's the track record of those most worried about global warming? Decades ago, what did prominent scientists think the environment would be like in 2010?
1. Within a few years "children just aren't going to know what snow is." Snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." Dr. David Viner, senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, interviewed by the UK Independent, March 20, 2000.
Ten years later, in December 2009, London was hit by the heaviest snowfall seen in 20 years. And just last week, a snowstorm forced Heathrow airport to shut down, stranding thousands of Christmas travelers. North America, Europe and Asia (China and Russia) all experienced record setting cold and snow at the end of 2010
2. "[By] 1995, the greenhouse effect would be desolating the heartlands of North America and Eurasia with horrific drought, causing crop failures and food riots…[By 1996] The Platte River of Nebraska would be dry, while a continent-wide black blizzard of prairie topsoil will stop traffic on interstates, strip paint from houses and shut down computers." Michael Oppenheimer, published in "Dead Heat," St. Martin's Press, 1990.
That may be in doubt, however. Data from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center shows that precipitation -- rain and snow -- has increased slightly over the century.
3. "Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000." Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972.
As of last month, the Arctic Ocean had 3.82 million square miles of ice cover -- an area larger than the continental United States -- according to The National Snow and Ice Data Center. Ok…and we continue to believe this guy?
4. "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.
Status of prediction: According to NASA, global temperature has increased by about 0.7 degrees Fahrenheit since 1989. And U.S. temperature has increased even less over the same period.
5. "By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half." Life magazine, January 1970.
Air quality has actually improved since 1970.
6. "If present trends continue, the world will be ... eleven degrees colder by the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age." Kenneth E.F. Watt, in "Earth Day," 1970.
"Present trends didn't continue." Of course not, they never do, yet these guys continue to get press for their beyond absurd predictions.
7. "By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people ... If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000." Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.
8. "In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish." Ehrlich, speech during Earth Day, 1970
Well, I think you get the point, these prophets of doom from the environmental culture, so want things to go very, very bad, that they believe their own imaginations. Science? This isn’t science. This is beyond silly. These environmental leaders could be less credible if they tried. Sadly, U.S. and global policies are often based on these outrageously wrong predictions.
Friday, December 31, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Top U.S. Physcist says Climate Change is a scam
Top US scientist Hal Lewis resigned this week from his post at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He admitted global warming/climate change was nothing but a scam in his resignation letter.
"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist."
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…And it is doubtful you saw anything about Hal Lewis' resignation, or his resignation statement, in the mainstream press.
"It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist."
So what has the APS, as an organization, done in the face of this challenge? It has accepted the corruption as the norm, and gone along with it…And it is doubtful you saw anything about Hal Lewis' resignation, or his resignation statement, in the mainstream press.
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Carbon Footprint Scientific Nonsense
"Arguments made about saving the planet are basically ridiculous, even if naively well intended. All the blather about "carbon footprints" is scientifically nonsensical. It's not a matter of tree hugging. If you're paying more for something than necessary, you're mis-allocating capital. You're destroying capital. That's a real crime against humanity." Doug Casey
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Liberal Environmentalist Debunks Global Warming
Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt, a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, has officially bailed out of the man-made global warming movement. Rancourt declares that the entire man-made global warming movement is nothing more than a “corrupt social phenomenon.” “It is as much psychological and social phenomenon as anything else,” Rancourt, who has published peer-reviewed research, explained in a June 8, 2010 essay.
“the global warming myth is a red herring. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized,” Rancourt said. Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass,” he asserted.
Rancourt's dissent on man-made climate fears has not set well with many of his fellow green friends. “When I tell environmental activists that global warming is not something to be concerned about, they attack me — they shun me, they do not allow me to have my materials published in their magazines, editors,” Rancourt explained to Climate Depot.
Rancourt bluntly examines why his fellow environmentalists are wrapped up in promoting climate alarm: “They look for comfortable lies that they can settle into and alleviate the guilt they feel about being on privileged end of the planet — a kind of survivors guilt. A lot of these environmentalists are guilt laden individuals who need to alleviate the guilt without taking risks.”
Rancourt also openly expresses his hostility for former Vice President Al Gore's 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”: “I felt ill walking out of the theatre. It's terrible. It does not respect the intelligence the viewer. The film does not acknowledge people can think for themselves at all.” Rancourt lamented how “environmentalists could just gobble this up and agree with [Gore's film] in a non critical fashion.”
Gore “strikes me as someone working for someone — as someone who will financially benefit from this. He does not give me impression of someone who genuinely cares about environmental or social justice,” he said.
Rancourt spared no mercy for the embattled UN IPCC. He said that the scientists are “named by governments, they are scientists who accept to serve a political role. Their mission is to write a report” that “is meant to be used by government.”
Rancourt is also very critical of proposed global warming carbon trading or cap and trade: “Someone is going to make a lot of money from these schemes.”
But it is his fellow University professors that Rancourt has the least amount of patience with: “They are all virtually all service intellectuals. They will not truly critique, in a way that could threaten the power interests that keep them in their jobs. The tenure track is just a process to make docile and obedient intellectuals that will then train other intellectuals.
“You have this army of university scientists and they have to pretend like they are doing important research without ever criticizing the powerful interests in a real way. So they look for elusive sanitized things like acid rain, global warming.”
This entire process “helps to neutralize any kind of dissent,” according to Rancourt.
“the global warming myth is a red herring. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized,” Rancourt said. Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass,” he asserted.
Rancourt's dissent on man-made climate fears has not set well with many of his fellow green friends. “When I tell environmental activists that global warming is not something to be concerned about, they attack me — they shun me, they do not allow me to have my materials published in their magazines, editors,” Rancourt explained to Climate Depot.
Rancourt bluntly examines why his fellow environmentalists are wrapped up in promoting climate alarm: “They look for comfortable lies that they can settle into and alleviate the guilt they feel about being on privileged end of the planet — a kind of survivors guilt. A lot of these environmentalists are guilt laden individuals who need to alleviate the guilt without taking risks.”
Rancourt also openly expresses his hostility for former Vice President Al Gore's 2006 documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”: “I felt ill walking out of the theatre. It's terrible. It does not respect the intelligence the viewer. The film does not acknowledge people can think for themselves at all.” Rancourt lamented how “environmentalists could just gobble this up and agree with [Gore's film] in a non critical fashion.”
Gore “strikes me as someone working for someone — as someone who will financially benefit from this. He does not give me impression of someone who genuinely cares about environmental or social justice,” he said.
Rancourt spared no mercy for the embattled UN IPCC. He said that the scientists are “named by governments, they are scientists who accept to serve a political role. Their mission is to write a report” that “is meant to be used by government.”
Rancourt is also very critical of proposed global warming carbon trading or cap and trade: “Someone is going to make a lot of money from these schemes.”
But it is his fellow University professors that Rancourt has the least amount of patience with: “They are all virtually all service intellectuals. They will not truly critique, in a way that could threaten the power interests that keep them in their jobs. The tenure track is just a process to make docile and obedient intellectuals that will then train other intellectuals.
“You have this army of university scientists and they have to pretend like they are doing important research without ever criticizing the powerful interests in a real way. So they look for elusive sanitized things like acid rain, global warming.”
This entire process “helps to neutralize any kind of dissent,” according to Rancourt.
Thursday, June 17, 2010
"Climate Change" Temperatues Are Bogus
NOAA Deception
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has made some surprising and indefensible statements of late; including this one, “Accuracy, with respect to global temperatue readings, doesn’t matter. The temperature reading itself is not important.” So what’s the issue here? At issue is 1) what are the real temperatures being reported? 2) are these temperatures accurate? 3) what policies are driven by global temperatures?
NOAA has five classes of climate measuring sites. The best sites, categories 1 and 2, require the site to be placed over grass or low local vegetation. According to section 2.2 of NOAA’s Climate Reference Network (CRN) Site Information Handbook:
The most desirable local surrounding landscape is a relatively large and flat open area with low local vegetation in order that the sky view is unobstructed in all directions except at the lower angles of altitude above the horizon. For categories 1 and 2 there can be no artificial heating sources within 100 meters (330 feet). For the lower quality stations 3 to 5 there must be no artificial heating source within 10 meters (33 feet).
The integrity of the site as a reliable climate measuring station is completely dependent on these criteria. Is the government adhering to its own standards?
More Research
In a landmark 2007 research project to determine the quality of the United States climate measuring network, meteorologist Anthony Watts set out to get some answers. He recruited more than 650 volunteers to photograph the climate stations around the country.
What they have found is astounding. A full ninety percent of the United States climate measuring sites do not meet the government’s own criteria for accurate temperature measurement! Again, that number is ninety percent.
This means that among numerous other violations, most climate measuring stations have artificial heat sources within 33 feet of the thermometers. Examples of these heat sources: buildings, roads, air conditioning vents, heat reflecting surfaces, stations located on top of roofs, in confined areas that restrict air flow, at waste treatment plants that generate heat, and on asphalt parking lots.
The Global Warming Bias
All of these influences introduce a warming bias to the measured temperature. Many of these warm biases were introduced in the last 25 years. During this time, a new generation of thermometers — the MMTS/Nimbus thermometers — were gradually installed across the country. These thermometers are hardwired to the weather station or building where the readings are recorded. Because of this wiring, the thermometers have been repositioned closer to heat sources. The older, more pristine locations were too far away to run the cables — there were too many things in the way like buildings, roads, and other infrastructure. The installers simply moved the thermometers closer to make the installations easier and more economical.
So NOAA now has climate measuring stations located much closer to buildings and industrial heat sources, over dirt, black pavement, cement, crushed stones, steel, shingles, wood, and other hard and heat-reflective surfaces. These violations of NOAA’s own criteria for accurate temperature measurement have gradually — and fully — corrupted the U.S. climate measuring network.
