|There is no significant scientifically established correlation between human activity and the warming of the earth’s climate.
The Climategate scandal caused independent scientists and laymen around the globe to take a much closer look at the information that was being presented in support of Anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) Global Warming (AGW), and the overwhelming conclusion was that the there was no credible and conclusive evidence to support the hypothesis. And it was further shown that the scenarios predicting that the planet was nearing the tipping point for a series of catastrophic climate disasters, was totally invalidated by an examination of the facts, as well as a review of the earth’s climate history. What came to light during this investigation was the following:
- Climate science research is almost exclusively funded by governments around the world. Between 1989-2009, the U.S. government alone spent $79 billion. To keep the money flowing, it was necessary to have a compelling “story” of a pending apocalypse to justify that sort of investment. The narrative of global Armageddon became the researchers’ only fixed “fact”, with all scientific data being freely manipulated as necessary in order to fit that predetermined scenario.
- Politicians with a totalitarian bent saw the regulation of carbon as a potent tool for generating massive new tax revenues and for redistributing the world’s wealth, while at the same time, justifying the expansion of regulatory control over businesses and the personal activities of all citizens. Consequently, a symbiotic relationship was established between the politicians who handsomely funded the research, and the climate scientists, who fabricated a useful justification for government intervention.
- People well connected to the government, such as Al Gore, saw an opportunity to make a financial killing by manipulating the environmental legislation in a favorable way. Gore and others invested heavily in carbon trading schemes which would generate millions in profits once the pending cap-and-trade laws were passed. These people then engaged in their own propaganda campaigns in order to influence a favorable outcome. Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth was one notable example.
The information presented below chronicles the facts that have been uncovered as a consequence of the many investigations being conducted subsequent to the original leaked East Anglia Climate Research Unit documents which triggered the Climategate scandal. A number of people have done an excellent job of summarizing the skeptics viewpoint. After reviewing the material below, I would recommend further investigation at the sources listed in the Skepticism section.
However, before plunging in to the details, let me make one general observation. On his website, Dr. Roy Spencer states:
“Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming …
it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade.”
This is an extremely important point. If all research is directed towards a single predetermined hypothesis then only evidence for that hypotheses will be found. There is nothing new in this as those of us around during the 1970s have seen exactly the same story, by the same participants, played out in the field of cancer research. Just as “climate change” is currently presented to the general public by the radical environmentalists and a compliant media as a man-made global catastrophe, so too was cancer presented by them as an earlier man-made cataclysm. And just as with the climate, in the 70s politicians rushed in to fund research to determine which man-made materials and chemicals were the source of the epidemic so that industry and business could be further regulated. For the better part of a decade studies—many of questionable scientific validity—were conducted, focusing on man-made products. It was not until many years later that naturally occurring compounds were investigated and it was discovered that nature was as hell-bent upon killing us as that industrialist down the street. But, of course, that new information had no impact on repealing the controls that had been put into place. All of this was documented by Edith Efron in her 1984 book The Apocalyptics.
Whenever government becomes involved in funding scientific research, the politicization of the results is inevitable. In an article by British author Matt Ridley, titled What The Climate Wars Did To Science, he offers the following observation:
“It turns out bad ideas can persist in science for decades, and surrounded by myrmidons of furious defenders they can turn into intolerant dogmas.
“This should have been obvious to me. Lysenkoism, a pseudo-biological theory that plants (and people) could be trained to change their heritable natures, helped starve millions and yet persisted for decades in the Soviet Union, reaching its zenith under Nikita Khrushchev. The theory that dietary fat causes obesity and heart disease, based on a couple of terrible studies in the 1950s, became unchallenged orthodoxy and is only now fading slowly.
“What these two ideas have in common is that they had political support, which enabled them to monopolise debate. Scientists are just as prone as anybody else to “confirmation bias”, the tendency we all have to seek evidence that supports our favoured hypothesis and dismiss evidence that contradicts it—as if we were counsel for the defence. It’s tosh that scientists always try to disprove their own theories, as they sometimes claim, and nor should they. But they do try to disprove each other’s. Science has always been decentralised, so Professor Smith challenges Professor Jones’s claims, and that’s what keeps science honest.
“What went wrong with Lysenko and dietary fat was that in each case a monopoly was established. Lysenko’s opponents were imprisoned or killed. Nina Teicholz’s bookThe Big Fat Surprise shows in devastating detail how opponents of Ancel Keys’s dietary fat hypothesis were starved of grants and frozen out of the debate by an intolerant consensus backed by vested interests, echoed and amplified by a docile press.
Those of us keeping abreast of the climate literature have known for quite some time that the explanation for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) relating to climate change, was far from the entire story, with almost all dissenting opinion having been actively suppressed. But the full extent of the problem was not made clear until November 19, 2009, when approximately 160 megabytes of data files and email correspondence was leaked from Britain’s government-funded University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU).
An initial review of this material revealed four damning facts:
- Current global temperature data was being actively manipulated in order to conceal real-world temperature declines that did not support the computerized climate models that were being used to predict runaway global warming. Additionally, historical data showing that during the Medieval Warm Period (900-1300 AD), the earth had been warmer than what was seen today, thereby shattering any causal connection between man made CO2 and temperature rise.
- For quite some time, as is a normal part of any scientific peer-review process, independent scientists and organizations had been requesting the release of the raw temperature data used by the CRU in determining its results. Nevertheless, the CRU had continually refused to make their data available. (And now we understand why!) Additional requests for the data were made under the UK’s Freedom of Information laws, and the scientists at the CRU are seen discussing how to circumvent these laws, including destroying correspondence and the temperature data itself, rather than allow it to be seen by others.
- A review of the source code for the computerized models used to predict the significant global temperature gains being reported, showed that much of it was completely unintelligible to the programmers charged with maintain it, and in some cases, these programs could not be made to reproduce similar results previously obtained by others using the same code base and data sets. This code was in a constant state of manipulation in order to produce predetermined results.
- The correspondence shows a small group of scientists frequently discussing ways to subvert the normal scientific peer-review process. This included having climate papers only be “reviewed” by one another, or by people already fully committed to the belief in AGW, stopping publication of any papers that were skeptical of AGW, and working to remove editors from scientific journals that were willing to publish any dissenting opinions.
Soon after the release of the CRU files, this event came to be known as Climategate. However, none of this came as a real shock to a group of skeptical scientists who had been questioning the AGW results for some time, but had been effectively barred from publishing their analyses in standard scientific journals and media outlets. In this way, the general public had been manipulated through the presentation of an unchallenged propagandist viewpoint, into supporting drastic government interventionist policies in order to stave off the supposed pending crisis to all of humanity.
The real impact of the Climategate scandal was to cause people across the globe to finally begin to examine all of the information used by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in support of its assessment report, used by every government to back up its environmental policies. Let’s examine the results of this investigations.
|All AGW computer models predicted a steady increase in global temperatures. However, for the past 11+ years, the global temperatures have not increased, and in fact, decreased, despite a continuing rise in CO2, countering the theory of a causal connection between increasing carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.||10-13-09||BBC|
|A close group of climate scientists (Phil Jones, Michael Mann, Keith Briffa, Malcolm Hughes, Robert Bradley, Tim Osborn, et al) “peer-reviewed” one another’s papers, insuring that only those which supported the view of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) as an imminent worldwide danger, would make it through their process. Quoting Phil Jones:“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”||11-19-09||East Anglia Email
East Anglia Email
|Scientific journals which published climate research were either headed up by “true believers”, or else pressure was applied by the AGW scientists to insure that dissenting opinions were never published. Non-compliant journals were harassed and “punished”.“The Soon & Baliunas paper couldn’t have cleared a ‘legitimate’ peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility–that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board.”
“I told Mike that I believed our only choice was to ignore this paper. They’ve already achieved what they wanted–the claim of a peer-reviewed paper. There is nothing we can do about that now, but the last thing we want to do is bring attention to this paper, which will be ignored by the community on the whole…”
“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the ‘peer-reviewed literature’.”
“I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…”
“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”
|11-19-09||East Anglia Email|
|The East Anglia basic historical climate data used to forecast future climate trends was heavily manipulated to “produce” the desired results.“I really wish I could be more positive about the Kyrgyzstan material, but I swear I pulled every trick out of my sleeve trying to milk something out of that. … I don’t think it’d be productive to try and juggle the chronology statistics any more than I already have”
“So, if we show Keith’s series in this plot, we have to comment that ‘something else’ is responsible for the discrepancies in this case. Perhaps Keith can help us out a bit by explaining the processing that went into the series and the potential factors that might lead to it being ‘warmer’ than the Jones et al and Mann et al series?? We would need to put in a few words in this regard. Otherwise, the skeptics have an field day casting doubt on our ability to understand the factors that influence these estimates”
“Indeed, if the non-temperature signal that causes the decline in tree-ring density begins before 1960, then a short 1931-60 period might yield a more biased result than using a longer 1881-1960 period.”
|11-19-09||East Anglia Email
East Anglia Email
East Anglia Email
|The code for the computer climate models was freely manipulated in order to force the desired results. Despite their best efforts, the programmers could never get these programs to run properly, occasionally producing nonsensical results. And the data sets used by these programs were clearly in a hopeless state. Here are samples of some of the code comments left by the programmers:“stop in 1960 to avoid the decline”
“stop in 1940 to avoid the decline”
“but why does the sum-of-squares parameter OpTotSq go negative?!!”
“and already I have that familiar Twilight Zone sensation.”
“this renders the station counts totally meaningless.”
“Oh yeah – there is no ‘supposed’, I can make it up. So I have :-)”
“As we can see, even I’m cocking it up!”
“yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases”
“recent decline in tree-ring density has been ARTIFICIALLY REMOVED”
“Apply a VERY ARTIFICAL correction for decline!!”
“artificially removed (i.e. corrected) the decline”
“we know the file starts at yr 440, but we want nothing till 1400”
“It’s botch after botch after botch.”
“Oh, GOD, if I could start this project again and actually argue the case for junking the inherited program suite.”
“As far as I can see, this renders the [weather] station counts totally meaningless.”
“So what’s going on? I don’t see how the ‘final’ precip file can have been produced from the ‘final’ precipitation database, even though the dates imply that. The obvious conclusion is that the precip file must have been produced before 23 Dec 2003, and then redated (to match others?) in Jan 04.”
“You can’t imagine what this has cost me — to actually allow the operator to assign false WMO [World Meteorological Organization] codes!! But what else is there in such situations? Especially when dealing with a ‘Master’ database of dubious provenance …”
“OH F— THIS. It’s Sunday evening, I’ve worked all weekend, and just when I thought it was done, I’m hitting yet another problem that’s based on the hopeless state of our databases.”
Watts Up With That?
|East Anglia’s Phil Jones wrote that he was using Michael Mann’s “Nature trick” to “hide the decline” in actual temperature data. This was the same “trick” previously used by Mann to produce the infamous “hockey stick” temperature graphs which has since been totally discredited.||11-19-09
|East Anglia Email
|East Anglia scientists broke the UK’s Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) laws by refused to release the raw global temperature record data used in their climate computer models, despite repeated requests by scientists interested in attempting to review and reproduce their results.||01-28-10||UK Times Online|
|When East Anglia scientists could no longer evade the FOIA requests to release their data, they then reported that all of the original global temperature data had been conveniently destroyed, insuring that no one would ever be able to check their results. However, in an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann dated 02/02/05, Jones states:“The two MMs [Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick] have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”
And magically, it happened!
|The UK Register
East Anglia Email
Wall Street Journal
|Shortly after the East Anglia scandal broke, it was revealed that the New Zealand government’s National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) was also found to have been manipulating its own temperature data to manufacture a rising trend.||11-25-09||Watts Up With That?|
|Scientists from East Anglia created the website RealClimate.org in order to promote the anthropogenic global (AGW) warming message. William Connolley, a Green Party activist and software engineer, was one of the nine member on the newly formed team. He became an editor at Wikipedia and, starting in 2003, began rewriting climate-related entries so as to eliminate all references to information contradicting the AGW story.“‘He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band,’ Solomon explains. ‘Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.'”
“Through his role as a Wikipedia administrator, Connolley is said to have created or rewritten 5,428 unique Wikipedia entries.”
“‘When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand,’ Solomon wrote. ‘When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions.'”
“Facts about the Medieval Warm Period and criticism of global warming doctrine were purportedly scrubbed from Wikipedia’s pages.”
|It was next discovered that, like East Anglia, NASA had been stonewalling Freedom of Information requests for over two years. Once the information was released, it was discovered that they too had been manipulating the temperature data and issuing false findings.||12-03-09||Washington Times|
|Additional research into the temperature data for both Darwin, Australia and Russia show the extent of fraud used in manipulating the temperature data.||12-08-09
|Watts Up With That?
|A researcher reported that important tree ring growth data, used as a proxy for temperature reconstruction, was held by Queens University of Belfast, but that the University refused to make the data available for analysis.||12-01-09||Pajamas Media|
|A former top climate scientist and NASA manager was convicted of defrauding the government of $50,000 by diverting these NASA climate funds to his wife’s company, highlighting the role that government funding of climate research plays in driving the researchers to produce “results” that will keep the funds flowing.||12-02-09||Washington Examiner|
|Ground-based temperature data sets such as those maintained by the Hadley Centre Climatic Research Unit, greatly exaggerate temperature rise when compared to the more reliable satellite-based readings taken of the lower troposphere.||01-09-10||Climate Conspiracy|
|The IPCC governmental advisory report’s claimed that the Himalayan glaciers were receding faster than anywhere else in the world and would be gone by 2035. Whoops, that estimate came from a report that predicted their demise by the year 2350. Sorry, for the alarm, it was just a typo! Additionally, the Himalayan glaciers were reported to currently cover 500,000 square kilometers when, in fact, the actual glaciers span roughly 33,000 square kilometers. Missed it by just over 1,500%!It was also revealed that Syed Hasnain, who made the original prediction, realized this and other errors in the IPCC report back in 2008, but did not inform the head of the IPCC, saying:
“My job is not to point out mistakes.”
Of course, it was also later determined by Michael Zemp from the World Glacier Monitoring Service, that:
“There are simply no observations available to make these sorts of statements.”
UK Times Online
|Dr Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the UN climate change panel, said that besides the Himalayan glacier error, there may be other errors in the IPCC report, but was not more specific.||01-23-10||UK Times Online|
|The IPCC advisory report’s claim that global warming is already affecting the severity and frequency of global disasters such as hurricanes and floods, was shown to be based upon a 2007 unpublished report that had not been subjected to peer-review. By the time the paper was actually published in 2008, it included the disclaimer:“We find insufficient evidence to claim a statistical relationship between global temperature increase and catastrophe losses.”||01-24-10||The Observatory|
|It was discovered that the IPCC claim that global warming might destroy 40% of the Brazilian rainforest, was based upon an unsubstantiated claim by eco-campaigners who had little scientific expertise.||01-31-10||UK Times Online|
|It was discovered that the IPCC report incorrectly stated that 55% of the Netherlands was below sea level, when the actual figure is only 26%. Fact checking at the IPCC was so lax, that even simple errors such as this could and did find their way into its report.||02-03-10||Sott.net|
|The IPCC published inaccurate data on the global production of wave powered electricity, which was also wrongly attributed to the website of a commercial wave-energy company.||02-06-10||UK Telegraph|
|It was further discovered that the IPCC report contained:
|While doomsday predictions point to recent annual decreases in the total amount of Arctic ice, the record increases in the accumulating Antarctic ice and snow is conveniently ignored.“The doomsday portraits of Antarctica’s glaciers reacting to a global climate change should be blurry at best. Consensus on changes in ice sheet thickness and their causes is difficult, and therefore of limited use on either side of the global warming debate.”||10-11-06||World Climate Report|
|Data concerning the warming of other planets in the solar system, indicating the sun as a major influence of earth’s temperature rise, has been ignored by the AGW supporters.“But how do we square the fact that almost every planet in our solar system is simultaneously undergoing temperature change and volatile weather patterns. Does this not suggest that global warming is a natural cycle as a result of the evolving nature of the sun?”
“Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period. Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.”
UK Times Online
|Warming trends in temperature data sets around the world are now seen to be due to local factors such as land development (Urban Heat Island Effect), and not attributable to actual global warming. Any actual warming experienced across the earth during the past 30 years is well within the normal temperature fluxuations seen at least twice before in the past 1,000 years. Quoting John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and a former lead author on the IPCC:“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change”||02-09-09
UK Times Online
|Phil Jones, the East Anglia Climate Research Unit scientist at the center of the Climategate scandal, admitted the following:
Sounds like “cover your ass” time to me!
|02-14-10||UK Mail Online|
|An examination of the data used to support the IPCC claims of a man-made increase in hurricanes and cyclones was cherry-picked to show the desired results. When all data was examined, no statistically significant increase is observed.||02-15-10||The UK Register|
|In Britain, the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) and the Royal Statistical Society (RSS) both call for scientific data and evidence compiled by climate researchers to be made publicly available for scrutiny. The RSC said:“The apparent resistance of researchers from the CRU at the University of East Anglia to disclose research data has been widely portrayed as an indication of a lack of integrity in scientific research. … It may also be necessary to incorporate an independent auditing system into peer review with the ability to demand access to raw data sets to ensure best practices are being adhered to.”
Dr Don Keiller, deputy head of life sciences at Anglia Ruskin University said:
“What these emails reveal is a detailed and systematic conspiracy to prevent other scientists gaining access to CRU data sets. Such obstruction strikes at the very heart of the scientific method, that is the scrutiny and verification of data and results by one’s peers.”
