Scientists Get Annoyed

This report is rich and worth the read if only for the evident wit of a mob of angry scientists.

The esteemed editor’s error was in failing to understand that ‘all scientists’ having been so characterized have been succumbing to pangs of guilt and have been actually checking out the relevant science to discover what they all agree with. It is a little like the famous three day scam show laid on by Huck Finn’s fellow travelers. The esteemed editor forgot to be long gone on the third day when the natives show up loaded for bear.

As anyone who has followed my investigations knows, there are several credible variables effecting climate change and recently we have picked up on an additional one that effectively eliminates any need for CO2 to be x or deus ex machina on the stage of climate change. They are all nicely channeled in the stable climate called the Holocene that ended the ice age Pleistocene.

And yes, there is more heat presently in the northern hemisphere but it appears to be slowly dissipating after been built up over the eighties and the nineties. It continues to reduce the northern sea ice. In spite of all this the globe did warm up for a couple of decades and we appear to be on the way to producing another pleasant medieval warm period.

And again what is important is not the warming part of this equation at all. Left to its own devices, the Earth will be naturally at the top end of the Holocene range. We need to be far more interested in what can actually cool the Earth and do it quickly, since all cooling episodes have been abrupt. All evidence that I have been able to scare up so far, points to causation by exceptional volcanic activity in Alaska and environs. A blast there needs to be a lot smaller than those at the equator for equal effect and are thus much more common.

Right now I would love to have an eruption history of all prospective Alaskan volcanoes in order to discover any linkage. The fact that it was the farthest end of the earth eliminated eye witness reports. It has also been difficult to explore and to get data even today. Also an under water event would leave little evidence. Imagine if Pele had blown up without witnesses. Would anyone recognize a recent event? The answer has been not easily at all.


http://www.climatedepot.com/a/2213/Climate-Revolt-Major-Science-Group-Startled-By-Outpouring-of-Scientists-Rejecting-ManMade-Climate-Fears-Clamor-for-Editor-to-Be-Removed

Climate Revolt: Major Science Group 'Startled' By Outpouring of Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears! Clamor for Editor to Be Removed!

Scientists seek to remove climate fear promoting editor and 'trade him to New York Times or Washington Post'

Wednesday, July 29, 2009 - By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

Climate Depot Exclusive

An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group's editor-in-chief -- with some demanding he be removed -- after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”

The editorial claimed the "consensus" view was growing "increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.” The editor now admits he is "startled" by the negative reaction from the group's scientific members.

The June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News by editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and condemnation from American Chemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded his editorial by stating that “deniers” are attempting to “derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change.”

Dozens of letters were published on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum, with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief.

The editorial was met with a swift, passionate and scientific rebuke from Baum's colleagues. Virtually all of the letters published on July 27 in castigated Baum's climate science views. Scientists rebuked Baum's use of the word “deniers” because of the terms “association with Holocaust deniers.” In addition, the scientists called Baum's editorial: “disgusting”; “a disgrace”; “filled with misinformation”; “unworthy of a scientific periodical” and “pap.”

One outraged ACS member wrote to Baum: "When all is said and done, and you and your kind are proven wrong (again), you will have moved on to be an unthinking urn for another rat pleading catastrophe. You will be removed. I promise."

Baum 'startled' by scientists reaction

Baum wrote on July 27, that he was "startled" and "surprised" by the "contempt" and "vehemence" of the ACS scientists to his view of the global warming "consensus."

"Some of the letters I received are not fit to print. Many of the letters we have printed are, I think it is fair to say, outraged by my position on global warming," Baum wrote.

Selected Excerpts of Skeptical Scientists:

“I think it's time to find a new editor,” ACS member Thomas E. D'Ambra wrote.
Geochemist R. Everett Langford wrote: “I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research—that the matter is solved.”

ACS scientist Dennis Malpass wrote: “Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!”

ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: “Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?"

Edward H. Gleason wrote: “Baum's attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me...his use of 'climate-change deniers' to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific.”

Atmospheric Chemist Roger L. Tanner: "I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other 'free-market fanatics,' and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose."

William Tolley: "I take great offense that Baum would use Chemical and Engineering News, for which I pay dearly each year in membership dues, to purvey his personal views and so glibly ignore contrary information and scold those of us who honestly find these views to be a hoax."

William E. Keller wrote: “However bitter you (Baum) personally may feel about CCDs (climate change deniers), it is not your place as editor to accuse them—falsely—of nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. [...] The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method—characteristics that apparently do not apply to you.”

ACS member Wallace Embry: “I would like to see the American Chemical Society Board 'cap' Baum's political pen and 'trade' him to either the New York Times or Washington Post." [To read the more reactions from scientists to Baum's editorial go here and see below.]

Physicists Dr. Lubos Motl, who publishes the Reference Frame website, weighed in on the controversy as well, calling Baum's editorial an "alarmist screed."

“Now, the chemists are thinking about replacing this editor who has hijacked the ACS bulletin to promote his idiosyncratic political views," Motl wrote on July 27, 2009.

Baum cites discredited Obama Administration Climate Report

To “prove” his assertion that the science was “becoming increasingly well established,” Baum cited the Obama Administration's U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) study as evidence that the science was settled. [Climate Depot Editor's Note: Baum's grasp of the latest “science” is embarrassing. For Baum to cite the June 2009 Obama Administration report as “evidence” that science is growing stronger exposes him as having very poor research skills. See this comprehensive report on scientists rebuking that report. See: 'Scaremongering': Scientists Pan Obama Climate Report: 'This is not a work of science but an embarrassing episode for the authors and NOAA'...'Misrepresents the science' - July 8, 2009 )

Baum also touted the Congressional climate bill as “legislation with real teeth to control the emission of greenhouse gases.” [Climate Depot Editor's Note: This is truly laughable that an editor-in-chief at the American Chemical Society could say the climate bill has “real teeth.” This statement should be retracted in full for lack of evidence. The Congressional climate bill has outraged environmental groups for failing to impact global temperatures and failing to even reduce emissions! See: Climate Depot Editorial: Climate bill offers (costly) non-solutions to problems that don't even exist - No detectable climate impact: 'If we actually faced a man-made 'climate crisis', we would all be doomed' June 20, 2009 ]

The American Chemical Society's scientific revolt is the latest in a series of recent eruptions against the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming.

On May 1 2009, the American Physical Society (APS) Council decided to review its current climate statement via a high-level subcommittee of respected senior scientists. The decision was prompted after a group of 54 prominent physicists petitioned the APS revise its global warming position. The 54 physicists wrote to APS governing board: “Measured or reconstructed temperature records indicate that 20th - 21st century changes are neither exceptional nor persistent, and the historical and geological records show many periods warmer than today.”

The petition signed by the prominent physicists, led by Princeton University's Dr. Will Happer, who has conducted 200 peer-reviewed scientific studies. The peer-reviewed journal Nature published a July 22, 2009 letter by the physicists persuading the APS to review its statement. In 2008, an American Physical Society editor conceded that a “considerable presence” of scientific skeptics exists.

In addition, in April 2009, the Polish National Academy of Science reportedly “published a document that expresses skepticism over the concept of man-made global warming.” An abundance of new peer-reviewed scientific studies continue to be published challenging the UN IPCC climate views. (See: Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!? - Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades,' peer-reviewed study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009 & Peer-Reviewed Study Rocks Climate Debate! 'Nature not man responsible for recent global warming...little or none of late 20th century warming and cooling can be attributed to humans' – July 23, 2009 )

A March 2009 a 255-page U. S. Senate Report detailed "More Than 700 International Scientists Dissenting Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims." 2009's continued lack of warming, further frustrated the promoters of man-made climate fears. See: Earth's 'Fever' Breaks! Global temperatures 'have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth' – July 5, 2009

In addition, the following developments further in 2008 challenged the “consensus” of global warming. India Issued a report challenging global warming fears; a canvass of more than 51,000 Canadian scientists revealed 68% disagree that global warming science is “settled”; A Japan Geoscience Union symposium survey in 2008 reportedly “showed 90 per cent of the participants do not believe the IPCC report.” Scientific meetings are now being dominated by a growing number of skeptical scientists. The prestigious International Geological Congress, dubbed the geologists' equivalent of the Olympic Games, was held in Norway in August 2008 and prominently featured the voices of scientists skeptical of man-made global warming fears. [See: Skeptical scientists overwhelm conference: '2/3 of presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the UN IPCC' & see full reports here & here - Also see: UN IPCC's William Schlesinger admits in 2009 that only 20% of IPCC scientists deal with climate ]
Selected Excerpted Highlights of American Chemical Society Scientist's Reaction to Baum's Editorial: (For full letters see here.)

Instead of debate, members are constantly subjected to your arrogant self-righteousness and the left-wing practice of stifling debate by personal attacks on anyone who disagrees. I think ACS should make an effort to educate its membership about the science of climate change and let them draw their own conclusions. Although under your editorial leadership, I suspect we would be treated to a biased and skewed version of scientific debate. I think its time to find a new editor. [...] How about using your position as editor to promote a balanced scientific discussion of the theory behind the link of human activity to global warming? I am not happy that you continue to use the pulpit of your editorials to promote your left-wing opinions.

Thomas E. D'AmbraRexford, N.Y.
#
Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded?
Do you refer to "climate change" instead of "global warming" because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?

Howard HaydenPueblo West, Colo.
#
I was a geochemist doing research on paleoclimates early in my career. I have tried to follow the papers in the scientific literature. [...] I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research—that the matter is solved.
The peer-reviewed literature is not unequivocal about causes and effects of global warming. We are still learning about properties of water, for goodness' sake. There needs to be more true scientific research without politics on both sides and with all scientists being heard. To insult and denigrate those with whom you disagree is not becoming.