To state it bluntly, global temperatures have been deliberately manipulated to show a “global warming” trend, when in fact no trend exists. Virtually all remote sensing sites in the United States have been removed. These sites, located in forests, mountains, deserts, open fields, etc; have all been removed and transferred to urban areas. Urban areas are known to register higher temperatures than surrounding non-urban areas. So the warming trend was manipulated by simply moving sensing devices from accurate reading sites, to warmer locations (parking lots, concrete pads, etc). In the past, urban temperatures were discounted as being inaccurate and did not account for the foundation of global temperature reports. That has all now changed.
There is no global warming trend. There is a trend of moving temperature sensing stations into urban areas clearly compromised by artificial heat sources.
Actual Data Contradict NOAA's Phony Data
The actual temperature trend in the United States over the last 50 years, shows something quite different from what NOAA says. From 1960 to the late 1970s [two decades], the United States temperature was clearly falling. From that point on, there was a two-decade warming trend through the 1980s and 1990s. That warming trend ended in 1999 and there has been no warming since.
Not only did NOAA say the last 50 years was a period of warming, they said it was a “rapid warming.” This is a blatantly intentional distortion of what actually took place. The historical climate data show that the temperature only warmed for two of the last five decades!
In an attempt to “educate” the public about global warming, NOAA is working hard to deceive taxpayers about the quality of temperature measurement and the trend of temperature. The careers of many scientists and bureaucrats at NOAA depend on funding to study the “problem” of global warming. If global warming stops (as it already has), research projects could be canceled. The careers of high-ranking administrators could be severely compromised if they are blamed for “dropping the ball” on their watch.
The evidence says that to continue with funding and to legitimize NOAA’s research efforts, the myth that “temperatures have been rising rapidly” must be maintained through distortion and outright misrepresentation of the facts.
Beholden To False Data
Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” has been completely discredited. His data is faulty, his interpretation is flawed, and his conclusions are false. Still, faithful environmentalists continue to quote from this baloney science. Those making a living off of taxpayer supported “climate change research” are beholden to the theory. If they fail to “keep the faith” of climate change, their careers could be in jeopardy–wouldn’t want the truth to get in the way of someone’s career.
Many writers and researchers have challenged the myth of global warming, and more specifically, challenged the source of the data–urban placed temperatures sensing devices. Taking readings from a thermometer placed on an asphalt parking lot, near an air conditioning vent, and claiming global temperatures are rising is not only dishonest, it’s criminal. Naive citizens of the world are been manipulated, deceived, and forced to pay for this false nonsense. It’s time it ended.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has made some surprising and indefensible statements of late; including this one, “Accuracy, with respect to global temperatue readings, doesn’t matter. The temperature reading itself is not important.” So what’s the issue here? At issue is 1) what are the real temperatures being reported? 2) are these temperatures accurate? 3) what policies are driven by global temperatures?
NOAA has five classes of climate measuring sites. The best sites, categories 1 and 2, require the site to be placed over grass or low local vegetation. According to section 2.2 of NOAA’s Climate Reference Network (CRN) Site Information Handbook:
The most desirable local surrounding landscape is a relatively large and flat open area with low local vegetation in order that the sky view is unobstructed in all directions except at the lower angles of altitude above the horizon. For categories 1 and 2 there can be no artificial heating sources within 100 meters (330 feet). For the lower quality stations 3 to 5 there must be no artificial heating source within 10 meters (33 feet).
The integrity of the site as a reliable climate measuring station is completely dependent on these criteria. Is the government adhering to its own standards?
More Research
In a landmark 2007 research project to determine the quality of the United States climate measuring network, meteorologist Anthony Watts set out to get some answers. He recruited more than 650 volunteers to photograph the climate stations around the country.
What they have found is astounding. A full ninety percent of the United States climate measuring sites do not meet the government’s own criteria for accurate temperature measurement! Again, that number is ninety percent.
This means that among numerous other violations, most climate measuring stations have artificial heat sources within 33 feet of the thermometers. Examples of these heat sources: buildings, roads, air conditioning vents, heat reflecting surfaces, stations located on top of roofs, in confined areas that restrict air flow, at waste treatment plants that generate heat, and on asphalt parking lots.
The Global Warming Bias
All of these influences introduce a warming bias to the measured temperature. Many of these warm biases were introduced in the last 25 years. During this time, a new generation of thermometers — the MMTS/Nimbus thermometers — were gradually installed across the country. These thermometers are hardwired to the weather station or building where the readings are recorded. Because of this wiring, the thermometers have been repositioned closer to heat sources. The older, more pristine locations were too far away to run the cables — there were too many things in the way like buildings, roads, and other infrastructure. The installers simply moved the thermometers closer to make the installations easier and more economical.
So NOAA now has climate measuring stations located much closer to buildings and industrial heat sources, over dirt, black pavement, cement, crushed stones, steel, shingles, wood, and other hard and heat-reflective surfaces. These violations of NOAA’s own criteria for accurate temperature measurement have gradually — and fully — corrupted the U.S. climate measuring network.
To state it bluntly, global temperatures have been deliberately manipulated to show a “global warming” trend, when in fact no trend exists. Virtually all remote sensing sites in the United States have been removed. These sites, located in forests, mountains, deserts, open fields, etc; have all been removed and transferred to urban areas. Urban areas are known to register higher temperatures than surrounding non-urban areas. So the warming trend was manipulated by simply moving sensing devices from accurate reading sites, to warmer locations (parking lots, concrete pads, etc). In the past, urban temperatures were discounted as being inaccurate and did not account for the foundation of global temperature reports. That has all now changed.
There is no global warming trend. There is a trend of moving temperature sensing stations into urban areas clearly compromised by artificial heat sources.
Actual Data Contradict NOAA's Phony Data
The actual temperature trend in the United States over the last 50 years, shows something quite different from what NOAA says. From 1960 to the late 1970s [two decades], the United States temperature was clearly falling. From that point on, there was a two-decade warming trend through the 1980s and 1990s. That warming trend ended in 1999 and there has been no warming since.
Not only did NOAA say the last 50 years was a period of warming, they said it was a “rapid warming.” This is a blatantly intentional distortion of what actually took place. The historical climate data show that the temperature only warmed for two of the last five decades!
In an attempt to “educate” the public about global warming, NOAA is working hard to deceive taxpayers about the quality of temperature measurement and the trend of temperature. The careers of many scientists and bureaucrats at NOAA depend on funding to study the “problem” of global warming. If global warming stops (as it already has), research projects could be canceled. The careers of high-ranking administrators could be severely compromised if they are blamed for “dropping the ball” on their watch.
The evidence says that to continue with funding and to legitimize NOAA’s research efforts, the myth that “temperatures have been rising rapidly” must be maintained through distortion and outright misrepresentation of the facts.
Beholden To False Data
Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” has been completely discredited. His data is faulty, his interpretation is flawed, and his conclusions are false. Still, faithful environmentalists continue to quote from this baloney science. Those making a living off of taxpayer supported “climate change research” are beholden to the theory. If they fail to “keep the faith” of climate change, their careers could be in jeopardy–wouldn’t want the truth to get in the way of someone’s career.
Many writers and researchers have challenged the myth of global warming, and more specifically, challenged the source of the data–urban placed temperatures sensing devices. Taking readings from a thermometer placed on an asphalt parking lot, near an air conditioning vent, and claiming global temperatures are rising is not only dishonest, it’s criminal. Naive citizens of the world are been manipulated, deceived, and forced to pay for this false nonsense. It’s time it ended.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Climate Change and Brainwashing
I have argued for years that environmentalism is not about the environment, but about power. I’ve argued that global warming was not about global warming, but about power. And I’m still arguing that climate change is not about climate, but about a Marxist, totalitarian control over the lives of every person on earth.
A small think tank by the name of the Sutherland Institute, in Salt Lake City, has just published a study about the “educational” side of environmentalism.
The Sutherland Institute discovered a considerable educational presence. In Great Britain, they found that officials distributed copies of Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” film, with clear instructions on how to direct the discussion to insure students support Al Gore’s claims and policy proposals.
“Green” Activists
The study clearly showed “green activists” are making significant inroads into the public schools–at all levels. “There are many advocacy groups whose specific mission is to make “environmental education” (EE) the focus of schools. These groups view EE not as one important part of a well-rounded education but as a thread that should weave through every facet of school life.” In other words, they want to make environmentalism as the foundation of all educational disciplines, or make all other subjects subservient to environmentalism.
The report continues, “Organizations like the Green Education Foundation and Edutopia collect, design, and distribute educational materials that teachers can use to advance EE in schools. The mission of Alliance for Climate Education (ACE) is “to educate, inspire and activate students to curb climate change and its effects.”ACE also provides resources for teachers and holds assemblies in schools using “hip talk, animation and jokes” to teach children their version of climate change and to sign them up for their “anti-consumption (Americans are to blame) cause,” often without the consent of parents.”
Ninth Grade Brainwashing
A ninth-grade text asserts that “Mounting evidence suggests that the rate of global temperature changes over the past 150 years is largely due to human activity.” This statement overstates the facts. Other materials go much further.
One school district has provided several worksheets that single out human activities as the cause of global warming and that raise “alarming” scenarios. One fear-inducing scenario predicts that too much CO2 in the atmosphere could cause the Earth to become too hot to inhabit, like the planet Venus.
Two textbooks recommended for Environmental Science and high school Advanced Placement (A.P.) Environmental Science classes, includes this statement by William P. Cunningham, “our actions are now causing global climate change” and “an overwhelming majority now agree that there are unmistakable signals of human impacts on the world’s climate.” Nothing about “theory,” nothing equivocal, no apology, just straight statement of “fact.”
Textbook Permiation
Another textbook contains the following quote by Richard T. Wright, “The Earth is in the midst of an unsustainable rise in atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, the result of our intense use of fossil fuels. In short, we completely depend on a host of technologies that are threatening our future.” Again this is not presented as a theory, or even a controversial theory, but stated as fact and teachers are expected to “tow the party line” and teach this doctrine, whether it’s factual or not.
