Global Warming Wednesday

This week's post was brought to my attention by Climate Depot, but was originally posted by the staff at CTV News.

EurekAlert withdraws climate change paper

A study warning that the planet would warm by 2.4C by 2020, creating deadly consequences for the global food supply, is being debunked as false and impossible.

The study came from a little-known, non-profit group based in Argentina, called the Universal Ecological Fund. An embargoed copy of the study appeared on Eurekalert!, a news service operated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) that's followed by many journalists.

The study was picked up by a number of international news organizations Tuesday. But it appears the study's claims were erroneous.

The AAAS says that after receiving complaints that the study's conclusions were impossible, it has removed all references to the study from its website.

"EurekAlert! deeply regrets the accidental posting of an erroneous news release on 18 January 2011," the news service wrote in a notice to journalists who subscribe to the service.

"The news release was swiftly removed from EurekAlert!, and staff are taking steps to set the record straight with all reporters who had seen it."

EurekAlert! notes that it is a non-profit news service that relies on staff members to determine the eligibility of up to 100 news release submissions. These staff proofread submissions for typographical or common-sense errors.

"But we rely mostly on the submitting organization to ensure the veracity of the scientific content of the news release; we try to exclude unreliable information providers on the front-end of our screening process," the notice says.

"…We deeply regret that the system failed yesterday, and we appreciate the help we received from reporters who are now setting the record straight."

The correction came after The Guardian newspaper in the U.K. published a reaction piece to the study. The paper said it had interviewed climate scientists who told them that rapid global warming at the rates projected by the study was impossible.

"2.4 C by 2020 (which is 1.4C in the next 10 years – something like six to seven times the projected rate of warming) has no basis in fact," NASA climatologist Gavin Schmidt told the newspaper in an email.

According to The Guardian, the study's lead author Liliana Hisas, who is the UEF's executive director, erred by overlooking how the oceans, which absorb heat, will compensate for global warming by delaying the effects of increasing concentrations of greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere.

Hisas said she stands by her report's findings, which have been endorsed by Nobel Prize-winning Argentine climate scientist, Osvaldo Canziani.

She said the UEF did not intend to withdraw the report.

"We are just going to go ahead with it. I don't have a choice now," she told The Guardian.

"The scientist I have been working with checked everything and according to him it's not wrong."

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES

Global Warming Wednesday

This week's exposure of the Global Warming "BIG LIE" come to us from a blogger going by the handle of hauntingthelibrary and his[her?] eponymous blog. This site should be required reading for any and all the [enviro]mental deficients you come across.

Scientist: Farming Causes Obesity, Mental Illness, Overpopulation and Global Warming – Says Eugenics “Inevitable”

Posted on January 20, 2011 by hauntingthelibrary

In an article that makes you roll your eyes and wonder “where do they find these people?” the BBC interviews Dr Spencer Wells, explorer-in-residence at the National Geographic Society and in charge of their Genographic project, about his new book Pandora’s Seed

Dr Wells tells them about the claims he makes in the book:

In the book, I talk about global warming and overpopulation. I trace a lot of these issues back in time to the dawn of the Neolithic. This was a period when humanity made a sea change in its culture. We settled down and started growing our own food.

BBC. Sting in the Tail of Farming Revolution.

Wow! That’s a pretty big claim to make – that late stone age man caused global warming and overpopulation by inventing farming! But the invention of farming is a good thing, right?

Wrong, says Dr Wells. People were worse off with farming, becoming more malnourished. Which leads one to ask, well why did they keep farming then, if it was such a disaster for humanity? Dr Wells has the answer for that as well: they had to invent farming because of climate change:

It turns out the reason we became agriculturalists is that we were backed into a corner – a climatological corner. At the end of the last Ice Age, things were warming up, population densities at some locations increased significantly. And some people started to settle down.

