More bogus science

A new study published in the journal Nature recently, completely debunks all previous claims that temperatures in recent decades are in any way historic demonstrating instead that things were much hotter on this planet during Roman times:
This thoroughly debunks the claim that temperatures on the planet today are in any way historic or unprecedented. They simply are not.

For the first time, researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years. Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.

Our ancestors suffered through much hotter summers in times gone by, several of them within the last 2,000 years. A new study measuring temperatures over the past two millennia has concluded that in fact the temperatures seen in the last decade are far from being the hottest in history. This being the case, disprove the myth that carbon fuels have triggered a catastrophic rise in global temperatures, melting ice caps, killing polar bears, altering the climate and otherwise driving mankind into oblivion.

Here’s a graph of the data:

In the IPCC view, the planet was cooler during Roman times and the medieval warm spell. Overall the temperature is headed up - perhaps wildly up, according to the famous/infamous "hockey stick" graph. There is no hockey stick graph here!

The new study indicates that that's quite wrong, with the current warming less serious than the Romans and others since have seen - and the overall trend actually down by a noticeable 0.3°C per millennium, which the scientists believe is probably down to gradual long-term shifts in the position of the Sun and the Earth's path around it. Just as many climate realists have been saying for years.

Professor Dr. Jan Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC. In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling. "We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low," says Esper. "Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today's climate changes are seen.

It is becoming increasing clear that the global warming/climate change cartel have fabricated lie after lie in order to manipulate public policy and funnel billions of dollars of public money rushing to fix a problem that does not exist. How broad is their deceit? First we learn that the ice caps are not receding, then we learn that polar bears are not a declining population, then we discover the oceans are not rising. To no great surprise we learned that the temperature data has been manipulated, both in the method of obtaining it, and in actual exaggeration of the raw data. We should not be surprised this is not real science, it is manipulated data in pursuit of a political agenda, an end defined and framed by environmentalists who believe the religion of evil man destroying the earth, and environmentalists are the saviors coming to the rescue. But to obtain their goal, they must end man’s dependence on carbon fuels (the boogeyman here), and global warming, with some gross distortion and manipulation, is the perfect scare to garner political support and money to save the world.

In this bizarre world of make believe science, carbon, of all things, is declared a pollutant with environmentalists determined to rid the world of this awful curse. Ok, now we know they’ve lost their minds…and their credibility.

"Facts" that don't add up

You no doubt have read the "news" stories declaring that the past year, or the past season, or the past summer or winter, was the warmest on record. These "news" stories appear every few months, and have made their appearance at least annually for the past several years. And no doubt, many readers believe what they are reading, the earth is warming, global warming is real, climate change is here. But this simply is not true.

These reports about record high temperatures occur at the same time as other contradictory reports occur. For example, only days after reports of the coldest year in decades in South America, USA Today published a story declaring 2010 the hottest year on record. How can this be possible when all of South America was having record lows, the western U.S. was having record lows, and parts of Europe and Asia were also having unusual lows for the year? It's suspicious that the NOAA declares the world to be hotter than ever, at the same time many parts of the world have recorded the lowest average temperatures in years. This is called brainwashing, it is called lying until everyone believes the lie. It is not science.

I, as a weather guy, ask people around the world if they are experiencing an unusually warm year, "is it warmer where you live, than usual?" The answer is always, without exception, "no, our weather is normal," or "it's actually cooler than normal here." So if it's cooler everywhere, how can we be recording record high temperatures? it's easy.

For years there has been an ongoing battle between those who believe satellite temperature data and those who believe land based temperature data. Why the battle? The satellite temperature data does not support global warming, and the land based data does (supposedly). How can this be?

Here's what you need to understand. Over the past twenty years or so, government monitoring stations have been removed from remote areas, and moved to urban locations. Urban locations always give higher temperature readings than do the remote locations. The temperature in downtown Chicago is always going to be higher than the temperature fifty miles out in the country. Urban areas trap heat and give erroneous readings.

There are strict standards regarding the placement of temperature monitoring stations, they cannot be near heat generating equipment (air conditioners, for example), or within a certain number of feet of asphalt or concrete parking lots, etc. You get the idea? All these things give false readings, and corrupt the data, making it unreliable. But these standards are being completely ignored.