We could go on and on, but the point is this; environmental extremists, who care far less for the environment than they do for indoctrinating America’s young people into a Marxist style “green” youth corps, are very active in their religious zeal to spread the word about environmentalism. And these folks are not messing around, they mean business, they mean to convert this country into a socialist state, a one party socialist state, with complete and totalitarian control over the lives of every person.
A small think tank by the name of the Sutherland Institute, in Salt Lake City, has just published a study about the “educational” side of environmentalism.
The Sutherland Institute discovered a considerable educational presence. In Great Britain, they found that officials distributed copies of Al Gore’s “Inconvenient Truth” film, with clear instructions on how to direct the discussion to insure students support Al Gore’s claims and policy proposals.
“Green” Activists
The study clearly showed “green activists” are making significant inroads into the public schools–at all levels. “There are many advocacy groups whose specific mission is to make “environmental education” (EE) the focus of schools. These groups view EE not as one important part of a well-rounded education but as a thread that should weave through every facet of school life.” In other words, they want to make environmentalism as the foundation of all educational disciplines, or make all other subjects subservient to environmentalism.
The report continues, “Organizations like the Green Education Foundation and Edutopia collect, design, and distribute educational materials that teachers can use to advance EE in schools. The mission of Alliance for Climate Education (ACE) is “to educate, inspire and activate students to curb climate change and its effects.”ACE also provides resources for teachers and holds assemblies in schools using “hip talk, animation and jokes” to teach children their version of climate change and to sign them up for their “anti-consumption (Americans are to blame) cause,” often without the consent of parents.”
Ninth Grade Brainwashing
A ninth-grade text asserts that “Mounting evidence suggests that the rate of global temperature changes over the past 150 years is largely due to human activity.” This statement overstates the facts. Other materials go much further.
One school district has provided several worksheets that single out human activities as the cause of global warming and that raise “alarming” scenarios. One fear-inducing scenario predicts that too much CO2 in the atmosphere could cause the Earth to become too hot to inhabit, like the planet Venus.
Two textbooks recommended for Environmental Science and high school Advanced Placement (A.P.) Environmental Science classes, includes this statement by William P. Cunningham, “our actions are now causing global climate change” and “an overwhelming majority now agree that there are unmistakable signals of human impacts on the world’s climate.” Nothing about “theory,” nothing equivocal, no apology, just straight statement of “fact.”
Textbook Permiation
Another textbook contains the following quote by Richard T. Wright, “The Earth is in the midst of an unsustainable rise in atmospheric greenhouse gas levels, the result of our intense use of fossil fuels. In short, we completely depend on a host of technologies that are threatening our future.” Again this is not presented as a theory, or even a controversial theory, but stated as fact and teachers are expected to “tow the party line” and teach this doctrine, whether it’s factual or not.
We could go on and on, but the point is this; environmental extremists, who care far less for the environment than they do for indoctrinating America’s young people into a Marxist style “green” youth corps, are very active in their religious zeal to spread the word about environmentalism. And these folks are not messing around, they mean business, they mean to convert this country into a socialist state, a one party socialist state, with complete and totalitarian control over the lives of every person.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Ten Myths About CO2
MYTH 1: Increased levels of CO2 would prove harmful to life, health, and the planet.
FACT: CO2 is an essential component of life on this planet, without CO2, there would be no life here. Noted Agronomist Dr. Sylvan Wittier, who has studied crops and the effect of increased levels of CO2 on all plant life, states emphatically that increased levels of CO2 produces more growth (more food), more plant growth (trees, etc), and produces no adverse consequences. CO2 is not a pollutant and it’s intellectually dishonest to state that. From an agronomy standpoint, there is no known negative to increased levels of CO2.
MYTH2: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. However, the ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects") i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming…and it is these, 'false high' ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models used by your favorite environmental groups such as Greenpeace, which live up to the GIGO acronym — Garbage In, Garbage Out.
MYTH 3: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, about 96.5% is water vapor and clouds, with the remainder being trace gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O. CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. And then the human portion of that 0.037% is incredibly small. But isn't CO2 the most important of the greenhouse gases? Nope. Not even close. Most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, which is about 100 times as abundant in the atmosphere as CO2 and thus has a much larger effect. Water vapor is by far the most important and overwhelming greenhouse gas. Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts. CO2 is NOT a “powerful greenhouse gas,” as claimed by environmentalists. Water is the most powerful greenhouse gas, and CO2 and other trace gases are no more or no less “greenhouse” producing than is water.
MYTH 4: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously.
MYTH 5: Reducing car use will cut carbon dioxide levels and save the planet!
FACT: The planet does not need saving from this mythical problem of CO2 emissions from cars, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels as the cause and effect is the other way round! — It is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans.
MYTH 6: Receding glaciers, the calving of ice shelves, and the shrinking of snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro are proof of global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature. What you see on your television newscasts are images of the annual summer melt off, which happens every single year and is nothing new.
Global warming is not melting Mt. Kilimanjaro's alpine glacier. Temperatures at Mt. Kilimanjaro have been slightly cooling since at least the middle of the twentieth century, and those temperatures virtually never rise above freezing. Scientists have long known that deforestation at the base of the mountain is causing the mountaintop glacier to shrink, by reducing the moisture and resultant precipitation in mountain updrafts.
MYTH 7: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.
FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be gotten somewhat warmer last century, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. And now the western Arctic is cooling again. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.
Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.
MYTH 8: There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true.
FACT: There are literally tens of thousands of signatures from scientists worldwide on many petitions, ranging from the Oregon Petition Project, the Manhattan Declaration, all the way to the Leipzig Declaration which all state that there is no evidence for the man-made global warming theory nor is there any impact from mankind’s activities on climate. Many scientists are now dissenting against Al Gore and the IPCC and strongly believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time, expensive, dangerous and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public … as H L Mencken said "The fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" … the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it. Of the scientists who support the climate change theory, many are on payrolls of government agencies and others are simply securing their funding. The consensus is clear: Man-made climate change is a hoax. Pro-global warming scientists spend great effort in attempting to control the dissemination of the information on this and related topics.
MYTH 9: It's never been warmer in the past.
FACT: We are in a relatively cool period and it used to be much warmer over countless periods in the past. Even just a few hundred years ago, the Vikings used to live in parts of Greenland without snow, and vineyards flourished in the North of London! There is nothing apocalyptic about warmer temperatures, in fact it's quite the opposite. In the UK, every mild winter saves 20,000 cold-related deaths, and scaled up over northern Europe mild winters save hundreds of thousands of lives each year. Sensible people should be cheering any rise in global temperatures, there would be less death, less disease, and less suffering by the people who live on this planet.
MYTH 10: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no evidence that CO2 is a measurable driver of global warming, let alone the tiny amount released by humankind. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Upwards of 97% of the atmospheric CO2 comes not from man, but from the oceans, plants, and other forms of life.
Effectively, the man-made global warming theorists have put effect before cause — this completely debunks the entire global warming theory and shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile exercise! There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 has any effect on global warming or can cause "climate change". However, there is plenty of scientific proof that the Earth has been cooling while CO2 has risen, and that increased CO2 is very beneficial to our planet.
THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
Over 95 percent of the Greenhouse Effect is the result of atmospheric water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. But because water droplets held in suspension (clouds) make almost as good a reflector as they do a thermal insulator, there is little rise in daytime temperatures due to the Greenhouse Effect.
Any greenhouse warming, if it does occur, is limited to primarily increasing nighttime temperatures, which provides beneficial moderation of nighttime low temperatures, but no increase in daytime high temperatures. Without the “greenhouse effect,” there would not be life on this planet. The greenhouse effect keep temperatures moderate and livable. To demonize the “greenhouse effect” is also intellectually dishonest.
The biggest source of greenhouse gas is our oceans. Furthermore, animals and volcanoes produce so much CO2 that it completely dwarfs mankind’s insignificantly tiny emissions.
Some of the foregoing data is contributed by co2science.org
FACT: CO2 is an essential component of life on this planet, without CO2, there would be no life here. Noted Agronomist Dr. Sylvan Wittier, who has studied crops and the effect of increased levels of CO2 on all plant life, states emphatically that increased levels of CO2 produces more growth (more food), more plant growth (trees, etc), and produces no adverse consequences. CO2 is not a pollutant and it’s intellectually dishonest to state that. From an agronomy standpoint, there is no known negative to increased levels of CO2.
MYTH2: Global temperatures are rising at a rapid, unprecedented rate.
FACT: Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures. Average ground station readings do show a mild warming of 0.6 to 0.8C over the last 100 years, which is well within the natural variations recorded in the last millennium. However, the ground station network suffers from an uneven distribution across the globe; the stations are preferentially located in growing urban and industrial areas ("heat islands"), which show substantially higher readings than adjacent rural areas ("land use effects") i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming…and it is these, 'false high' ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models used by your favorite environmental groups such as Greenpeace, which live up to the GIGO acronym — Garbage In, Garbage Out.
MYTH 3: CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas.
FACT: Greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume. They consist of varying amounts, about 96.5% is water vapor and clouds, with the remainder being trace gases like CO2, CH4, Ozone and N2O. CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere. And then the human portion of that 0.037% is incredibly small. But isn't CO2 the most important of the greenhouse gases? Nope. Not even close. Most of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapor, which is about 100 times as abundant in the atmosphere as CO2 and thus has a much larger effect. Water vapor is by far the most important and overwhelming greenhouse gas. Those attributing climate change to CO2 rarely mention these important facts. CO2 is NOT a “powerful greenhouse gas,” as claimed by environmentalists. Water is the most powerful greenhouse gas, and CO2 and other trace gases are no more or no less “greenhouse” producing than is water.
MYTH 4: Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is a pollutant.
FACT: This is absolutely not true. Nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere. We could not live in 100% nitrogen either. Carbon dioxide is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is. CO2 is essential to life on earth. It is necessary for plant growth since increased CO2 intake as a result of increased atmospheric concentration causes many trees and other plants to grow more vigorously.