And then, Say Dr Wells, the climate switched again and got colder, forcing people out of the lands they had previously settled:

we had too many people moving on the land at the time, and they couldn’t support themselves as hunter-gatherers so they had to develop an innovation. And that innovation was agriculture.

So let’s summarize: Dr Wells is arguing that agriculture caused climate change and overpopulation. Okay. He argues that agriculture wasn’t a step forward for mankind but a step backwards from hunter-gather living. Okay. But what does he think gave rise to agriculture? Climate change and overpopulation. Brilliant! What a great argument.

Pick your jaw up off the floor, though, because Dr Wells has more great ideas for humanity. Asked what he thinks about the invention of farming – the ‘neolithic revolution’ – he pins a whole host of ills on it, but then goes on to reveal some of the concluding thoughts of his book:

PR: So what in your view are the main costs of the Neolithic revolution?

SW: Diabetes, obesity, mental illness, climate change. I talk a little in the book about genetic engineering – re-engineering ourselves and eugenics. It’s the fact that we now have the tools to choose the genes for the next generation. People will start to make decisions on that basis – what they want their children to look like genetically.

Okay, now you’re getting scary Dr Wells. Eugenics to help decide what our children will look like? And what sort of aspects will this include?

There is a company in California that early last year announced that it was going to test not only for medically relevant conditions but also hair colour, eye colour and genes which pre-dispose to lower or higher IQ.

Sounds horrific if you ask me. But Dr Wells thinks that managing the genetics of the human population may be essential, we may need to manage the population for the common good:

PR: Then, do you think genetic engineering of humans is inevitable? Are we now into management rather than prevention?

SW: I think it is inevitable. I think it is something we have always done. I liken it to those simple decisions about growing crops and manipulating the genes of the crops to make them more efficient – produce more calories – that was done during the Neolithic.

Did you spot the beautiful circularity of the argument there? Eugenics, Dr Wells informs us, may be forced upon by circumstances. What circumstances might those be? The interview doesn’t specify exactly, but surely it’s a safe bet to say that global warming and overpopulation are among those circumstances.

Interestingly, in his interview with National Geographic, Dr Wells discusses another future for us he’d like to see, based on a new “mythos” that would be focussed on us wanting less, very much as tribal people in Africa (apparently) do:

Q:You mentioned tribes in Africa wanting less, needing less, focused on a quest for meaning, not consumption. Do you think this sensibility could creep into our society?

A: Yes. That’s the reason I entitled the final chapter of the book “Toward a New Mythos.” The term refers to accepted wisdom, what’s been passed down through the generations from your ancestors, including somewhat mystical explanations for why things are. In contrast, logos is hardheaded logic we use to solve problems. And I think a lot of people sense that we’ve lost too much mythos in the modern world. I argue in the book that we do need to make room at the table for mythos.

National Geographic. Growing Pains.

Or maybe we could just genetically engineer people to want less, learn to love the new “mythos” and accept “mystical explanations” for the way things are?

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES

Global Warming Wednesday

This week's Global Warming Wednesday repost comes to us from the Left Coast Rebel.

Uh-Oh! Global cooling interfering with pro-illegal immigration

Conehead

By Sam Foster

Obama's administration may not be willing to do anything to stop the influx of illegal immigration, so apparently father winter took matters into his own hands.

10 Dominican illegals were caught by surprise when they fled into abnormally chilly AL port. Authorities caught the suspects nearly frozen to death.

But they had been spotted from the tug boat that was pulling the barge and an all-night search involving border control officers ensued. They were found early Thursday morning huddled in a container yard.

Wearing only summer clothes, they were half frozen after a night outside in the cold snap that has hit the Deep South.

All were hospitalized with hypothermia and once they all recover they will be deported, Dabbs said.

Prediction: the Dominican's will sue and blame the US' CO2 usage as the reason they nearly died of hypothermia. The suit will then be used as Democrats to push cap and trade legislation.

Illegal immigration: Close your eyes -- it isn't there!