Professor Darrel Ince, from the department of computer science at the Open University said:
“A number of climate scientists have refused to publish their computer programs; what I want to suggest is that this is both unscientific behaviour and, equally importantly ignores a major problem: that scientific software has got a poor reputation for error.”
|Three of the world’s four global temperature datasets have been shown to be be seriously tainted. This includes the data from: 1. East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU); 2. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS); and 3. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). The remaining Japanese dataset remains to be investigated.||03-11-10||Pajamas Media|
|Japanese scientists, investigating arctic wind patterns determined that:“Much of the record breaking loss of ice in the Arctic ocean in recent years is down [sic] to the region’s swirling winds and is not a direct result of global warming”
“The study does not question that global warming is also melting ice in the Arctic, but it could raise doubts about high-profile claims that the region has passed a climate “tipping point” that could see ice loss sharply accelerate in coming years.”
|The UN admitted that a 2006 study showing that livestock (meat) production was responsible for 18% of the total greenhouse gas emissions — exceeding those produced by transportation — was flawed and overstated the impact. The UN had used this study to recommend less meat and milk production worldwide in the name of environmentalism.||03-24-10||UK Telegraph|
|Nils-Axel Mörner, the formerly chairman of the International Commission on Sea Level Change (INQUA), after spending the past 35 years studying sea levels around the world, declared that the talk about rising sea levels was a “colossal scare story”. Quoting from the article:“Despite fluctuations down as well as up, ‘the sea is not rising,’ he says. ‘It hasn’t risen in 50 years.’ If there is any rise this century it will ‘not be more than 10cm (four inches), with an uncertainty of plus or minus 10cm’. And quite apart from examining the hard evidence, he says, the elementary laws of physics (latent heat needed to melt ice) tell us that the apocalypse conjured up by Al Gore and Co could not possibly come about.”
“The reason why Dr Mörner, formerly a Stockholm professor, is so certain that these claims about sea level rise are 100 per cent wrong is that they are all based on computer model predictions, whereas his findings are based on ‘going into the field to observe what is actually happening in the real world’.”
|“Germans citizens are rapidly losing faith in global warming following the Climate-gate scandals, according to a new report in Der Spiegel.”“Many people have little faith in the information and prognosis of climate researchers, The Local [a German news site] explained, with a third questioned in the survey not giving them much credence.”||03-29-10||Fox News|
|Mike Hulme and Martin Mahony, from the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, write in a paper entitled,Climate Change: what do we know about the IPCC?, that the consensus claims made by the IPCC in support of manmade global warming are fabrications. They state (pages 10-11):“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.”||04-12-10||Hulme & Mahony|
|Over 31,000 American scientists have signed a petition stating that there is no convincing evidence that human-related activities are causing catastrophic climate change, and urge the U.S. government to reject the Kyoto global warming agreement, along with all other similar proposals.||05-06-10||AGW Petition Project|
|Arctic ice volume has increased 25% since May of 2008.“In 2008, less than half of the ice (47%) was greater than two metres thick. Now, more than 75% of the ice is greater than two metres thick. In 2008, 18% of the ice was more than three metres thick. This year that number has increased to 28%. There has been nearly across the board ice thickening since 2008. There was slightly more 4-5 metre ice in 2008, due to the big crunch in the summer of 2007.”
A very inconvenient fact.
|05-29-10||Watts Up With That?|
|In response to criticism over it corrupted temperature data (due to urban heat effects) and the fact that 90% of their climate measuring sites do not meet the government’s own standards for obtaining accurate temperature measurements, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has simply redefined the nature of its collection methods so as to reassert the validity of the use of its data. On theNOAA website, it makes the following statement:“But for detecting climate change, the concern is not the absolute temperature — whether a station is reading warmer or cooler than a nearby station placed on grass — but how that temperature changes over time. “
All of which is so much handwaving, because if temperature increases are due to urban heat island effects, then it makes no difference whether those increases are absolute or relative, they have nothing to do with actual global temperature trends. NOAA then goes on to state:
“Is there any question that surface temperatures in the United States have been rising rapidly during the last 50 years? No.”
As the article’s author points out:
“This is another clearly deceptive political answer. If one actually looks at the temperature trend in the United States over the last 50 years, you will see something quite different from what NOAA says. From 1960 to the late 1970s, 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 the late 1990s and there has been no warming since.”
|The IPCC apparently relied upon the opinion of a single scientist, J. Lean, to author the chapter in its climate report which states that solar activity is not a major influencer of earth’s climate. This conclusion runs counter to scientific research put forward by others such as Dr. Willie Soon, Henrik Svensmark and Nir Shaviv. The Norwegian government first noted the lack of evidence backing up the IPCC conclusion, and a representative stated:“I would encourage the IPCC to [re-]consider having only one solar physicist on the lead author team of such an important chapter. In particular since the conclusion of this section about solar forcing hangs on one single paper in which J. Lean is a coauthor.”
The article continues with the following statement:
“Dr. Soon has presented solar irradiance data showing global temperatures during the past century have almost precisely mirrored solar output. The Danish National Space Center further reported that solar output by the end of the 20th century had reached its highest amount in at least 1,000 years.”
|06-28-10||The Heartland Institute|
|Long after the infamous “hockey stick” temperature graph was discredited by showing that the data used to produce it had been heavily manipulated by its author Michael Mann, Mann himself now back-pedals in an attempt to distance himself from accepting full responsibility for its intent and use. As quoted from an article in the UK Telegraph:“[S]peaking to the BBC recently, Prof Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, said he had always made clear there were “uncertainties” in his work.
‘I always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it a central icon of the climate change debate,’ he said. “
Oh, well OK then ….
|A new review of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, concluded that the IPCC’s 2007 report was biased towards overstating the negative consequences of any global warming, while ignoring the beneficial effects.“Maarten Hajer, director of the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, which is funded by the Dutch government, said the IPCC’s summary conclusions focused on the potential dangers of climate change because ‘that is what the politicians wanted to know.'”
“But since the 2007 report’s publication, he said, ‘the times have changed,’ and the public now is demanding a fuller, more transparent look at how the IPCC comes up with its conclusions.'”
In addition, the Dutch agency determined that the IPCC had made “another significant error” in projecting a 50-60% decrease in anchovy production off the west coast of Africa, due to “an erroneous interpretation of the literature references.”
“The literature in fact suggests a 50% to 60% decrease in ‘extreme wind and seawater turbulence, with some effects on the anchovy population that were not quantified’.”
It is hard to believe that a supposedly scientific community, using peer review procedures, could allow errors of this magnitude to propagate through its literature for years by accident. Every new fact uncovered casts doubt on the validity and objectivity of all other aspects of the IPCC organization and on every one of its conclusions.
|07-05-10||Wall Street Journal|
|On April 14, 2010, The University of East Anglia reported that their own internal investigation, headed up by Lord Oxburgh, had concluded that Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, and other members of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) had conducted themselves in an exemplary manner, and all were exonerated of any wrongdoing.However, on July 19th, Anthony Watts reports:
“Now from Bishop Hill we learn that it appears that the Oxburgh investigation let Dr. Phil Jones endorse what evidence (papers he’s published) to review.”
So much for conduction an impartial inquiry! For additional information on the true nature of the “investigation“, see the accompanying Climate Audit article by Steve McIntyre.
[It also makes one wonder about the independence and accuracy of a similar internal investigation conducted by Penn State, which similarly cleared its professor, Michael Mann, of any wrongdoing.]
|07-19-10||Watts Up With That?
|Further research into the satellite-based weather data compiled by the U.S. government-funded National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reveals that the record is seriously corrupted and may be inaccurately reporting values up to 15 degrees Fahrenheit in excess of actual real-world temperatures. For example:
Investigations have revealed that the temperature sensors is at least five of the weather satellites are seriously degraded and reporting inaccurately.
“The U.S. physicist [Dr Charles R. Anderson] agrees there may now be thousands of temperatures in the range of 415-604 degrees Fahrenheit automatically fed into computer climate models and contaminating climate models with a substantial warming bias. This may have gone on for a far longer period than the five years originally identified. Anderson continues, ‘One has to marvel at either the scientific incompetence this reveals or the completely unethical behavior of NOAA and its paid researchers that is laid open before us.'”
“Dr. Anderson sums up saying; ‘It is now perfectly clear that there are no reliable worldwide temperature records and that we have little more than anecdotal information on the temperature history of the Earth.'”
|Climate Change Dispatch
Climate Change Dispatch
|The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), the carbon “offset” trading project which was initiated by political insiders like Al Gore, to make a fortune off of the anticipated draconian “Cap-and-Trade” regulations that were to come out of Washington D.C. and other governmental bodies, collapsed, due in no small part to the changing political winds resulting from the Climategate affair.“Unlike most real markets, the carbon market was created by banks and governments so that new investment opportunities could seamlessly dovetail with specific government policies. It’s a fantasy casino based on a doctrine of pure science fiction. Certainly, gaming the system has always been at the top on the agenda of the new green eco-trader. Most people, investors included, might innocently ask the fundamental question, “what’s the point of having a CO2 commodities market?” The answer to that question should be obvious by now, and you can certainly look to the initial stakeholders in the various international climate trading bodies for a “Who’s Who” list of individuals that have actively been pushing the global warming concept from its inception.”||08-28-10||21st Century Wire|
|The Global Warming Policy Foundation of the UK reports that an international panel’s review of all 18,531 sources referenced in the UN’s IPCC report reveal that 5,587 were not peer reviewed, qualifying them as “grey literature” rather than as sound science, and despite IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri’s statement: “The IPCC uses only peer-reviewed scientific literature.“||07-30-10||The GWP Foundation|
|R. S. Knox and D. H. Douglass, from the Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, recently published a paper in the International Journal of Geosciences titled, Recent energy balance of Earth, which disputes the ocean warming data and conclusions previously reported by J. M. Lyman and others. Rather than showing a positive rate of change resulting in a net energy storage increase, the data actually demonstrates a negative rate of change. As stated in the abstract:“A recently published estimate of Earth’s global warming trend is 0.63 ± 0.28 W/m2, as calculated from ocean heat content anomaly data spanning 1993-2008. This value is not representative of the recent (2003-2008) warming/cooling rate because of a ‘flattening’ that occurred around 2001-2002. Using only 2003-2008 data from Argo floats, we find by four different algorithms that the recent trend ranges from -0.010 to -0.160 W/m2 with a typical error bar of ±0.2 W/m2. These results fail to support the existence of a frequently-cited large positive computed radiative imbalance.”||08-03-10||International Journal of Geosciences|
|The InterAcademy Council (IAC), a consortium of the world’s top scientific academies, conducted a review of the the UN’s IPCC report and determined the following:“A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was ‘little evidence’ for its claims about global warming.”
“It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made ‘substantive findings’ based on little proof.”
Also of interest is the following comment concerning IPCC chairman Dr Rajendra Pachauri:
“Dr Pachauri has been accused of a conflict of interest, which he denies, after it emerged that he has business interests attracting millions of pounds in funding. One, the Energy Research Institute, is set to receive up to £10 million in grants from taxpayers over the next five years.”
|08-31-10||The UK Daily Express|
|The faulty and manufactured global climate data was used to craft the Kyoto Protocol, which has then become the justification for significant pieces of legislation, such as California’s Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. Once this legislation was in place, regulators then applied tactical lessons learned from the Climategate “scientists”, by exaggerating their estimates of pollution levels in order to further support their intervention into both personal behavior and business processes. As the San Francisco Chronicle reports:“California grossly miscalculated pollution levels in a scientific analysis used to toughen the state’s clean-air standards […] The pollution estimate in question was too high – by 340 percent, according to the California Air Resources Board” [Emphasis added]
“Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, offered no explanation when The Chronicle questioned her about the diesel emissions miscalculation. […] Nichols was emphatic, though, when asked whether she has concerns about other scientific calculations made by air board scientists. ‘No, no, no, no, no, no, no and no,’ she said.”
What type of person maintain such rigid adherence to data that has already been shown to be off by 340 percent? This is only possible for those who have arrived at their conclusion independent from the data in the first place!
|10-08-10||San Francisco Chronicle|
|On October 8, 2010, Hal Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara, resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) after sixty-seven years of membership. Here are a few excerpts from his letter of resignation:“For reasons that will soon become clear my former pride at being an APS Fellow all these years has been turned into shame, and I am forced, with no pleasure at all, to offer you my resignation from the Society.
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.
I want no part of it, so please accept my resignation. APS no longer represents me …”
|10-08-10||Watts Up With That?|
|William Connolley, a climate science blogger, was stripped of his editing position at Wikipedia, for his actions in falsifying and distorting the encyclopedia’s climate science record.“His career as a global warming propagandist has now been stopped, following a unanimous verdict that came down today through an arbitration proceeding conducted by Wikipedia. In the decision, a slap-down for the once-powerful Connolley by his peers, he has been barred from participating in any article, discussion or forum dealing with global warming. In addition, because he rewrote biographies of scientists and others he disagreed with, to either belittle their accomplishments or make them appear to be frauds, Wikipedia barred him — again unanimously — from editing biographies of those in the climate change field.”||10-14-10||Canadian National Post|
|Upset with a cultural trend that is now moving away from a belief in the inevitability of an AGW climate crisis, the American Geophysical Union (AGU) has organized a group of climate researchers to fight back in an attempt to re-ignite a fire under this issue, which would then insure continued government research funding and the imposition of carbon legislation that is now all but dead. As John Abraham of St. Thomas University said:“This group feels strongly that science and politics can’t be divorced …”
“The notion that truth will prevail is not working. The truth has been out there for the past two decades, and nothing has changed.”
If the AGU is not willing to rely upon the “truth” of their position, then what are they counting on? Science is an intellectual pursuit concerned only with the facts of reality, while government (i.e., politics) is a repository of force. Apparently the AGU is now preparing to apply a bit of force in order to “prevail“! Well, they’ve already tried subterfuge and lying, so what’s left?
|11-08-10||Los Angeles Times|
|Using $1.1 million in grant money from the Joyce Foundation (of which Barack Obama was then a board member!), Richard Sandor founded the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in 2000. The purpose of the exchange was to profit from what appeared to be the inevitable carbon cap-and-trade environmental regulations soon to be coming from governments around the world, and Al Gore was a major investor in this scheme. However, the Climategate scandal stuck a wrench into the political machinery, forestalling the passage of these bills, and the CCX along with it’s counterpart, the European Climate Exchange (ECX), were sold to Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) on April 30, 2010. Now, just six months later, ICE has announced that it will suspend all carbon trading before the end of the year.“Al Capone tried to use Prohibition to muscle in on a piece of all the action in Chicago. The CCX’s backers wanted to use a new prohibition on carbon emissions to muscle in on a piece of, quite literally, all the action in the world.”
“But according to an advisory posted to the exchange’s website, participants simply didn’t want to trade in carbon credits without a legal requirement that they do so.”
|Tom Nelson states: “After claiming that he never deleted any emails, Phil Jones now admits deleting emails.“As reported in the UK Guardian on 11-24-09, Phil Jones is quoted as saying:
“Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them. We’ve not deleted any emails or data here at CRU. I would never manipulate the data one bit – I would categorically deny that.” [Emphasis added]
However, in a new article in Nature dated 11-15-10, when asked about deleting emails, he had this to say:
“When Jones is now asked if he deleted such messages, he says: ‘No, I deleted e-mails as a matter of course just to keep them under control.’
“Then Muir Russell was correct? Had Jones broken the spirit of the law? ‘Not necessarily, if you’ve deleted them ahead of time,’ he says. ‘You can’t second guess what’s going to be requested.’ Jones goes back and forth on his motivations. Deleting e-mails would simplify his life if people requested them in the future, but that was not why he got rid of them, he says. ‘I deleted them based on their dates. It was to keep the e-mails under control,’ he repeats.” [Emphasis added]
|Tom Nelson’s Blog
|What is the real purpose of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)?Bernard Potter of the Swiss newspaper Neue Zürcher Zeitung, interviewed IPCC joint chairman Ottmar Edenhofer, and in an article titledIPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”, summarized his conclusion as follows:
“Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.”
Specifically, Edenhofer had these comments:
“[I]f global emission rights are distributed […] on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there.”
“Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War.”
“[O]ne must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
“[W]e need to see that successful climate policy requires other global trade and financial policies.”
“[T]here is always the risk that individual rationality leads to collective stupidity. Therefore, one cannot solve the climate problem alone, but it has to be linked to other problems. There must be penalties and incentives: global CO 2-tariffs and technology transfer.”
|11-18-10||Global Warm. Policy Fdn.|
|In an article titled “What happened to the ‘warmest year on record’: The truth is global warming has halted“, David Rose reports the following:“But buried amid the details of those two Met [British Meteorological] Office statements 12 months apart lies a remarkable climbdown that has huge implications – not just for the Met Office, but for debate over climate change as a whole.”
“Read carefully with other official data, they conceal a truth that for some, to paraphrase former US Vice President Al Gore, is really inconvenient: for the past 15 years, global warming has stopped.”
“The question now emerging for climate scientists and policymakers alike is very simple. Just how long does a pause have to be before the thesis that the world is getting hotter because of human activity starts to collapse?”
|12-05-10||UK Mail Online|
|Never fear. It doesn’t matter if it gets warmer or colder. It doesn’t matter if it rains, snows or there is a prolonged drought. It doesn’t matter if the weather is one thing here and something completely different elsewhere on the globe. It doesn’t matter because the advocates of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) will confirm that every bit of climate data, no matter what it happens to be, is a positive indicator of global warming. Quoting Anthony Watts in The Daily Caller:“From the Independent, March 20th, 2000:
According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become ‘a very rare and exciting event.’ ‘Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,’ he said.”
“Now, for the second year in a row, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Wales is covered with snow. Meanwhile, AGW proponents like the Guardian’s George Monbiot are furiously spinning to make it look like AGW causes more snow, rather than less, as the CRU scientist said 10 years ago.”