MYTH 5: Reducing car use will cut carbon dioxide levels and save the planet!
FACT: The planet does not need saving from this mythical problem of CO2 emissions from cars, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels as the cause and effect is the other way round! — It is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans.
MYTH 6: Receding glaciers, the calving of ice shelves, and the shrinking of snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro are proof of global warming.
FACT: Glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for hundreds of years. Recent glacier melting is a consequence of coming out of the very cool period of the Little Ice Age. Ice shelves have been breaking off for centuries. Scientists know of at least 33 periods of glaciers growing and then retreating. It’s normal. Besides, glacier's health is dependent as much on precipitation as on temperature. What you see on your television newscasts are images of the annual summer melt off, which happens every single year and is nothing new.
Global warming is not melting Mt. Kilimanjaro's alpine glacier. Temperatures at Mt. Kilimanjaro have been slightly cooling since at least the middle of the twentieth century, and those temperatures virtually never rise above freezing. Scientists have long known that deforestation at the base of the mountain is causing the mountaintop glacier to shrink, by reducing the moisture and resultant precipitation in mountain updrafts.
MYTH 7: The earth’s poles are warming; polar ice caps are breaking up and melting and the sea level rising.
FACT: The earth is variable. The western Arctic may be gotten somewhat warmer last century, due to unrelated cyclic events in the Pacific Ocean, but the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder. And now the western Arctic is cooling again. The small Palmer Peninsula of Antarctica is getting warmer, while the main Antarctic continent is actually cooling. Ice thicknesses are increasing both on Greenland and in Antarctica.
Sea level monitoring in the Pacific (Tuvalu) and Indian Oceans (Maldives) has shown no sign of any sea level rise.
MYTH 8: There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true.
FACT: There are literally tens of thousands of signatures from scientists worldwide on many petitions, ranging from the Oregon Petition Project, the Manhattan Declaration, all the way to the Leipzig Declaration which all state that there is no evidence for the man-made global warming theory nor is there any impact from mankind’s activities on climate. Many scientists are now dissenting against Al Gore and the IPCC and strongly believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time, expensive, dangerous and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public … as H L Mencken said "The fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" … the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it. Of the scientists who support the climate change theory, many are on payrolls of government agencies and others are simply securing their funding. The consensus is clear: Man-made climate change is a hoax. Pro-global warming scientists spend great effort in attempting to control the dissemination of the information on this and related topics.
MYTH 9: It's never been warmer in the past.
FACT: We are in a relatively cool period and it used to be much warmer over countless periods in the past. Even just a few hundred years ago, the Vikings used to live in parts of Greenland without snow, and vineyards flourished in the North of London! There is nothing apocalyptic about warmer temperatures, in fact it's quite the opposite. In the UK, every mild winter saves 20,000 cold-related deaths, and scaled up over northern Europe mild winters save hundreds of thousands of lives each year. Sensible people should be cheering any rise in global temperatures, there would be less death, less disease, and less suffering by the people who live on this planet.
MYTH 10: Human produced carbon dioxide has increased over the last 100 years, adding to the Greenhouse effect, thus warming the earth.
FACT: Carbon dioxide levels have indeed changed for various reasons, human and otherwise, just as they have throughout geologic time. Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, the CO2 content of the atmosphere has increased. The RATE of growth during this period has also increased from about 0.2% per year to the present rate of about 0.4% per year,which growth rate has now been constant for the past 25 years. However, there is no evidence that CO2 is a measurable driver of global warming, let alone the tiny amount released by humankind. As measured in ice cores dated over many thousands of years, CO2 levels move up and down AFTER the temperature has done so, and thus are the RESULT OF, NOT THE CAUSE of warming. Upwards of 97% of the atmospheric CO2 comes not from man, but from the oceans, plants, and other forms of life.
Effectively, the man-made global warming theorists have put effect before cause — this completely debunks the entire global warming theory and shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile exercise! There is solid evidence that, as temperatures move up and down naturally and cyclically through solar radiation, orbital and galactic influences, the warming surface layers of the earth's oceans expel more CO2 as a result.
To the present day there is still no scientific proof that man-made CO2 has any effect on global warming or can cause "climate change". However, there is plenty of scientific proof that the Earth has been cooling while CO2 has risen, and that increased CO2 is very beneficial to our planet.
THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
Over 95 percent of the Greenhouse Effect is the result of atmospheric water vapor in Earth's atmosphere. But because water droplets held in suspension (clouds) make almost as good a reflector as they do a thermal insulator, there is little rise in daytime temperatures due to the Greenhouse Effect.
Any greenhouse warming, if it does occur, is limited to primarily increasing nighttime temperatures, which provides beneficial moderation of nighttime low temperatures, but no increase in daytime high temperatures. Without the “greenhouse effect,” there would not be life on this planet. The greenhouse effect keep temperatures moderate and livable. To demonize the “greenhouse effect” is also intellectually dishonest.
The biggest source of greenhouse gas is our oceans. Furthermore, animals and volcanoes produce so much CO2 that it completely dwarfs mankind’s insignificantly tiny emissions.
Some of the foregoing data is contributed by co2science.org
Saturday, February 27, 2010
The Earth is Not Warming Afterall?
Scientists have been forced to retract a paper that claimed sea levels were rising due to the effects of global warming, after mistakes were discovered that disputed the results. The study was published in Nature Geoscience and predicted that sea levels would rise by as much as 2.7 feet by the end of the twenty-first century.
However, mistakes in time intervals and inaccurately applied statistics have forced the authors to retract their paper -- the first official retraction ever for the three-year-old journal, notes the Guardian. In an officially published retraction of their paper, the authors acknowledged these mistakes as factors that compromised the results. "We no longer have confidence in our projections for the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and for this reason the authors retract the results pertaining to sea-level rise after 1900," wrote authors Mark Siddall, Thomas Stocker and Peter Clark. The fact is, there’s no evidence for that claim
After the firestorm of criticism called Climate-gate, the British government's official Meteorological Office has decided to give its modern climate data a do-over. At a meeting on Monday of about 150 climate scientists in the quiet Turkish seaside resort of Antalya, representatives of the weather office (known in Britain as the Met Office) quietly proposed that the world's climate scientists start all over again.
I don’t know about you, but a scientific organization, made up of scientists, and presumably some of the world’s brightest people...who can’t get the facts right? Who can’t calculate the data correctly? And who screw up the “time intervals” and mess up the “applied statistics?” If we didn’t know better, we’d think they were talking about an eighth grade Remedial Math class.
As so-called “climate change” scientists continue to trot out statements declaring the earth really is warming, that the past month was the warmest January on record, that the past year was the warmest on record, that the past ten years have been the warmest on record, blah, blah, blah. Reminds me of a guy standing shirtless in a blizzard, freezing, but the climate scientist is standing next to him saying, “it really is warm out here, it is the hottest day on record, it’s the warmest January ever...it really is warm out here. Trust me, I’m a scientist.” Ok, sometimes the “experts” really appear very stupid, irrational, and down right dimented, if they expect rational people to believe such nonsense.
If we were talking about anything but one of the environmental “sacred religious” truths, we would declare the whole lot of them nuts and completely ignore them for evermore. But, since this is environmentalism we’re talking about, and “sacred” leftist/liberal ideology, the media is “obligated” to continue the ruse and pretend the all-knowing ones are beyond reproach, and even worthy of Nobel prizes. But the man on the street, the people on the ground, those who actually live in this “environment” know better...they actually know what’s what.
However, mistakes in time intervals and inaccurately applied statistics have forced the authors to retract their paper -- the first official retraction ever for the three-year-old journal, notes the Guardian. In an officially published retraction of their paper, the authors acknowledged these mistakes as factors that compromised the results. "We no longer have confidence in our projections for the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, and for this reason the authors retract the results pertaining to sea-level rise after 1900," wrote authors Mark Siddall, Thomas Stocker and Peter Clark. The fact is, there’s no evidence for that claim
After the firestorm of criticism called Climate-gate, the British government's official Meteorological Office has decided to give its modern climate data a do-over. At a meeting on Monday of about 150 climate scientists in the quiet Turkish seaside resort of Antalya, representatives of the weather office (known in Britain as the Met Office) quietly proposed that the world's climate scientists start all over again.
I don’t know about you, but a scientific organization, made up of scientists, and presumably some of the world’s brightest people...who can’t get the facts right? Who can’t calculate the data correctly? And who screw up the “time intervals” and mess up the “applied statistics?” If we didn’t know better, we’d think they were talking about an eighth grade Remedial Math class.
As so-called “climate change” scientists continue to trot out statements declaring the earth really is warming, that the past month was the warmest January on record, that the past year was the warmest on record, that the past ten years have been the warmest on record, blah, blah, blah. Reminds me of a guy standing shirtless in a blizzard, freezing, but the climate scientist is standing next to him saying, “it really is warm out here, it is the hottest day on record, it’s the warmest January ever...it really is warm out here. Trust me, I’m a scientist.” Ok, sometimes the “experts” really appear very stupid, irrational, and down right dimented, if they expect rational people to believe such nonsense.
If we were talking about anything but one of the environmental “sacred religious” truths, we would declare the whole lot of them nuts and completely ignore them for evermore. But, since this is environmentalism we’re talking about, and “sacred” leftist/liberal ideology, the media is “obligated” to continue the ruse and pretend the all-knowing ones are beyond reproach, and even worthy of Nobel prizes. But the man on the street, the people on the ground, those who actually live in this “environment” know better...they actually know what’s what.
Friday, February 19, 2010
No Global Warming Since 1995
The embattled ex-head of the research center at the heart of the Climate-gate scandal dropped a bombshell over the weekend, admitting in an interview with the BBC that there has been no global warming over the past 15 years.