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES

Global Warming Wednesday

Tip O' the Hat to Ray Schneider at Political Brambles for this post on the growing skepticism in the pervasive Global Warming Idiocy. Just a thought.......If the computer models can only predict the weather out to five days or so with any kind of accuracy, what the hell makes these people think that their models are any good at a year, let alone twenty? Just sayin'!

Global Climate Alarmism Being Overwhelmed by Critical Thinking

SEE HERE Bunk is bunk. Global climate alarmism is totally unmotivated by serious science. That's why all the alarmists are climate modelers. It takes relatively little critical thought to realize that there are fundamental foundational problems with the whole story line. My mantra is always "Show me the data" and what I get for my trouble is fundamentally flawed, unvalidated climate models that in many cases are shown to be agenda driven and driven by data that was cherry picked from the beginning. That's called propaganda not science. The world is waking up and about time.

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES

Global Warming Wednesday

Tip O' the Hat, again, to the Green Hell Blog for this week's "Green" atrocity.

Energy efficiency is not a jobs policy

The American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE) just released its state energy efficiency scorecard.

Spurred by ACEEE’s ranking of California as the most energy efficient state and the fact that California is only exceeded by Michigan and Nevada in unemployment, we ran a simple regression of ACEEE energy efficiency rankings versus state unemployment rankings according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics for August 2010.

Unemployment ranking was positively correlated (slope=.15) with energy efficiency ranking — i.e., states with higher unemployment rankings tended to have higher energy efficiency rankings.

ACEEE claims that energy efficiency creates jobs — and maybe it does. But do the jobs created through energy efficiency efforts wind up destroying other jobs — and more of them?

Energy efficiency is a policy of contraction, not one of growth — and job gains only occur during periods of growth. While energy efficiency may make sense on a case-by-case basis, blindly implemented on a societal scale, it is a suicidal policy.

There is plenty of energy out there. We need to put as much of it to good use as soon as possible to get our economy and standard of living back on the positive track.

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES

Global Warming Wednesday

This weeks post is brought to you by greenhellblog at......you guessed it, the Green Hell Blog. Here he debunks the electioneering ad by the Green Knight of Global Warming, Michael Mann. Nothing shines the light like the truth.

Michael Mann: Vote Democratic and save me from jail!

Poor, poor pitiful Michael Mann. Check out his op-ed in last Friday’s Washington Post — our comments in bracketed bold.

Get the anti-science bent out of politics
By Michael E. Mann
Friday, October 8, 2010; A17

As a scientist [Wanna poll that assertion?], I shouldn’t have a stake in the upcoming midterm elections, but unfortunately, it seems that I — and indeed all my fellow climate scientists — do. [Republicans = Inquisition, don't ya know...]

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has threatened that, if he becomes chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, he will launch what would be a hostile investigation of climate science. The focus would be on e-mails stolen [There's no evidence that the e-mails were "stolen."] from scientists at the University of East Anglia in Britain last fall that climate-change deniers have falsely claimed demonstrate wrongdoing by scientists, including me. [As between so-called climate-change deniers" and Michael Mann, "falsely" and "wrongdoing" only apply to Mann.] Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) may do the same if he takes over a committee on climate change and energy security.

My employer, Penn State University, exonerated me [False: PSU never really investigated Mann; it more or less just took his word that he had done nothing wrong. Since there was no genuine investigation, he could not have been genuinely "exonerated."] after a thorough investigation [LOL!] of my e-mails in the East Anglia archive. Five independent investigations in Britain and the United States, and a thorough recent review by the Environmental Protection Agency, also have cleared the scientists of accusations of impropriety. [All were as whitewashey as PSU's. "Independent" is probably not the right adjective to describe the investigations; "staged" is much more accurate.]