And, quoting Dr. Richard North of the EU Referendum, commenting on George Monbiot’s (i.e. “Moonbat“) new defense of global warming:
“It is not that he [Monbiot] does not have a case (even if it is not very good). What makes him so deservedly look the fool it that he, alongside the climate establishment, has spent the last decade or more trying to convince us that milder winters are a sure sign of global warming. Now, in the manner of Winston Smith, Moonbat seems to believe that he can rewrite history and we will not notice.”
|The Daily Caller
|We knew it was coming. With industrial carbon credit trading off the table for now, the environmental movement shifts its focus to the individual. As reported on EurActive, a European environmental site, in an article titled “Rio+20: UN hears fresh ideas to ‘green’ economy“:“A UN meeting this week took stock of stakeholders’ expectations for the Rio+20 summit on sustainable development, set to take place in 2012.”
“The 2012 summit is expected to agree on a political document that will guide action on sustainable development policy for decades to come and give birth to a World Environment Organisation.”
“A report summarising the submissions suggests that the green economy will rely on ‘rigorously enforced environmental laws, taxation based on environmental impact’ and ‘personal carbon quotas’.”
“Personal carbon quotas relate to the maximum quantity of CO2 each of us may emit into the atmosphere per year without increasing the level of current global emissions.”
“On the economic aspects of green legislation, stakeholders admitted that ‘a transition to a green economy will involve some winners and some losers’.”
“Some stakeholders even called for political commitments to stabilise the world’s population to deal with increased pressure on natural resources. In late 2009, a UN report suggested that halting the rise in Earth’s population would be a major help in the fight against global warming.”
|If you are a U.S. citizen, just how much of your money is wasted on ‘Climate Change’? According to Art Horn in his Pajamas Media article, it is $10.6 million each and every day.“This year, your government will spend in the neighborhood of $4 billion on global warming research, despite the fact that there has been no global warming since 1998, and despite all of the billions that have been spent so far yielding no conclusive evidence that using fossil fuels to make energy has any significant effect on Earth’s temperature.
Check the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s 2011 budget request, and go to chapter 15: Climate Change in the FY 2011 Budget. The numbers are staggering. In 2011, your government will spend $10.6 million a day to study, combat, and educate about climate change.”
|Christopher Booker writes in The Telegraph, that the BBC and the British government’s MET (meteorological) Office continue to play fast and loose with climate data and its reporting to the general public. For example, on the BBC program Horizon airing on 01-24-11, Booker reports:“The most telling moment, however, came in an interview between [Sir Paul] Nurse and a computer-modelling scientist from Nasa, presented as a general climate expert although he is only a specialist in ice studies. Asked to quantify the relative contributions of CO2 to the atmosphere by human and natural causes, his seemingly devastating reply was that 7 gigatons (billion tons) are emitted each year by human activity while only 1 gigaton comes from natural sources such as the oceans. This was so much the message they wanted that Nurse invited him to confirm that human emissions are seven times greater than those from all natural sources.
This was mind-boggling. It is generally agreed that the 7 billion tonnes of CO2 due to human activity represent just over 3 per cent of the total emitted. That given off by natural sources, such as the oceans, is vastly greater than this, more than 96 per cent of the total. One may argue about the “carbon cycle” and how much CO2 the oceans and plants reabsorb. But, as baldly stated, the point was simply a grotesque misrepresentation, serving, like many of the programme’s other assertions, only to give viewers a wholly misleading impression.”
Booker continued to give other example of bending the facts during the show. He then turned to a discussion of the MET Office’s 01-20-11 issuing of a press release with the headline, “2010 &mdash a near record year“, which claimed that 2010 was hotter than any other year in the past decade. Booker continues:
“When [Dr Benny Peiser and Dr David Whitehouse, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation] examined the original data from which this claim was derived — compiled by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit and the Met Office’s Hadley Centre — it clearly showed 2010 as having been cooler than 2005 (and 1998) and equal to 2003. It emerged that, for the purposes of the press release, the data had been significantly adjusted.
Comparing the actual data for each year, from 2001 to 2010, with that given in the press release shows that for four years the original figure has been adjusted downwards. Only for 2010 was the data revised upwards, by the largest adjustment of all, allowing the Met Office to claim that 2010 was the hottest year of the decade.”
And so it goes with the propaganda machine.
|David Evans, a mathematician and engineer who has been consulting with the Australian Greenhouse Office and Department of Climate Change for over nine years, modeling carbon pools in agricultural systems, recently spoke to an Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, Australia. These are excerpts from his remarks:“Let’s set a few things straight. The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s.”
“The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.”
“Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. … During the warming of the late 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. … This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.”
“This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.”
“At this point, official “climate science” stopped being a science.”
“Finally, to those who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: Sorry, but you’ve been had. Yes, carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but it’s so minor it’s not worth doing much about.”
Read the complete article for the full story.
|In 2005, the United Nations predicted that by 2010, there would be 50 million “climate refugees” created as a result of the consequences of climate change. This information was posted on their website, accompanied by a map showing the areas to be devastated by flooding, desertification, increased hurricane activity and ice cap and permafrost melting.Gavin Atkins of Asian Correspondent recently wondered What happened to the climate refugees?, and investigated the claims by looking at census data for many of the areas predicted to be most vulnerable. He discovered that populations in many of these regions had not decreased as people fled the purported havoc of global warming, but instead had increased substantially during the past decade.
After Atkins article was published on April 11th and picked up by other news agencies, the UN quickly and quietly tried to cover up this latest mistake by removing the page and map from their site. However, thanks to Google Cache, both were able to be retrieved and can be viewed as part of the Daily Caller’s article.
But have no fear, for the UN, instead of apologizing for their gross error, is now stating that there will certainly be 50 million climate change refugees, only by 2020!
|04-16-11||The Daily Caller|
|In Forbes, Patrick Michaels discusses the steady stream of incorrect climate predictions that the United Nations has made over the past decade, from climate refugees (see above), to lost glaciers, to melting polar ice caps, to widespread destruction of rainforests, to severe coastal flooding, to droughts. He then makes the following very important observations:“Is all of this due to chance?”
“Scientists, as humans, make judgemental errors. But what is odd about the UN is that its gaffes are all in one direction. All are exaggeration of the effects of climate change. … No one has found analogous errors in the other direction.”
“In an unbiased world there should be an equal chance of either underestimating or overestimating the climate change and its effects, which allows us to test whether this string of errors is simply scientists behaving normally or being naughty.”
“What’s the chance of throwing a coin six times and getting all heads (or tails)? It’s .015. Most scientists consider the .050 level sufficient to warrant retention of a hypothesis, which in this case, is that the UN’s climate science is biased.”
|In Forbes, James Taylor discusses the latest attempt by climate science researchers to fudge the data in order to create the desired end result.“Faced with the embarrassing fact that sea level is not rising nearly as much as has been predicted, the University of Colorado’s NASA-funded Sea Level Research Group has announced it will begin adding a nonexistent 0.3 millimeters per year to its Global Mean Sea Level Time Series. As a result, alarmists will be able to present sea level charts asserting an accelerating rise in sea level that is not occurring in the real world.”
“United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer models project approximately 15 inches of sea level rise during the 21st century.”
“Satellite measurements, however, show global sea level rose merely 0.83 inches during the first decade of the 21st century (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century), and has barely risen at all since 2006. This puts alarmists in the embarrassing position of defending predictions that are not coming true in the real world.”
“[T]he current pace of 8 inches of sea level rise for the present century is essentially no different than the 7 inches of sea level rise that occurred last century. However, with an artificially enhanced 9.2 inches of sea level rise, alarmists can claim sea level is rising 31 percent faster than it did last century.”
|Just when the climate alarmists were thinking that things couldn’t get any worse for their cause, scientists from the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the US Air Force Research Laboratory report that the sun appears to be heading into a sustained period of low solar activity which could result in a dramatic cooling leading to a mini Ice Age within the next decade.“The Sun normally follows an 11-year cycle of activity. The current cycle, Cycle 24, is now supposed to be ramping up towards maximum strength. Increased numbers of sunspots and other indications ought to be happening: but in fact results so far are most disappointing. Scientists at the NSO now suspect, based on data showing decades-long trends leading to this point, that Cycle 25 may not happen at all.”
“An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots [which occurred] during 1645-1715. Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. … This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the ‘Little Ice Age’ when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes.”
“The big consequences of a major solar calm spell, however, would be climatic. The next few generations of humanity might not find themselves trying to cope with global warming but rather with a significant cooling.”
|06-14-11||The UK Register|
|Follow the money …James Hansen, the director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and a very vocal proponent for Anthropogenic Global Warming, is accused of enriching himself by over $1.7 million, through contributions of funds and services from the environmental organizations whose agendas he actively promoted.
“In a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Washington, D.C., a group claims NASA is withholding documents that show James Hansen failed to comply with ethics rules and financial disclosures regarding substantial compensation he earned outside his $180,000 taxpayer-paid position as director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”
“Federal rules prohibit government employees from receiving certain types of income outside their job. Employees are required to file Form 17-60 in writing before any outside activity. And annually, they’re required to submit Form SF 278, after receiving outside compensation.”
“Mark Hess, chief of communications for the Goddard Space Center, sent Fox News NASA’s response to Horner’s FOIA request. It said in many cases the documents Horner requested did not exist. Horner claims they should, if Hansen was complying with the law.”
Funds and services alleged to have been received include:
|If you can’t beat ’em, brainwash ’em!The state of Maryland had added a mandatory course in “environmental literacy” to the requirements for graduation from high school.
“But what is that? That is the question State Senator J. B. Jennings is asking. “Is it going to be fact-based? Or is it going to be theory-based, which is usually politically, theory driven. And you can think, it’s going to be about global warming or climate change.”
“The new rule is a regulation from the State Board of Education, not a law passed by the legislature, so it lays out no specifics. Governor Martin O’Malley offers no real details but praises it, saying it will “infuse core subjects with lessons about conservation and smart growth and the health of our natural world.”
“That is not really education,” says Ebell. “It’s propaganda and its designed to raise up a new generation of easily led and poorly educated and misinformed students.”
|Just how dangerous is climate change? Well, according to the United Nations, it’s apparently so deadly that the UN security council is contemplating the creation of an international “Green Helmet” security force that could “step into conflicts caused by shrinking resources” and “keep the peace in an era of climate change“.“‘A good first step would be to acknowledge the realities of climate change and its inherent implications to international peace and security,’ [German ambassador to the UN Peter Wittig] wrote.”
“‘The security council should join the general assembly in recognizing climate change as a threat to international peace and security. It is a threat as great as nuclear proliferation or global terrorism,’ Marcus Stephen, the president of Nauru, wrote in a piece in the New York Times.”
Even though this is all just talk up to this point, a discussion concerning the creation of a military unit that justifies its use of force against people across the globe based upon environmental concerns, is chilling in its implications. This is nothing less than another attempt by the UN to redistribute the worlds wealth and resources through its Agenda 21 program, and to build an armed force that will impose it upon any recalcitrant nation or group of individuals.
|New Research conducted at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) has demonstrated that the theory of the Dutch physicist, Henrik Svensmark, are correct and that the sun is primarily responsible for the variations in the earth’s temperature. As Lawrence Solomon explains:“CERN […] has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere. In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.”
However, following in the long standing tradition of government funded researchers and the main stream media, these results have been downplayed by CERN and gone unreported by the press. In an interview, Rolf-Dieter Heuer, the Director General of CERN said:
“I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them.”
Which led Nigel Calder to conclude:
“CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis. It’s OK to enter ‘the highly political arena of the climate change debate’ provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark’s heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation.”
“The once illustrious CERN laboratory ceases to be a truly scientific institute when its Director General forbids its physicists and visiting experimenters to draw the obvious scientific conclusions from their results.”
|Just as back in October 2010, when Hal Lewis, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) over disputes regarding its climate-change position, now, on September 13, 2011, Nobel prize-winner, Dr. Ivar Giaever, has also resigned from that organization for similar reasons.In a letter to the APS, Dr. Giaever states:
“Thank you for your letter inquiring about my membership. I did not renew it because I can not live with the statement below:
Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth’s climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring.
If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.
In the APS it is ok to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible? The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”
|New reports from the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) indicate that the US Government, the EU and the UN’s IPCC have colluded to create hidden communication channels, in order to conceal correspondence relating to the political agenda behind climate change research.“CEI has learned of a UN plan recently put in place to hide official correspondence on non-governmental accounts, which correspondence a federal inspector general has already confirmed are subject to FOIA. This ‘cloud’ serves as a dead-drop of sorts for discussions by U.S. government employees over the next report being produced by the scandal-plagued IPCC, which is funded with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.”
“This effort has apparently been conducted with participation — thereby direct assistance and enabling — by the Obama White House which, shortly after taking office, seized for Holdren’s office the lead role on IPCC work from the Department of Commerce. The plan to secretly create a FOIA-free zone was then implemented.”
“This represents politically assisting the IPCC to enable UN, EU and U.S. bureaucrats and political appointees avoid official email channels for specific official work of high public interest, performed on official time and using government computers, away from the prying eyes of increasingly skeptical taxpayers.’
|10-17-11||Watts Up With That?|
|The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project attempts to clarify the controversy surrounding the questionable temperature datasets used by past climate researchers, as noted in a number of the links above. This is being done by reanalyzing data from a far larger number of of temperature measuring stations (39,000 vs. 7,280) and then making the data and analysis public, available for peer review. Preliminary results from land-based measurements only (not including ocean temperature data) support the contention that global temperature is rising. However, as they report on their site:“Land warms more than oceans, so when we include the ocean we expect the total global warming to be less.”
Despite the missing ocean temperature data, the researchers, Richard and Elizabeth Muller and Robert Rohde, issued a preliminary report[PDF link] stating:
“[The BEST] study finds reliable evidence of a rise in the average world land temperature of approximately 1 degree C since the mid-1950s.”
“The [BEST] study did not assess temperature changes in the oceans, which according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have not warmed as much as land. When averaged in, they reduce the global surface temperature rise over the past 50 years — the period during which human effect on temperature is discernable — to about two thirds of one degree Centigrade.”
Notice the implication in the last paragraph that the temperature rise is due to human action, without actually stating it. Only later in the Wall Street Journal did Richard Muller, at the very end of his article, clarify this:
“How much of the warming is due to humans and what will be the likely effects? We made no independent assessment of that.”
|Anthony Watts discusses his agreements and disagreements with the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) preliminary results.A few of his agreements:
“The Earth is warmer than it was 100-150 years ago. But that was never in contention – it is a straw man argument. The magnitude and causes are what skeptics question.”
“[The researchers] admit that the influence in recent decades of oceanic temperature cycles has been unappreciated and may explain most, if not all, of the global warming that has taken place, stating the possibility that the ‘human component of global warming may be somewhat overstated.'”
“The findings of the BEST global surface analysis match the finding of other global temperature metrics. This isn’t surprising, as much of the same base raw data was used. There’s a myth that NASA GISS, HadCRUT, NOAA’s, and now Berkeley’s source data are independent of one another. That’s not completely true. They share a lot of common data from GHCN, administered by NOAA’s National Climatic Data. So it isn’t surprising at all they would match.”
And some of his disagreements:
“The way they dealt with my surfacestation data in analysis was flat-out wrong, and I told them so days ahead of this release. They offered no correction, nor even an acknowledgement of the issue.”
“They didn’t adequately deal with that 1% [urban regions] in my opinion, by doing a proper area weighting.”
“The rush to judgment they fomented before science had a chance to speak is worse than anything I’ve ever seen.”
|10-21-11||Watts Up With That?|
|As expected, promoters of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) have jumped on the BEST data, claiming that it undercuts the position of AGW skeptics. For example, the lead-in to an article in The Economist reads:“A new analysis of the temperature record leaves little room for the doubters. The world is warming.”
The article is careful to avoid attributing the temperature rise to man-made causes, but the implication is clear — the doubters are those who are skeptical regarding man’s responsibility for these rises. These implications are properly addressed by Matt Ridley on his blog, The Rational Optimist.
The Rational Optimist
|An article in the Canadian Free Press reports on the confluence of data pointing towards the possibility of a coming global cooling rather than warming period.“US solar physicists announced in June 2011 that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth — far from facing a global warming problem — is actually headed into a mini Ice Age. The announcement came from scientists at the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and the US Air Force Research Laboratory. Three different analyses of the Sun’s recent behavior all indicated that a period of unusually low solar activity may be about to begin.”
“Fred Dardick reports, ‘We are in the midst of the convergence of three major solar, ocean, and atmospheric cycles all heading in the direction of global cooling. Last year the Southern Hemisphere experienced its coldest winter in 50 years and Europe just went through two particularly cold winters in a row, and the cooling trend has just begun. The likelihood of a repeat of the great frost of 1709 is growing every day.’ This was the time of the Maunder Minimum (1645-1715) and for periods either side of it, many European rivers which are ice-free today — including the Thames — routinely froze over, allowing ice skating and even for armies to march across them in some cases.”
|10-24-11||Canadian Free Press|
|From an NPR report:“A government researcher who wrote a controversial report on dead polar bears was asked to take a polygraph test by a federal agent investigating allegations of scientific misconduct.”
“In 2006, Monnett and Gleason published a report describing their sightings of apparently drowned polar bears in the Arctic. The report drew public attention to the plight of the bears as the climate changes and ice melts.”
“Last year, someone at the Department of the Interior alleged that acts of scientific misconduct may have been committed in relation to that report.”
|The UK Mail is reporting that Prof Judith Curry, the second named co-author of the four research papers released by the BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) team, is refuting the claims of Professor Richard Muller, that the Earth continues to warm at the same rate observed during the last half of the 20th century. Excerpts from the article state:“Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.”
“Like the scientists exposed then by leaked emails from East Anglia University’s Climatic Research Unit, her colleagues from the BEST project seem to be trying to ‘hide the decline’ in rates of global warming.”