Phil Jones, former head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, made a number of eye-popping statements to the BBC's climate reporter on Sunday. Data from CRU, where Jones was the chief scientist, is key evidence behind the claim that the growth of cities (which are warmer than countryside) isn't a factor in global warming and was cited by the U.N.'s climate science body to bolster statements about rapid global warming in recent decades. FoxNews.com 15 Feb 2010
It just gets worse and worse. Now we learn that data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing, and warming periods have happened before, which everybody knows.
The academic at the center of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information. Ok, his only job is to keep track of the information, and he can’t do it? And governments are making policy based on random, poorly stored and poorly indexed data?
Plus, Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests. Hmmm, ok, I’m gullible.
The data which he has lost, failed to file, failed to keep track of, or otherwise fumbled away, is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory, but he can’t produce the data and refuses FOI requests. I see a big problem here.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. Now there’s a shocker. The evil “deniers” have been saying this for decades, and because “they” said it, the leftist environmentalists dismissed the claim because it didn’t come from themselves?
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming. There are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions, and other oppressive legislation.
Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics. Well, I for one, have been saying this for years. Add to this fraud, the “Tribal mentality” of the closed, global warming, science fraternity, and we’ve got one really big “scientific” problem.
Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now, because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries. And throwing a handful of CO2 into the air and claiming it raises global temperatures, is complete nonsense anyway.
This set of lies will cause untold problems with governments trying to solve non existing problems. Indeed it will.
“Socialism can really be defined today as environmentalism. This movement seeks to control all aspects of society, to dictate what people eat, what farmers grow, how we travel, build, work, cap and trade, and climate change. Essentially, all the advances towards socialism have occurred within the environmental realm.”
And this just in: “on Saturday, November 21, 2009, Weather Channel Founder files suit against Al Gore for fraud. 30,000 meteorologists are banding together to sue former Vice President Al Gore for fraud in perpetuating the global warming fraud.” Wow. Sanity is being restored...and so much for President Obama's "overwhelming evidence" assertion. Oops.
Phil Jones, former head of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, made a number of eye-popping statements to the BBC's climate reporter on Sunday. Data from CRU, where Jones was the chief scientist, is key evidence behind the claim that the growth of cities (which are warmer than countryside) isn't a factor in global warming and was cited by the U.N.'s climate science body to bolster statements about rapid global warming in recent decades. FoxNews.com 15 Feb 2010
It just gets worse and worse. Now we learn that data for vital 'hockey stick graph' has gone missing, and warming periods have happened before, which everybody knows.
The academic at the center of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information. Ok, his only job is to keep track of the information, and he can’t do it? And governments are making policy based on random, poorly stored and poorly indexed data?
Plus, Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests. Hmmm, ok, I’m gullible.
The data which he has lost, failed to file, failed to keep track of, or otherwise fumbled away, is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory, but he can’t produce the data and refuses FOI requests. I see a big problem here.
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. Now there’s a shocker. The evil “deniers” have been saying this for decades, and because “they” said it, the leftist environmentalists dismissed the claim because it didn’t come from themselves?
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming. There are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made.
The raw data, collected from hundreds of weather stations around the world and analysed by his unit, has been used for years to bolster efforts by the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to press governments to cut carbon dioxide emissions, and other oppressive legislation.
Professor Jones has been accused of ‘scientific fraud’ for allegedly deliberately suppressing information and refusing to share vital data with critics. Well, I for one, have been saying this for years. Add to this fraud, the “Tribal mentality” of the closed, global warming, science fraternity, and we’ve got one really big “scientific” problem.
Sceptics believe there is strong evidence that the world was warmer between about 800 and 1300 AD than now, because of evidence of high temperatures in northern countries. And throwing a handful of CO2 into the air and claiming it raises global temperatures, is complete nonsense anyway.
This set of lies will cause untold problems with governments trying to solve non existing problems. Indeed it will.
“Socialism can really be defined today as environmentalism. This movement seeks to control all aspects of society, to dictate what people eat, what farmers grow, how we travel, build, work, cap and trade, and climate change. Essentially, all the advances towards socialism have occurred within the environmental realm.”
And this just in: “on Saturday, November 21, 2009, Weather Channel Founder files suit against Al Gore for fraud. 30,000 meteorologists are banding together to sue former Vice President Al Gore for fraud in perpetuating the global warming fraud.” Wow. Sanity is being restored...and so much for President Obama's "overwhelming evidence" assertion. Oops.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
The Religion of Climate Change and its Rituals
I have spouted for months about how the global warming/climate change extremists are very “religious” about their so-called “science,” and how their zeal is far more like religion than science. The science these people use is horrid, in fact it isn’t science at all, but more like religious in nature. I love how Michael Barone (writes for The Washington Examiner, Feb 4, 2010), puts this issue, and I’m passing it on.
“The secular religion of global warming has all the elements of a religious faith: original sin (we are polluting the planet), ritual (separate your waste for recycling), redemption (renounce economic growth) and the sale of indulgences (carbon offsets). We are told that we must have faith (all argument must end, as Al Gore likes to say) and must persecute heretics (global warming skeptics are like Holocaust deniers, we are told). People in the grip of such a religious frenzy evidently feel justified in lying, concealing good evidence and plucking bad evidence from whatever flimsy source may be at hand.”
In his State of the Union Address, President Obama alluded to "the overwhelming evidence on climate change," Suggesting that no one could reasonably disagree, then he threw a left jab (pun intended) at the skeptics by adding, "even if you doubt the evidence." The religious faithful of the Climate Change Church are closing ranks, and intend to purge all disbelievers and heretics from the discussion.
From the president on down, from the former vice president, to the faithful followers in the pews of the Democratic Party, belief is essential, because in this false religion there is little truth, bad science, and a whole of shaking their finger going on at those who disbelieve.
“The secular religion of global warming has all the elements of a religious faith: original sin (we are polluting the planet), ritual (separate your waste for recycling), redemption (renounce economic growth) and the sale of indulgences (carbon offsets). We are told that we must have faith (all argument must end, as Al Gore likes to say) and must persecute heretics (global warming skeptics are like Holocaust deniers, we are told). People in the grip of such a religious frenzy evidently feel justified in lying, concealing good evidence and plucking bad evidence from whatever flimsy source may be at hand.”
In his State of the Union Address, President Obama alluded to "the overwhelming evidence on climate change," Suggesting that no one could reasonably disagree, then he threw a left jab (pun intended) at the skeptics by adding, "even if you doubt the evidence." The religious faithful of the Climate Change Church are closing ranks, and intend to purge all disbelievers and heretics from the discussion.
From the president on down, from the former vice president, to the faithful followers in the pews of the Democratic Party, belief is essential, because in this false religion there is little truth, bad science, and a whole of shaking their finger going on at those who disbelieve.
Monday, February 8, 2010
More Bogus Climate Change "science"
The U.N.'s controversial climate report is coming under fire -- again -- this time by one of its own scientists, who admits he can't find any evidence to support a warning about a climate-caused North African food shortage. The statement comes from a key 2007 report to the U.N., and asserts that by 2020 yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50% in some African countries thanks to climate change.
This revelation follows a continuing trend of bogus claims, now being disputed, by this 2007 report. Earlier the IPCC retracted a claim, that was widely hyped, that the Himalayan glaciers could all melt by 2035. It turns out the glacier claim had no scientific basis, but was included in the IPCC climate change publication. And Dutch environment ministry spokesman Trimo discredits the U.N.'s climate change panel’s assertion that more than half of the Netherlands is below seal level. Dutch authorities explain that, in fact, only 26 percent of the country is below sea level, not 55% as was claimed in the IPCC report. And the 26% is holding steady, not increasing, as climate models suggest.
The newest discredited claim comes from the IPCC's report on climate change, and is also repeated in its "Synthesis Report." That report is the IPCC's most politically sensitive publication, distilling its most important science into a form accessible to politicians and policy makers.
The report states, "In some countries of Africa, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by 50% by 2020." In a speech last July, Ban said: "Yields from rain-fed agriculture could fall by half in some African countries over the next 10 years."
Speaking this weekend, Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC's climate impacts team, said: "I was not an author on the 'Synthesis Report,' but on reading it I cannot find support for the statement about African crop yield declines."
This sort of claim should be based on hard evidence, said Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the U.K.'s department for environment food and rural affairs, who chaired the IPCC from 1997 to 2002. "Any such projection should be based on peer-reviewed literature... I can see no such data supporting the IPCC report," he said. Wow.
The pattern is becoming all too clear. The U.N. IPCC is based not on science, but politics, it would appear. Authors are able to slip in single, undocumented sentences, not reviewed by other authors, or paragraphs are included making wild claims, but without scientific documentation. Even, completely unscientific data is included, such as the Himalayan glacier melting claim, which came from an outdoor enthusiast, that was quoted in a magazine–then it ends up in the IPCC report as scientific research. This is pretty bad.
It’s time for a complete review, and overhaul, of the U.N. procedures. Their credibility is shot, gone, down the toilet. Their science is not science at all, but political manipulation at its worse. And we should not forget that the entire thrust of the “global warming” hoax came from a single sentence slipped into the first IPCC report. I quote from a news report here, “In 1996 the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) of the United Nations, published it’s now famous report. The report was “approved” on November 30, 1995. But the only significant line in the 586 page report, a last minute change, made after midnight, with most of the delegates gone from the room, and without the knowledge of most of those who contributed to the report, stated “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.”
The only problem? There was no evidence in their entire 586 page report to support that claim, and none of the other authors to that 586 page document had the opportunity to review the statement and either confirm or dispute the assertion. So a phony beginning by the U.N. leads to a string of bogus scientific claims, lacking peer review, that leads to governments around the planet making political decisions based on nonsense. And most governmental legislation is so draconian that, if implemented, would radically change life on the planet, from rich nations and poor nations alike.
It’s time for political leaders to admit they’ve been duped, and start basing their decisions on real science, common sense and truth.