Nonetheless, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli is investigating my previous employer, the University of Virginia, based on the stolen e-mails. [Even if the e-mails were stolen, how exactly does that exonerate Mann? BTW, Daniel Ellsberg stole files (Pentagon Papers) and he was/is a hero of the Left.] A judge rejected his initial subpoena, finding that Cuccinelli had failed to provide objective evidence of wrongdoing. [The judge said that Cuccinelli was within his rights to file such subpoenas and that he needed to be more specific as to what he was looking for.] Undeterred, Cuccinelli appealed the decision to the Virginia Supreme Court and this week issued a new civil subpoena.

What could Issa, Sensenbrenner and Cuccinelli possibly think they might uncover now, a year after the e-mails were published? [Evidence of f-r-a-u-d.]

The truth is that they don’t expect to uncover anything. Instead, they want to continue a 20-year assault on climate research, questioning basic science and promoting doubt where there is none. [No, they are just questioning whether the hockey stick was a fraud and whether a fraud was perpetrated on taxpayers.]

Cuccinelli, in fact, rests his case largely on discredited claims that Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) made during hearings in 2005 at which he attacked me and my fellow researchers. [Discredited? By who? When? Where? Any names? Details?] Then-Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-N.Y.) had the courage and character to challenge Barton’s attacks. We need more political leaders like him today. [Boehlert = RINO]

We have lived through the pseudo-science that questioned the link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer [Tobacco company hijinks = Michael Mann innocence?], and the false claims questioning the science of acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer. [What false claims is he referring to? Does he know anything about either? Or is this just more guilt by Mann-uendo?] The same dynamics and many of the same players are still hard at work, questioning the reality of climate change. [No one questions "the reality of climate change"; it's the causes and drivers that are being debated.]

The basic physics and chemistry of how carbon dioxide and other human-produced greenhouse gases trap heat in the lower atmosphere have been understood for nearly two centuries. Overloading the atmosphere with carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is heating the planet, shrinking the Arctic ice cap, melting glaciers and raising sea levels. It is leading to more widespread drought, more frequent heat waves and more powerful hurricanes. Even without my work, or that of the entire sub-field of studying past climates, scientists are in broad agreement on the reality of these changes and their near-certain link to human activity. [These last three sentences are disputed by skeptics.]

Burying our heads in the sand would leave future generations at the mercy of potentially dangerous changes in our climate. [Humans have always been at the mercy of nature. Fossil fuels have greatly lessened our vulnerability.] The only sure way to mitigate these threats is to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions dramatically over the next few decades. [Really? No more bad weather if we reduce CO2 levels?] But even if we don’t reduce emissions, the reality of adapting to climat

e change will require responses from government at all levels. [There is no evidence that reducing greenhouse gas emissions will have any discernible effect at all on the climate.]

Challenges to policy proposals for how to deal with this problem should be welcome — indeed, a good-faith debate is essential for wise public policy-making. [Quite a statement from someone who tried to silence critics.]

But the attacks against the science must stop. [No one is attacking science. We're attacking junk science.] They are not good-faith questioning of scientific research. They are anti-science. [Mann accuses his opponents of what he is doing — an old trick of narcissists and Communists.]

How can I assure young researchers in climate science that if they make a breakthrough in our understanding about how human activity is altering our climate that they, too, will not be dragged through a show trial at a congressional hearing? [Easy... tell them not to engage in junk science or fraud.]

America has led the world in science for decades. It has benefited our culture, our economy and our understanding of the world. [No thanks to Michael Mann and his kind.]

My fellow scientists and I must be ready to stand up to blatant abuse from politicians who seek to mislead and distract the public. They are hurting American science. And their failure to accept the reality of climate change will hurt our children and grandchildren, too. [If Michael Mann wants to "stand up" to something, why doesn't he stand up for a debate against a skeptical climate scientist? I think we all know the answer to that one.]

Michael E. Mann, the author of “Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming,” is a professor in the meteorology department at Penn State University and director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center. [PSU's continued employment of Mann gives a whole new meaning to Nittany lion.]