R. Everett LangfordThe Woodlands, Texas
#
Your editorial in the June 22 issue of C&EN was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!

Are you planning to write an editorial about the Environmental Protection Agency's recent suppression of a global warming report that goes against the gospel according to NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies Director James Hansen? Or do you only editorialize on matters in keeping with your biased views on global warming?

Trying to arrest climate change is a feeble, futile endeavor and a manifestation of human arrogance. Humankind's contribution to climate change is minuscule, and trying to eliminate even that minute effect will be enormously expensive, damaging to the poorest people on the planet, and ultimately ineffective.

Dennis MalpassMagnolia, Texas
#
I can't accept as facts the reports of federal agencies, because they have become political and are more likely to support the regime in power than not. Baum's attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me.

Edward H. GleasonOoltewah, Tenn.
#
Having worked as an atmospheric chemist for many years, I have extensive experience with environmental issues, and I usually agree with Rudy Baum's editorials. But his use of "climate-change deniers" to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific. [...] Given the climate's complexity and these and other uncertainties, are we justified in legislating major increases in our energy costs unilaterally guided only by a moral imperative to "do our part" for Earth's climate? I am among many environmentally responsible citizen-scientists who think this is stupid, both because our emissions reductions will be dwarfed by increases elsewhere (China and India, for example) and because the models have large uncertainties. [...] I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other "free-market fanatics," and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose.
Roger L. TannerMuscle Shoals, Ala.
#
I would like to see the ACS Board cap Baum's political pen and trade him to either the New York Times or Washington Post.
Wallace EmbryColumbia, Tenn.
#
In the interest of brevity, I can limit my response to the diatribe of the editor-in-chief in the June 22 edition of C&EN to one word: Disgusting.
Louis H. RombachWilmington, Del.
#
I am particularly offended by the false analogy with creationists. It is easy to just dismiss anyone who dares disagree as being "unscientific."
Daniel B. RegoLas Vegas
#
While Baum obviously has strong personal views on the subject, I take great offense that he would use C&EN, for which I pay dearly each year in membership dues, to purvey his personal views and so glibly ignore contrary information and scold those of us who honestly find these views to be a hoax.
William TolleySan Diego
#
I appreciate it when C&EN presents information from qualified supporters of either, and preferably both, sides of an issue to help readers decide what is correct, rather than dispensing your conclusions and ridiculing people who disagree with you.
P. S. LowellLakeway, Texas
#
I am a retired Ph.D. chemical engineer. During my working years, I was involved in many environmental issues concerning products and processes of the companies for which I worked. I am completely disgusted with the June 22 editorial. I do not consider it to be very scientific to castigate skeptics of man-made global warming. [...] [Global warming fears are] not of particular concern because "the ocean is a very large sink for carbon dioxide." [...] The overall problem here is that there is already an abundance of scientific illiteracy in the American public that will not be improved by Baum's stance in what should be a scientific magazine. Theories are not proven by consensus—but by data from repeatable experimentation that leaves no doubt of interpretation.
Charles M. KrutchenDaphne, Ala.
#
Please do not keep writing C&EN editorials according to the liberal religion's credo—"Attack all climate-change deniers, creationists, conservatives, people who voted for George W. Bush, etc." It is a sign of weakness in your argument when you attack those who disagree. [...] Your choice of terminology referring to skeptical scientists who don't toe your line as CCD, climate-change deniers, and putting them in association with Holocaust deniers, is unworthy of an editorial in a scientific periodical. Who don't you go head-to-head with the critics? Please don't keep doing this. Find a scientific writer for the editorial page. We get plenty of this pap from the mainstream media and do not need it in C&EN.
Heinrich BrinksMonterey, Calif.
#
Your utter disdain of CCDs and the accusations of improper tactics you ascribe to them cannot be dismissed. However bitter you personally may feel about CCDs, it is not your place as editor to accuse them—falsely—of nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method—characteristics that apparently do not apply to you. The results presented by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which you call the CCD's "favorite whipping boy," do indeed fall into the category of predictions that fail to match the data, requiring a return to the drawing board. Your flogging of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change is not only infantile but beggars you to contribute facts to back up your disdain. Incidentally, why do we fund climate studies by U.S. Global Change Research Program if the problem is settled?
William E. KellerSanta Fe, N.M.
For all of the letters send in repsone to Baum's editorial see here.

Marc Morano ClimateDepot.comCFACT1875 Eye Street, NWFifth FloorWashington, D.C. 20006202-536-5052Morano@ClimateDepot.com

Global Temperature Decline

This item gives us a fair measure of the total temperature decline over the past several years. This means that the bulk of the gain that had all excited has now dissipated. It is still set about the normal average so it is not getting colder per se. And average for the twentieth century is sufficient to maintain pressure on the sea ice.

The Holocene has a remarkably stable two degree spread. We saw the bottom during the little ice age and recently we had a look at the top. CO2 remains unconvincing for all this. Quite simply, CO2 is on a persistent uptrend that will be broken during this century as we convert to alternative power and abandon coal and hydrocarbons. Global temperatures are not on a persistent general trend but are showing decadal fluctuations in a warm century not impacted by cooling major events.

This general reversal has made fools of the Al Gore School of climate science as it really had too. This is specifically why I began this blog by disassociating the current temperature uptrend form the long established rise in CO2. I thought at the time that the claimed linkage was optimistic and also highly suspect science. So far, I have had no reason whatsoever to change that opinion. We still have increasing CO2 to counter and this blog has been in the forefront in establishing viable options. Otherwise we get to talk about the weather when things slow down a bit.

Earth's 'Fever' Breaks! Global temperatures 'have plunged .74°F since Gore released An Inconvenient Truth'

June 2009 saw another drop in global temps

Sunday, July 05, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot
The latest global averaged satellite temperature data for June 2009 reveals yet another drop in the Earth's temperature. This latest drop in global temperatures means despite his dire warnings, the Earth has cooled .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore released "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006.

According to the latest data courtesy of algorelied.com: "For the record, this month's Al Gore / 'An Inconvenient Truth' Index indicates that global temperatures have plunged approximately .74°F (.39°C) since Gore's film was released." (see satellite temperature chart here with key dates noted, courtesy of www.Algorelied.com - The global satellite temperature data comes from the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Also see: 8 Year Downtrend Continues in Global Temps)

Gore -- who is fond of saying the Earth has a "fever" -- has not yet addressed the simple fact that global temperatures have dropped since the release of his global warming film. (Gore has also not addressed this: Another Moonwalker Defies Gore: NASA Astronaut Dr. Buzz Aldrin rejects global warming fears: 'Climate has been changing for billions of years' - Moonwalkers Defy Gore's Claim That Climate Skeptics Are Akin To Those Who Believe Moon Landing was 'Staged')

A record cool summer has descended upon many parts of the U.S. after predictions of the "year without a summer." There has been no significant global warming since 1995, no warming since 1998 and global cooling for the past few years.

In addition, New peer-reviewed scientific studies now predict a continued lack of global warming for up to three decades as natural climate factors dominate. (See: Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!? - Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades' study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009 )

This means that today's high school kids being forced to watch Al Gore's “An Inconvenient Truth” – some of them 4 times in 4 different classes – will be nearly eligible for AARP (age 50) retirement group membership by the time warming resumes if these new studies turn out to be correct. (Editor's Note: Claims that warming will “resume” due to explosive heat in the "pipeline" have also been thoroughly debunked. See: Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. 'There is no warming in the pipeline' )

Cold Spring Dragging

This list of headlines is a reminder of just how unpredictable weather can be. Our spring has on average been a bit late as compared to amazingly early just two years ago. I still think that what we are experiencing is a return to normalcy from a decade of somewhat warmer weather whose trend line finally reversed just as it all became very noticeable.

I do not think that the heat surplus in the Northern Hemisphere is completely eliminated and that there are still possibilities for the Arctic sea ice based on its unusual thinness. Thus if enough open water exists, enough energy can be absorbed to at least initially slow ice recovery for a while.

The question that is not answered satisfactory as yet is whether or not the gross heat content is increasing, neutral or in actual decline. It was increasing for at least thirty years ending with the winter of 2008 in a completely surprising downswing. When I say increasing, I mean not that it was accelerating but that there was a net gain each and every year that I think pretty well averaged out year after year. It was enough to destroy a lot of sea ice.

I now think that it has at least returned to neutral and could well continue into the negative and we will then see a slowly accelerating increase in the total sea ice again.

We already know that there is an apparent thirty to forty year hurricane cycle that also fits this apparent pattern. What we do not understand is the apparent conservatism in atmospheric heat content. We want to think that incoming matches outgoing in a very quick dance. This is telling us to be not so fast.

A one percent increase in the heat content of the equatorial ocean would be invisible and immeasurable but would nudge the atmosphere in the type of decadal cycles been observed. A modest increase in the heat content of the winds entering the Arctic would be unnoticeable in the lower latitudes, yet deliver a summer’s aggressive melting as we saw in 2007.

One other thing that is poorly understood by most. The Arctic gyre is small compared to the surrounding oceanic gyres that extend to the equator. However it seems consistent enough in the summer to deliver pretty uniform storm free weather. That is it warms up and stays pretty warm for a few brief months if cool might be considered warm. The point that I am making is that the big events are all else where in terms of shifting the climate around and a little surplus heat goes a long way in the Arctic.

So if we have cool spring, the Arctic is unlikely to be contributing much at all. More likely, a late warming for whatever reason is driving the lag in the climate and considering the shifts back and forth, I hate to make any suggestions.