The born again global warming/climate change believers (many of them so-called scientists), are determined to support their bias at any cost. Consequently, hundreds of urban monitoring stations have been "carelessly" placed near air conditioning vents, asphalt and concrete parking lots, and other heat generating locations. This has not been done by accident, it is by design. The climate change believers must "prove" their bias.

So not only have they removed all the remote sensors, but they have moved them to urban areas that they know will show consistent higher readings, proving their bias, the earth is warming, the sky is falling, and you must continue to pay me to do something about this awful situation or we will all end up frying and dieing from our own carbon fuels consumption.

Furthering the deception (and it is deception) is the fact there are no monitoring stations over the 70 percent of the planet that we call our oceans. So we get no readings from 70 percent of the earth's surface, and they have removed the remote monitoring stations, so all we are recording is the temperatures from urban areas. Do you see a problem with this? Has the mainstream media ever reported this grand deception? Of course not.

But the satellite temperatures cannot be compromised. Satellites have highly sophisticated equipment on board that allow them to take readings from all corners of the earth, including the oceans, and the non-urban areas of the planet. So what do the satellites report? Surprise, surprise, global temperatures are not rising, but are actually cooling slightly. Thus, the global warming believers are going ape over satellite temperature reports and doing all in their power to discredit them.

But why? Why would supposed scientists not want the truth? Why would anyone want to deceive anyone else? What is to be gained? A lot. Money for example, and power, lots of power, and control.

We need look no further than your local, friendly, environmentalist for the answer. Environmentalism is built on the belief that man is the enemy to the earth, that man causes damage, harm and destruction to the earth, and that if the earth is to be saved, we (the enlightened environmentalists of the world) must do the saving.

Environmentalists have, for years, been trying to find a way to stop the use of carbon fuels, and global warming is the perfect answer to their prayers. Make carbon evil, declare it a pollutant, punish those who use carbon fuels, and use the taxing authority of governments, and the power and influence of the United Nations to push their agenda, and they can be the saviors of the planet, gain a ton of power, and dictate all things to all people--world wide.

Environmentalists are wannabe dictators, they are not educators, they are world dictators. They are never satisfied to merely teach you the earth is warming, but they want to control what you drive, what you eat, where you work, how you get there, where you live, what you live in...and did I mention they want you to send them billions of dollars in tax money to further their deceitful agenda? to pay their salaries? to pay for their "research" so they can further brainwash you, your spouse, your children, and your grandchildren, that carbon is a pollutant, that capitalism is evil, that SUVs are evil, that there are too many people on the earth, that we must pay them to fix all these straw man problems.

And so we come back to the matter of global warming. If their deceit here is exposed, if satellite data is accepted as accurate, and their sloppy science is exposed for what it is, and the cat ever gets out of the bag; oh my, this must never happen. And so the deceit and the brainwashing continues. It begins in kindergarten, and is strengthened in every grade level thereafter. And if your child goes to college, it really gets intense.

Scientists Blast ‘Incontrovertible’ Global Warming Claims

An editorial signed by 16 prominent scientists in the Wall Street Journal takes sharp issue with calls for drastic action against global warming, asserting that the threat is far from “incontrovertible” as alarmists claim.

“Candidates [for public office] should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.”

The scientists point to Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, who resigned from the American Physical Society in September due to the organization’s position that the evidence for global warming is “incontrovertible” and the threat requires “mitigating actions” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The 16 scientists — including Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences at MIT, and William Happer, professor of physics at Princeton — say in the Journal piece: “In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the ‘pollutant’ carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever.
“The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.”

The “most inconvenient” fact cited by the scientists is the lack of global warming over the past 10 years.

This suggests that “computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2,” the Op-Ed article states.

Why then does the call for action against global warming persist? The scientists say: Follow the money. “Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow,” they declare.

“Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet.”
They conclude: “Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world's economy.

Other scientists who signed the editorial include aerospace engineer Burt Rutan, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Michael Kelly, professor of technology at the University of Cambridge; and Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism at Rockefeller University.