We urge people to move to Virginia just so they can vote for Ken Cuccinelli in future elections.

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES!

Global Warming Wednesday

I rarely write this column myself. Often I sift the net until I find something that I think would interest you, my readers. A great side effect of this methodology is that I get to plug my fellow bloggers and I get to publish a piece without having to work too hard as I constantly crawl the net for news anyway. Unfortunately I can not for the life of me remember where I ran across this video. I have looked around but still can not place where I first saw it, but I digress.

This video clearly shows how much regard the greenie-wienies have for human life in relation to the importance they place on the environment. This video, titled "No Pressure," is from a "help the environment," global warming mitigation campaign called 10:10. This movie is as appalling as it is eye-opening.

WARNING! - This video depicts graphic violence committed against children, young business persons, amateur athletes, voice-recording artists and other people who are t0o smart to buy into the lies propagated by Dr. Mann, Al Gore and their legion of green idiots who will believe anything as long as they are told it will save the planet, even when it conflicts with that other stuff that will save the planet.

On a side note, if those green-idiots try to force me to toe their line or die, I will unleash a whole can o' Whup-Ass on them. On the plus side the contents of that can will help the Earth by seriously reducing the population pressure and fertilizing the soil, but then again, No Pressure!

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES

Global Warming Wednesday

Tip O' the Hat this week to Leslie at Blunt Politics for calling the Global Warming Warriors on their Bull $#!7. Keep up the fight Leslie, we will beat them back and eventually we will the opportunity to take all of their lies, fold them until they are all sharp corners, and cram them up their........well we all get the idea.

Global Warming Update

At a recent Global Warming convention, a few delegates had a disagreement about green-house gases, climate change and whether the mop on top of Al Gore's head was really his own hair. At first the confrontation looked as if it would get heated, perhaps even violent…But after a few drinks and a few off-color stories involving Uncle Al and poodles, at least two of the delegates were able to agree on almost everything (not the toupe) and even became quite good friends.

This spearheaded a new trend among globalist polar bears. Based on recent scientific evidence that is beyond dispute, it appears many polar bears have forsaken their liberal values and are now engaged in eating baby seals, chasing after Eskimos, peeing in the ocean, and have converted to capitalism.

They seem much happier now that they do not have to pose for doctored pictures or kiss Al Gore’s backside.

Needless to say, Uncle Al Gore has become very despondent over this unexpected turn of events. Who ever imagined Capitalist Polar Bears? It may take years of counseling and a few extra visits by massage therapists to recover, but he can at least find some solace in the fact that Washington squirrels are still Democrats and ready to receive all government hand-outs.

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES!

Global Warming er........Thursday

I spent the last couple of days reorganizing my files so that I can finish all those half written posts I start, and so that I can find the references for all my other posts. Because of this I am very behind, and I am working diligently to catch up.

Tip O' the Hat to Left Coast Rebel at his eponymous, and well written, blog for this week's debunking of the big lie that is Global Warming.

Return of the Heatnicks: It’s summer, time to start paying attention to isolated weather events

By Conservative Generation and Left Coast Rebel

It's really hot in Moscow right now. How hot?

Moscow region has seen abnormally hot weather and drought for over a month with two temperature records broken in June and ten records broken in July. Heat has caused peat bogs fires nearby Moscow creating toxic smog throughout the capital. The smog pushed pollution levels to new 2010 highs on Saturday threatening people's health.

So naturally, it's time for the heatnicks to renew their tin-foil hat sightings of Loch Ness Global Oven aka Global Warming. The Times opened the door last week in a piece called "Will Russia's Heat Wave End its Global Warming Doubts?" There are some truly brilliant quotes from the left like:

Vladimir Chuprov, director of the Greenpeace energy department in Moscow said:

"if you look at what is happening with this heat wave, it's horrible. It's clearly enough to shake people out of their delusions about global warming."