Brrrrr. Too cold for ice cream! Parts of U.S. forecast to have a 'year without a summer'

Long winter marches into June as unseasonable cold and snow continues

Monday, June 08, 2009 - By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/1226/Brrrrr-Too-cold-for-ice-cream-Parts-of-US-forecast-to-have-a-year-without-a-summer

The long winter of 2009 continues with unseasonable cold and snow continuing in many parts of the world. AccuWeather is forecasting parts of the U.S. may have a "year without a summer." Below is a small sampling of articles on the June chill.

Parts of U.S. forecast to have a 'year without a summer'

Record-low temp recorded in International Falls

Cool has pushed growth of Western Canada's wheat and barley crop at least 10 days behind schedule

Unseasonably-cool weather slows ice cream sales

Frost may force Brazil to cut this year's corn output forecast

It's June...so it must be snowing: Great British summer goes from sweltering to shivering in just a week

'Unusually cold spring continues' -- two more cold records set in N. Dakota

Isn't this June? Snow sticking around on Pikes Peak...'7 foot snowdrifts'

North Dakota city sees first June snowfall in 60 years

Nearing mid-June in Wisconsin: No sign of summer in forecast

Schoolchildren rescued from hiking trip as June snow and cold hits California

Finland: Chicks killed by the frost in chilly early summer

Ireland: 'Unseasonably cold weather' kills famous chickens

New Zealand ski resort sees earliest ever opening as heavy snow hits

Botswana: Cold Weather Forecast hit by severe winter

'Devastating freeze': Spring frost in Texas killed '99% of our peach crop this year'

Freezes were noted this morning in parts of Montana

Prediction: Northwest Passage won't clear this year

Wyoming: Unseasonably cool temperatures brought a late spring snowstorm and freeze warnings

New record lows were again established in southern Alberta

Below normal temps bring frost damage to Michigan hayfields

Erie, PA: Temperature dips to record low of 40

Winnipeg likely 'to see a record low maximum temperature'

Parts of Canada forecast to get 4 to 8 inches...'set new record lows'

N. Dakota: 80,000 cattle likely have been lost to the harsh winter=

Global Warming Generating Heat

The static between true believers in global warming and their critics is continuing to generate fireworks. I sometimes have to pinch myself to believe what I am often reading. It is very much like the conduct of this purely scientific issue has dropped a couple of pay scales as those further up the food chain are more and more unwilling to step up to the plate.

Yet the northern hemisphere has been consistently warmer for at least two if not three decades. Not by much, but enough to likely see off the arctic sea ice by 2012. Yes, that still appears very possible as it seems that almost all the multi year ice has now gone. If true, then a fortuitous combination of winds is likely to present dramatic results over the next three years.

What is not convincing is the idea that CO2 and humanity had anything whatsoever to do with it at all. The brief coincidence of the CO2 growth sort of matching the apparent temperature trend has created more logic holes than Swiss cheese and the theory should be discarded out of hand.

We have a trend that fit well with the known climate of the Holocene and our own investigation over the past two years has elucidated every apparent anomaly with a more probable explanation.

We still need to stress test the impact of a major Alaska volcanic eruption on Europe, but in the historic period of slowly improving northern conditions over the past two hundred years, we have had fairly quiet mountains there. Surely that is not a coincidence?

Climate Depot Banned in Louisiana! State official sought to 'shut down' climate skeptic's testimony at hearing

Official irate that Climate Depot's Morano allowed to testify

Tuesday, May 19, 2009By Marc Morano – Climate Depot

Commissioner Foster Campbell of the Louisiana Public Service Commission is demanding to know why a witness skeptical of man-made global warming was not "shut down" during a May 13, 2009 hearing in Baton Rouge.

According to an article in The Times-Picayune on May 19, 2009, Campbell was irate that Climate Depot's executive editor Marc Morano was invited to speak at the hearing by Commissioner Eric Skrmetta. The paper reported: "Campbell criticized [Chairman] Boissiere for not shutting down Morano's presentation." [Morano n0te: This is eerily similar to the event that occurred in Congress on April 23, 2009. See: Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing ]

Campbell attempted to verbally grill Morano during the hearing and has since publicly accused the Climate Depot editor of being a "phony" and a "hack" who is part of a "fringe group" and he accused Morano of "deception" and taking "quotes out of context." (See Times-Picayune article: Global warming presentation prompts Foster Campbell to ask for PSC testimony under oath )

Campbell, who engaged in a testy back and forth during the standing room only hearing with Morano, is now apparently demanding any future witnesses that challenge his scientific understanding of global warming be promptly “shut down.” [Morano note: Campbell's low-brow insults and impulse to cut off debate only serve to diminish his reputation.]

The Times-Picayune reported: “After a presenter at last week's Public Service Commission meeting asserted that global warming is a hoax, Commissioner Foster Campbell said Tuesday he plans to introduce a motion at the June meeting requiring most people testifying before the commission to do so under oath.” [Morano note: The paper is incorrect; I never testified that global warming a “hoax.” ]

Campbell's call for future witnesses to be sworn-in is apparently his attempt to scare off any future skeptics of man-made global warming fears from testifying. Campbell implies "swearing" in witnesses would somehow force witnesses to change their dissenting views of climate change. [Morano note: Sadly, it seems as though Campbell actually believes that if you present scientific evidence refuting Gore's climate view, you must be a liar. I would be delighted to return to Baton Rouge to testify again under oath and allow Campbell all the time he would like to question my presentation. ]

The paper reported that Morano's testimony “upstaged” Campbell's invited witness.

“Marc Morano, a former aide to Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma who now runs an anti-global-warming website called ClimateDepot.com, said there's no proof that the planet is getting hotter and called the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change a 'political gimmick.'” [Morano note: I merely quoted award-winning physicist Dr. Claude Allegre -- who reversed his view on warming to become a skeptic -- stating Gore's Nobel award was "a political gimmick.” ] The paper continued: “Campbell maintains that [his witness] offered the commission an analysis of a proposed policy change while Morano, who once worked for Rush Limbaugh, delivered a political rant that was of no value to the commission. He criticized [Chairman] Boissiere for not shutting down Morano's presentation.”

[ Morano note: A frustrated Campbell sat through my presentation which contained extensive analysis of cap-and-trade and I cited peer-reviewed scientific studies, prominent international scientists and the latest real world developments exposing the errors in man-made climate fears. My testimony even cited left wing environmentalists and promoters of global warming fears like the UK's James Lovelock, NASA's James Hansen and Green Party candidate Ralph Nader trashing the concept of cap-and-trade as “verging on a gigantic scam.” In addition, I presented the overwhelming polling data showing the public is rejecting climate fears. ]

During the question and answer portion of the testimony, Campbell accused Morano of representing "big business" and not being kind to former Vice President Al Gore. Campbell has been on a public relations war path since Morano's 35 minute testimony at the hearing. Last week, Campbell released a May 14, 2009 letter calling Morano a “political operator from Washington, D.C. and he accused him of giving a “far-right sermon on Global Warming straight out of Rush Limbaugh, complete with obscure references, quotes out of context and personal attacks on a former Vice President and winner of the Nobel Prize.” Campbell called Morano's testimony a “political circus.” He then went on to label him a “hack” who used “deception.”

[Morano note: In addition to providing comic relief, Campbell's angry rants are quite chilling. As the science behind man-made global warming fears utterly collapses, many of the biggest promoters of the theory are growing increasingly desperate.

NASA's James Hansen has called for trials of climate skeptics in 2008 for "high crimes against humanity.” Environmentalists Robert F. Kennedy Jr. lashed out at skeptics of 2007 declaring “This is treason. And we need to start treating them as traitors”

In 2006, the eco-magazine Grist called for Nuremberg-Style trials for skeptics. In 2008, Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki called for government leaders skeptical of global warming to be thrown “into jail.” In 2007, The Weather Channel's climate expert called for withholding certification of skeptical meteorologists.

A 2008 report found that 'Climate blasphemy' is replacing traditional religious blasphemy. (See also: A July 2007 Senate report details how skeptical scientists have faced threats and intimidation ]
Related Links:

Democrats Refuse to Allow Skeptic to Testify Alongside Gore At Congressional Hearing - April 23, 2009

S. African UN Scientist: 'The whole climate change issue is about to fall apart -- Heads will roll!' - April 2009

Climate Depot Editorial: We would all be doomed if we actually faced climate 'crisis' - Cap-and-trade equals all economic pain for no climate gain

Warming theory 'dying the death of a thousand cuts' - Ocean Conveyor Belt Model Broken: 'Models are significantly wrong' - May 2009

Climate Fears RIP...for 30 years!? - Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades' study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009

Japanese Scientist compares global warming to 'astrology'

U.S. Senate Report: 700 Plus Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Warming Claims

Gallup Discovers Rising Skepticism on Global Warming

This item comes by way of Marc Morano, who has the thankless task of throwing facts in the face of global warming fanatics from the US Senate.

It appears that the phrase ‘the public is an ass’ has been turned on its head. The public clearly is beginning to think that the pro global warming crowd is an ass.

As I have posted in the past, extraordinary theories require extraordinary proof. Instead Mother Nature has blandly reversed direction and destroyed the necessary trend line. We simply no longer have the supporting data to reasonably make the extraordinary claim. In the meantime the fanatics are making asses of themselves with over the top declarations.

This steady deterioration has happened in the face of unrelenting pro global warming press coverage in support of the position. Obviously the public can look out the window and see vigorous and sustained counter evidence cramping their lives as has not happened for many years.

BREAKING: Gallup Poll: 'Record-High 41% of Americans 'now say global warming is exaggerated!' - 'Highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting' in more than a decade – March 11, 2009

[Marc Morano Note on Gallup Poll: These dramatic polling results are not unexpected as prominent scientists from around the world continue to speak out publicly for the first time to dissent from the Al Gore, UN IPCC and media driven man-made climate fears. In addition, a steady stream of peer-reviewed studies, analyses, real world data and inconvenient developments have further decimated the claims of man-made global warming fear activists. Americans are finally catching on in large numbers that the UN IPCC is a POLITICAL -- not scientific organization. Man-made global warming fears have proven simply unsustainable – to use a nice green term.