Also, “Bosnia used helicopters on Sunday to evacuate the sick and deliver food to thousands of people left stranded by its heaviest snowfall ever.” Global warming seems not exist anywhere. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/02/05/thousands-trapped-by-snow-in-bosnia/?test=latestnews#ixzz1lZgeAcZN

More Proof of Climate Change Deceit

And to make the point even more clear, the U.N. got it wrong on Himalayan glaciers -- and the proof is finally here.

The authors of the U.N.’s climate policy guide were red-faced two years ago when it was revealed that they had inaccurately forecast that the Himalayan glaciers would melt completely in 25 years, vanishing by the year 2035.

A new report published Thursday, Feb. 9, in the science journal Nature offers the first comprehensive study of the world’s glaciers and ice caps, and one of its conclusions has shocked scientists. Using GRACE, a pair of orbiting satellites racing around the planet at an altitude of 300 miles, it comes to the eye-popping conclusion that the Himalayas have barely melted at all in the past 10 years.
"The GRACE results in this region really were a surprise," said University of Colorado at Boulder physics John Wahr, who led the study. http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/02/09/himalayan-glaciers-have-lost-no-ice-in-past-10-years-new-study-reveals/?intcmp=features#content#ixzz1m0UZLd00

The Crack in Global Warming

The following are excerpts from Ben Crystal’s “The Global Warming on Global Warming,” in Personal Liberty Digest.

The latest crack in global warming’s crumbling wall appeared last week in the United Kingdom with a quiet acknowledgement by the UK’s Met Office and the University of East Anglia that not only is the Earth not warming, the oven is off and the pilot light is out. Moreover, data collected from more than 30,000 measuring stations and released last week have put the deep freeze on global warming, instead indicating that the temperature trend pointed to by global warmists peaked in 1997.

Additionally, the current solar cycle has reached its maximum output and is, therefore, headed into what scientists call “Cycle 25,” which researchers at NASA and the University of Arizona have declared will be much weaker than solar cycles over the past century. In fact, the latest Met Office research predicts that Cycle 25 and subsequent 11-year solar cycles will likely approach the “Dalton minimum” for solar output, matching the solar slump which lowered Europe’s mean temperatures by 2 degrees centigrade during the 18th and 19th centuries. Some scientists predict solar energy could bottom out even further, matching the “Maunder minimum” — the coolest period of the “Little Ice Age” — which held the planet in its chilly grip from the mid-16th to mid-19th centuries.

These latest revelations about the myriad flaws and scientific method violations that mark the progression of the global warming theories combine with the well-established fact that global warmists have never employed more than anecdotal evidence that the basis of their fearmongering even exists to produce what ought to be a final curtain for global warming and the entire so-called “climate change” industry.

In “No Need to Panic About Global Warming,” an opinion piece that appeared in The Wall Street Journal last week, 16 scientists noted:

“Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet.”

Indeed: The column also noted the striking similarities between the global warmists’ method of enforcing their dogma with retribution and even banishment and the intellectual dark ages of the Soviet Union, in which anyone who opposed Trofim Lysenko’s ludicrously medieval scientific theories was stripped of prestige, imprisoned and even killed.

Another writer referred to climate change tactics as “tribal” in that whenever there is an attack on them or their goofy theories, they cluster into a tribal formation and defend their theory at all cost, excluding anyone who is not of their tribe, and refusing to reason. How’s that for science in the 21st century?

Tribute to Dr. Sylvan Wittwer, PhD.

On Saturday, I attended the funeral of Dr. Sylvan Witter, a world renown agronomist who taught at Michigan State University for 50 years, and did research around the world on a wide variety of scientific and agricultural related topics. This post is dedicated to Dr. Witter, an energetic and honest scientist, perhaps the best gardener in the world, and a friend. He was born January 17, 1917, and died January 20, 2012, he was 95 years old, and very active up until the final few months of his life.

Sylvan received his doctorate in horticulture from the University of Missouri-Columbia. In 1946 he moved to East Lansing, Michigan. While at Michigan State University he became a Professor of Horticulture, Associate Dean of the College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and Director of the Agricultural Experiment Station. Sylvan and Maurine spent two years in Belize on assignment from USAID and traveled the world in connection with his professional duties.

His professional honors and achievements include two honorary doctorates, election to the Horticulture Hall of Fame by the American Society for Horticultural Science, over 750 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles, and several books, including Feeding a Billion: Frontiers of Chinese Agriculture. He was an untiring spokesman for the promise of agricultural technology to eliminate world hunger, and made numerous trips to every continent except Antarctica as an invited speaker and advisor.