It is interesting to watch how far the left has come in mere months. When the Northern Hemisphere's thermometers were frozen at record lows, the bastions of leftism, aka the NY Times proclaimed:

"Climate scientists say that no individual episode of severe weather can be attributed to global climate trends."

The proclamation was just in time for Moscow to see record snow in February.

How Moses-like of the Times to declare "thou shalt not declare individual weather events related to global warming?" Still, proof that even the liberals aren't reading their daily, government proscribed, bible of the state, abounds. The useful idiots and political hacks at the reaction proved that they aren't well read in the literature of the liberal media gods. As a result, they are needlessly seething with righteous, climate anger.

Still, the clown car brigade refuses to face up to reality. Seven hundred people dying of heat daily. An iceberg four times the size of Manhattan island breaks off from Greenland's main glacier after sliding down a few hundred yards of meltwater, but hey, global warming is just a myth. Or it can't be responsible for this destruction.

Clearly, there is much pent up anger from last winter when the world was so hot it was cold.

Now that we are back to "it's so hot that it is hot," I must concede to the wisdom of science. For, the answer is yes, there is a major global climate event that is wreaking havoc across the globe, but you can put your global warming pitch forks away my comrades. The beast responsible for Moscow's misery is a Spanish one; La Nina, which is Spanish for "The Nina."

Discussion at memeorandum

Updated: Leslie Eastman at the Temple of Mut has some great material up on California's upcoming Cap and Trade legislation and great advice for activists engaging in debate against the global warming scaremonger cabal. Read it here.

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES!

Global Warming Wednesday

Tip O' the Hat to Warner Todd Huston at Gateway Pundit for this weeks exposure of the Global Warming Conspiracy and their attitude towards debunkers and disbelievers.

Daily Kos Editor Says Global Warming Skeptics Should Commit Suicide

Posted by Guest Contributor on Thursday, July 29, 2010, 11:01 AM

-By Warner Todd Huston

This is how the left treats those with whom they disagree, folks. Daily Kos contributing editor and Examiner.com writer Steven Andrew has suggested that anyone that disagrees with the globaloney of global warming should commit suicide in a “Soylent Green world.”

In his examiner column headlined, “Studies Show Dramatic Decrease in Plankton,” Andrew made what he called a “symbolic suggestion” that might “be in bad taste.”

After railing that skeptic Steve Millroy “regularly carpet bombs newspaper editorial pages with climate change disinformation,” Andrew then makes his “suggestion.”

Right about here I’d like to insert a symbolic suggestion about how climate change skeptics might best serve their fellow man in the future Soylent Green world they’re eagerly foisting on the rest of us. I’d like to, but the Examiner Overlords feel this would be in bad taste, no pun intended, so you’ll have to use your imagination. In the words of Kent Brockman, I for one welcome our overlords …

For those not familiar with the the 1973 movie, Soylent Green, the film portrays a distopian future where elderly citizens commit assisted suicide and their bodies get turned into food for an over populated world. Andrew is clearly hoping that his ideological opponents kill themselves.

It has become typical of adherents of the religion of globaloney to want to burn heretics at the stake and Steven Andrew appears to want to be considered a high priest of the faith. It’s a nouveau Spanish Inquisition fostered by the true believes of the enviro-left, folks, and they have You in their cross hairs.

(H/T GreenHellBlog.com)

(A screen shot in case the page goes down the memory hole can be downloaded HERE)

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES!

Global Warming Wednesday

Tip O' the Hat to neo-neocon for this weeks debunking of environmental science whackery (is that a word?).

Gaia and the oil spill

It seems the earth’s waters have a powerful capacity to repair themselves:

Scientists said the rapid dissipation of the [Gulf spill] surface oil was probably due to a combination of factors. The gulf has an immense natural capacity to break down oil, which leaks into it at a steady rate from thousands of natural seeps. Though none of the seeps is anywhere near the size of the Deepwater Horizon leak, they do mean that the gulf is swarming with bacteria that can eat oil.