Man-made climate fears may soon follow the previous failed eco-scares like the disappearing rainforest claims of the 1980’s and 1990’s. The New York Times recently reported about how the green groups and media promoted fears of the disappearing rainforests from that era may have been severely overblown. (See Rainforest fears fading away: “For every acre of rainforest cut down each year, more than 50 acres of new forest are growing in the tropics” as once farmed land is returning to nature. Jan. 2009. – The fading rainforest scare inspired this global warming spoof of the year 2019. See: Spoof : “Scientists Now Say Global Warming Fears Fading Away - Claim Warming Consensus Never Existed” ) –

If new peer-reviewed studies are to be believed, today’s high school kids watching Gore’s movie will be nearing the senior citizen group AARP’s membership age (50 years) by the time warming allegedly “resumes” in 30 years! See: Climate Fears RIP…for 30 years!? – Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Global Warming could stop 'for up to 30 years! Warming 'On Hold?...'Could go into hiding for decades' study finds – Discovery.com – March 2, 2009 – Final quote: Dr. John Brignell, a skeptical UK Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton wrote in 2008: “The warmers are getting more and more like those traditional predictors of the end of the world who, when the event fails to happen on the due date, announce an error in their calculations and a new date.” End Morano note. ]


BREAKING: Gallup Poll: 'Record-High 41% of Americans 'now say global warming is exaggerated!' - 'Highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting' in more than a decade – March 11, 2009

Key Quote: “A record-high 41% now say it is exaggerated. This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject. Key Quote: Not only does global warming rank last on the basis of the total percentage concerned either a great deal or a fair amount, but it is the only issue for which public concern dropped significantly in the past year.”

Key Quote: “However, the solitary drop in concern this year about global warming, among the eight specific environmental issues Gallup tested, suggests that something unique may be happening with the issue.”

Key Quote: “It is not clear whether the troubled economy has drawn attention away from the global warming message or whether other factors are at work.”

Key Quote: “Importantly, Gallup's annual March update on the environment shows a drop in public concern about global warming across several different measures, suggesting that the global warming message may have lost some footing with Americans over the past year.”

More Excerpts: The 2009 Gallup Environment survey measured public concern about eight specific environmental issues. Not only does global warming rank last on the basis of the total percentage concerned either a great deal or a fair amount, but it is the only issue for which public concern dropped significantly in the past year. […] A record-high 41% now say it is exaggerated. This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject. As recently as 2006, significantly more Americans thought the news underestimated the seriousness of global warming than said it exaggerated it, 38% vs. 30%. Now, according to Gallup's 2009 Environment survey, more Americans say the problem is exaggerated rather than underestimated, 41% vs. 28%. The trend in the "exaggerated" response has been somewhat volatile since 2001, and the previous high point, 38%, came in 2004. Over the next two years, "exaggerated" sentiment fell to 31% and 30%. Still, as noted, the current 41% is the highest since Gallup's trend on this measure began in 1997. Since 1997, Republicans have grown increasingly likely to believe media coverage of global warming is exaggerated, and that trend continues in the 2009 survey; however, this year marks a relatively sharp increase among independents as well. In just the past year, Republican doubters grew from 59% to 66%, and independents from 33% to 44%, while the rate among Democrats remained close to 20%. […] Importantly, Gallup's annual March update on the environment shows a drop in public concern about global warming across several different measures, suggesting that the global warming message may have lost some footing with Americans over the past year. Gallup has documented declines in public concern about the environment at times when other issues, such as a major economic downturn or a national crisis like 9/11, absorbed Americans' attention. To some extent that may be true today, given the troubling state of the U.S. economy. However, the solitary drop in concern this year about global warming, among the eight specific environmental issues Gallup tested, suggests that something unique may be happening with the issue. Certainly global warming has received tremendous attention this decade, including with Al Gore's Academy Award-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth." It is not clear whether the troubled economy has drawn attention away from the global warming message or whether other factors are at work. It will be important to see whether the 2009 findings hold up in next year's update of the annual environmental survey.

Full Gallup Results with charts and graphs:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/116590/Increased-Number-Think-Global-Warming-Exaggerated.aspx

Intellectual Lapse on Climate Debate

This spat is quite delightful. The scientific community has not quite woken up to the reality that many new ideas are going to be published first on the internet to establish priority and to expose them to an initial peer review. They all can be improved on by work and editing, but they are there.

Regardless, there are no two classes of people, those permitted to have an idea and those not.

In this case, the internet has bared a prime example of intellectual dishonesty that was simply intentional. It is no different that thinking you are a better human being because you have a bit of money in your jeans.

A true scholar must abhor the idea of not crediting an idea that he is working on.

This has been going on for several days the culprit is getting roasted by his peers.

A major part of scholarship is to chronicle work and contributions by others. This is important because an informant’s context is often very critical in later review.

Scholarship is today devolving to virtual teams of informed participants who access each other through the internet. It is allowing scholarship to be super efficient and it is allowing other informants to be involved. The fact that brainstorming the issue provided a new insight to Mr. Schmidt to build into his paper was a benefit of the internet to Mr Schmidt. It is only honorable to give a passing nod at least for the idea. And it strikes right at the heart of the scientific method which depends on the trustworthiness of the observer(s).

Update: Prominent Scientist Again Challenges Schmidt on Climate Models!

Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes slammed RealCliamte.org’s Gavin Schmidt on Janaury 29, 2009: See: Prominent Scientist ‘Appalled’ By Gavin Schmidt’s ‘lack of knowledge’ – ‘Back to graduate school, Gavin!’ – Climate Science Blog

On February 4, 2009, Tennekes posted a follow up report on Schmidt’s scientific views. Tennekes is a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes. Tennekes is featured in U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Tennekes wrote on Feb. 4: “I understand that Gavin Schmidt was upset by my essay of January 29. [...] So why should one base climate policy on forecasts made by climate models? Curiously, Gavin’s text is conceptually vague. He should be able to do better. It is up to you, Gavin. I am waiting.”
http://climatesci.org/2009/02/04/dissecting-a-real-climate-text-by-hendrik-tennekes

February 4, 2009
Dissecting a Real Climate Text by Hendrik Tennekes

I understand that Gavin Schmidt was upset by my essay of January 29 . I admit that I neglected to mention that I responded to his long exposition of January 6 on Real Climate. The part of his text that deals with the difference between weather models and climate models reads:

“Conceptually they are very similar, but in practice they are used very differently. Weather models use as much data as there is available to start off close to the current weather situation and then use their knowledge of physics to step forward in time. This has good skill for a few days and some skill for a little longer. Because they are run for short periods of time only, they tend to have much higher resolution and more detailed physics than climate models (but note that the Hadley Centre for instance, uses the same model for climate and weather purposes). Weather models develop in ways that improve the short term predictions, though the impact for long term statistics or the climatology needs to be assessed independently. Curiously, the best weather models often have a much worse climatology than the best climate models. There are many current attempts to improve the short-term predictability in climate models in line with the best weather models, though it is unclear what impact that will have on projections.”

What to make of this? I will dissect this paragraph line by line.

“Conceptually they are very similar……”

In practice, they are. However, as I have argued time and again, this apparent similarity is a serious defect. A crude representation of the ocean is all that is needed for a weather model, but in a climate model the ocean should share center stage with deforestation and other land use changes.
“Weather models …use their knowledge of physics to step forward in time.”

What Gavin leaves unsaid here is that most of the physics in a weather model deals with the atmosphere. Also, most of the physics is parameterized and the reliability of the parameterizations continues to be debated. I don’t want to pick nits, else I would query how models can possess knowledge of any kind.
“This has good skill for a few days…….”

Yes, Gavin is aware of Lorenz’ butterfly. He fails to state, however, that the average prediction horizon of weather forecasts is comparable to the lifetime of synoptic weather systems. I would not mind this omission, were it not for the fact that the (unknown) prediction horizon of climate models is determined in part by the life time of circulation systems in the ocean, such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. Since weather models and climate models are conceptually similar, one must expect similar predictability problems.

“Because they are run for short periods of time only……”

The logic in this sentence is inverted. The development of weather and climate models is driven by the desire to employ the latest supercomputers available. It is conceptually a small matter to fill these computers with parameterizations operating at higher resolution. My interactions with Tim Palmer of ECMWF (see my weblog of June 24, 2008) focused on his claim for Seamless Prediction Systems. His advocacy boiled down to a quest for a computer facility that could run climate models at the resolution now feasible for weather models. I submit that no conceptual progress can be expected if the modeling community fails to reconsider the architecture of their software.

“Weather models develop in ways that improve…….”

This line ends with the need to independently assess the impact of model improvements on long-term statistics. I agree with the need, but not with Gavin’s off-hand way of letting this problem pass by without explaining how such assessments can or should be performed. Throughout this text Gavin avoids matters of methodology. That, to me, misleads all readers who are not professionals themselves.

“Curiously, the best weather models…….”

At this point, a Dutchman would say “Nu breekt mijn klomp” (now my clog breaks). Gavin Schmidt is a professional climate modeler, but he appears surprised that the climatology of weather models is inferior. Of course it is. Weather models deal with the atmosphere, climate models with the entire climate system.
“There are many current attempts to improve the short-term predictability …….”

Climate modelers are responding to public opinion and have chosen to develop “seamless” or “unified” prediction systems. The present skill of seasonal forecasts is marginal at best; why should the public and their governments have confidence in forecasts many ten of years ahead? Conceptually, this is indeed a crucial question. It cannot be answered by increasing computer power. Gavin admits as much:

“….. it is unclear what impact that will have on projections.”