This revelation follows a continuing trend of bogus claims, now being disputed, by this 2007 report. Earlier the IPCC retracted a claim, that was widely hyped, that the Himalayan glaciers could all melt by 2035. It turns out the glacier claim had no scientific basis, but was included in the IPCC climate change publication. And Dutch environment ministry spokesman Trimo discredits the U.N.'s climate change panel’s assertion that more than half of the Netherlands is below seal level. Dutch authorities explain that, in fact, only 26 percent of the country is below sea level, not 55% as was claimed in the IPCC report. And the 26% is holding steady, not increasing, as climate models suggest.
The newest discredited claim comes from the IPCC's report on climate change, and is also repeated in its "Synthesis Report." That report is the IPCC's most politically sensitive publication, distilling its most important science into a form accessible to politicians and policy makers.
The report states, "In some countries of Africa, yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by 50% by 2020." In a speech last July, Ban said: "Yields from rain-fed agriculture could fall by half in some African countries over the next 10 years."
Speaking this weekend, Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC's climate impacts team, said: "I was not an author on the 'Synthesis Report,' but on reading it I cannot find support for the statement about African crop yield declines."
This sort of claim should be based on hard evidence, said Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the U.K.'s department for environment food and rural affairs, who chaired the IPCC from 1997 to 2002. "Any such projection should be based on peer-reviewed literature... I can see no such data supporting the IPCC report," he said. Wow.
The pattern is becoming all too clear. The U.N. IPCC is based not on science, but politics, it would appear. Authors are able to slip in single, undocumented sentences, not reviewed by other authors, or paragraphs are included making wild claims, but without scientific documentation. Even, completely unscientific data is included, such as the Himalayan glacier melting claim, which came from an outdoor enthusiast, that was quoted in a magazine–then it ends up in the IPCC report as scientific research. This is pretty bad.
It’s time for a complete review, and overhaul, of the U.N. procedures. Their credibility is shot, gone, down the toilet. Their science is not science at all, but political manipulation at its worse. And we should not forget that the entire thrust of the “global warming” hoax came from a single sentence slipped into the first IPCC report. I quote from a news report here, “In 1996 the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) of the United Nations, published it’s now famous report. The report was “approved” on November 30, 1995. But the only significant line in the 586 page report, a last minute change, made after midnight, with most of the delegates gone from the room, and without the knowledge of most of those who contributed to the report, stated “the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate.”
The only problem? There was no evidence in their entire 586 page report to support that claim, and none of the other authors to that 586 page document had the opportunity to review the statement and either confirm or dispute the assertion. So a phony beginning by the U.N. leads to a string of bogus scientific claims, lacking peer review, that leads to governments around the planet making political decisions based on nonsense. And most governmental legislation is so draconian that, if implemented, would radically change life on the planet, from rich nations and poor nations alike.
It’s time for political leaders to admit they’ve been duped, and start basing their decisions on real science, common sense and truth.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
What is Science? And Who is Qualified to Speak?
Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairperson of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has no training whatsoever in climate science. Yet he heads the pontification panel which proliferates the new gospel of a hotter world. How come? Why did the United Nations not choose someone who was competent? His degree and training is in railroad engineering. You read it right. This man was educated to make railroads from point A to point B.
So we have the fact that a non-expert heads the IPCC. Then we have the fact that glaciers are not melting by 2035; this major scaremongering is now being defended as a minor error (it was originally meant to be 2350, some have clarified). The date was spouted first by Syed Hasnain, an Indian glacier expert, who borrowed the statement from a mountain climber, in an interview to a magazine. It had no scientific validity, and, as Hasnain has himself said, was speculative. So, as it turns out, this “scientific fact” turns out to be completely bogus, yet was published as fact, and with the strength and substance of “science” behind it, when in fact there was none.
The same goes for dire predictions on Amazon rain forests. The IPCC maintained that there would be a huge depletion in Amazon rain forests because of [global warming] lack of precipitation. Needless to add, no Amazon rain forest expert could be found to back this claim. They depended, instead, on a report by a freelance journalist and activist, and now it has blown up in their faces as well.
So is there any good science to support global warming? Not lately. Most of the so-called “science” is a few years old, and now most of that is being called into question as well. “There is no scientific consensus at all that man-made CO2 emissions cause global warming, as claimed by the IPCC. In a recent paper, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, who has worked extensively on climate change models, argues: ‘There is no scientific consensus on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps—if any—we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all.”
An investigation by Dr Benny Peiser, director, Global Warming Policy Foundation, has revealed that only 13 of the 1,117, or a mere 1 per cent of the scientific papers crosschecked by him, explicitly endorse the consensus as defined by the IPCC. Thus the very basis of the claim of consensus on global warming is false. And so deeply entrenched is the global warming lobby, the prestigious journal Science did not publish a letter that Dr Peiser wrote pointing out the lack of consensus. Says Dr Peiser, “The IPCC process by which it arrives at its conclusions lacks balance, transparency and due diligence. It is controlled by a tightly knit group of individuals who are completely convinced that they are right. As a result, conflicting data and evidence, even if published in peer-reviewed journals, are regularly ignored, while exaggerated claims, even if contentious or not peer-reviewed, are often highlighted in IPCC reports. Not surprisingly, the IPCC has lost a lot of credibility in recent years.
Sadly, government ideologues like President Obama cling to the global warming myth and ridicule the right for questioning it–and worse, he’s prepared to force through global warming based legislation even if it turns out to be a hoax. What kind of a president is that?
Another total lie has been that the Sunderbans in Bangladesh are sinking on account of the rise in sea level. The IPCC claimed that one-fifth of Bangladesh will be under water by 2050. Well, it turns out this is an absurd, unscientific and outrageous claim. According to scientists at the Centre for Environmental and Geographical Information Services (Cegis) in Dhaka, its surface area appears to be growing by 20 sq km annually. Cegis has based its results on more than 30 years of satellite imagery. IPCC has not retracted this claim. As far as they are concerned, Bangladesh is a goner by 2050, submerged forever in the Bay of Bengal.
“The revelations have been nothing short of jaw dropping. Dozens of claims made in the IPCC 2007 report on climate change that was supposed to represent the "consensus" of 2500 of the world's climate scientists have been shown to be bogus, or faulty, or not properly vetted, or simply pulled out of thin air.
We know this because newspapers in Great Britain are doing their job; vetting the 2007 report item by item, coming up with shocking news about global warming claims that formed the basis of argument by climate change advocates who were pressuring the US and western industrialized democracies to transfer trillions of dollars in wealth to the third world and cede sovereignty to the UN.” from The American Spectator, February 2, 2010
So we have the fact that a non-expert heads the IPCC. Then we have the fact that glaciers are not melting by 2035; this major scaremongering is now being defended as a minor error (it was originally meant to be 2350, some have clarified). The date was spouted first by Syed Hasnain, an Indian glacier expert, who borrowed the statement from a mountain climber, in an interview to a magazine. It had no scientific validity, and, as Hasnain has himself said, was speculative. So, as it turns out, this “scientific fact” turns out to be completely bogus, yet was published as fact, and with the strength and substance of “science” behind it, when in fact there was none.
The same goes for dire predictions on Amazon rain forests. The IPCC maintained that there would be a huge depletion in Amazon rain forests because of [global warming] lack of precipitation. Needless to add, no Amazon rain forest expert could be found to back this claim. They depended, instead, on a report by a freelance journalist and activist, and now it has blown up in their faces as well.
So is there any good science to support global warming? Not lately. Most of the so-called “science” is a few years old, and now most of that is being called into question as well. “There is no scientific consensus at all that man-made CO2 emissions cause global warming, as claimed by the IPCC. In a recent paper, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, who has worked extensively on climate change models, argues: ‘There is no scientific consensus on how much the world has warmed or will warm; how much of the warming is natural; how much impact greenhouse gases have had or will have on temperature; how sea level, storms, droughts, floods, flora, and fauna will respond to warmer temperature; what mitigative steps—if any—we should take; whether (if at all) such steps would have sufficient (or any) climatic effect; or even whether we should take any steps at all.”
An investigation by Dr Benny Peiser, director, Global Warming Policy Foundation, has revealed that only 13 of the 1,117, or a mere 1 per cent of the scientific papers crosschecked by him, explicitly endorse the consensus as defined by the IPCC. Thus the very basis of the claim of consensus on global warming is false. And so deeply entrenched is the global warming lobby, the prestigious journal Science did not publish a letter that Dr Peiser wrote pointing out the lack of consensus. Says Dr Peiser, “The IPCC process by which it arrives at its conclusions lacks balance, transparency and due diligence. It is controlled by a tightly knit group of individuals who are completely convinced that they are right. As a result, conflicting data and evidence, even if published in peer-reviewed journals, are regularly ignored, while exaggerated claims, even if contentious or not peer-reviewed, are often highlighted in IPCC reports. Not surprisingly, the IPCC has lost a lot of credibility in recent years.
Sadly, government ideologues like President Obama cling to the global warming myth and ridicule the right for questioning it–and worse, he’s prepared to force through global warming based legislation even if it turns out to be a hoax. What kind of a president is that?
Another total lie has been that the Sunderbans in Bangladesh are sinking on account of the rise in sea level. The IPCC claimed that one-fifth of Bangladesh will be under water by 2050. Well, it turns out this is an absurd, unscientific and outrageous claim. According to scientists at the Centre for Environmental and Geographical Information Services (Cegis) in Dhaka, its surface area appears to be growing by 20 sq km annually. Cegis has based its results on more than 30 years of satellite imagery. IPCC has not retracted this claim. As far as they are concerned, Bangladesh is a goner by 2050, submerged forever in the Bay of Bengal.
“The revelations have been nothing short of jaw dropping. Dozens of claims made in the IPCC 2007 report on climate change that was supposed to represent the "consensus" of 2500 of the world's climate scientists have been shown to be bogus, or faulty, or not properly vetted, or simply pulled out of thin air.