Dr. Wittwer did his own research, and proved or disproved the "research" of many others. He worked and published in the former Soviet Union, China, Asia, North and South America...and he took on the Climate Change fanatics, and rebuked their nonsense with research and strong science.

Among his other findings, from his own research, Dr. Wittwer proved that CO2 was entirely beneficial to the planet, to the environment, to plant growth and food production. He advocated increasing CO2 worldwide, if it could be done, because food production goes up dramatically when CO2 is increased. This action alone would virtually eliminate world hunger; food production would increase that much.

"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."

Dr. Wittwer wrote a book, "Feeding A Billion," in cooperation with Chinese agricultural scientists. He was a highly respected and welcome guest in China because of his lack of bias and politicized nonsense that accompanies so many other so-called American scientists. Wittwer simply went to the heart of the matter, how can we feed more people? how can we increase food production? and for the Chinese, how can we feed ourselves? One undergirding (certainly not the only) component of his conclusions, was to increase CO2 to the food crops, and productivity increases dramatically. This can be done in the greenhouse, and in other ways. But if the Climate Change crowd are correct, and CO2 is increasing, he says we ought to find out why it is increasing, and work to increase it further--the world and it's people would be far better off.

Dr. Wittwer disproved many false theories, including the false notion that CO2 is a harmful pollutant to the environment and should be reduced in the atmosphere at any cost. Indeed, he was an advocate for more CO2, although he knew it was not possible to manipulate global CO2, but if it were, he would advocate it.

Climate Change "science" is Bogus

Two significant pieces of recent research seems to have discredited two of the bedrock tenants of global warming and climate change. First a recent study by NASA contradicts the notion that carbon dioxide traps heat within the earth’s atmosphere. Satellite readings reveal that far more heat escapes into space from the earth than the bogus climate change models have, for years, been claiming.

Climate change forecasts have for years predicted that carbon dioxide would trap heat on Earth, and increases in the gas would lead to a planet-wide rise in temperatures, with devastating consequences for the environment. But NASA satellite observations discredit this notion dramatically.

“There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans,” said Dr. Roy Spencer, a research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. science team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer -- basically a big thermometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite.
“The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show,” he said. The planet isn't heating up, in other words.

James Taylor, a senior fellow for environment policy at conservative think-tank The Heartland Institute, wrote at Forbes that the meaning of the new research is clear-- and it compromises what he called a "central premise of alarmist global warming theory. Real-world measurements … show far less heat is being trapped in the Earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict," Taylor wrote.

Many of us have been saying for years that computer models are worthless, if only because they are always, in every case, way, way off, they aren’t even close. This writer, and others, have charged for some time that models, due to their awful record, should not be used at all in the climate change debate.

Polar Bear Baloney

And not surprisingly, a leading climate scientist, whose report in 2006 of drowning polar bears in Arctic waters galvanized the global warming movement -- and was highlighted in Al Gore's Oscar-winning climate-change documentary -- has been suspended, over the accuracy of his observations.

Charles Monnett -- who manages as much as $50 million worth of climate research on Arctic wildlife and ecology -- was told on July 18 that he was being put on leave pending an investigation into "integrity issues," according to a letter posted online by the advocacy group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), which is questioning Monnett's suspension. In other words, just like the bogus hockey stick graph, his research is bogus, or at best it is significantly exaggerated.

In May 2008, the U.S. classified the polar bear as a threatened species, the first with its survival at risk due to global warming. According to investigator Eric May Gleason was asked his thoughts on Gore referencing the dead polar bears. Gleason said none of the polar bear papers he has written or co-authored has said anything about global warming.

Not surprisingly, the polar bear “research” turns out to be bogus as well. This phony “scientific research” relating to climate change is becoming all too familiar. It’s past time to shut off the spigot of taxpayer money being poured into phony research designed to prop up a flailing and increasingly unscientific climate change culture.