So why should one base climate policy on forecasts made by climate models?

Curiously, Gavin’s text is conceptually vague. He should be able to do better.

It is up to you, Gavin. I am waiting.

« Kevin Trenberth on El Niño - A Tracking Of The Evolution Of His Perspective On This Issue Since 1997
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2009 8:11 PM

Subject: Update: Gavin Schmidt demands Pielke Jr. Pull Critical Blog!! - Schmidt "Uses terms like 'slander' and 'abuse'"

[Note: My last email alert on the unfolding Gavin Schmidt comedy show is now posted here: http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2009/02/remember-antarctic-warming-that.html - Real Climate does not appear to like criticism. Real Climate’s Eric Steig, like Schmidt, has also been recently throwing phrases as “fraud” and “libel” after receiving critical analysis of his work. See: First Author of ‘Antarctic Warming Paper’ Claims Libel - http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=2670 ]

Update: Gavin Schmidt demands Pielke Jr. Pull Critical Blog!! – Schmidt "Uses terms like 'slander' and 'abuse'" – February 4, 2009 – By Roger Pielke, Jr.

Excerpt: Gavin Schmidt at NASA has just now written an email to the director of CIRES and the Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research (but not to me), where I work at the University of Colorado, demanding that we take down this post and extend to him an apology. If Gavin wants, he is free to respond on this blog. I have not posted his email, though if he wants, I’d be happy to post that up as well. He does use terms like “slander” and “abuse.” I think my comments in the posting are are a fair representation of the pickle Gavin has gotten himself into. When will these guys learn that bullying and bluster is not going to win them any respect or friends?

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/gavin-schmidts-demands-4931

Piekle Jr. added: “Gavin got caught out. I feel bad for the guy. But writing screeds to my superiors at the University won’t help him move past this episode. He should just say ‘whoops, my bad, learn and move on.’”

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/gavin-schmidts-demands-4931

Gavin Schmidt’s Demands
February 4th, 2009
Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Gavin Schmidt at NASA has just now written an email to the director of CIRES and the Director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research (but not to me), where I work at the University of Colorado, demanding that we take down this post and extend to him an apology.

If Gavin wants, he is free to respond on this blog. I have not posted his email, though if he wants, I’d be happy to post that up as well. He does use terms like “slander” and “abuse.” I think my comments in the posting are are a fair representation of the pickle Gavin has gotten himself into.

When will these guys learn that bullying and bluster is not going to win them any respect or friends?
This entry was posted on Wednesday

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/gavin-schmidts-demands-4931

http://hallofrecord.blogspot.com/2009/02/remember-antarctic-warming-that.html

[Best reaction to Real Climate’s Schmidt’s latest activities: Schmidt’s Antics Prompts Laughter From Scientist ‘“How am I supposed to get any work done when I am laughing so hard?” ]

Alert: Real Climate Woes: Pielke Jr.: 'Gavin Schmidt admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre' – February 4, 2009

Excerpt: This is not a hypothetical example, but a caricature of real goings on with our friends over at Real Climate . . .Due to an inadvertent release of information, NASA’s Gavin Schmidt (a “real scientist” of the Real Climate blog) admits to stealing a scientific idea from his arch-nemesis, Steve McIntyre (not a “real scientist” of the Climate Audit blog) and then representing it as his own idea, and getting credit for it. (Details here and here.) In his explanation why this is OK, Gavin explains that he did some work on his own after getting the idea from Steve’s blog, and so it was OK to take full credit for the idea. I am sure that there are legions of graduate students and other scientific support staff who do a lot of work on a project, only to find their sponsor or advisor, who initially proposed the idea, as first author on the resulting paper, who might have empathy for Gavin’s logic. […] But lets be clear, in science, the ethical thing to do is to give full credit to the origination of an idea, even if it comes from your arch-enemy. Gavin’s outing is remarkable because it shows him not only stealing an idea, but stealing from someone who he and his colleagues routinely criticize as being wrong, corrupt, and a fraud. Does anyone wonder why skepticism flourishes? When evaluations of expertise hinge on trust, stealing someone’s ideas and taking credit for them does not help.

http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/alls-fair-in-love-war-and-science-4929

Gavin's "Mystery Man" Revealed - by Steve McIntyre on February 4th, 2009

Excerpt: On Monday, Feb 2, Gavin Schmidt explained some "ethics" to realclimate readers as follows: [Response: People will generally credit the person who tells them something. BAS were notified by people Sunday night who independently found the Gill/Harry mismatch. SM could have notified them but he didn’t. My ethical position is that it is far better to fix errors that are found than play around thinking about cute names for follow-on blog posts. That might just be me though. - gavin] As readers know, I was interested in who was the scientist that, unbeknowst to me, had "independently" identified the problem with Harry - a problem overlooked by BAS, NASA GISS for a year or so anyway; and a problem which had been missed by his realclimate coauthors, Steig and Mann, during their preparation of Steig et al 2009, and which had been missed by the Nature peer reviewers. And remarkably this had been "independently" identified just after I had noted the problem at Climate Audit and Climate Audit readers had contributed ideas on it, even during the Super Bowl. Yesterday, I inquired about the identity of Gavin's "mystery man"? Today (Feb 4) the British Antarctic survey revealed the identity of Gavin's "mystery man". It was… GAVIN.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5093

Schmidt’s Antics Prompts Laughter From Scientist ‘“How am I supposed to get any work done when I am laughing so hard?”

Reaction By Climate researcher Dr. Craig Loehle, formerly of the department of Energy Laboratories and currently with the National Council for Air and Stream Improvements, who has published more than 100 peer-reviewed scientific papers.
“How am I supposed to get any work done when I am laughing so hard?”
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5093#comment-324316

Report: Error in Antarctic Warming Paper? Warming trend 'arises entirely from the impact of splicing the two data sets together' – Australia’s Herald Sun – February 4, 2009

Excerpt: But Steve McIntyre, who did most to expose Mann’s “hockey stick”, now notices a far more embarrassing problem with Steig’s paper. Previous researchers hadn’t overlooked the data. What they’d done was to ignore data from four West Antarctic automatic weather stations in particular that didn’t meet their quality control. As you can see above, one shows no warming, two show insignificant warming and fourth - from a station dubbed “Harry” shows a sharp jump in temperature that helped Steig and his team discover their warming Antarctic. Uh oh. Harry in fact is a problematic site that was buried in snow for years and then re-sited in 2005. But, worse, the data that Steig used in his modelling which he claimed came from Harry was actually old data from another station on the Ross Ice Shelf known as Gill with new data from Harry added to it, producing the abrupt warming. The data is worthless. Or as McIntyre puts it: Considered by itself, Gill has a slightly negative trend from 1987 to 2002. The big trend in “New Harry” arises entirely from the impact of splicing the two data sets together. It’s a mess.

Read this link and this to see McIntyre’s superb forensic work. Why wasn’t this error picked up earlier? Perhaps because the researchers got the results they’d hoped for, and no alarm bell went off that made them check. Now, wait for the papers to report the error with the zeal with which they reported Steig’s “warming”.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/going_cold_on_antarctic_warming#48360

Prominent Scientist ‘Appalled’ By Gavin Schmidt’s ‘lack of knowledge’ – ‘Back to graduate school, Gavin!’ – Climate Science Blog – January 29, 2009

By Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes. Tennekes is featured in U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims

Excerpt: Roger Pielke Sr. has graciously invited me to add my perspective to his discussion with Gavin Schmidt at RealClimate. If this were not such a serious matter, I would have been amused by Gavin’s lack of knowledge of the differences between weather models and climate models. As it stands, I am appalled. Back to graduate school, Gavin! [...] Gavin Schmidt is not the only meteorologist with an inadequate grasp of the role of the oceans in the climate system. In my weblog of June 24, 2008, I addressed the limited perception that at least one other climate modeler appears to have. A few lines from that essay deserve repeating here.” [...] From my perspective it is not a little bit alarming that the current generation of climate models cannot simulate such fundamental phenomena as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. I will not trust any climate model until and unless it can accurately represent the PDO and other slow features of the world ocean circulation. Even then, I would remain skeptical about the potential predictive skill of such a model many tens of years into the future.

http://climatesci.org/2009/01/29/real-climate-suffers-from-foggy-perception-by-henk-tennekes/

[Note: for more analysis of the warming partisans at Real Climate, see these links from Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv’s website: “The aim of RealClimate.org is not to engage a sincere scientific debate. Their aim is post a reply full of a straw man so their supporters can claim that your point ‘has been refuted by real scientists at ReaClimate.org.’” Shaviv, who calls the website “Wishfulclimate.org”

noted that the “writers (at RealClimaet.org) try again and again to concoct what appears to be deep critiques against skeptic arguments, but end up doing a very shallow job. All in the name of saving the world. How gallant of them.” ]

Marc Morano
Communications Director
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) Inhofe Staff
202-224-5762
202-224-5167 (fax)
marc_morano@epw.senate.gov
www.epw.senate.gov

Global Cooling Chorus

I got this list of stories for the last few weeks from the news letter put out by Marc Morano. The chorus of challenges to Global Warming orthodoxy is becoming large and loud as everyone is now chipping in. Obviously a lot of folks were never very comfortable with the extraordinary claims drawn from the not so unusual warming cycle that rose from the late seventies through the late nineties, plateaued through 2007 and has now done a dramatic reversal.

I have already posted that we are likely in for a lousy winter and so far so good. Ontario now sounds like the place I grew up in during the fifties.