“In fact, Prof Curry said, the project’s research data show there has been no increase in world temperatures since the end of the Nineties — a fact confirmed by a new analysis that The Mail on Sunday has obtained.”
“‘There is no scientific basis for saying that warming hasn’t stopped,’ she said. ‘To say that there is detracts from the credibility of the data, which is very unfortunate.'”
“[A] report to be published today by the Global Warming Policy Foundation includes a graph of world average temperatures over the past ten years, drawn from the BEST project’s data and revealed on its website.”
“This graph shows that the trend of the last decade is absolutely flat, with no increase at all — though the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have carried on rising relentlessly.”
And what does Professor Muller have to say about this:
“[H]e admitted it was true that the BEST data suggested that world temperatures have not risen for about 13 years. But in his view, this might not be ‘statistically significant’, although, he added, it was equally possible that it was — a statement which left other scientists mystified.”
|10-30-11||UK Mail Online|
|Japan’s Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) is reporting that the greenhouse gas observation satellite, IBUKI, which was launched in June 2009, shows that the most heavily industrialized areas of the world, including most of Europe and the eastern half of the United States, not only contribute less CO2, but actually act as CO2 absorbers. Quoting the article:“Bizarrely, the IBUKU [sic] maps prove exactly the opposite of all conventional expectations revealing that the least industrialized regions are the biggest emitters of greenhouse gases on the planet.”
“Yes, you read that correctly: the U.S. and western European nations are areas where CO2 levels are lowest. This new evidence defies the consensus view promoted by mainstream newspapers, such as the New York Times.”
“JAXA boasts that, ‘we can reduce the error of the estimated values when we introduce IBUKI’s observation data compared to that of the values calculated in a conventional way based on ground observation data.'”
“Thus, the unthinkable could be made real: the greenhouse gas theory of climate change may collapse in the face of empirical evidence that industrialization is shown to have no link to global warming.”
|Following up on the recently released JAXA satellite data, Jo Nova published the charts for the CO2 (shown below) and methane measurements, showing that the industrial, first-world countries predominantly act as carbon sinks (blue dots) while underdeveloped, third-world countries are net carbon producers (red dots).Quoting E.M. Smith from the Chiefio website:
“This isn’t that much of a surprise to me. I’d figured out some time ago that trees and bamboo could consume far more CO2 than I ‘produce’ via burning oil and gas. I’ve also pointed out that The West is largely letting trees grow, while mowing our lawns and having the clippings ‘sequestered’ in land fills (along with an untold tonnage of phone books and junk mail?) while the 3rd world is busy burning and cutting down their forests. The simple fact is that ‘jungle rot’ will beat out my ‘gallon a day’ of Diesel any time. Basically, we in the west grow far more wheat, corn, soybeans, wood, lawns, shrubs, etc. than we burn oil. In the 3rd world, they burn their sequestering plants. (And it takes one heck of a lot more wood to cook a meal than it does coal via a highly efficient furnace / electric generator / microwave oven.) But it’s nice to see it documented in aggregate in the ‘facts in the air’.”
|Anthony Watts reviews the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) data for the past decade in the United States and demonstrates that both summer and winter temperatures reveal a cooling trend.Additional charts provided in the article break down the data by geographic region. And when the data is examined over the past 15 years, starting in 1996, the trend line is almost completely flat, showing just a slight decrease in average temperature.||11-05-11||Watts Up With That?|
|The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has been circulating a PDF slideshow which provides talking points used to bolster its ongoing claim for man-made global warming. In one example, the EPA displays two pictures showing the dramatic shrinking of Alaska’s Muir Glacier between 1941 and 2004, stating that, “Glaciers in the United States and around the world have generally shrunk since the 1960s.“However, what the EPA so conveniently failed to mention was that there was nothing special about the 1960s date that they cherry picked, and that the Muir Glacier has been melting since at least the year 1760, with ten times the ice loss having occurred prior to the 1960s, as thisUSGS map reveals:
This is not just a misunderstanding of the data, but a clear example of how the government outright lies to the public as part of its effort to sell its program for expanding regulation and control over our lives.
|Climategate 2.0!It is not as if there was any need to further confirm the junk status of much of what has passed for climate science research, and yet a second round of hacked emails exchanges from the UK’s Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia have just been released. Apparently culled from the same files taken back in 2009, these focus on the political agenda driving the climate message, and the role that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has played in that regard. As James Delingpole puts it:
“In other words, what these emails confirm is that the great man-made global warming scare is not about science but about political activism.”
Here are a few preliminary excerpts culled from the newly released material relating to the IPCC methodology:
Bob Carter [on centralized decision-making]:
“It seems that a few people have a very strong say, and no matter how much talking goes on beforehand, the big decisions are made at the eleventh hour by a select core group.”Tom Wigley [on deception by the IPCC]:
“Mike, The Figure you sent is very deceptive […] there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model results by individual authors and by IPCC […]”Jonathan Overpeck [on letting the ends justify the means]:
“The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.”“I agree w/ Susan [Solomon] that we should try to put more in the bullet about “Subsequent evidence” […] Need to convince readers that there really has been an increase in knowledge — more evidence. What is it?”
Phil Jones [on packing the IPCC]:
“Getting people we know and trust [into IPCC] is vital — hence my comment about the tornadoes group.”“Useful ones [for IPCC] might be Baldwin, Benestad (written on the solar/cloud issue — on the right side, i.e anti-Svensmark), Bohm, Brown, Christy (will be [sic] have to involve him ?)
Humphrey/DEFRA [on the governmental agenda]:
“I can’t overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the Government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. They want the story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.”“Somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.”
Phil Jones [on selectively manipulating the message]
“We don’t really want the bullshit and optimistic stuff that Michael has written […] We’ll have to cut out some of his stuff.”Michael Mann [on manipulating the propaganda]
“the important thing is to make sure they’re loosing the PR battle. That’s what the site [Real Climate] is about.”Thomas J. Crowley [on how sociology trumps science]
“I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the cost of damaged personal relationships”Leopold Haimberger [on manipulating data to fit preconceptions]
“It is interesting to see the lower tropospheric warming minimum in the tropics in all three plots, which I cannot explain. I believe it is spurious but it is remarkably robust against my adjustment efforts.”Mike Hulme [on religious influences on science]
“My work is as Director of the national centre for climate change research, a job which requires me to translate my Christian belief about stewardship of God’s planet into research and action.”Phil Jones [on circumventing Freedom of Information]:
“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process”Keith Briffa [on circumventing Freedom of Information]
“UEA does not hold the very vast majority of mine [potentially FOIable emails] anyway which I copied onto private storage after the completion of the IPCC task.”
However, of all the material released so far, the most damning are those where the participants speak casually of their fealty to “the cause” of global warming. This clearly demonstrates that it is not truth that they seek, but a preordained outcome that motivates their efforts, and science be damned. Consider the following [emphasis added]:Michael Mann:
“By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.”“They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic example, referring to the J. Cimate [sic] paper (which should be finally accepted upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a bit.”
I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause“
“Many thanks for your paper and congratulations for reviving the global warming.“
Watts Up With That
|The UK’s Mail Online reports that the new round of Climategate 2.0 emails show how the British media conspired with the University of East Anglia (UEA) climate scientists to control the information that was presented to the public. Here are a few excerpts from this article:“Britain’s leading green activist research centre spent £15,000 on seminars for top BBC executives in an apparent bid to block climate change sceptics from the airwaves”
“[The emails] show that University staff vetted BBC scripts, used their contacts at the Corporation [BBC] to stop sceptics being interviewed and were consulted about how the broadcaster should alter its programme output.”
“BBC insiders say the close links between the Corporation and the UEA’s two climate science departments, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, have had a significant impact on its coverage. “
“In 2007, the BBC issued a formal editorial policy document, stating that ‘the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus’ — the view that the world faces catastrophe because of man-made carbon dioxide emissions.”
|11-27-11||UK Mail Online|
|Sea-Level Gate:Scientist Nils-Axel Mörner has studied sea level data for 45 years, and has concluded that most of what the IPCC has to say on the subject is an outright fabrication. What follows are a few quotes from his article:
“As someone with some expertise in the field, I can assure the low-lying countries that this is a false alarm. The sea is not rising precipitously. “
“Our findings are straightforward: there is no ongoing sea level rise. The sea level there has been stable for the last 50 years or so, after falling some 20cm in around 1960; it was well below the present level in the 18th century and some 50 to 60cm above the present in the 17th century. So it is clear that sea levels rise and fall entirely independently of so-called ‘climate change’.”
“But the best-known ‘victim’ of rising sea levels is, without doubt, the Maldives. This myth has been boosted by the opportunism of Mohamed Nasheed, who stars in a new documentary called The Island President. The film’s tagline is ‘To save his country, he has to save our planet’. It is a depressing example of how Hollywood-style melodrama has corrupted climate science. Nasheed has been rehearsing his lines since being elected in 2009. ‘We are drowning, our nation will disappear, we have to relocate the people,’ he repeatedly claims.”
“If this is what President Nasheed believes, it seems strange that he has authorised the building of many large waterside hotels and 11 new airports. Or could it perhaps be that he wants to take a cut of the $30 billion fund agreed at an accord in Copenhagen for the poorest nations hit by ‘global warming’? Within two weeks of Copenhagen, the Maldives foreign minister Ahmed Shaheed wrote to the US secretary of state Hillary Clinton to express support for the accord.”
“The IPCC’s Fourth Assessment claimed that ‘there is strong evidence’ of sea level rising over the last few decades. It goes as far as to claim: ‘Satellite observations available since the early 1990s provide more accurate sea level data with nearly global coverage. This decade-long satellite altimetry data set shows that since 1993, sea level has been rising at a rate of around 3mm yr-1, significantly higher than the average during the previous half century. Coastal tide gauge measurements confirm this observation, and indicate that similar rates have occurred in some earlier decades.’ Almost every word of this is untrue.”
“This is a scandal that should be called Sealevelgate. As with the Hockey Stick, there is little real-world data to support the upward tilt. It seems that the 2.3mm rise rate has been based on just one tide gauge in Hong Kong (whose record is contradicted by four other nearby tide gauges). Why does it show such a rise? Because like many of the 159 tide gauge stations used by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, it is sited on an unstable harbour construction or landing pier prone to uplift or subsidence. When you exclude these unreliable stations, the 68 remaining ones give a present rate of sea level rise in the order of 1mm a year.”
“We must learn to take the environmentalists’ predictions with a huge pinch of salt. In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. That was last year: where are those refugees?”
|Lord Christopher Monckton reports from the UN Climate Summit underway in Durban, South Africa. He summarizes the real purpose of the summit as follows:“The profiteering UN bureaucrats’ … plans to establish a world government paid for by the West on the pretext of dealing with the non-problem of ‘global warming’ are now well in hand.”
“Behind the scenes, throughout the year since Cancun, the now-permanent bureaucrats who have made highly-profitable careers out of what they lovingly call ‘the process’ have been beavering away at what is now a 138-page document. Its catchy title is ‘Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action Under the Convention‘.”
“The contents of this document, turgidly drafted with all the UN’s skill at what the former head of its documentation center used to call ‘transparent impenetrability’, are not just off the wall — they are lunatic.”
And what are some of the mail points in that document?
Read the entire report for the details.
|Here is a chart showing the geological timeline of the earth’s mean temperature. The area to the right indicates the recent history. Sort of puts things into perspective!||12-14-11||C3 Headlines|
|Did the U.S. Government Help Hide Climate Data?A review of the Climategate 2.0 documents reveals that the Department of Energy may have been working in concert with the certain heads of climate research organizations in order to keep publicly funded raw climate data out of the “wrong hands“. As reported in the Fox News article:
“Dr. Phil Jones, told colleagues repeatedly that the U.S. Department of Energy was funding his data collection — and that officials there agreed that he should not have to release the data.”
“‘Work on the land station data has been funded by the U.S. Dept of Energy, and I have their agreement that the data needn’t be passed on. I got this [agreement] in 2007,’ Jones wrote in a May 13, 2009, email to British officials, before listing reasons he did not want them to release data.”
“Two months later, Jones reiterated that sentiment to colleagues, saying that the data ‘has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.'”
“[C]limate change researcher and blogger Steve McIntyre forwarded FoxNews.com an email exchange from 2005 in which climate scientist Warwick Hughes asked an official at a DOE lab if he could get the data that the government paid Jones to collect.”
“‘I am asking you to provide me with the following data … DoE has been funding [the data] since the 1980s,’ Hughes noted in his request.’
“But Tom Boden, of the DOE’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory, told Hughes at the time that the DOE itself did not have the data, and that ‘you will need to contact Phil [Jones] directly. I spoke today with the DOE program manager who indicated Phil was not obligated under the conditions of past or present DOE proposal awards to provide these items.'”
|Government agencies have stepped up their efforts to track down the person responsible for leaking the Climategate I and II correspondence. The U.S. Department of Justice has now sent a letter to three of the most prominent climate science skeptics, Tallbloke ofTallbloke’s Talkshop, Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit and Jeff Id of The Air Vent, demanding that they preserve certain correspondence on their computers.In addition, the UK police conducted a raid on Tallbloke’s home and confiscated two computers and a router.||12-17-11||American Thinker|
|An open letter to all political candidates, signed by sixteen scientists, appeared in the Wall Street Journal. Here are a few excerpts:“A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about ‘global warming.’ Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.”
“Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. […] But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.”
“This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before — for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. “
“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.”
“Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of ‘incontrovertible’ evidence.”
|01-27-12||Wall Street Journal|
|The MET (UK Meteorological Office) and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit reported that a new assessment of more than 30,000 temperature measuring stations reveal that there has been no warming of the earth during the past 15 years. None.“Meanwhile, leading climate scientists [stated] that, after emitting unusually high levels of energy throughout the 20th Century, the sun is now heading towards a ‘grand minimum’ in its output, threatening cold summers, bitter winters and a shortening of the season available for growing food.”
Recent observations of the sun indicate that it is heading into Cycle 25 of sunspot activity.
“According to a paper issued last week by the Met Office, there is a 92 per cent chance that both Cycle 25 and those taking place in the following decades will be as weak as, or weaker than, the ‘Dalton minimum’ of 1790 to 1830. In this period, named after the meteorologist John Dalton, average temperatures in parts of Europe fell by 2C.”
“However, it is also possible that the new solar energy slump could be as deep as the ‘Maunder minimum’ (after astronomer Edward Maunder), between 1645 and 1715 in the coldest part of the ‘Little Ice Age’ when, as well as the Thames frost fairs, the canals of Holland froze solid.”
The MET claims that the solar influence is small when compared to the effects of man-made CO2, and will have minimal impact on global temperatures, but other experts disagree. Henrik Svensmark, the director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at Denmark’s National Space Institute states:
“‘It will take a long battle to convince some climate scientists that the sun is important. It may well be that the sun is going to demonstrate this on its own, without the need for their help.’
He pointed out that, in claiming the effect of the solar minimum would be small, the Met Office was relying on the same computer models that are being undermined by the current pause in global-warming. “
|01-29-12||UK Mail Online|
|Climate alarmist groups, including 350.org, The League of Conservation Voters and Citizen Engagement Lab, have begun a campaign to replace the 63% of meteorologists who believe that global warming is the product of natural causes with those who will report the weather with a more anthropogenic global warming slant.“Concerned that too many ‘deniers’ are in the meteorology business, global warming activists this month launched a campaign to recruit local weathermen to hop aboard the alarmism bandwagon and expose those who are not fully convinced that the world is facing man-made doom.”
“‘Our goal is nothing short of changing how the entire profession of meteorology tackles the issue of climate change,’ the group explains on their website.”
In other words, these groups want to turn the entire profession of meteorology into a propaganda and indoctrination machine for their views.
|01-31-12||The Daily Caller|
|“The world’s greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.”“The discovery has stunned scientists, who had believed that around 50bn tonnes of meltwater were being shed each year and not being replaced by new snowfall.”
“The study is the first to survey all the world’s icecaps and glaciers and was made possible by the use of satellite data. Overall, the contribution of melting ice outside the two largest caps — Greenland and Antarctica — is much less than previously estimated, with the lack of ice loss in the Himalayas and the other high peaks of Asia responsible for most of the discrepancy.”
“The reason for the radical reappraisal of ice melting in Asia is the different ways in which the current and previous studies were conducted. Until now, estimates of meltwater loss for all the world’s 200,000 glaciers were based on extrapolations of data from a few hundred monitored on the ground. Those glaciers at lower altitudes are much easier for scientists to get to and so were more frequently included, but they were also more prone to melting.”
|Forty-nine former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to the current administrator, expressing their displeasure at the space agency’s advocacy of anthropogenic, CO2-based, global warming (i.e., climate change) , while ignoring evidence that undermines the theory.“We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.
“The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.
“As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.”
|04-10-12||Watts Up With That?|
|Anthony Watts reports on the newly published paper by Henrik Svensmark, demonstrating the high correlation between supernova events in our region of the galaxy and bio-diversity on the earth. This data supports Svensmark’s theory that cosmic rays are the dominant controlling factor of earth’s climate. He also inverts the CO2 model as Watts explains:“Some geoscientists want to blame the drastic alternations of hot and icy conditions during the past 500 million years on increases and decreases in carbon dioxide, which they explain in intricate ways. For Svensmark, the changes driven by the stars govern the amount of carbon dioxide in the air. Climate and life control CO2, not the other way around.”
This chart shows the correlation between marine invertebrate genera count (bio-diversity) in blue, and supernova rates in black.
The following chart by Watts, summarizes Svensmark’s cosmic ray hypothesis:
|04-24-12||Watts Up With That?|
|According to a paper published back in 2000 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, James Hansen and the GISS team stated:“..we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols..
If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change.”