Temperature and Global Warming

The IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) claims to have evidence that paeloclimatic data shows higher levels of CO2 causes an increase in global temperatures. But D.H. Rothman conducted a comprehensive analysis of CO2 in rocks, volcanic and metamorphic degassing, etc over the past 500 million years. Rothman found that “the CO2 history exhibits no systematic correlation” between CO2 and increased temperature. In fact, he found the opposite, that the highest CO2 levels occurred when the earth was relatively cool.

And Rothman made other observations; 1) temperature did not respond at all to the change in CO2, 2) rather when CO2 rises, there is a steady decline in atmospheric temperature, 3) the geologic record “refutes” the CO2 induced global warming hypothesis, 4) the data “argue for a decoupling between global climate and CO2.” 5) The earth’s air temperature always rises well in advance of the increase in atmospheric CO2, 6) there is a 400 to 1000 year lag between rising air temperature and increased CO2 content.

Rothman and a wide assortment of other scientists confirm that “CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system.” Somehow the IPCC have fabricated not only the science, but the conclusions regarding the relationship between C02 and global temperature. Al Gore has been lying to us all. The “science” he references is completely false. What is alarming is the Al Gore and IPCC “science” is not just off a bit, but the data and research supports the complete opposite conclusions.

The “hockey stick” graph that Al Gore so famously used in his deceptive movie came from a young Ph.D by the name of Michael Mann, from the University of Massachusetts. And President Clinton jumped on this hockey stick graph as justification the government should intervene to cut carbon emissions. However, two Canadian scientists by the name of Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick requested Mann’s data and research so they could check his work. Mann, knowing he had fabricated the science was reluctant and slow in making his “research” public. Ultimately, the two Canadians obtained the data and the methodology used by Mann. “They found the data did not produce the claimed results due to collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects.” In other words, Mann is either a very bad scientist or intentionally manipulated the data to show what he wanted it to show. In short, the hockey stick graph is a myth. Sadly, trillions of dollars and years of work have been expended in defending false science.

The Canadians made several other damaging conclusions as well; 1) the warming of the 15th century exceeds any warming in the 20th century, 2) there is nothing unnatural about the planet’s current temperature, and that whatever warming occurred during the twentieth century was likely caused by the recurrence of whatever cyclical phenomena created the greater warmth of the 15th century.”

It is also now an accepted truth among the climate change lemmings that the warming over the latter part of the 20th century is unprecedented. But based upon the synthesis of real world data presented by Fred Singer Ph.D, and Craig Idso Ph.D., D. H. Rothman, and many others, that claim is completely false.

Greenpeace Founder Exposes Global Warming Farce

Greenpeace founder Dr. Patrick Moore, but who has had enough of Greenpeace radicals, and left Greenpeace, has come clean about global warming. To put it bluntly, he knows global warming is a fraud.

"We do not have any scientific proof that we are the cause of the global warming that has occurred in the last 200 years...The alarmism is driving us through scare tactics to adopt energy policies that are going to create a huge amount of energy poverty among the poor people. It's not good for people and it’s not good for the environment...In a warmer world we can produce more food." Something I’ve been saying for years, and anyone who understand botany and life on this planet knows, warmer is better—for everyone, for all living things. Moore was asked who is promoting man-made climate fears, and what are their motives?

"A powerful convergent of interests. Scientists seeking grant money, media seeking headlines, universities seeking huge grants from major institutions, foundations, environmental groups, politicians wanting to make it look like they are saving future generations. And all of these people have converged on this issue." But, says Moore, dissent is growing: "There are many thousands of scientists' who reject man-made global warming fears...It's all based on computer models and predictions. We do not actually have a crystal ball, it is a mythical object." Indeed!

And I'll be you won't find stuff like this in the mainstream press. Reporting something like this would make them look pretty dumb since they have excitedly told the world a completely opposite story--with a straight face.

More "climate" baloney

Maybe you saw the U.N.'s weather announcement that 2010 was the warmest year on record, "The 2010 data confirm the Earth's significant long-term warming trend," said Michel Jarraud, the World Meteorological Organization's top official. But anyone with even elementary understanding of weather and climate, knows this is nonsense. Here are five good reasons some scientists are skeptical of these claims.