In fact the tenor of these items is becoming loud and strident. Some very serious people have finally got up their courage to join in with the other skeptics in calling for the end of the global warming hysteria. And right now, it is looking very convincing that a thirty year warm period has nicely ended and we are now been subjected to the beginnings of a thirty year cold spell.

I suggested last winter that a reasonable interpretation of the events of 2007 was that surplus heat had been delivered into the Arctic as reflected be the unusual wind system and strong reduction in sea ice. The mechanism of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation fills out the fine structure. It seems reasonable that a build up of heat in the Northern Hemisphere slowly shifts or enlarges the heat over the Pacific over many years and is likely linked to the heat retention of the sea itself. It finally discharges into the Arctic and this is the first time it has been properly observed.

Once the heat is well discharged, more normal conditions set in. In fact, we were left last winter wondering why it had cooled so abruptly. This winter is promising to be much worse.

As usual our politicians are still selling the global warming party line while their tame scientists are sneaking into cover.

We did learn that the global heat engine is not up to the job of clearing the Arctic of summer sea ice any time soon. We can expect a major rebuilding beginning this coming summer. And to achieve Bronze Age conditions, it is necessary to establish Bronze Age plant cover in the Sahara.

There are just too many individual reports here that it is hardly useful to comment on them separately. So much for the acclaimed consensus trumpeted by IPCC. And recently IPCC erroneously republished September’s data as for October while announcing a new record high. This is obviously their turn to look like idiots with a rookie mistake.

‘Planet Has Cooled Since Bush Took Office’ – Scientists Continue Dissenting – Gore Admits 'I've failed badly' - Global Sea Ice GROWS!

Global Warming Theory has ‘failed consistently and dramatically’

Read Part Two of this Report Here:

Washington DC - The bad news for global warming alarmists just keeps rolling in. Below is a very small sampling of very inconvenient developments for Gore, the United Nations, and the mainstream media. Peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and prominent scientists continue to speak out to refute climate fears. The majority of data presented below is from just the past few weeks. Also see: U.S. Senate Minority Report: “Over 400 Prominent Scientists (and rapidly growing) Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007” & ‘Consensus’ On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008 - July 18, 2008 & An August 2007 report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. LINK

Bush The Cooler: 'Planet has cooled since Bush took office' – November 12, 2008Excerpt: On this symbolic date, it seems worthwhile to reflect that the planet has not only cooled since George W. Bush took office – pause and let the significance of that one sink in – but began to chill significantly at almost precisely the moment that we signed the Kyoto Protocol, exactly ten years ago today.

NOAA: U.S. on track for coolest year since 1997- November 12, 2008

Excerpt: The calendar year isn't exactly over yet, but the people who watch such things --- namely the National Climatic Data Center --- are reporting that through its first 10 months 2008 is shaping up to be the coolest year in the United States since 1997.

‘The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists’

- By Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center where he received NASA's Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal, and currently principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville) Excerpt: New papers Debunk Warming Fears: The first paper showed how none of 18 IPCC climate models, in over 1,000 years of global warming simulations, ever exhibits the negative feedback we have measured from global satellite data. The second paper revealed new satellite evidence that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation modulates the Earth's radiative balance by an amount that, when put into a simple climate model, can explain 75% of global warming over the 20th Century....including the slight cooling between 1940 and 1980. Since our previous publications have been basically censored by the news media, and I have now experienced scientific censorship (which I suppose was long overdue), I have decided to take my message to the people in a second book. In anticipation of trouble getting these papers published, I had already started the book awhile back...it is now about 80% finished, heavily illustrated. The working title is: The Great Global Warming Blunder: How Mother Nature Fooled the World's Top Climate Scientists. My book agent is currently scouting for publishers.

UK Astrophysicist: Global Warming Theory has ‘failed consistently and dramatically’ - October 28, 2008

- By Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn, founder of the UK based long-term solar forecast group Weather Action and creator of the solar-particle based "Solar Weather Technique" of long range weather forecasting.

Excerpt: Global Warming is over and Global Warming Theory has failed. There is no evidence that CO2 drives world temperatures or any consequent Climate Change. According to Official data in every year since 1998 world Temperatures have been colder than that year yet CO2 has been rising rapidly. The rate of decline of world temperature has got more rapid since 2002; and Arctic ice has increased in the last year : ( Including maps of ice extent: Arctic ice increasing rapidly also see Increase by nearly a half million square miles) The UN IPCC predictions from 2000 have failed consistently and dramatically.

Global Sea Ice Growing at Fastest Pace on Record -- Returns to Levels from the 1980s – Daily Tech – November 7, 2008

Excerpt: An abnormally cool Arctic is seeing dramatic changes to ice levels. In sharp contrast to the rapid melting seen last year, the amount of global sea ice has rebounded sharply and is now growing rapidly. The total amount of ice, which set a record low value last year, grew in October at the fastest pace since record-keeping began in 1979.

Report: Global sea ice area: now same as in 1979! - 'Fastest move in the 30 year history' – November 6, 2008

Arctic Sea Ice Extent: In October 2008, Fastest Ever Growth

(Should we celebrate?) A Depression Would Reduce Carbon Emissions

Excerpt: So, why isn’t all the bad economic news openly embraced as positive news by those that advocate we urgently cut carbon dioxide emissions. Surely, if solutions to global warming are so pressing, the best thing that could possibly happen is a recession if not a depression?

Earth welcomes economic meltdown to stop global warming? – ‘May give the planet a breather from the excessively high CO2’ – October 7, 2008

Excerpt: (Reuters) - A slowdown in the world economy may give the planet a breather from the excessively high carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions responsible for climate change, a Nobel Prize winning scientist said on Tuesday.

Gore warns world may face civilization 'collapse' – November 19, 2008

Gore Excerpt: A new study suggests the Mayan civilization might have collapsed due to environmental disasters. […] As we move towards solving the climate crisis, we need to remember the consequences to civilizations that refused to take environmental concerns seriously.

Gore: U.S. needs 'emergency rescue of human civilization' from global warming – NY Times – November 9, 2008

‘We're not scared anymore Mr Gore!’ Declares New Book – ‘A Climate Change Story For Little Skeptics’ - A climate change parody by geologist Marc Hendrickx - November 11, 2008

Excerpt: Here’s a new climate change book for your Christmas reading: We’re not scared anymore Mr Gore. A climate change parody by geologist Marc Hendrickx.

Gore laments global warming efforts: 'I've failed badly' - Washington Post – November 11, 2008

Excerpt: When asked about the goal of his movie "An Inconvenient Truth"--to wake people up to an approaching global, environmental crisis-Gore said "I think it's been a failure . . . I feel, in a sense, that I've failed badly."

Skeptical UK scientist mocks Gore's Nobel: 'There’s no accounting for human folly' – November 19, 2008

(By Physicist Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study, in Princeton, is a fellow of the American Physical Society, a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, and a fellow of the Royal Society of London.)

Excerpt: Mr. Dyson had an argument anyway with the scores of people (like Al Gore) who weren’t present to defend their belief in the dire consequences of global warming. (“There’s no accounting for human folly,” Mr. Dyson said when asked about Mr. Gore’s Nobel Prize.)

Climate change momentum fading: Asia-Pacific survey – November 19, 2008

Excerpt: “You see the same shift in focus in the public away from climate change questions to questions of economic survival and growth," said Woo, president of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada.

CO2 hysteria continues its slow death – November 20, 2008

Excerpt: at this week's summit of 21 Pacific Rim nations, global warming is barely on the agenda. In its place: the financial crisis. "The interest and focus on climate change has dissipated somewhat," said Woo Yuen Pau, CEO of the Asia Pacific Foundation of Canada.

Prominent Geologist says ‘Global Cooling is Here’ -- Could ‘plunge Earth into another Little Ice Age!’ – November 2, 2008

– (By Geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University, who has authored eight books and 150 journal publications.)

Excerpt: Just how much cooler the global climate will be during this cool cycle is uncertain. Recent solar changes suggest that it could be fairly severe, perhaps more like the 1880 to 1915 cool cycle than the more moderate 1945-1977 cool cycle. A more drastic cooling, similar to that during the Dalton and Maunder minimums, could plunge the Earth into another Little Ice Age, but only time will tell if that is likely.

Extensive global COOLING news round up on Biologist Jennifer Marohasy's website – October 31, 2008

Global warming predictions are overestimated, suggests Cornell study on black carbon – November 18, 2008

Excerpt: A detailed analysis of black carbon -- the residue of burned organic matter -- in computer climate models suggests that those models may be overestimating global warming predictions. A new Cornell study, published online in Nature Geosciences, quantified the amount of black carbon in Australian soils and found that there was far more than expected, said Johannes Lehmann, the paper's lead author and a Cornell professor of biogeochemistry. The survey was the largest of black carbon ever published. […] The findings are significant because soils are by far the world's largest source of carbon dioxide, producing 10 times more carbon dioxide each year than all the carbon dioxide emissions from human activities combined. Small changes in how carbon emissions from soils are estimated, therefore, can have a large impact. […] "But this particular aspect, black carbon's stability in soil, if incorporated in climate models, would actually decrease climate predictions."

'Life-long liberal Democrat' Meteorologist rejects 'fear mongering clap-trap about human-caused global warming' -

By Dr. Martin Hertzberg, a retired Navy meteorologist with a PhD in physical chemistry

Excerpt: s a scientist and life-long liberal Democrat, I find the constant regurgitation of the anecdotal, fear mongering clap-trap about human-caused global warming to be a disservice to science, to your readers, and to the quality of the political dialogue leading up to the election. […] The global warming alarmists don't even bother with data! All they have are half-baked computer models that are totally out of touch with reality and have already been proven to be false.