So even the Times admits that oil in the Gulf is an ongoing and naturally-generated problem, and that the body of water seems to contain naturally-occurring ways of dealing with it.

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES!

Global Warming Wednesday

This piece is courtesy of 24th State. FYI his is a great blog that everyone should be reading.

FiredUp Uses Holocaust Term To Embarrass Self On Climate, Again

Sean Nicholson is really trying to hold onto the global warming hoax.

There isn't a better cut the headlines and paste it and pretend he understands the scientific method third party paid by anonymous sources in Missouri blogger than Sean.

Too bad the truth keeps kicking him in the ass.

In a snarky post title, Back To You Global Warming Deniers, Sean points to a couple of whitewashed reports on Climategate that literally never looked at the science or allowed anyone who questioned the findings to reply.

The Atlantic, which is a left leaning magazine, has a story out from Clive Crook, a senior editor and a believer in man-made climate change, tearing apart the ridiculous vindication touted by Nicholson.

I had hoped, not very confidently, that the various Climategate inquiries would be severe. This would have been a first step towards restoring confidence in the scientific consensus. But no, the reports make things worse. At best they are mealy-mouthed apologies; at worst they are patently incompetent and even willfully wrong. The climate-science establishment, of which these inquiries have chosen to make themselves a part, seems entirely incapable of understanding, let alone repairing, the harm it has done to its own cause.

Wow. Clive really lays it out that the recent attempts to hide the decline are transparent whitewashes, otherwise known as political cleansing of scientific issues.

This would be like the National Review coming out and attacking the Heritage foundation for faking budget data. It basically says anyone serious about science knows Climategate has posed real problems for the scientific community have not been answered.

Now I know Sean doesn't actually reads anything for comprehension. That isn't in the job description, but you would think that if you're going to use a word like Global Warming Denier, which is derived from Holocaust Denier (those who believe the murder of six millions Jews was faked), would at least understand the issue before attacking his political opponents (or at least the opponents pre-approved by the Carnahan family).

Get that? If you expect scientists to actually show their data and results before demanding trillions in economy wrecking legislation, you're just like people who deny the Holocaust.

To find out more about the climate change, global warming, and the fraud of temperature data, check out Wattsupwiththat.com

Read about the Dutch report on the IPCC.

And for the kicker - remember that consensus of thousands of scientists?

It was dozens, says IPCC whistleblower.

Back to you, poorly paid media hack.

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES!

Global Warming Wednesday 2.0

This post is also the target of shameless thievery also from seeker101 at Follow the Money.

Meteorologist forecasts drastic cooling

http://www.iceagenow.com/Meteorologist_Forecasts_Drastic_Cooling.htm

“Think the markets are in the tank? asks meteorologist Joe Bastardi. “Wait till you global temperature watchers get a load of what is coming. The drastic drop being portrayed here is something akin to the kind of cooling we saw with Pinatubo.”

Using data compiled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Bastardi sees a climate crash in the months ahead.

“It looks rather extreme,” says Bastardi. “I mean both poles cold and then 75% of the earth under normal? Geez, I know there is cooling that is going to go on, but this is a bit drastic.”

If the almighty climate models are showing this kind of crash, says Bastardi, “such an event could take the running 13 month temp of the earth next year to -.2 or -.3…”

“As this La Nina, low solar cycle and cumulative volcanic activity means business, then things may be quicker than I thought.”

In NOAA’s forecast, blue represents cold and the tannish to orange colors warm.

NOAA chart from:
http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/images3/glbT2mSea.gif

———–

thanks to metric for the link..

but we are supposed to be heating up..??

bilderberg did say global cooling didnt they?..hmm

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES!

Global Warming Wednesday

This post is shamelessly stolen from seeker401 over at Follow the Money.

3rd Climategate whitewash report to be tabled

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science_and_environment/10530554.stm

An inquiry into questions raised by the so-called ClimateGate affair will release its conclusions on Wednesday.