We know this because newspapers in Great Britain are doing their job; vetting the 2007 report item by item, coming up with shocking news about global warming claims that formed the basis of argument by climate change advocates who were pressuring the US and western industrialized democracies to transfer trillions of dollars in wealth to the third world and cede sovereignty to the UN.” from The American Spectator, February 2, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Environmental Doublespeak on Global Warming
The following is from the latest report from the global warming religion.
“The Earth's surface temperature hasn't warmed as expected over the past decade.” Hmmm, the evil “deniers” have been saying this for years. And, “One study out earlier this month theorized that the Earth's climate may be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than currently assumed.” Hmmm again, “deniers” have also been saying this for a very long time.
“Water vapor, a potent, natural greenhouse gas, is "a wild card" of global warming, says the paper's lead author, senior scientist Susan Solomon of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colo.” Well, indeed. Water vapor is THEE greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, not CO2. It’s nice for the scientific world to finally catch up with what everyone has known for a hundred years.
The report continues, “In the paper, Solomon and her colleagues found that a drop in the concentration of water vapor in the stratosphere very likely made substantial contributions to the flattening of the global warming trend since about 2000." Now this is something, for two reasons: 1) the assertion that less water vapor causes the earth to warm. Every weatherman, every atmospheric scientist, and every high schooler knows the opposite is true. Less water causes the earth to warm, it lets in more solar radiation. 2) and it’s astounding that she admits to the “flattening of the warming trend,” during the last decade. According to the computer models the planet is to supposed to be accelerating near the boiling point by now.
The report continues, “The findings are "surprising," says Bill Randel, an atmospheric chemist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who was not part of the study. He said it was surprising how big an effect such a very little change in stratospheric water vapor has had on the surface climate.” Translated, this means, we have no idea what’s going on, we’re supposed to be real smart people, but this dang atmosphere just keeps fooling us.
The humor continues, “Although it's known that water vapor in the troposphere increases as the climate warms, models do a poor job of simulating water vapor in the stratosphere.” To say computer models do a “poor job” is to heap high praise on them–they are absolutely worthless, and so far off the mark it’s surprising anyone continues to give them any credence at all.
“The Earth's surface temperature hasn't warmed as expected over the past decade.” Hmmm, the evil “deniers” have been saying this for years. And, “One study out earlier this month theorized that the Earth's climate may be less sensitive to greenhouse gases than currently assumed.” Hmmm again, “deniers” have also been saying this for a very long time.
“Water vapor, a potent, natural greenhouse gas, is "a wild card" of global warming, says the paper's lead author, senior scientist Susan Solomon of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colo.” Well, indeed. Water vapor is THEE greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, not CO2. It’s nice for the scientific world to finally catch up with what everyone has known for a hundred years.
The report continues, “In the paper, Solomon and her colleagues found that a drop in the concentration of water vapor in the stratosphere very likely made substantial contributions to the flattening of the global warming trend since about 2000." Now this is something, for two reasons: 1) the assertion that less water vapor causes the earth to warm. Every weatherman, every atmospheric scientist, and every high schooler knows the opposite is true. Less water causes the earth to warm, it lets in more solar radiation. 2) and it’s astounding that she admits to the “flattening of the warming trend,” during the last decade. According to the computer models the planet is to supposed to be accelerating near the boiling point by now.
The report continues, “The findings are "surprising," says Bill Randel, an atmospheric chemist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, who was not part of the study. He said it was surprising how big an effect such a very little change in stratospheric water vapor has had on the surface climate.” Translated, this means, we have no idea what’s going on, we’re supposed to be real smart people, but this dang atmosphere just keeps fooling us.
The humor continues, “Although it's known that water vapor in the troposphere increases as the climate warms, models do a poor job of simulating water vapor in the stratosphere.” To say computer models do a “poor job” is to heap high praise on them–they are absolutely worthless, and so far off the mark it’s surprising anyone continues to give them any credence at all.
Monday, January 25, 2010
More Falsified Data, A Disturbing Pattern
The pattern here, is all too familiar. First we had Al Gore preaching to elementary kids his “An Inconvenient Truth,” based, he claimed, on solid, accepted, scientific evidence. The “truth,” as he put it forth had to do with the relationship of CO2 and global warming, among other things. It didn’t take long for “truth” to be revealed as a fairy tale, having little if any scientific basis. But his book and film are still quoted by environmentalists, and accepted by many as scientific truth.
Then we had the “hacker revelations” from the U.K.'s East Anglia University, which revealed that data was doctored, altered and made to appear more dire, presumably to influence political decisions relating to environmental policy.
Now, we have yet another revelation regarding the IPCC and bogus data. Rajendra Pachauri of the IPCC, “faces fresh controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters, including hurricanes and floods, and for a separate section of the report that warned that the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s." And now yet another, an oft-cited "fact" in his panel's 2008 climate change report -- that the Himalayas were on track to melt by 2035 -- was sloppily copied from a magazine interview with a single glaciologist in 1999.” Not only is the data wrong, it’s rather old as well.
“The IPCC based its claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny -- and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link was weak, The Sunday Times of London reported. The newspaper has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based that claim had neither been peer reviewed nor published at the time the U.N. panel issued its report.” (FoxNews.com) The long standing practice of having research reviewed by your peers was beginning to be ignored in the 1970s, then became significantly ignored by environmentalists who did not want their research to be reviewed because, well, it would be exposed. Now, today, the practice of having scientific research reviewed by peers is virtually ignored–especially by so called environmental scientists.
In 2008, when the report was eventually published, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses." But despite this change, the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. One would have to be blind not to see the intent here of influencing climate policy at the Copenhagen conference.
Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, said in an interview. "The absurdity was obvious to anyone who had studied the scientific literature. This was not an honest mistake. IPCC had been warned about it for a year by many scientists." It may have been absurd, but not to the environmentally religious faithful, who eat this stuff up and proclaim in loudly, truthful or not.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that none of the wild, extremist environmental and climate change claims are true. They are so far out there, you’d have to be really dumb, or really brainwashed to even tolerate such nonsense. The pattern here, of pumping out extreme “scientific” conclusions, avoiding peer review, and of slipping in little “mistakes” to draw attention to the environmental position of global warming/climate change, draws into question the entire body of environmental and climate change conclusions.
Just as President Obama wants all his policies and legislation approved in a big hurry, before people have time to fully consider the legislation, Al Gore also campaigned for urgent action, immediate action, screaming “the debate is over,” so action could be taken before people figured out how bogus this whole global warming thing is. The science is not there, the facts are not there, and the implications here are very disturbing. We have been duped, and the brain washing continues. And, no, Mr. Gore, the debate is not over, but only begun.
Then we had the “hacker revelations” from the U.K.'s East Anglia University, which revealed that data was doctored, altered and made to appear more dire, presumably to influence political decisions relating to environmental policy.
Now, we have yet another revelation regarding the IPCC and bogus data. Rajendra Pachauri of the IPCC, “faces fresh controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters, including hurricanes and floods, and for a separate section of the report that warned that the world had "suffered rapidly rising costs due to extreme weather-related events since the 1970s." And now yet another, an oft-cited "fact" in his panel's 2008 climate change report -- that the Himalayas were on track to melt by 2035 -- was sloppily copied from a magazine interview with a single glaciologist in 1999.” Not only is the data wrong, it’s rather old as well.
“The IPCC based its claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny -- and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link was weak, The Sunday Times of London reported. The newspaper has since found that the scientific paper on which the IPCC based that claim had neither been peer reviewed nor published at the time the U.N. panel issued its report.” (FoxNews.com) The long standing practice of having research reviewed by your peers was beginning to be ignored in the 1970s, then became significantly ignored by environmentalists who did not want their research to be reviewed because, well, it would be exposed. Now, today, the practice of having scientific research reviewed by peers is virtually ignored–especially by so called environmental scientists.
In 2008, when the report was eventually published, it had a new caveat. It said: "We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses." But despite this change, the IPCC did not issue a clarification ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit last month. One would have to be blind not to see the intent here of influencing climate policy at the Copenhagen conference.
Patrick J. Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental policy at the libertarian Cato Institute, said in an interview. "The absurdity was obvious to anyone who had studied the scientific literature. This was not an honest mistake. IPCC had been warned about it for a year by many scientists." It may have been absurd, but not to the environmentally religious faithful, who eat this stuff up and proclaim in loudly, truthful or not.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that none of the wild, extremist environmental and climate change claims are true. They are so far out there, you’d have to be really dumb, or really brainwashed to even tolerate such nonsense. The pattern here, of pumping out extreme “scientific” conclusions, avoiding peer review, and of slipping in little “mistakes” to draw attention to the environmental position of global warming/climate change, draws into question the entire body of environmental and climate change conclusions.
Just as President Obama wants all his policies and legislation approved in a big hurry, before people have time to fully consider the legislation, Al Gore also campaigned for urgent action, immediate action, screaming “the debate is over,” so action could be taken before people figured out how bogus this whole global warming thing is. The science is not there, the facts are not there, and the implications here are very disturbing. We have been duped, and the brain washing continues. And, no, Mr. Gore, the debate is not over, but only begun.
Monday, January 11, 2010
What In The World of Global Warming is Going On?
Reality is puzzling me, in fact it’s driving me crazy. I’m confused and befuddled. What in the world of global warming is going on? Here are a few snippets from the past few days, from various articles in the national press, on weather and climate.
The South is reeling all the way to South Florida, where the average high temperature this time of year is 76 degrees. Overnight temperatures are expected to be in the 30s there this weekend.
The weather, with temperatures forecast for the low 20s this weekend....
The deep cold was hurting wildlife. Almost 100 endangered sea turtles, which became lethargic in frigid water that shocked their tropically inclined systems, were found floating in the Mosquito Lagoon in eastern Florida
"I'll be 63 next month, and I don't remember a time when it's been this cold for this long," said Jerry Gentry, assistant manager of an Ace Hardware store in Nashville.