Ski Paradise: ‘Snow-vember’ Sees Ski Resorts Open Early Around The World – November 17, 2008

Excerpt: ‘Snow-vember’ Sees Ski Resorts Open Early Around The World Skiinfo.com, is reporting bumper pre-season snow across the northern hemisphere with the Alps, Pyrenees, Scandinavia and the Rockies all receiving huge early snow falls that have brought wonderful powder snow conditions for skiers and boarders on the glacier ski areas that were already open, and led to an increasing number of resorts in Canada, Italy, Norway, Spain, Switzerland and the US to open up to a month earlier than planned

South African Scientist Warns of ‘Interference’ By ‘Old Colonial Powers’ – ‘WWF and Greenpeace are not welcome in this country’ – Exposes ‘Climate Alarmism’ November 14, 2008

By Professor Dr. William J.R. Alexander, Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters.

Excerpt: Have you not noticed the growing opposition by African countries to interference in our affairs by the old colonial powers? […] The WWF and Greenpeace are not welcome in this country. Nor are the activities of their South African lackeys. […] Your vigorous pro-environmental, anti-social actions will soon be seen as pressures by a small, affluent white community who have no concern at all for South Africa’s large and growing, economically disadvantaged black communities. […] Many thanks for all those emails urging me to continue exposing this whole climate alarmism issue for what it is.

Africa to pay for Europe's "green policies"

Excerpt: Campaigns to buy locally produced food and travel to local destinations particularly hit out against African products. Consumers in Europe are again growing more environmentally conscious and are willing to use their purchasing power to assist in what is widely seen as our era's most pressing problems - the overspending of energy and global warming. Meanwhile, European politicians have been those pressuring strongest to gain support for the Kyoto Protocol while having totally failed to lower emissions of climate gases in their own countries. In every country, emissions have steadily increased.

Another Dissenter: Atmospheric Scientist says ‘growing number of scientists’ are skeptical of warming fears! – November 20, 2008

Dr. James Koermer, a meteorology professor at Plymouth State University presentation it titled “Inconvenient Science."

Excerpt: Kevin McGuire, a fellow professor at PSU, said Koermer's presentation was "very well done." "I agree that there are a lot of uncertainties," McGuire said about the causes and nature of global climate change. […] During a presentation at the university on Wednesday, Koermer explained why there are a growing number scientists, such as himself, who don't subscribe to the popular theory on global warming. […]Koermer said just because he doesn't think man-made carbon dioxide is contributing significantly to climate change, it does not mean he is opposed to the increased use of renewable fuel sources. […] "Over millions of years there have been periods when we have been hotter than we are today," Koermer said. He added that while humans do have an impact on the climate, it is minimal compared to natural phenomena. He also said that humans are not the biggest producers of carbon dioxide and that the gas is not the most abundant green house gas in the atmosphere. That title goes to water vapor, which is produced by the world's oceans.

Another Dissenter: Astrophysicist says put IPCC reports ‘in the trash!’ – - November 20, 2008

"What I'd do with the IPCC report is to put it in the trash can because that's all it's worth," said Dennis Hollars, who holds a doctorate in astrophysics from New Mexico State University.His brazen pronouncement produced an eruption of laughter among the packed audience. Hollars produced a similar reaction from the crowd when, challenged by Gershenson about the inconsistencies of the data in the graphs he was presenting, he claimed to "not care" which one was accurate. […] Hollars, meanwhile, claimed that carbon dioxide was an insignificant component of the earth's atmosphere and that, rather than being the purveyor of doom it is currently viewed as today, it is needed in order for plants to grow.

Another Dissenter: Meteorologist Declares ‘CO2 has never led to an increase in temperature’ - November 20, 2008

Excerpt: “One of the central arguments of the side arguing that global warming is a natural occurrence was that temperatures were driving the increase in carbon dioxide, rather than the commonly accepted reverse. "CO2 has never led to an increase in temperature, based on historical record," said Robert Cohen, a certified consulting meteorologist.

Scientist rejects UN climate fears as 'simplistic, superficial, and now proven wrong' - November 19, 2008

(By Dr. Dr Jim Sprott, OBE, MSc, PhD, FNZIC, a consulting chemist and forensic scientist of Auckland.)

Excerpt: “The projections of the IPCC are simplistic, superficial, and now proven wrong. The whole issue requires a fresh start, based on the mass of irrefutable data which has been assembled.”

'Record inactivity' -- 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season 'lowest in 30-years'

Greenland ice cap 'uncertainty makes future predictions almost meaningless'

Arctic sea ice extent now GREATER than in 2002

UN Scientist Ridicules Global Warming Linked National Security Fears

Global Warming Has Stopped – by UN IPCC Reviewer Christopher Monckton

Global Cooling? - 'Thirty years of warmer temperatures go poof' - National Post – October 20, 2008

Another Dissenter: 'I am unconvinced' about man-made warming - Australian long-range weather forecaster Haydon Walker - November 2, 2008

More info no Walker here: Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.

Researchers find arctic may have had less ice 6000-7000 years ago

Excerpt: Recent mapping of a number of raised beach ridges on the north coast of Greenland suggests that the ice cover in the Arctic Ocean was greatly reduced some 6000-7000 years ago. The Arctic Ocean may have been periodically ice free.

For full report on Arctic ice see this report: Scientists Counter Latest Arctic 'Record' Warmth Claims as 'Pseudoscience’ – Comprehensive Arctic Data Round Up – October 17, 2008

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. John Christy disputes new Antarctic claims - 'Climate models just don't have the variability that nature provides' – Disputes Antarctic and Arctic Melt Fears – October 30, 2008

Excerpt:. John Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama, has done studies on climate models and says they are extremely limited tools in trying to mimic what happens in nature. He said they are unable to reproduce all of the naturally occurring influences and, as a result, give a false picture of what might be causing changes in the environment. […] "Just 1,000 years ago the Arctic was much warmer than it is today so it's interesting that they would use the term conclusively," he said. "Natural variability can account for warming since the Arctic has been warmer before."

http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5htM3_ClgqhzIoMceRWnwQvMvQIqw
Why the EPA should find against “Endangerment” – November 19, 2008

Excerpt: The IPCC’s AR4 was published in the spring of 2007, but to meet the deadline for inclusion in the AR4, scientific papers had to be published by late 2005/early 2006. So, in the rapidly evolving field of climate change, by grounding its TSD in the IPCC AR4 the EPA is largely relying on scientific findings that are, by late 2008, nearly 3 years out of date. And a lot has happened in those intervening three years. • Global temperatures have declined…

Physicist predicts man-made global warming fear bubble to burst in 2008 – November 16, 2008 - Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen, an MIT educated physicist, author of the book An Introduction to High-Temperature Superconductivity, and writer of the popular newspaper column "Ask the Everyday Scientist."

UK Scientist: – ‘Climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables’ Not Just CO2!

By UK Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London

Excerpt: As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor is as misguided as it gets.

http://web.me.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warming_Politics/A_Hot_Topic_Blog/Entries/2008/8/27_Wot%21_No_Sunspots_At_All%21.html

We can't think of any other cause, it must be us = 'Prehistoric civilisation' blaming thunderstorms on upset gods - October 31, 2008

Excerpt: 'We can't think of any other cause, it must be us' - This is the depth to which scientific research into climate change has sunk, like a kind of prehistoric civilisation that blames thunderstorms, earthquakes and volcanoes on humanity somehow having "upset the gods". A Canadian study has concluded that we must be causing climate change because nothing else can explain it.

UN IPCC = 'Worst case of scientific malpractice in history' says Climate Scientist Dr. Spencer

[ Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Roy W. Spencer, formerly a senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center where he received NASA's Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal, is currently principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. ] Spencer Excerpt: I find it astounding that the IPCC has ignored the potential role of natural climate variability in global warming. In any other realm of science we are careful to look for alternative explanations for some phenomenon…but today, mankind is the only allowable reason for climate change. I predict that the IPCC experience will end up being the worst case of scientific malpractice in history.

MIT Climate Scientist Exposes ‘Corrupted Science’ in Devastating Critique - Sep 24, 2008

Excerpt: MIT Meteorology Professor Richard S. Lindzen, confirms how Al Gore and his minions used Stalinist tactics to subvert, suborn and corrupt a whole branch of science, citing chapter and verse in his report entitled “Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?” His answer: A resounding “NO!”
Full Lindzen paper here:

Brazilian Meteorologist Scoffs at Notion Mankind impacts climate more than Sun and Oceans - Brazilian meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart

Excerpt: So, given that August was the first month since 1913 in which no sunspot activity was recorded -- none -- and during which solar winds were at a 50-year low, he was not surprised that Brazilians were suffering (for them) a brutal cold snap. "This is no coincidence," he said as he scoffed at the notion that manmade carbon emissions had more impact than the sun and oceans on global climate.

UK scientist: ‘Green’ totalitarianism promotes 1984 style tactics - By Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography, University of London.

Excerpt: The second tactic has been to try to manufacture, in the style of George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1947), an all-encompassing external threat against which there must be perpetual war. The prime example of this is ‘global warming’, which has been likened in gravity to the Great World Wars. Such a perpetual threat demands the downplaying of democracy, the legitimising of ‘Green’ totalitarianism, the destruction of markets, and the establishment of Ministries of Truth.

Skeptical Physicist Freeman Dyson: 'When science gets rich it becomes political' – November 19, 2008

Canadian scientist: ‘Scientific assumptions underlying Kyoto are false!’ - 'A revolution in climate change science' since Kyoto – November 18, 2008 (By Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, professor in the department of Earth Sciences at Carleton University in Ottawa)

Excerpt: In the eight years since the Kyoto Protocol was first introduced, there has been a revolution in climate change science. What we have learned is that many of the scientific assumptions underlying Kyoto are false. Climate is not naturally constant and global warming is not evidence of human interference,” he insists. “Climate change, including global warming and cooling, is perfectly normal.” Patterson contends that the sun is the reason why the 20th century has experienced some of the hottest temperatures in recent history. “My own research shows that, on all time scales, there is a very good correlation between the Earth’s temperature and natural celestial phenomena, such as changes in the brightness of the sun. The fact that the sun is now brighter than it has been in 8,000 years should have a major impact on climate.” Patterson is not alone in his claims. In fact, a large number of scientists from around the world agree that anthropogenic (human) activity is not the cause of global warming.