1. Where does the data come from? They gather readings from land-based weather and climate stations, ships and buoys, and satellites. 70% of the earth is covered by water, but there are very few buoy’s to provide temperature data. And because nearly all remote sensing stations have been eliminated and replaced by metropolitan locations. Anthony Watt on his SurfaceStations.org website states that 61% of the stations used to measure temperature are less than 10 meters from an artificial heating source—a big no no. Further, meterological “experts” manipulate and "normalize" the data. If this was a football game, they would normalize the score, and the real score of 28 to 14, would be normalized to be 22 to 19, or some such nonsense. You can’t “normalize” the data, it is what it is. It is the naïve public who are being manipulated

2. There's less ice in the oceans. Or more. Or something. The WMO report notes that Arctic sea-ice cover in December 2010 was the lowest on record. In fact, the overall sea-ice record shows virtually no change throughout the past 30 years, "the quite rapid loss of Arctic sea ice since the satellites were watching has been matched by a near-equally rapid gain of Antarctic sea ice." So where’s the love for Antarctic ice growth? Somebody has an agenda here.

3. El Niño has been playing havoc with temperatures. Over the ten years from 2001 to 2010, global temperatures have averaged 0.46°C (0.83°F) above the 1961-1990 average (if you believe the “manipulated” and “normalized” data), the report points out, calling these measurements "the highest ever recorded for a 10-year period since the beginning of instrumental climate records." The WMO notes that warming has been especially strong in Africa, parts of Asia, and parts of the Arctic.
Of course temperatures are up, it's El Niño, stupid.
"El Niños cause spikes up. La Niñas drop it down." "Why have we gone up overall in the past 30 years? Because we've been in a warm cycle in the Pacific," he said. "But the tropical Pacific has cooled dramatically, and it's like turning down your thermostat -- it takes a while, but the house will cool."

4. Besides, it's getting chilly. 2010 may have been a warm year, but 2011 has been off to a very cold start -- and may be among the coldest in decades.
"December 2010 was the second-coldest December in the entire history dating back to 1659," noted Steve McIntyre, a climate scientist and the editor of climate blog Climate Audit. He bases his claim on data from the longest continuous record in the world, kept by The Met Office, the U.K.'s official weather agency. No doubt, the December data was “normalized” to eliminate its “chilling” effect on the global warming data.
"If we look at the last 30 years, then the coming 30 years will cool back to where we were in the late 70s," he said. "Look at it this way. Suppose you didn't have a scale until 3 weeks ago. Every day for the last 3 weeks you weigh yourself and you are 175 or so. One morning you are 175.1 How much weight have you gained?" You're the heaviest you have ever been, right? "If you weren't weighing yourself before, or were using a different scale, can you really say this is the heaviest ever?" he asked.

5. Forecasts are often wrong. Predicting the weather -- especially a decade or more in advance -- is unbelievably challenging. In 2000, a scientist with the Met Office's Climatic Research Unit declared that within ten years, snowfall would be "a very rare and exciting event." Tell that to the people on the East Coast, or North Carolina, or Alabama, or…London, which was buried in snow and cold for weeks in December 2010, that nearly brought the country to a standstill.
And in 1970 at the first Earth Day event, one researcher predicted that the planet would be 11 degrees colder by the year 2000. Ok, so the whackos are in charge.

The following predictions were posted previously, but seemed to fit with the above really far out predictions.

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.

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.
Data from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center shows that precipitation -- rain and snow -- has increased slightly over the century…and the platte River is definitely not dry.

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.
Ice coverage has fallen, though 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.

4. "Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide two degrees by 2010." Associated Press, May 15, 1989.
If temperature data is not “normalized” it is difficult to find that global warming has occurred at all. Many scientists, especially in the 1970s, made an error in the other direction by predicting global freezing:

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. And the earth’s atmosphere has an amazing “cleansing” capacity.

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.
Uh, no! And "Present trends didn't continue," Ehrlich and his “tribe” of scientists all support each other, no doubt, but their predictions make them look rather foolish.

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.
Ehrlich's prediction was taken seriously when he made it, and New Scientist magazine underscored his speech in an editorial titled "In Praise of Prophets." Prophets, yes; scientists? No.

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
How a nut case like Ehrlich can garner so much respect inside the scientific community, and out, is a question for another time, but he’s a “respected” scientist, and people believe him, just like people believe the so-called climate scientists currently running around telling us the sky is falling.

Environmental Predictions Not Even Close

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.