Sixty percent of the U.S. population will experience temperatures 15 to 30 degrees below normal at some point by Sunday night, said Weather Channel meteorologist Jim Wilson. The cold will be a "threat to pipes, property and crops," especially in the South, where record lows are possible each morning through Monday, he said.
By the end of this weekend, 180 million Americans will have shivered through a record-setting bout of arctic cold sweeping from the Great Plains and the Midwest to the Deep South.
“Britons shivered through the country's longest cold snap in three decades as icy weather maintained its grip on Europe.” USA Today, January 9, 2009
The weather has been brutal by Britain's temperate standards, and local authorities across the country are running out of salt and sand. A clutch of sporting events has been canceled — including five of the seven scheduled Premier League soccer games scheduled for Saturday.
“The main story in the South will be the bitterly cold, potentially record-breaking low temperatures that are forecast from the southern Plains to Florida.” USA Today Jan 9, 2009
“On Saturday night, a temperature of 35 degrees set a Miami, Florida record that had stood since 1970, said Joel Rothfuss with the National Weather Service.” FoxNews, 1/11/10
Snow fell in Orlando on January 10, 2010. No one can remember that happening.
According to NASA, the ten warmest years on record are, 1934 1998 1921 1906 1931 1999 1953 1990 1938 1939. Odd that no 2000 dates are on the list. Could it be because the earth is actually cooling again? In spite of all that CO2 the world is pumping into the atmosphere?
What I don’t get is, if the planet is warming, if the past decade has been the warmest on record, if CO2 in the atmosphere is rising, if the ice caps are melting...why are we only seeing record low temperatures all around the globe, year after year, instead of record highs? Logic would tell us that some record high temperatures should be showing up, and that winters should be moderating, with record warm temperatures being reported, at least somewhere on the planet. But no, this is not the case. Record low after record low is being reported from the United States, to Great Britain, to South America, and Australia. Something is wrong with this picture.
The South is reeling all the way to South Florida, where the average high temperature this time of year is 76 degrees. Overnight temperatures are expected to be in the 30s there this weekend.
The weather, with temperatures forecast for the low 20s this weekend....
The deep cold was hurting wildlife. Almost 100 endangered sea turtles, which became lethargic in frigid water that shocked their tropically inclined systems, were found floating in the Mosquito Lagoon in eastern Florida
"I'll be 63 next month, and I don't remember a time when it's been this cold for this long," said Jerry Gentry, assistant manager of an Ace Hardware store in Nashville.
Sixty percent of the U.S. population will experience temperatures 15 to 30 degrees below normal at some point by Sunday night, said Weather Channel meteorologist Jim Wilson. The cold will be a "threat to pipes, property and crops," especially in the South, where record lows are possible each morning through Monday, he said.
By the end of this weekend, 180 million Americans will have shivered through a record-setting bout of arctic cold sweeping from the Great Plains and the Midwest to the Deep South.
“Britons shivered through the country's longest cold snap in three decades as icy weather maintained its grip on Europe.” USA Today, January 9, 2009
The weather has been brutal by Britain's temperate standards, and local authorities across the country are running out of salt and sand. A clutch of sporting events has been canceled — including five of the seven scheduled Premier League soccer games scheduled for Saturday.
“The main story in the South will be the bitterly cold, potentially record-breaking low temperatures that are forecast from the southern Plains to Florida.” USA Today Jan 9, 2009
“On Saturday night, a temperature of 35 degrees set a Miami, Florida record that had stood since 1970, said Joel Rothfuss with the National Weather Service.” FoxNews, 1/11/10
Snow fell in Orlando on January 10, 2010. No one can remember that happening.
According to NASA, the ten warmest years on record are, 1934 1998 1921 1906 1931 1999 1953 1990 1938 1939. Odd that no 2000 dates are on the list. Could it be because the earth is actually cooling again? In spite of all that CO2 the world is pumping into the atmosphere?
What I don’t get is, if the planet is warming, if the past decade has been the warmest on record, if CO2 in the atmosphere is rising, if the ice caps are melting...why are we only seeing record low temperatures all around the globe, year after year, instead of record highs? Logic would tell us that some record high temperatures should be showing up, and that winters should be moderating, with record warm temperatures being reported, at least somewhere on the planet. But no, this is not the case. Record low after record low is being reported from the United States, to Great Britain, to South America, and Australia. Something is wrong with this picture.
Monday, January 4, 2010
More Cold Weather Just Keeps Happening
The recent football bowl season offers an interesting, even significant, view of the nation’s weather, and of the falseness of global warming, if you will. Bowl games historically are played in warmer climes, and the thinking is that for those teams who have successful seasons, even in typically cold climes, they can be rewarded by playing in a bowl game, in a warmer climate. But this year, the weather in the host cities has not cooperated.
Bowl games are scattered all across the American landscape, from San Francisco to D.C., and from Houston to Detroit. But the majority of the bowls are scattered across the southern, more comfortable climes.
So how was the bowl weather this year? The Florida bowls, St Petersburg, Champs (Orlando), Capitol One (Orlando), and Outback (Tampa) bowls all experienced way below normal temperatures. And the Orange Bowl in Miami? it's the coldest Orange Bowl ever. The Las Vegas bowl was awful, freezing and windy. The Emerald Bowl in SF was the coldest in years. The Eagle Bank Bowl in D.C. was terribly cold, and near a record low temperature. New Orleans was below normal, as was Charlotte, NC, Nashville, Shreveport and Memphis. Fort Worth was way below normal, as was Atlanta, Georgia. Even New Orleans and San Antonio were “chilly,” and atypically below normal.
San Diego was nice, and normal, as was Los Angeles, but just about every other bowl hosting city was below normal, and many were at near record low temperatures. Games were spread out over a three week period, so it’s not like it was a one day cold event. And it wasn’t just bowl cities that suffered this cold.
Salt Lake City experienced the coldest December in nineteen years. Most of the west experienced a below normal December. One would think, in an era of global warming, that we would be seeing record warm temperatures, or relative heat waves at the bowl games, at least in cities that are typically warm during this time of year. But record lows should not be occurring, this contradicts the very foundation of the AGW crowd, namely that the planet is warming; in fact, it is cooling, throwing into question the entire CO2 premise.
On January 3, 2010, International Falls, Minnesota recorded its coldest temperature since 1979. Sioux Falls, S.D. also saw record cold temperatures on January 2nd, when temperatures hit 30 below zero, the coldest temperature since 1974.
Burlington, VT received 32 inches of snow the weekend following New Year’s Day, the heaviest snowfall ever recorded there, in 120 years of records. And freeze warnings have been issued for the entire state of Florida. Freeze warnings for Florida are rare but not unheard of. But freezing temperatures as far south as Miami is unheard of. Forecasts for the entire east coast call for even colder temperatures later this week (January 4, 2010).
So not only did Copenhagen, Denmark experience its coldest temperatures in decades during the U.N. climate change conference, the entire college football bowl season is bathed in the coldest weather in years. Where is all the warming? Where is it? Yes, global warming is real, it just keeps getting colder and colder. 2007 saw record lows recorded all over South America, and this year, record lows are being recorded across North America. At some point the global warming religious faithful are going to have to admit their scam and deception is a fraud, and give it up.
At some point, the environmentalists and politically correct weather scientists, politically correct politicians, and politically correct media, will have to admit to the fraud that global warming is, and give up the deceit.
Bowl games are scattered all across the American landscape, from San Francisco to D.C., and from Houston to Detroit. But the majority of the bowls are scattered across the southern, more comfortable climes.
So how was the bowl weather this year? The Florida bowls, St Petersburg, Champs (Orlando), Capitol One (Orlando), and Outback (Tampa) bowls all experienced way below normal temperatures. And the Orange Bowl in Miami? it's the coldest Orange Bowl ever. The Las Vegas bowl was awful, freezing and windy. The Emerald Bowl in SF was the coldest in years. The Eagle Bank Bowl in D.C. was terribly cold, and near a record low temperature. New Orleans was below normal, as was Charlotte, NC, Nashville, Shreveport and Memphis. Fort Worth was way below normal, as was Atlanta, Georgia. Even New Orleans and San Antonio were “chilly,” and atypically below normal.
San Diego was nice, and normal, as was Los Angeles, but just about every other bowl hosting city was below normal, and many were at near record low temperatures. Games were spread out over a three week period, so it’s not like it was a one day cold event. And it wasn’t just bowl cities that suffered this cold.
Salt Lake City experienced the coldest December in nineteen years. Most of the west experienced a below normal December. One would think, in an era of global warming, that we would be seeing record warm temperatures, or relative heat waves at the bowl games, at least in cities that are typically warm during this time of year. But record lows should not be occurring, this contradicts the very foundation of the AGW crowd, namely that the planet is warming; in fact, it is cooling, throwing into question the entire CO2 premise.
On January 3, 2010, International Falls, Minnesota recorded its coldest temperature since 1979. Sioux Falls, S.D. also saw record cold temperatures on January 2nd, when temperatures hit 30 below zero, the coldest temperature since 1974.
Burlington, VT received 32 inches of snow the weekend following New Year’s Day, the heaviest snowfall ever recorded there, in 120 years of records. And freeze warnings have been issued for the entire state of Florida. Freeze warnings for Florida are rare but not unheard of. But freezing temperatures as far south as Miami is unheard of. Forecasts for the entire east coast call for even colder temperatures later this week (January 4, 2010).
So not only did Copenhagen, Denmark experience its coldest temperatures in decades during the U.N. climate change conference, the entire college football bowl season is bathed in the coldest weather in years. Where is all the warming? Where is it? Yes, global warming is real, it just keeps getting colder and colder. 2007 saw record lows recorded all over South America, and this year, record lows are being recorded across North America. At some point the global warming religious faithful are going to have to admit their scam and deception is a fraud, and give it up.
At some point, the environmentalists and politically correct weather scientists, politically correct politicians, and politically correct media, will have to admit to the fraud that global warming is, and give up the deceit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)