'Fixing' global warming called 'another meaningless promise' – Edmonton Sun – November 13, 2008

Excerpt: it's time to start thinking of "fixing" global warming the same way we do "ending" child poverty. Or "settling" native land claims. Or “shortening" medical wait times. Like these other issues, "fixing" global warming has become yet another meaningless promise that all politicians of all stripes will be paying lip service to in perpetuity. One they will spend billions of our dollars "fixing" year after year.

Australian geologist: Climate theory 'like Y2K scam' – November 7, 2008 – (By Prize-wining Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer, a professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at the University of Adelaide in Australia.)

Excerpt: The Federal Government's emissions trading scheme has been likened to the ''Y2K scam'' by climate change sceptic Professor Ian Plimer. […] The number of hurricanes around the world was now decreasing, he said. Sea ice in western Antarctica was ''a little bit unstable'' while sea ice on the east of the continent was ''getting bigger''. ''The continent of Antarctica is actually rising.'' Well-known active volcanoes were sitting under Antarctica and ''pumping out exceptionally hot air''. Carbon dioxide levels had been ''very much higher in the past'' and the world was at one of the lowest levels of CO2 in history. ''Most of the emissions come from natural sources, and most of the emissions we don't even put into our calculations.'' Sea levels had risen 130m over the past 14,000 years, or 1cm per year, far from doomsday scenarios, he said. AAP

UK SCIENTIST: 'BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE' – Says Warming Science has ‘Gone Awry’ - November 5 , 2008 – UK Daily Express

Excerpt: respected botanist and the author of 35 books, he had presented around 400 programmes over the years and was appreciated by audiences for his boundless enthusiasm. Yet for more than 10 years he has been out of the limelight, shunned by bosses at the BBC where he made his name, as well as fellow scientists and environmentalists. His crime? Bellamy says he doesn’t believe in man-made global warming. […] And my opinion is that there is absolutely no proof that carbon dioxide is anything to do with any impending catastrophe. The science has, quite simply, gone awry. In fact, it’s not even science any more, it’s anti-science. There’s no proof, it’s just projections and if you look at the models people such as Gore use, you can see they cherry pick the ones that support their beliefs.

Study finds Greenland Ice Melt 'Slowed Significantly' – WorldClimateReport.com – November 14, 2008

Excerpt: Despite all the talk about moulins, melting, rapid acceleration of ice, van der Wal et al. reveal that the ice movement in western Greenland over the past 17 years has … slowed significantly. […] But when we examine this article, we are most impressed with the results over the 17-year period and the lack of support for the notion that somehow the velocity of ice is increasing during a time of greenhouse gas build-up!

Greenland ice cap 'uncertainty makes future predictions almost meaningless' - -

Flashback: Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt – July 2007 – ‘Greenland has cooled since the 1930's and 1940's’

Aussie Scientist: Human-caused global warming fears are 'heavily biased propaganda' – October 2008 -

(By Atmospheric scientist William Kininmonth is the former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre. He was an Australian representative and consultant to the World Meteorological Organization on climate issues and is the author of Climate Change: A Natural Hazard.

Excerpt: In spite of claims to the contrary, there is no consensus of scientists supporting the findings and recommendations of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. There exists a large and vocal group of highly qualified dissenters (often denigrated as sceptics, deniers or worse). In the absence of computer models there would be little credence given to the view that the relatively small warming of the second half of the twentieth century was due to carbon dioxide emissions; there would certainly be no credence given to the possibility of irreversible runaway global warming over the coming century. […] The likely magnitude of human-caused global warming is so low that it will not be discernible against the background of natural variability in the climate record.

Video of late great Dr. Reid Bryson on CNBC TV - You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling CO2’

Excerpt: See this 5-minute video of late great Dr. Reid Bryson on CNBC TV - 'You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling CO2' Atmospheric Scientist Bryson's last TV appearance in December 2007. Bryson is a guest on CNBC with host Joe Kernen He died in June 12, 2008 at the age of 88. This clip shows he was lucid and persuasive right until the end of his life. Some of his colleagues tried to diminish Bryson’s skepticism, ... but as you can see from video clip, Bryson was no believer in man-made warming fears. One of the "Fathers of Meteorology," Dr. Bryson, was the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences.

Experts call for end of flushing toilets – ‘Proposed new toilet tax!’ – November 19, 2008

Excerpt: AS the world celebrates World Toilet Day today, sanitation experts have called for the end of the flushing dunny to save water and provide fertilizer for crops. Leading health advocates have called for the use of "dry" toilets which separate urine from faeces and remove the need to flush.

Nov 18, 2008: On a cold day, extremely low turnout for DC global "warming" rally - November 19, 2008

Excerpt: Climate Action Now DC rally: freezing, but fired up for change! Excerpt: The rally brought together people from all ages and backgrounds. They had two things in common: they were all freezing, and they were all ready to head to the Hill and press for bold climate action! The blog post above claims that "more than 300" were there, but I'm skeptical that even that many people bothered to show up. In the provided photos, the "crowd" looks pretty sparse--I can see what appears to be at least two or three of the same people in both shots: According to Weather Underground, yesterday's DC temperature topped out at 40 degrees, a nice round 40 degrees shy of the 1921 record high.

Meteorologist says ‘don’t believe it’ to claims that October was 2nd Warmest – November 18, 2008

Excerpt: This is not surprising as NOAA has become the biggest outlier in recent months. They have thanks to Tom Peterson and Tom Karl a global data base that is worth nothing. There is little or no adjustment for urbanization, land use changes, no adjustment for bad station siting (69% of the 560 US climate stations surveyed by Anthony Watts team of volunteers were poor or very poorly sited), 2/3rds of the stations globally dropped out around 1990, the number of missing months increased tenfold in the FSU and Africa after 1990, and changes in instrumentation like here in the US that Tom Karl himself found produced a warm bias of 0.5F. Not less than 6 peer review studies have shown these issues may account for up to 50% of the warming since 1900. Trust only the satellite. In fact, this October was the 10th warmest of the 30 years of data for the MSU satellite according to UAH with only a 0.167C (0.3F) anomaly instead of the 1.1F (2nd warmest out of 129 years) as per NOAA. Unfortunately satellite data extends only back to 1979.

Roger Pielke Jr.: The Polish Loophole Takes Shape

Excerpt: So the question has been, what will it take to get Poland’s agreement to an EU climate policy package? The obvious answer is to somehow create a loophole for Poland to be exempt from the requirements of EU climate policies. Such loopholes are the Achilles Heel of cap-and-trade, and doom the EU plans to policy failure. U.S. cap-and-traders should take note.

Roger Pielke Jr. : nd here's the Indian loophole

Excerpt: SPIEGEL ONLINE: Mr. Saran, when will India oblige itself to start restricting its own CO2 emissions?
Saran: Even though there is no legal obligation on India in this respect, the Prime Minister of India made a commitment that India’s per capita emissions will at no time exceed the average of the per capita emissions of developed, industrialized countries. We have thus accepted a limit on our emissions and at the same time provided an incentive to our partners in developed countries to be more ambitious. The more significant their reductions of emissions, the lower the limit we would need to accept for our own.

Global Cooling Caused by Warming? Global Cooling ‘may indeed be a consequence of the increasing atmospheric murkiness caused by warming’ - Herald Sun Andrew Bolt Blog – November 20, 2008

Excerpt: Lawyers Weekly Online: It seems almost impossible that, whatever the debate about the causes of global warming, some people simply refuse to believe that any appreciable change outside normal climatic cycles is actually happening: some even say we are headed for a period of global cooling – which may indeed be a consequence of the increasing atmospheric murkiness caused by warming, but which encourages a way of thinking that fails to address our need to do something about the warming phase if we’d like to see life on Earth remain more or less as it is now.

'Greenhouse theory does not stack up - Wine Mag – November 18, 2008

Excerpt: From Australian and New Zealand Wine Industry Journal (article from BraveNewClimate.files.wordpress.com)'Greenhouse theory does not stack up' - Wine Mag by well known West Australian wine maker Erl Happ - I have a sticking point with the ‘science of global warming’. It’s not global. In fact, it is confined in the main to the Northern Hemisphere.....If ‘greenhouse theory’ were correct, warming would be seen in all places and in all seasons. But, the advance in temperature is mostly in the winter and spring. There is an obvious cause for this and it’s the heat stored in the oceans as a result of episodes of tropical warming that are described as ‘El Niño’ events after the most obvious manifestation in the Pacifi c Ocean. In brief, this is the situation as I see it:.....

More from Skeptical Winemaker: LET US BANISH RELIGION FROM SCIENCE! – Skeptical WINE Maker Says

"Let us not confuse environmental religion with observational science. Reliable science explains what we observe. One can not understand the climate system without an appreciation of the in?uence of geography, spatial relations, ocean currents and the physics that drive cloud cover over the tropics. We have managed to banish religion from politics. Now we need to do the same for science." West Australian winemaker. LINK to download pdf

# #

READ PART TWO OF THIS News ROUND UP
Click Here for to continue reading in Part 2

# # #

Marc Morano

Communications Director

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) Inhofe Staff

202-224-5762
202-224-5167 (fax)
marc_morano@epw.senate.gov
www.epw.senate.gov