Oh well, when your previous work doesn’t fit today’s narrative, bury it!
|06-03-12||Watts Up With That?|
|Global warming: second thoughts of an environmentalistGerman green energy investor, Fritz Vahrenholt, rethinks his position on anthropogenic global warming. A few excerpts from his article:
“Scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are quite certain: by using fossil fuels man is currently destroying the climate and our future. We have one last chance, we are told: quickly renounce modern industrial society — painfully but for a good cause.”
“For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory. Recent experience with the UN’s climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position. In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy. I realized that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner. The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version. These developments shocked me. I thought, if such things can happen in this report, then they might happen in other IPCC reports too.”
|Using tree-ring data, scientists at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, have reconstructed temperatures over the past 2000 years, concluding that there has been an overall cooling trend during that period.“‘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 in context of historical warm periods.'”
“In addition to the cold and warm phases, the new climate curve also exhibits a phenomenon that was not expected in this form. 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.”
“‘This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant,’ says Esper. ‘However, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C. Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia.'”
|Oops. We’re sorry!“New paper blames about half of global warming on weather station data homogenization.
“Authors Steirou and Koutsoyiannis, after taking homogenization errors into account find global warming over the past century was only about one-half [0.42°C] of that claimed by the IPCC [0.7-0.8°C].”
|07-17-12||Watts Up With That?|
|Anthropogenic global warming (AGW) alarmist constantly refer to a 2009 survey that supposedly showed that 98% of all scientists believe in global warming, thus confirming an almost universal consensus on the subject. Is this true?Larry Bell took a closer look and reported his finding in Forbes. Here is what he discovered:
The survey asked exactly two questions:
As the following chart shows, of 10,257 surveys sent, only 3,146 responded. Of those respondents, only 77 were found to have had a sufficient level of peer-reviewed publications to be considered suitable subjects. Of that small group, 75 answered yes to question #2.
And this is how the 98% consensus figure was derived!
Read the full articles for a more comprehensive review of the survey methodology.
|07-18-12||Watts Up With That?|
|A new paper to be published by Watts, Jones, McIntyre and Christy, titled, “An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and temperature trends,” reanalyzes the surface temperature data measurement stations across the United States.Using a new classification system designed to better account for the siting of these devices, what this study shows is that temperature data reported by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has over-reported temperature rises by a factor of two. In other words, the reported North American temperature increases were double the actual amounts, leading to erroneous conclusions derived from this inaccurate data.
The following chart summarizes the findings:
|07-29-12||Watts Up With That?|
|Richard Muller, a physics professor at he University of California at Berkeley and the head of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature(BEST) team, has been promoting himself as a prior climate skeptic who has recently “converted” to a believer in and supporter of the view that the earth is warming at alarming rates and that that warming is principally due to man’s activity in producing CO2.The Australian science writer, Jo Nova, takes Muller to task, declaring that of his three major claims, he gets only one half right.
|Is the Arctic Pole Melting?The National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) at the University of Colorado issued a widely distributed report claiming that Arctic sea ice had diminished to the lowest extent in recent era, breaking the previous low record established in 2007.
Well what constitutes a “record” depends upon what data set you select. Here is the NSIDC ice extent chart, for 1979-2012:
But, as Steven Goddard points out on his Real Science site, satellite data for polar cap ice data did not begin in 1979, but actually extends back to 1967. In the following chart, using data from a 1990 IPCC report, the rapid gain in polar ice between 1974 and 1979 is revealed, demonstrating that ice sheet extent at the poles is cyclical.
Only by selectively cherry-picking the data, are people fooled into believing that what is currently observed in the Arctic is a man-made catastrophe.
Jonathan DuHamel has the following to say in his WryHeat column: “In an earlier announcement, NSIDC said ‘Sea ice extent dropped rapidly between August 4 and August 8. While this drop coincided with an intense storm over the central Arctic Ocean, it is unclear if the storm prompted the rapid ice loss.’ NSIDC called the storm ‘The Great Arctic Cyclone of 2012’ and noted the storm caused ‘mechanical break up of the ice and increased melting by strong winds and wave action during the storm.’ Nothing to do with global warming. A similar event happened in 2007 to cause the lower sea ice extent reported then.”
See his article (link to the right) for additional interesting information.
|There has been no global warming — ZERO — during the past sixteen years. Be sure to keep it quiet!“The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
“The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
“This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
“The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported. “
|10-13-12||UK Mail Online|
|The latest revelations out of the UK relate to how the BBC acted as a propaganda machine for the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) movement.“Guiltiest of all, in my book, is the BBC. Without the BBC’s relentless propagandising on behalf of the alarmist cause everywhere from the Today programme to Springwatch to the hysterically doom-mongering reportage of Roger Harrabin and David Shukman the public appetite for climate action at all costs would not have been nearly so strong or undiscriminating. Nor would our politicians have been quite so desperate to prove their green credentials with lunatic policies like the Climate Change Act.”
“The damage this has done to our country is incalculable: it has warped the minds of the young and impressionable, giving them utterly misleading notions about the state of climate science and the health of the planet; it has nudged our politicians into making truly fatuous decisions which have a deleterious influence on all our lives; it has lent a veneer of wholly unmerited moral credibility to the schemings of “green” politicians”
|While the final report is not due to be released for another year, “expert reviewer” Alec Rawls has leaked the Second Order Draft of AR5, the Working Group I’s contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. The full document may be found here.Quoting from IPCC Draft Report:
“Many empirical relationships have been reported between GCR or cosmogenic isotope archives and some aspects of the climate system (e.g., Bond et al., 2001; Dengel et al., 2009; Ram and Stolz, 1999). The forcing from changes in total solar irradiance alone does not seem to account for these observations, implying the existence of an amplifying mechanism such as the hypothesized GCR-cloud link. We focus here on observed relationships between GCR and aerosol and cloud properties.” [Emphasis added]
And as Rawls then points out:
“The admission of strong evidence for enhanced solar forcing changes everything. The climate alarmists can’t continue to claim that warming was almost entirely due to human activity over a period when solar warming effects, now acknowledged to be important, were at a maximum. The final draft of AR5 WG1 is not scheduled to be released for another year but the public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.” [Emphasis added]
Marc Morano of Climate Depot further reports on the findings of Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, who compared differences between the previous AR4 report and the current AR5 draft. Pielke states:
“IPCC AR5 draft shows almost complete reversal from AR4 on trends in drought, hurricanes, floods and is now consistent with scientific literature”
The C3 Headlines site provides the following charts using AR5 data:
and from them concludes:
Anthony Watts also published the following chart which shows how the IPCC models of atmospheric methane, which have for years been projecting an accelerating rise, continue to massively exaggerate the concentrations in relation to reality.
Watts Up With That?
Watts Up With That?
|The climate scientists at NASA, who in the past have played a very large role in promoting the view that global warming is primarily a manmade phenomenon (i.e., AGW), have now released a new report highlighting a “dawning realization” that the variability in the sun’s radiant output may contribute significantly in determining the earth’s overall climate. The article opens with:“In the galactic scheme of things, the Sun is a remarkably constant star. While some stars exhibit dramatic pulsations, wildly yo-yoing in size and brightness, and sometimes even exploding, the luminosity of our own sun varies a measly 0.1% over the course of the 11-year solar cycle.
There is, however, a dawning realization among researchers that even these apparently tiny variations can have a significant effect on terrestrial climate. A new report issued by the National Research Council (NRC), “The Effects of Solar Variability on Earth’s Climate,” lays out some of the surprisingly complex ways that solar activity can make itself felt on our planet.
Understanding the sun-climate connection requires a breadth of expertise in fields such as plasma physics, solar activity, atmospheric chemistry and fluid dynamics, energetic particle physics, and even terrestrial history. No single researcher has the full range of knowledge required to solve the problem. To make progress, the NRC had to assemble dozens of experts from many fields at a single workshop. The report summarizes their combined efforts to frame the problem in a truly multi-disciplinary context.”
That’s quite a shift in viewpoint from the position, only a few short years ago, that the issue of AGW was a closed book with nearly universal scientific consensus.
Accompanying the chart above, the report states:
“Gerald Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) presented persuasive evidence that solar variability is leaving an imprint on climate, especially in the Pacific.”
“In recent years, researchers have considered the possibility that the sun plays a role in global warming. After all, the sun is the main source of heat for our planet. The NRC report suggests, however, that the influence of solar variability is more regional than global. The Pacific region is only one example.”
“Raymond Bradley of UMass, who has studied historical records of solar activity imprinted by radioisotopes in tree rings and ice cores, says that regional rainfall seems to be more affected than temperature.”
“Much has been made of the probable connection between the Maunder Minimum, a 70-year deficit of sunspots in the late 17th—early 18th century, and the coldest part of the Little Ice Age, during which Europe and North America were subjected to bitterly cold winters. The mechanism for that regional cooling could have been a drop in the sun’s EUV output; this is, however, speculative. […] Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. […] ‘If the sun really is entering an unfamiliar phase of the solar cycle, then we must redouble our efforts to understand the sun-climate link,’ notes Lika Guhathakurta of NASA’s Living with a Star Program.”
“Hal Maring, a climate scientist at NASA headquarters who has studied the report, notes that ‘lots of interesting possibilities were suggested by the panelists. However, few, if any, have been quantified to the point that we can definitively assess their impact on climate.’ Hardening the possibilities into concrete, physically-complete models is a key challenge for the researchers.”
Hmmm, maybe it’s a good thing that those people skeptical of the viewpoint that man’s activity had been conclusively proven to be the primary determinant in creating catastrophic global warming, were not put to death prematurely for considering that there might be other factors involved, or for questioning the logic chain leading from the available facts to the stated conclusions.
|01-08-13||NASA Science News|
|Climategate Update:Back on 11-22-11, a second set of email correspondence was leaked from the UK’s Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia. Included with that release was a password-protected encrypted file, presumably containing the remainder of the emails originally hacked. The assumption was that this “lock box” file was retained as protection against legal action which might be brought against the original hacker, “Mr. FOIA”, should his identity be discovered.
Today, blogger, Tom Nelson, received a message containing the password key. Here are a few excerpts from the accompanying letter:
“Subject: FOIA 2013: the password”
“It’s time to tie up loose ends and dispel some of the speculation surrounding the Climategate affair.”
“Releasing the encrypted archive was a mere practicality. I didn’t want to keep the emails lying around.”
“I prepared CG1 & 2 alone. Even skimming through all 220.000 emails would have taken several more months of work in an increasingly unfavorable environment.”
“Dumping them all into the public domain would be the last resort. Majority of the emails are irrelevant, some of them probably sensitive and socially damaging.”
“To get the remaining scientifically (or otherwise) relevant emails out, I ask you to pass this on to any motivated and responsible individuals who could volunteer some time to sift through the material for eventual release.”
“I don’t expect these remaining emails to hold big surprises. Yet it’s possible that the most important pieces are among them. Nobody on the planet has held the archive in plaintext since CG2.”
Read the entire article for a justification of why “Mr. FOIA” released the original batches of emails.
|01-13-13||Tom Nelson’s Blog|
|James Taylor, reporting in Forbes, references a recent study which reports that:
“Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.”
“People who look behind the self-serving statements by global warming alarmists about an alleged ‘consensus’ have always known that no such alarmist consensus exists among scientists. Now that we have access to hard surveys of scientists themselves, it is becoming clear that not only do many scientists dispute the asserted global warming crisis, but these skeptical scientists may indeed form a scientific consensus.”
Read the remainder of the article and associated report for additional details.
|In a recent mathematical analysis by three German scientists, six overlapping natural cycles were discovered that account for almost all temperature change that has occurred over the past 250 years — the period for which high quality temperature records have been maintained. Their conclusion, assuming that they are correct in their model, is that the dominant cycles peaked around the year 2000 and that we are now rapidly moving towards cooler temperatures. They also conclude that human activity has played little role in determining the earth’s past or current temperature. Read more here.||05-01-13||JoNova|
|C02 Surpasses 400 ppm. So what?On May 10th, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced that:
“[T]he daily mean concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Mauna Loa, Hawaii, surpassed 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time since measurements began in 1958. … It marks an important milestone because Mauna Loa, as the oldest continuous carbon dioxide (CO2) measurement station in the world, is the primary global benchmark site for monitoring the increase of this potent heat-trapping gas.”
So what does this mean? Well, it depends upon whom you ask. As reported at Climate Depot:
“Former Vice President Al Gore declared the 400 ppm level ‘A sad milestone. A call to action.’ New York times reporter Justin Gillis compared trace amounts of CO2 to ‘a tiny bit of arsenic or cobra venom’ and warned that rising CO2 means ‘the fate of the earth hangs in the balance.’ The New Yorker Magazine declared ‘Everything we use that emits carbon dioxide needs to be replaced with something that doesn’t.’ And a UK Guardian editorial declared ‘Swift political action can avert a carbon dioxide crisis.'”
Yet, despite all the doomsayers, as reported by Plant Fossils of West Virginia, and illustrated in the following chart, throughout the earth’s history, atmospheric CO2 has most typically ranged between 2,000 and 8,000 ppm (black line), with only one other significant drop to todays range of 400 ppm or less during the Carboniferous period.
Also, note that the earth’s average temperature (blue line) has only been as low as today’s values twice in the past — during the late Ordovician and late Carboniferous Periods. What is particularly interesting is that despite CO2 levels exceeding 4,000 ppm in the late Ordovician period, this coincided with an ice age! As the entire chart shows, there is no direct correlation between CO2 and the earth’s temperature.
Until climate models can account for the actual known historical record, there is no reason to believe that they can do an accurate job of predicting the future.
Plant Fossils of WV
|In a Forbes article titled, “Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims,” information is reported concerning John Cook’s paper which claims that there is a 97.2% endorsement by the scientific community of the AGW hypothesis that human actions are substantially responsible for global warming. Here is some of what the Forbes article has to say:
“As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics. The question Cook and his alarmist colleagues surveyed was simply whether humans have caused some global warming. The question is meaningless regarding the global warming debate because most skeptics as well as most alarmists believe humans have caused some global warming. The issue of contention dividing alarmists and skeptics is whether humans are causing global warming of such negative severity as to constitute a crisis demanding concerted action.”
“Cook and his colleagues, for example, classified a peer-reviewed paper by scientist Craig Idso as explicitly supporting the ‘consensus’ position on global warming ‘without minimizing’ the asserted severity of global warming. When Popular Technology asked Idso whether this was an accurate characterization of his paper, Idso responded, ‘That is not an accurate representation of my paper.’ … It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming.?”
“When Popular Technology asked physicist Nicola Scafetta whether Cook and his colleagues accurately classified one of his peer-reviewed papers as supporting the ‘consensus’ position, Scafetta similarly criticized the Skeptical Science classification.”
“‘Cook et al. (2013) is based on a straw man argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission,’ Scafetta responded. ‘What my papers say is that the IPCC [United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun.'”
Read the entire article for many additional comments
|Dr. Vincent Gray examines the historical record for both temperature and carbon dioxide levels and demonstrates that there is no correlation between the two.
||06-04-13||Watts Up With That?|
|The following five videos comprise a presentation given in Hamburg, Germany by Professor Murry Salby, discussing new research into theRelationship between Greenhouse Gases and Global Temperature.
Salby shows that all of the computerized climate models used today force CO2 and global temperature to be completely linked, despite the fact that real world data does not come close to demonstrating this. CO2 contributes 1% to the total Earth energy budget is, yet the models indicate that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature, controlling the other 99% of sources.
Salby concludes with the following points:
|Anthony Watts reports that a new paper presented at the 19th International Conference on Nucleation and Atmospheric Aerosols, titledCleaner Air: Brightening the Pollution Perspective? shows evidence that most or all of the cooling observed during the 1970s, along with the warming of the 80s and 90s, may be attributed to the darkening of the atmosphere due to pollutants, with a subsequent brightening resulting from implementation of pollution control laws. As the atmosphere became clearer, more solar radiation was able to reach the earth’s surface, accounting for the increases in temperature through the process of insolation.Quoting from the authors’ paper:
“This study has demonstrated for the first time, using in-situ PM measurements, that reducing aerosol pollution is driving the Insolation Brightening phenomenon and that the trends in aerosol pollution, particularly for sulphate aerosol, is directly linked to anthropogenic emissions. Ultimately, the analysis demonstrates that clean air policies in developed regions such as Europe are driving brightening of the atmosphere and increasing the amount of global radiation reaching the Earth’s surface. The actual impact of cleaner air and insolation brightening on temperature remains to be elucidated.”
|08-19-13||Watts Up With That?|
|Here is a follow up to the fraud being perpetrated by John Cook and discussed two items above:
“Cooks ‘97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors”
“A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 C? global warming since 1950.”
“The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.”
“Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.”
“Dr Legates said: ‘It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%. It is still more astonishing that the IPCC should claim 95% certainty about the climate consensus when so small a fraction of published papers explicitly endorse the consensus as the IPCC defines it.'”
|09-03-13||Watts Up With That?|
|Governments are demanding that the 2013 UN IPCC report be modified to conceal the fact that the Earth’s temperature has not risen during the past fifteen years. Quoting from an article in the UK’s Mail Online:
“Scientists working on the most authoritative study on climate change were urged to cover up the fact that the world’s temperature hasn’t risen for the last 15 years, it is claimed.”
“But leaked documents seen by the Associated Press, yesterday revealed deep concerns among politicians about a lack of global warming over the past few years.
“Germany called for the references to the slowdown in warming to be deleted, saying looking at a time span of just 10 or 15 years was ‘misleading’ and they should focus on decades or centuries.
“Hungary worried the report would provide ammunition for deniers of man-made climate change.
“Belgium objected to using 1998 as a starting year for statistics, as it was exceptionally warm and makes the graph look flat — and suggested using 1999 or 2000 instead to give a more upward-pointing curve.
The United States delegation even weighed in, urging the authors of the report to explain away the lack of warming using the ‘leading hypothesis’ among scientists that the lower warming is down to more heat being absorbed by the ocean — which has got hotter.”
|09-20-13||UK Mail Online|
|Dr. Tim Bell reports on how the IPCC has distorted the public perception of climate science by focusing on temperature and ignoring or minimizing the impact of all other climate phenomenon.”The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) set climate research back thirty years, mostly by focusing world attention on CO2 and higher temperature. It was a classic misdirection that required planning. The IPCC was created for this purpose and pursued it relentlessly. Through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) they controlled national weather offices so global climate policies and research funding were similarly directed.
“IPCC’s definition of climate change narrowed the focus to human causes, but they exacerbated it by ignoring, downgrading or misusing variables. Most important and critical was water in all its forms and functions. The obsession restricted focus to higher temperatures and increased CO2, which directed funding of impact analyses, whether economic or environmental to cost only, instead of cost/benefit. Climate studies only considered temperature, usually and incorrectly attributing changes caused by precipitation to temperature. This practice was most evident in paleoclimate reconstructions, either done by IPCC participants or chosen for inclusion in the IPCC Reports.”
“The list of variables unmeasured, unknown or excluded from official IPCC science invalidates their models and their claims. Water in all its forms and functions is the most egregious. It also illustrates the degree of auto-correlation confronting climate research and understanding. It appears Wigley and therefore the IPCC knew of the problems but chose to sidestep them by carefully directing the focus — a scientific sleight of hand.”
|12-27-13||Watts Up With That?|
|Bob Tisdale wrote an open letter to Jon Stewart, in response to clips and comments by Stewart which recently aired on The Daily Show. Tisdale makes a calm and reasoned presentation explaining what has changed regarding climate knowledge over the past few years. Here are quotes from a few interesting sections, but the entire article is worth a careful read.”The climate science community, under the direction of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), has only been tasked with determining whether manmade factors, primarily carbon dioxide, could be responsible for the recent bout of global warming, and what the future might bring if the real world responds to projected increases in manmade greenhouse gases in ways that are similar to climate models. They were not asked to determine if naturally caused, sunlight-fueled processes could have caused the global warming over the past 30 years, or to determine the contribution of those natural factors in the future—thus all of the scrambling by climate scientists who are now trying to explain the hiatus in global warming. … It is not the IPCC’s role to understand the scientific basis for naturally caused climate change, which the Earth has experienced all along. As a result, even after decades of modeling efforts, climate models still cannot simulate naturally occurring ocean-atmosphere processes that contribute to global warming or stop it.”
“Data from the real world present an entirely different picture of extreme weather events. …
“I’m sure you’ve heard of the global warming hiatus, the pause, etc. I presented the following in a post that I linked earlier, but it should be repeated. … Looking at this realistically, if the climate models cannot explain the current slowdown or halt in global surface warming, then they cannot be used to explain the warming that had occurred from the mid-1970s to the late-1990s. In turn, they have little value as tools for making predictions of future climate. It’s unfortunate, but that’s the sad reality of the state of climate science today.”
|01-17-14||Watts Up With That?|
|Steve Goddard has uncovered evidence that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has been manipulating its US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) data. As he reviewed NOAA’s Contiguous US Temperature graph, seen here …
… he noticed a discontinuity at 1998 which made no sense. What he discovered upon further investigation was that while the previous V1 temperature adjustments raised the actual measurement values from the 1960s onward, the newly applied V2 adjustments significantly lowered the temperature values prior to that date, thereby artificially changing the slope of the temperature trend line over the past 90 years from one that showed a moderate cooling to one showing a significant warming.
Goddard identified other significant problems with the adjusted data and then concludes:
“Bottom line is that the NCDC US temperature record is completely broken, and meaningless. Adjustments that used to go flat after 1990, now go up exponentially. Adjustments which are documented as positive, are implemented as negative.”
|Patrick Michaels writes in Forbes about reservations recently expressed by Garth Paltridge, a Chief Research Scientist at the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO). Paltridge explains how the flow of government dollars into climate research has blinded scientists to the normal checks and balances of the scientific method, enticing them to support the UN’s IPCC climate positions while ignoring facts and data. He concludes that this has forces many respected academic organizations into a corner in which they are now trapped. Paltridge writes:
“The trap was fully sprung when many of the world’s major national academies of science (such as the Royal Society in the UK, the National Academy of Sciences in the USA and the Australian Academy of Science) persuaded themselves to issue reports giving support to the conclusions of the IPCC [the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change]. The reports were touted as national assessments that were supposedly independent of the IPCC and of each other, but of necessity were compiled with the assistance of, and in some cases at the behest of, many of the scientists involved in the IPCC international machinations. In effect, the academies, which are the most prestigious of the institutions of science, formally nailed their colours to the mast of the politically correct.
Since that time three or four years ago, there has been no comfortable way for the scientific community to raise the spectre of serious uncertainty about the forecasts of climatic disaster.”
Because of this, Paltridge raises concerns over the overall effect that this will have on the credibility of science in general.
“In the light of all this, we have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem—or, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem—in its effort to promote the cause. It is a particularly nasty trap in the context of science, because it risks destroying, perhaps for centuries to come, the unique and hard-won reputation for honesty which is the basis of society’s respect for scientific endeavour.”
|The UKs Global Warming Policy Foundation recently released its GWPF Report 12, authored by Nicholas Lewis and Marcel Crok and titled,OVERSENSITIVE: How The IPCC Hid The Good News On Global Warming. In the report’s executive summary, the authors state:
“Only in recent years has it become possible to make good empirical estimates of climate sensitivity from observational data such as temperature and ocean heat records. These estimates, published in leading scientific journals, point to climate sensitivity per doubling most likely being under 2° C for long-term warming, and under 1.5° C over a seventy-year period. This strongly suggests that climate models display too much sensitivity to carbon dioxide concentrations and in almost all cases exaggerate the likely path of global warming.
Although these new results are reported in the body of the recently-published Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), their impact is not made clear and few readers of the report would learn of them.
This is just another example of how the government-funded model of scientific research perverts science in the name of political goals.
|03-07-14||GWPF Report 12|
|Richard Tol, an economics professor from England, has terminated his participation with the team writing the United Nation’s report on climate change. This IPCC report is “intended to help governments reach global a climate pact at a U.N. summit in Paris in 2015.”
“‘The drafts became too alarmist,’ Tol told Reuters, acknowledging that some other authors ‘strongly disagree with me.'”
“Tol told Reuters the report plays down the possible economic benefits of low levels of warming, such as fewer deaths among the elderly in warmer winters and increased crop production in some regions.
“‘It is pretty damn obvious that there are positive impacts of climate change, even though we are not always allowed to talk about them,’ he said. “
|Quoting from Watts Up With That?:
“Peer reviewed paper says it’s OK to manipulate data, exaggerate climate claims.“
“From CFACT: A new peer-reviewed paper published in the American Journal of Agricultural Economics, titled “Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements”, is openly advocating that global warming proponents engage in mendacious claims in order to further their cause.”
“The author’s [sic] boldly note in the abstract of the study that the ‘news media and some pro-environmental have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency.’ … ‘We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA (International Environmental Agreement) which will eventually enhance global welfare.’“
|04-04-14||Watts Up With That?|
|Nigel Lawson submits the text of a speech given to the Institute for Sustainable Energy and the Environment at the University of Bath. In it he summarizes the disconnect between the actual data and the climate projections made by the IPCC.||05-01-14||Watts Up With That?|
|From the article:
“Scientists Admit Polar Bear Numbers Were Made Up To ‘Satisfy Public Demand?’
Researchers with the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) recently admitted to experienced zoologist and polar bear specialist Susan Crockford that the estimate given for the total number of polar bars in the Arctic was “simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.”
Polar bears became the first species listed under the Endangered Species Act because they could potentially be harmed by global warming. But some recent studies have found that some polar bear subpopulations have actually flourished in recent years.
“All this glosses over what I think is a critical point: none of these ‘global population estimates? (from 2001 onward) came anywhere close to being estimates of the actual world population size of polar bears (regardless of how scientifically inaccurate they might have been) — rather, they were estimates of only the subpopulations that Arctic biologists have tried to count,” she added.
|05-30-14||The Daily Caller|
|Climate Science Explained in One Simple Graph
Speaks for itself.
|Here is a good editorial by Dr. Tim Ball, discussing the motives and methods behind the IPCC’s actions regarding so called “Climate Change“. Here are a few excerpts:
“Skeptics have done a reasonable job of explaining what and how the IPCC created bad climate science. Now, as more people understand what the skeptics are saying, the question that most skeptics have not, or do not want to address is being asked — why?”
“Most find it hard to believe that a few people could fool the world. This is why the consensus argument was used from the start. Initially, it referred to the then approximately 6000 or so involved directly or indirectly in the IPCC. Later it was converted to the 97 percent figure concocted by Oreske, and later Cook. Most people don’t know consensus has no relevance to science. The consensus argument also marginalized the few scientists and others who dared to speak out.
“There were also deliberate efforts to marginalize this small group with terminology. Skeptics has a different meaning for science and the public. For the former they are healthy and necessary, for the latter an irritating non-conformist. When the facts contradicted the hypothesis, namely that temperature stopped rising while CO2 continued to increase, a more egregious name was necessary. In the latter half of the 20th century, a denier was automatically associated with the holocaust.”
“Maurice Strong set out the problem, as he saw it, in his keynote speech in Rio in 1992. […] The motive was to protect the world from the people, particularly people in the industrial world.”
The author actually only scratches the surface of what motivates those at the IPCC to propagate their Big Lie. For a fuller explanation, see the section on The Philosophy Behind The Environmental Movement.
|11-23-14||Watts Up With That|
|The global temperature data manipulation game continues.
“In recent years, these two very different ways of measuring global temperature have increasingly been showing quite different results. The surface-based record has shown a temperature trend rising up to 2014 as “the hottest years since records began”. RSS and UAH have, meanwhile, for 18 years been recording no rise in the trend, with 2014 ranking as low as only the sixth warmest since 1997.”
“But two aspects of this system for measuring surface temperatures have long been worrying a growing array of statisticians, meteorologists and expert science bloggers. One is that the supposedly worldwide network of stations from which GHCN draws its data is flawed. Up to 80 per cent or more of the Earth’s surface is not reliably covered at all. Furthermore, around 1990, the number of stations more than halved, from 12,000 to less than 6,000 – and most of those remaining are concentrated in urban areas or places where studies have shown that, thanks to the “urban heat island effect”, readings can be up to 2 degrees higher than in those rural areas where thousands of stations were lost.
To fill in the huge gaps, those compiling the records have resorted to computerised “infilling”, whereby the higher temperatures recorded by the remaining stations are projected out to vast surrounding areas (Giss allows single stations to give a reading covering 1.6 million square miles). This alone contributed to the sharp temperature rise shown in the years after 1990.”
For example, here is the reported data for the Puerto Casado measuring station:
And here is the original raw data prior to manipulation:
|New investigations into the raw temperature data collected from Paraguay and the Arctic show further evidence that the data has been manipulated to falsely report “warming” that has not, in fact, occurred.
“Two weeks ago, under the headline ‘How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming’, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.
“This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world — one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.”
“Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded.”
“Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record — for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained — has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time. “
|Up to their same old tricks.
“National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists have found a solution to the 15-year ‘pause’ in global warming: They ‘adjusted’ the hiatus in warming out of the temperature record.
“New climate data by NOAA scientists doubles the warming trend since the late 1990s by adjusting pre-hiatus temperatures downward and inflating temperatures in more recent years.”
|06-04-15||The Daily Caller|
|What the climate wars did to science
“Scientists are terrible at making forecasts—indeed as Dan Gardner documents in his book Future Babble they are often worse than laymen. And the climate is a chaotic system with multiple influences of which human emissions are just one, which makes prediction even harder.
“The IPCC actually admits the possibility of lukewarming within its consensus, because it gives a range of possible future temperatures: it thinks the world will be between about 1.5 and four degrees warmer on average by the end of the century. That’s a huge range, from marginally beneficial to terrifyingly harmful, so it is hardly a consensus of danger, and if you look at the “probability density functions” of climate sensitivity, they always cluster towards the lower end.
“What is more, in the small print describing the assumptions of the “representative concentration pathways”, it admits that the top of the range will only be reached if sensitivity to carbon dioxide is high (which is doubtful); if world population growth re-accelerates (which is unlikely); if carbon dioxide absorption by the oceans slows down (which is improbable); and if the world economy goes in a very odd direction, giving up gas but increasing coal use tenfold (which is implausible).”
“Barack Obama says that 97 per cent of scientists agree that climate change is “real, man-made and dangerous”. That’s just a lie (or a very ignorant remark): as I point out above, there is no consensus that it’s dangerous.
“So where’s the outrage from scientists at this presidential distortion? It’s worse than that, actually. The 97 per cent figure is derived from two pieces of pseudoscience that would have embarrassed a homeopath. The first was a poll that found that 97 per cent of just seventy-nine scientists thought climate change was man-made—not that it was dangerous. A more recent poll of 1854 members of the American Meteorological Society found the true number is 52 per cent.
“The second source of the 97 per cent number was a survey of scientific papers, which has now been comprehensively demolished by Professor Richard Tol of Sussex University, who is probably the world’s leading climate economist. As the Australian blogger Joanne Nova summarised Tol’s findings, John Cook of the University of Queensland and his team used an unrepresentative sample, left out much useful data, used biased observers who disagreed with the authors of the papers they were classifying nearly two-thirds of the time, and collected and analysed the data in such a way as to allow the authors to adjust their preliminary conclusions as they went along, a scientific no-no if ever there was one. The data could not be replicated, and Cook himself threatened legal action to hide them. Yet neither the journal nor the university where Cook works has retracted the paper, and the scientific establishment refuses to stop citing it, let alone blow the whistle on it. Its conclusion is too useful.”
“I dread to think what harm this episode will have done to the reputation of science in general when the dust has settled. Science will need a reformation. Garth Paltridge is a distinguished Australian climate scientist, who, in The Facts, pens a wise paragraph that I fear will be the epitaph of climate science:
“We have at least to consider the possibility that the scientific establishment behind the global warming issue has been drawn into the trap of seriously overstating the climate problem—or, what is much the same thing, of seriously understating the uncertainties associated with the climate problem—in its effort to promote the cause.”
|07-05-15||Matt Ridley’s Blog|
|Journalist Donna Laframboise investigated the personnel behind the IPCC and came to the surprising conclusions that much of the management and many of the authors behind their report are unqualified and have a biased agenda. She discusses these findings in this video.
|As noted above, on September 13, 2011, Nobel prize-winner, Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) in protest over their non-scientific stance on global warming. Here is a video of a speech that Dr. Giaever gave at the 2015 Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings where he delineates the misrepresentations that the alarmists, including Barack Obama, make in an attempt to sell their position to an unknowledgeable public.||07-12-15||Dr. Ivar Giaever|
|08-28-15||Watts Up With That|
|German scientists examined the earth’s climate records for the past 2,500 years. Their findings:
“The analysis of the past 2500 years involved data from tree rings, sediment cores, stalagmites, etc. A plot of the data yields a climate operating with cyclic behavior.”
“Compared to the maxima and minima of the past, the current minima and maxima show that there is nothing unusual happening today. The scientists say today’s temperature changes are within the normal range. The German authors write: ‘Especially the 20th century shows nothing out of the ordinary.’” [Emphasis added]
“For better or worse, these scientists argue that global cooling is likely during the next 60 years.”
|Dr. David Evans has posted a series of ten articles on Jo Nova’s website, discussing the mathematical errors inherent in the computerized climate models which have allowed climate alarmists to vastly overstate the impact of CO2 on the planet’s warming. The master link to these articles is given to the right and links to the specific articles will be included in the section. Here are excerpts from Dr. Evan’s introduction to the series.
“There is an intellectual standoff in climate change. Skeptics point to empirical evidence that disagrees with the climate models. Yet the climate scientists insist that their calculations showing a high sensitivity to carbon dioxide are correct — because they use well-established physics, such as spectroscopy, radiation physics, and adiabatic lapse rates.
“How can well-accepted physics produce the wrong answer? We mapped out the architecture of their climate models and discovered that while the physics appears to be correct, the climate scientists applied it wrongly. Most of the projected warming comes from two specific mistakes.
“Given all the empirical evidence against the carbon dioxide theory, there had to be problems in the basic sensitivity calculation. Now we’ve found them.
“We are going to explain this and more in a series of blog posts.”
|Just one example of how your tax dollars are being used to directly fund the political ideology of the climate change agenda.
“Chairman of the House Committee on Space, Science and Technology, has written to Professor Jagadish Shukla of George Mason University, in Virginia, requesting that he release all relevant documents pertaining to his activities as head of a non-profit organization called the Institute of Global Environment And Society.
“Smith has two main areas of concern.
“First, the apparent engagement by the institute in ‘partisan political activity’ – which, as a non-profit, it is forbidden by law from doing.
“Second, what precisely has the IGES institute done with the $63 million in taxpayer grants which it has received since 2001 and which appears to have resulted in remarkably little published research?”
|“A new study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.
“The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.
“According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.”
Of course, there is never any good news from our friends at NOAA or NASA that is not immediately hedged with a “possibility” of doom. Thus we are treated to the following future scenarios:
“But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica’s growth to reverse, according to Zwally. ‘If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they’ve been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years — I don’t think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses.'”
“‘The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away,’ Zwally said. ‘But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.'”
And so it goes. When it comes to global warming, it is “settled science” for which there can never be any actual evidence contradicting it’s preordained conclusions — a condition that is more akin to religion than science.
|Reporting on research from the University of Exeter, a Science Daily article titled “Don’t Forget Plankton in Climate Change Models” reports that phytoplankton (alga) rapidly evolve to tolerate varying water temperatures, and as temperatures increase, so does the efficiency of the plankton in absorbing and converting carbon dioxide into biomass. Quoting from the article:
“The results show that evolutionary responses in phytoplankton to warming can be rapid and might offset some of the predicted declines in the ability of aquatic ecosystems to absorb carbon dioxide as the planet warms.”
“Our results demonstrate that evolutionary responses of phytoplankton to warming should be taken into account when developing models of how climate change will affect aquatic ecosystems.”
So what is left of the UN’s IPCC advisory report? Absolutely nothing. Every conclusion that it draws rests upon global temperature data that has been shown to be useless in its native form, even before being artificially manipulated by pseudo-scientists in order to manufacture false apocalyptic projections. And why would these “scientists” do such a thing? As is often the case, the answer is money. It is estimated that in America alone, since 1989, the U.S. government has spent over $79 billion on climate science. As the single significant source of funding for this research, it doesn’t take much imagination to realize that the dollars only continue to flow so long as there is a “problem” that needs to be addressed. Not even Congress is going to spend $79 billion just to be told that everything is fine. So it is imperative that the funding mechanism continue to be well greased with doom and gloom scenarios. And the same is true for other countries. This is the tragic, but predictable consequence of government subsidization of scientific research, which inevitably results in replacing the search for truth as embodied by the facts of nature, with the generation of political propaganda in support of man-made policy agendas.
And what is the UN’s overall response in light of these revelations? Have they decided to reevaluate their conclusions in response to all this new information? The answer is no. And the reason is that concern over preserving the environment is merely a smokescreen intended to hide the real agenda. As FOX news reported on September 8, 2010, the UN’s Secretary General and his staff met to discuss ways of reasserting the UN’s influence on the world stage, including:
“how to restore ‘climate change’ as a top global priority after the fiasco of last year’s Copenhagen summit”
“how to continue to try to make global redistribution of wealth the real basis of that climate agenda, and widen
the discussion further to encompass the idea of ‘global public goods'”
So “climate change” is simply seen as a convenient tool to be used to extract wealth from producer countries and redistribute it to the non-producers. And since that goal remains unaffected by any revelations of the anti-scientific foundations underlying climate research, there is no need to change course.
Reviewing the information above reveals an orchestrated effort by various climate scientists and government agencies to not only manipulate non-compliant data to fit predetermined conclusions, but to actively work to suppress all dissenting opinion and research from receiving an equal hearing. And if that were not enough, as Reason Magazine reported back in 2006, we find people like David Roberts from the website Grist who propose taking things a step further:
“When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards
- [i.e., climate-change deniers]
— some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
Or as Brendan O’Neill reports at spiked,
“One Australian columnist has proposed outlawing ‘climate change denial’. ‘David Irving is under arrest in Austria for Holocaust denial’, she wrote. ‘Perhaps there is a case for making climate change denial an offence. It is a crime against humanity, after all.'”
That’s right. If you are unconvinced by the manufactured data and refuse to accept the prepackaged “official” party line, then you are not simply wrong. You are not even judged to have made a moral error. No, you stand along side Nazi war criminals who murdered millions of innocent people, and as one who is irredeemably evil, deserving aNuremberg-styled trial for crimes against humanity.
And the death-threats have even made it into the environmentalist’s public media campaigns, as seen in this advertisement:
Now, that’s intimidation that should shut up the opposition!
Did you make it all the way through? It’s certainly understandable if you didn’t. The 10:10 organization, a global warming reduction group founded in 2009 by Franny Armstrong, and professing to have over 104,000 signing sponsors, concluded that in the wake of all the negative facts which had recently surfaced, the organizers needed to re-energize public awareness of their belief in the pending global environmental disaster. And they decided that the best way do do that was to show school children, employees, or any others who did not fully support their view, simply being killed! No argument. No trial. No rights. No rule of law. Just simple, direct judgment and immediate termination by the self-appointed saviors of the environment.
In the wake of widespread public backlash, the organization pulled the video, and Armstrong had the following to say:
“With climate change becoming increasingly threatening, and decreasingly talked about in the media, we wanted to find a way to bring this critical issue back into the headlines whilst making people laugh. […] Many people found the resulting film extremely funny, but unfortunately some didn’t and we sincerely apologise to anybody we have offended. […] Unfortunately in this instance we missed the mark. Oh well, we live and learn.”
Did you find the video funny? If not, then try to imagine the beliefs and values held by those that do. These are people who see human life as worthless, and can openly joke about exterminating anyone who simply disagrees with them. When interviewed once the controversy exploded, did Armstrong demonstrate that she understood what was wrong with her approach? No. Her response was:
“Clearly we don’t really think they should be blown up, that’s just a joke for the mini-movie, but maybe a little amputating would be a good place to start?”
Just how far a leap is it from the mental states of the team of around 100 like-minded activists who worked to produce this film, to actual amputations and executions? It is people who hold these same views that have made it possible for the likes of Mao, Stalin and Hitler to murder millions of innocent people, always in the name of a greater good. As Armstrong says, “Oh well, we live and learn. Onwards and upwards“. And she means it! On its Backstory page, 10:10 indicates that George Monbiot is one of its muses. See the section below for a more detailed discussion of the philosophical principle that drive people such as these.
With the acceptance of the anthropogenic global warming narrative on the wane in light of all of the above facts, the environmental/political activists are shifting to a new tactic: outright indoctrination through the government run schools. In a piece titled, “Maryland Adds Environmental Literacy in High Schools“, Fox News reports that Maryland is the first state to add a mandatory course in “environmental literacy” (whatever that is) to the requirements for graduation from high school. Of particular note is the fact that this new requirement was not implemented through the legislative process, but was the result of a fiat mandate issued by the MD State Board of Education and has no specified purpose or proposed curriculum.
Sarah Bodor of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation supports the initiative and says there is no mandate. “People express concern about the content but what is important to know is that this new requirement doesn’t actually mandate any content at all.”
Oh well then. No problem!
The state education board leaves all content up to local school boards and a state official says “local systems will implement the requirement as they see fit.”
[T]he local school boards won’t get any extra money, so a group called the North American Association of Environmental Education offers a guide for teachers. An early passage from the guide says “consumption of natural resources, air and water pollution, and the impacts of climate change are among the many complex challenges that threaten human health, economic development, and national security.” It goes on to talk about the need to “take informed action.” And that raises some eyebrows.
“That is not really education,” says [Myron] Ebell [of the Competitive Enterprise Institute]. “It’s propaganda and its designed to raise up a new generation of easily led and poorly educated and misinformed students.”
This is indoctrination, pure and simple. Impressionable students are to be exposed to a failed narrative about man’s destructive impact on the environment, without recourse to alternative viewpoints, or more importantly, to real facts. And if there is any question that this is a program that will be designed to foster critical and independent thought, then please refer back to the first segment of the No Pressure video immediately above for and example of just how that sort of behavior is to be tolerated.
On February 14, 2012, an article in the UK Guardian titled, Leak Exposes How Heartland Institute Works To Undermine Climate Science, reported that “confidential memos of Heartland’s climate science denial strategy” were anonymously leaked to editors at DeSmogBlog, showing that the institute was spending upwards of $100,000 to spread the message to school children that the subject of climate change was “controversial and uncertain.” The leaked documents also included “its 2012 budget and fundraising plan, and minutes from a recent board meeting.” However, it was soon revealed that Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute has stolen the budget document and board meeting minutes from the Heartland Institute. When these documents proved to not contain the smoking gun he was looking for, he is widely believed to have forged the two-page memo documenting Heartland’s climate strategy — although he contends that he received the memo from an unidentified source. Gleick was the “anonymous” person who sent the stolen and forged documents to DeSmogBlog.
In another example, On February 24, 2014, the American Journal of Agricultural Economics published a paper titled, Information Manipulation and Climate Agreements, which openly advocates for the misrepresentation of facts in the cause of what is deemed to be a desirable outcome, as summarized in the authors’ own abstract:
“It appears that news media and some pro-environmental organizations have the tendency to accentuate or even exaggerate the damage caused by climate change. This article provides a rationale for this tendency by using a modified International Environmental Agreement (IEA) model with asymmetric information. We find that the information manipulation has an instrumental value, as it ex post induces more countries to participate in an IEA, which will eventually enhance global welfare. From the ex ante perspective, however, the impact that manipulating information has on the level of participation in an IEA and on welfare is ambiguous.” [Emphasis added]
It’s an old story. It wasn’t that long ago that the same sort of people who currently tell us that we are on the verge of worldwide destruction due to “global-warming”, were proclaiming that we were on the verge of worldwide destruction due to “global-cooling” and over-population. If you are old enough, you might remember some of these memorable quotes:
- “After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder.”
[New York Times, Jan. 30, 1961]
- “.. civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind”
[George Wald, Biologist, Harvard University, April 10, 1970]
- Due to increased dust, cloud cover and water vapor: “the planet will cool, the water vapor will fall and freeze, and a new Ice Age will be born”
[Newsweek Magazine, January 26, 1970]
- By 1995: “..somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”
[Senator Gaylord Nelson, quoting Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, Look Magazine, April, 1970]
- The world will be: “11 degrees colder in the year 2000 (this is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age)”
[Kenneth Watt, Ecologist, speaking at Swarthmore University, April 19, 1970]
- “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation”
[Barry Commoner, Biologist at University of Washington, The journal Environment, January, 1970]
- “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make”
[Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April, 1970]
- “air pollution … is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone”
[Paul Ehrlich, interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April, 1970]
- “By 1985, air pollution will have reduced the amount of sunlight reaching earth by one half …”
[Life magazine, January, 1970]
- “It is already too late to avoid mass starvation”
[Denis Hayes, Earth Day organizer, The Living Wilderness, Spring, 1970]
- “By the year 2000 … the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America and Australia, will be in famine”
[Peter Gunter, North Texas State University, The Living Wilderness, Spring, 1970]
- “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.”
[Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September, 1971]
- “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]
- “An international team of specialists has concluded from eight indexes of climate that there is no end in sight to the cooling trend of the last 30 years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere.”
[New York Times, Jan. 5, 1978]
- “The Cooling World: There are ominous signs that the earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production… The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it…Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in thirteen U.S. states. … The central fact is that … the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down.” [emphasis added]
[Newsweek, April 28, 1985]
- “New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now.” [i.e., by 2004]
[St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sept. 17, 1989]
- “[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, from his book “Dead Heat,” 1990]
Whoops again! With over forty years to see these predictions realized, there was no worldwide famine. No end to civilization. No ice age. No mass species extinction. No American dust bowl. Britain is still intact. The North Pole still has a 3.82 million square mile ice mass. If New York sucks, its not due to its mimicing Florida. And there is still enough sunlight to require SPF 45. Yet, I don’t remember getting an apology from any of these people, their sponsoring universities, or a retraction published in any of the major magazines.
And despite their utter failure at accurate predictions, every one of these purveyors of doom was being funded from the same government trough, and consequently, demanding exactly the same “solution” as is being proposed today: complete regulation over the behavior of every individual and businesses by government overseerers. If the true goal of these policies was human salvation, then the lessons of history and the Climategate facts should give one pause. But if the actual goal is gaining control as a means to increased power, then ignoring all these bothersome facts, as is being done, begins to make a perverted sort of sense.
Now, take a look at this table put together by a blogger known as Kaz, titled: Climate Change Timeline — 1895-2009. This documents the histrionics reported in the media over the past hundred years regarding our imminent death by cooling or heating. The only consistent thing is that none of the end-of-the-world scenarios has ever come to pass. One particularly interesting item from this list is the 1923 prediction from Professor Gregory of Yale University, as reported in the Chicago Tribune, that states: “Scientist says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada”. This follows on the heals of a 1922 report titled, The Changing Arctic, which reads in part:
The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic, all point to a radical change in climatic conditions, and hitherto un-heard-of high temperatures in that part of the earth’s surface.
The oceanographic observations have, however, been even more interesting. Ice conditions were exceptional. In fact, so little ice has never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81° 29′ in ice-free water. This is the farthest north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus.
[F]ormerly the waters about Spitzbergen held an even summer temperature of about 3° Celsius; this year recorded temperatures up to 15°, and last winter the ocean did not freeze over even on the north coast of Spitzbergen.
Could it possibly be that the restoration of normal temperatures and ice flow in 1923 was the source of Professor Gregory’s dire predictions rather than a looming global catastrophe? I guess we’ll never know. Oh, wait, then there was 1924. All of this just reinforces the obvious point that the natural climate is always changing, from year to year, decade to decade, and on larger scales.
On March 1st, 2013, Anthony Watts published a nice summary of Global Cooling articles from the 1970s, along with this fun little video clip narrated by Leonard Nimoy:
|It was the IPCC report that allowed the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to share the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore back in 2007.However, there was another interesting event that took place in 2007 that went generally unreported by the American media. Gore attempted to have his 2006 film, An Inconvenient Truth, shown to British school children as a documentary which presented scientific fact. This was challenged by concerned individuals and eventually ended up in court where a judge was asked to review the content and render judgment. The result was that An Inconvenient Truth was declared to be a “political film” which could not be shown in the schools, and was determined to be riddled with the following nine significant errors:|
- Responding to Gore’s claim that a “near future” rise in sea levels, up to 20 feet, the judge ruled that “The Armageddon scenario … is not in line with the scientific consensus.“
- Where Gore claims that Pacific atolls “are being inundated because of anthropogenic global warming“, the judge rules that there was no evidence of any evacuation having yet happened.
- Gore claimed that global warming was shutting down the Atlantic Gulf Stream, but the judge said that that was “very unlikely“.
- Gore claimed that two graphs showing increases in CO2 and rising temperatures demonstrated “an exact fit” and causal correlation. The judge said that “the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts“.
- Gore argued that global warming was directly responsible for the melting snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro. But the judge ruled that other factors were much more likely to be the cause.
- Gore argued that the drying of Lake Chad was due to global warming. The judge said there was insufficient evidence and that other causes were much more likely.
- Gore blamed Hurricane Katrina on global warming, but the judge ruled that there was “insufficient evidence to show that“.
- Gore claimed that polar bears were seen swimming up to 60 miles in order to find new ice. The judge said that the only scientific evidence presented related to four bears, and that did not support Gore’s thesis.
- Gore argued that global warming was bleaching coral reefs around the world, but the judge stated that it was difficult to separated the stress on reefs due to temperature from other factors including over-fishing and pollution, so Gore’s claims were unjustified.
In addition, Gore based many of the film’s fundamental points on Michael Mann’s fraudulent “hockey stick” temperature graph (or as Bill Whittle calls it, “Mann-made global warming”) which has since been thoroughly debunked, thereby invalidating all subsequent conclusions. A thorough discussion of the many other errors in this film can be foundhere, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Keep up the good work Mr. Gore!
If you ask what Al Gore’s vested interest is in global-warming, it turns out to be the same answer as for the research scientists: the government money. Gore is an investor inKleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, a venture capital firm which makes money from involvement with energy companies that ultimately score taxpayer funding from government handouts and grants. Gore has also invested significantly in Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) a trading outlet for Carbon Credits, which will become lucrative, only if government-imposed energy caps are placed upon businesses and individuals worldwide. The bottom line is summed up in the title of the UK Telegraph’s article: Al Gore could become world’s first carbon billionaire. Yes, Gore stands to gain considerably from a climate crisis—whether real or imagined, and is an example of the new breed of “businessmen” who rely upon leveraging government contacts to acquire a sizable portion of the tax dollars being extracted from productive wealth creators and redistributed to these “Political Entrepreneurs“. [Update: Unfortunately for Mr. Gore, the CCX has expired and will stop carbon trading by the end of 2010])
|Due to increasing publicity being given to the advocates of the global warming hypothesis, and in direct response to Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth, the British television producer Martin Durkin, created a documentary titled The Great Global Warming Swindle, which aired on UK television on March 8, 2007, presenting a variety of specialists disputing many of the scientific “facts” used to back up the claim that an Anthropogenic Global Warming crisis was imminent.Despite a few errors of its own, this film exposed many serious flaws in Gore’s scientific arguments, while at the same time arguing that political ideology and government research funding were primary drivers for the underlying scientific corruption — arguments that were substantiated by the Climategate scandal. Click on the image to the left to view 75 minute video.|
|Well, scientific facts and the resulting shift in public opinion have not been going Al’s way over the past decade, and he is definitely not happy about this. On August 4th, 2011, Gore gave a speech to a group at the Aspen Institute, where he expressed his deep-seated feeling about those who disagree with his personal views on man-made global warming. If you are interested, you can listen to the short, profanity-laden, audio clip to the right.Beyond the raw emotional hatred he feels for anyone who does not fully buy into his official party line, the most interesting statement he makes is his lament that “there is no longer a shared reality on an issue like climate“. Here, Gore shows his totalitarian stripes, demanding that everyone simply must agree with him or, as his tone so clearly implies, else.|
Another possibly more important question is why has most of this information which challenges the AGW orthodoxy not been reported by American main stream media outlets? Reviewing the reference sources below, it becomes clear that almost every report originated either in the UK, or from independent internet reporters. American newspapers, radio, television and major magazines have remained virtually silent on the subject of Climategate, with a few minor exceptions, while National Public Radio (NPR) continuing its active propaganda machine in service of the government’s takeover of the entire US economy as the only possible solution to avoiding an Armageddon that is not coming. There is an agenda operating here, with the media organizations having transformed themselves from the role of reporter of the facts, into organs for government policy indoctrination. The failure to report on the ongoing Climategate story clearly demonstrates why these established media outlets deserve the rapid death they are currently experiencing. They have failed in their purpose of objectively reporting verified facts, and can no longer be relied upon as a source of unbiased information.
As reported by James Taranto in the Wall Street Journal, one very clear example of the media bias in action can be seen in the difference between The New York Times’ response to the release of the leaked material from the East Anglia Climate Research Unit as compared to that released by WikiLeaks, concerning the U.S. Embassy and war efforts.
On The Climategate Documents:
“The documents appear to have been acquired illegally and contain all manner of private information and statements that were never intended for the public eye, so they won’t be posted here.”
On The WikiLeaks Documents:
“The articles published today and in coming days are based on thousands of United States embassy cables, the daily reports from the field intended for the eyes of senior policy makers in Washington. … The Times believes that the documents serve an important public interest, illuminating the goals, successes, compromises and frustrations of American diplomacy in a way that other accounts cannot match.”
|On December 14, 2009, George Monbiot published an article in Britain’s The Guardian, where he laid bare his soul and explained, in no uncertain terms, the philosophy and intent behind the environmental movement.|
In this article, when describing the then coming 2009 Copenhagen climate summit, Monbiot states:
“This is the moment at which we turn and face ourselves. Here, in the plastic corridors and crowded stalls, among impenetrable texts and withering procedures, humankind decides what it is and what it will become.”
And as with all good socialists, the issue for Monbiot is not what will we, as individuals, become. The only relevant question is what will be the transformation for humanity as a whole — with all of the inconsequential individuals simply forced to conform to the single-minded collective will.
And who is to decide this bold new direction for humanity? Well, for Monbiot that’s a moot point as the decision has already been cast, with the consequences of that foregone decision sprinkled throughout the remainder of the article. Consider such prescient observations as the following:
“The meeting at Copenhagen confronts us with our primal tragedy.”
“Now we find ourselves hedged in by the consequences of our nature, living meekly on this crowded planet for fear of provoking or damaging others. We have the hearts of lions and live the lives of clerks.”
“The summit’s premise is that the age of heroism is over.”
“[I]t is … a battle between two world views. The angry men who seek to derail this agreement, and all such limits on their self-fulfilment, have understood this better than we have.”
“[F]ossil fuels have granted the universal ape amplification beyond its Paleolithic dreams. [… allowing] us to live in blissful mindlessness”
“The angry men know that this golden age has gone; but they cannot find the words for the constraints they hate. Clutching their copies of Atlas Shrugged, they flail around”
“All those of us whose blood still races are forced to sublimate, to fantasise. In daydreams and video games we find the lives that ecological limits and other people’s interests forbid us to live.”
“There is no space for heroism here; all passion and power breaks against the needs of others. This is how it should be.”
As Ayn Rand once wrote:
“Man is the only living species that has the power to act as his own destroyer — and that is the way he has acted through most of his history.”
This article correctly summarizes the real issue behind the environmental movement. I agree that it is concerned with nothing less than the redefinition of humanity. And the vision of that new humanity is as a passive video-gamer, vicariously placated by virtual-acts that were once undertaken in reality. With our lion hearts caged, and all thoughts of heroism ground out of existence, we should all voluntarily accept our new place as clerks and stewards of the planet, and sacrifice ourselves in service to “other people’s interests“. Nothing more can be expected when the “original sin” of our human nature unavoidably leads to “primal tragedy“.
|Is Monbiot just whistling into the wind, or do concepts such as his have real impact on the culture? Just how far are people willing to go with his ideas of “redefining humanity“? Here is an article appearing the The Atlantic titled, How Engineering the Human Body Could Combat Climate Change, which certainly answers that question! This is an interview with Matthew Liao, one of the three authors of the paper, Human Engineering and Climate Change, scheduled to appear in the journal Ethics, Policy & Environment.|
The basic thrust of the article rests upon the simple assertions that:
- Anthropogenic climate change is an established threat that is bringing with it massive global devastation
- Attempts to manipulate political bodies to force behavioral and economic changes have been ineffective
- Any attempts at geoengineering solutions to this problem are far too risky to attempt
- Bioengineering of humans poses acceptable risks
So, in the eyes of these researchers, engineering solutions to the planet are simply too dangerous to contemplate, but humanity is apparently an expendable resource that is readily available for experimentation! And remember, this is a paper scheduled for a journal on ethics! Let’s examine some of the specific ideas being discussed:
One possibility under consideration is something straight out of A Clockwork Orange:
Atlantic: “You suggest that humans could be given meat alongside a medication that triggers extreme nausea, which would then cause a long-lasting aversion to meat eating.”
Liao: “I think it’s important to note that it wouldn’t necessarily need to be a pill. We have also toyed around with the idea of a patch that might stimulate the immune system to reject common bovine proteins, which could lead to a similar kind of lasting aversion to meat products.”
Another promising idea considered superior to improving resource utilization, would be to engineer humans to be shorter and lighter!
Atlantic: “Your paper also discusses the use of human engineering to make humans smaller.”
Liao: “[S]ize reduction could be one way to reduce a person’s ecological footprint. For instance if you reduce the average U.S. height by just 15cm, you could reduce body mass by 21% for men and 25% for women, with a corresponding reduction in metabolic rates by some 15% to 18%, because less tissue means lower energy and nutrient needs.”
And taking things a bit further:
“Liao: “[W]e looked into cat eyes, the technique of giving humans cat eyes or of making their eyes more catlike. The reason is, cat eyes see nearly as well as human eyes during the day, but much better at night. We figured that if everyone had cat eyes, you wouldn’t need so much lighting, and so you could reduce global energy usage considerably.”
But certainly we’re not talking about thought control, right?
Atlantic: “In the paper you also discuss the pharmacological enhancement of empathy and altruism, because empathy and altruism tend to be highly correlated with positive attitudes toward the environment.”
Liao: “What we have in mind has more to do with weakness of will. For example, I might know that I ought to send a check to Oxfam, but because of a weakness of will I might never write that check. But if we increase my empathetic capacities with drugs, then maybe I might overcome my weakness of will and write that check.”
Liao: “If you’re very pessimistic about the world, and you take a drug that will cause you to develop a more positive outlook, then in some sense those are beliefs that you already desired. In a case like that the ethical issues might fall away on account of the fact that you previously desired those beliefs, and that you’re aware of the consequences of taking the drug.”
And what are the ethical considerations for individual freedom?
Atlantic: “In your paper you suggest that some human engineering solutions may actually be liberty enhancing. How so?”
Liao: “That’s right. It’s been suggested that, given the seriousness of climate change, we ought to adopt something like China’s one child policy. There was a group of doctors in Britain who recently advocated a two-child maximum. But at the end of the day those are crude prescriptions—what we really care about is some kind of fixed allocation of greenhouse gas emissions per family. If that’s the case, given certain fixed allocations of greenhouse gas emissions, human engineering could give families the choice between two medium sized children, or three small sized children. From our perspective that would be more liberty enhancing than a policy that says “you can only have one or two children.” A family might want a really good basketball player, and so they could use human engineering to have one really large child.”
Liao: “If you crave steak, and that craving prevents you from making a decision you otherwise want to make, in some sense your inability to control yourself is a limit on the will, or a limit on your liberty. A meat patch would allow you to truly decide whether you want to have that steak or not, and that could be quite liberty enhancing.”
Here is some Newspeak that even has George Orwell spinning in his grave!
The fact that a position such as this can get discussion space and a reasonable hearing in a main stream publication such as The Atlantic is an indictment of just how pervasive the radical environmental message has penetrated our culture.
In a 2005 interview with No Compromise, Jensen stated:
“I want to bring down civilization. … It is really clear that for the past 6,000 years, civilization has been killing the planet … and I will do whatever it takes to get there.”
And during an interview in Democracy NOW!, on November 26, 2010, Jensen had the following to say:
- “Derrick, you’ve written, ‘
Civilization is not and can never be sustainable.
“Yeah. Several years ago, I was riding around in a car with a friend of mine, George Draffan, with whom I’ve written a couple books. And I was just making conversation. I said, “So, George, if you could live at any level of technology that you want to, what would it be?” And he was not in a very good mood that day, and he said, “That’s a really stupid question, Derrick, because we can fantasize whatever we want, but the truth is there’s only one level of technology that’s sustainable. And that’s the Stone Age.”
In an apparent failed attempt to provide a practical demonstration of what he envisions for all of us, Wikipedia quotes Jensen as saying:
“In order to save the planet, I once stopped using toilet tissue and used my bare hand. I did this for two months. But even as stinky as Western culture is, it wasn’t nearly as stinky as my hand. So I quit using my bare hand. I use ferns instead. To all those ferns who met such an end, I apologize. Hell, maybe I’ll just use friggin’ Charmin again.”
However, frustration over the fact that the world does not bend to his will has led Jensen to propose what he calls a culture of resistance, which is merely a euphemism for organized acts of violent destruction aimed at all aspects of modern civilization. Consider the following statements:
“There can be no real peace when living with someone who has already declared war … There is only one language that they understand, and everyone here knows what it is. Yet we don’t speak of it openly.”
A Language Older Than Words (2000)
“Every morning when I awake I ask myself whether I should write or blow up a dam. I tell myself I should keep writing, though I’m not sure that’s right.” — A Language Older Than Words (2000)
“I was once being interviewed by a dogmatic pacifist and he felt that I wanted all activists to act like assassins. That’s not true. What I want is for all activists to act like they are serious about their resistance and that might include assassinations.” — Truthout (09-05-10)
“There are two million dams in the United States. There’s about 70,000 dams over six-and-a-half-feet tall. And if we only took out one of those dams every day, it would take 200 years to take them all out.” — Democracy NOW! (11-26-10)
|Kari Norgaard is a professor of sociology and environmental studies at the University of Oregon. In a paper presented to the Planet Under Pressureconference in London, Norgaard argues that individuals who doubt the catastrophic consequences of anthropogenic climate change are exhibiting a “sickness” needing to be “treated“. On a societal level, she compares resistance to the implementation of large scale political programs to address climate change “to racism or slavery in the U.S. South.“|
As Anthony Watts reports here, there was so much controversy over her pronouncements, that the original press release, which included the statement:
“Resistance at individual and societal levels must be recognized and treated before real action can be taken to effectively address threats facing the planet from human-caused contributions to climate change”
was silently edited to remove the phrase “and treated“. How convenient, when your positions are so easily mutable in response to public controversy.
In a more recent open letter to President Obama, Norgaard suggests that in regard to environmental matters:
“Don’t wait for public consensus on climate change.”
“Americans have been remarkably out of step in our understanding of climate change. …
Public opinion does matter in a democracy, but this is a time when following it would be a serious mistake.”
In other words, consensus in a democracy is desirable if it aligns with your personal views, but when it does not, the views of the citizens should be ignored and the president should act as a dictator, imposing his will upon the ignorant. When you cannot convince others, there is always force waiting in the wings!
|After enough time has passed, with the ideas of Monbiot, Jensen, Norgaard, and others going substantially unchallenged, we finally begin to see the influences of their philosophy echoing in the mainstream press. Take for instance this article which appeared in Forbes magazine. The author, Steve Zwick, proposes his “solution” for dealing with those who have not climbed aboard the catastrophic, anthropogenic, climate change bandwagon.|
Quoting from the article:
“We know who the active denialists are — not the people who buy the lies, mind you, but the people who create the lies. Let’s start keeping track of them now, and when the famines come, let’s make them pay. Let’s let their houses burn until the innocent are rescued. Let’s swap their safe land for submerged islands. Let’s force them to bear the cost of rising food prices.”
After receiving considerable blowback regarding his plan, Zwick felt it necessary to later go back and amend his article with a disclaimer that he was not actually inviting people to burn down the houses of others. But that seems disingenuous, as his true feelings are clearly on display. And of course, like all good statists, he was not suggesting that individuals should take personal responsibility for their own beliefs and actions, but instead turn that function over to government thugs who will implement their “plans” upon their behalf.
Yes, your disagreement with Mr. Parncutt and his merry band of “scientists” who have given us everything discussed above, is sufficient grounds for your summary execution in his estimation. And Parncutt doesn’t just limit his thinking to those who disagree with him about climate change. Apparently disagreeing on any sufficiently important subject will earn you the death penalty. For example:
“That raises the interesting question of whether and how the Pope and his closest advisers should be punished for their consistent stand against contraception in the form of condoms. … The number of people dying of AIDS would have been much smaller if the Catholic Church had changed its position on contraception in the 1980s. … We are talking about millions of deaths, so according to the principle I have proposed, the Pope and perhaps some of his closest advisers should be sentenced to death.
To attempt to justify his views, Parncutt offers up the following statistics:
“For the purpose of argument, let’s give the GW deniers the benefit of the doubt and imagine that the scientists are wrong with a high probability, say 90%. If they are right, some 100 million people will die as a direct result of GW. Probably more like a billion, but this is a conservative estimate. If the probability of that happening is only 10%, then effectively “only” 10 million people will die.”
“If they are right …” Yes, he is proposing to execute people based upon an “if“! An “if” offered up by the same mythical, homogeneous, and fully unified group of “scientists” that the progressives constantly conjure up. That group that has failed to make a single credible measurable prediction about earth’s climate. Then, based upon these unsupported “estimates” he offers the following startling statement:
“Consider this: If ten million people are going to die with a probability of 10%, that is like one million people dying with a probability of 100%.”
What!? Well, professor Parncutt is an expert on the psychology of music, which more than qualifies him to hold court on geoclimatic issues, while absolving him of being held accountable for such advanced subjects as math or logic.
Then, in the best 1984 tradition, Parncutt suggests:
“If a jury of suitably qualified scientists estimated that a given GW denier had already, with high probability (say 95%), caused the deaths of over one million future people, then s/he would be sentenced to death. The sentence would then be commuted to life imprisonment if the accused admitted their mistake, demonstrated genuine regret, AND participated significantly and positively over a long period in programs to reduce the effects of GW (from jail) — using much the same means that were previously used to spread the message of denial. At the end of that process, some GW deniers would never admit their mistake and as a result they would be executed. Perhaps that would be the only way to stop the rest of them. The death penalty would have been justified in terms of the enormous numbers of saved future lives.”
Here the curtain is ripped away to reveal the true motivations of scum such as Parncutt. He doesn’t really care to control your actions — it is control of your mind and soul that he seeks! For a dramatization of the psychology of such people, I recommend the short story, “A Thousand Deaths“, by Orson Scott Card, which appears in his anthology, “Maps in a Mirror” and the paperback collection, “Flux“.
A copy of Parncutt’s original article, discussed above, may be found here. After considerable blowback from a number of websites, Parncutt significantly revised his article, a copy of which may be found here. A comparison between the two versions is instructive. It’s quite a transition to move within less than 24 hours from suggesting “the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for influential GW deniers.” to “I wish I had a good solution.”
This call to censor and punish anyone who disagrees with the “official” climate position continues to garner supporters. For example:
- On Letters From Climate-Change Deniers – [Paul Thornton: Letters Editor for the LA Times: 10-08-13]
- Thornton claims that the backing of
“top climate scientists
- ” who state that it’s
“95% certain that we fossil-fuel-burning humans are driving global warming,”
- gives him the authority to ban opposing opinions on the fundamentals in the climate debate.
- Reddit’s Science Forum Banned Climate Deniers – [Gist: 12-16-13]
- Nathan Allen, a moderator of a science forum on Reddit, supports the forum’s ban on anyone being allowed to voice an opinion or present facts contrary to what he states is the “97% consensus” opinion on anthropogenic-caused climate catastrophe in the making. He further suggests,
“Why don’t all newspapers do the same?”
- Obviously, some already have.
- Media Praise BBC Censorship of Climate Skeptics; Attack Dissenters – [Media Research Center: 07-08-14]
- Continuing the trend, MRC reports that the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) was training its journalists
“to ignore skeptical views on man-made climate change.”
- Shut Up — Or We’ll Shut You Down – [Wall Street Journal: 10-09-15]
- A group of professors from George Mason University Draft a letter to government officials, requesting that RICO (i.e., racketeering) legislation be used to prosecute corporations and other organizations that
“knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.”
- No dissenting views shall be allowed. Then there is
- France’s Top Weatherman Sparks Storm Over Book Questioning Climate Change – [The Telegraph: 10-14-15]
- France’s chief weather forecaster, Philippe Verdier, was suspended from his post for criticising AGW climate alarmists for misleading the public with manipulated data and charging that politicians have
“taken the world hostage”
Which brings us back to the United Nations, the self-appointed advocate and enabler behind the environmentalist cause, dedicated to seeing that the goals of those such as Jensen and Monbiot are realized in all of their bloody infamy.
While the press and public was intently distracted with the pros and cons of anthropogenic global warming, the UN has been quietly working to promote it’s real goals through a program known as Agenda 21. And as the following video demonstrates, their efforts to control all of the earth’s resources while regulating the actions of every human on the planet, extend back to at least 1976.
To summarize the timeline:
- 1976: At the UN’s Habitat I conference, The Vancouver Action Plan was adopted by William K. Reilly, signing for the United States. The plan state, in part:“Land, because of its unique nature and the crucial role it plays in human settlements, cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principal instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth and therefore contributes to social injustice; if unchecked, it may become a major obstacle in the planning and implementation of development schemes. Social justice, urban renewal and development, the provision of decent dwellings-and healthy conditions for the people can only be achieved if land is used in the interests of society as a whole.” [Emphasis added]
- 1987: The UN issued the Brundtland Commission’s report titled, Our Common Future, which introduces the concept of sustainable development in terms of the perceived needs of future generations. In order to accomplish this mission, it was declared that governments must be given control over society (people), the economy (livelyhood), and the environment (property).
- 1992: The ideas developed for Habitat I and by the Brundtland Commission were consolidated by a group of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and presented asAgenda-21 during the Rio de Janeiro Earth Summit. The following 52 minute video covers the Earth Summit opening plenary remarks by Maurice Strong, where he lays out the Agenda-21 goals and encourages all countries to adopt them. Relevant remarks begin around the 15 minute mark.
—See more: http://go-galt.org/climategate.html