The Independent Climate Change Email Review was commissioned by the UK’s University of East Anglia following the hacking of emails from its servers.

Climate sceptics allege that the emails undermine the integrity of researchers at the university’s Climatic Research Unit and of climate science in general.

Two previous reports found issues in the unit, but no deliberate deception.

At the end of March, a report from the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee said the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) should be more open and transparent and must comply with Freedom of Information laws.

But it found no evidence of malpractice.

And in April, a second inquiry looking at scientific output from CRU found no evidence of malpractice, but criticised the sometimes “messy” practices within the unit and suggested closer liaison with professional statisticians.

Both reviews were criticised in “sceptical” circles as superficial and lacking in balance.

The unit has played a key role in building datasets of global temperatures, which are key to understanding modern-day human-induced climate change and widely cited in the influential assessments from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The third review, chaired by former civil servant Sir Muir Russell, is likely to prove the most influential of the three and has spent much of its time gathering and sifting comments sent in by interested parties.

These include working climate scientists, including some who have collaborated closely with the unit and its former director Phil Jones, and prominent critics.

The Canadian blogger Stephen McIntyre, who runs the influential website climateaudit, called the independence of panel members into question – an issue that Sir Muir rejects.

On CRU itself, his submission to the inquiry said the unit had manipulated and withheld data in such a way as to distort temperature records.

“The manipulation includes (but is not limited to) arbitrary adjustment (‘bodging’), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data.

“The problem is deeply rooted in the sense that some forms of data manipulation and withholding are so embedded that the practitioners and peer reviewers in the specialty seem either to no longer notice or are unoffended by the practices.”

However, Professor Raymond Bradley, an eminent climatologist from the University of Massachusetts, said he had “the greatest respect for (the CRU team’s) scholarship, insight and scientific integrity, and I have seen nothing in the stolen emails that changes this opinion”.

The hacked emails and other documents emerged shortly before the Copenhagen climate summit, and the episode was seen in some quarters as an attempt to wreck the chances of a meaningful global treaty.

“The theft was a political act, and your inquiry should be fully aware of the context in which you are operating,” Professor Bradley told the inquiry.

The panel’s investigation will:

• Examine the hacked e-mail exchanges, other relevant e-mail exchanges and any other information held at CRU to determine whether there is any evidence of the manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice
• Review CRU’s policies and practices for acquiring, assembling, subjecting to peer review and disseminating data and research findings
• Review CRU’s compliance or otherwise with the university’s policies and practices regarding requests under the Freedom of Information Act
• Review and make recommendations as to the appropriate management, governance and security structures for CRU and the security, integrity and release of the data it holds.

It will not review the accuracy of the science emerging from CRU, or of climate science itself.

On Monday, a review commisioned by the Dutch government into the IPCC’s projections of climate impacts found “no errors that would undermine the main conclusions” – that man-made climate change poses a significant threat in many regions of the world.

———–

“It will not review the accuracy of the science emerging from CRU, or of climate science itself.”

[I] rest my case..

whitewash..

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES!

Global Warming Wednesday

Tip O' the Hat to Jeff Dunetz at Yid with Lid for this contribution to the great task of rolling back the left's brainwashing of American Society about Global Warming.

Is Michael Mann Backing Away from the Climate Change Hockey Stick?

Maybe Michael Mann is seeing the writing on the wall because it looks as if he is taking a giant step backwards away from his invention, the climate change hockey stick. The Penn State professor now says his hockey stick should not have become 'climate change icon' and it was 'somewhat misplaced' to make his work an 'icon of the climate change debate'.

The climate change hockey stick is a graph created a little over decade ago that was supposed to show global temperatures for the last 1,000 years. The graph plots out a sharp rise in temperature over the last 100 years as man made carbon emissions increased, creating the shape of a hockey stick. The problem is that Mann's data has been proven bogus many time over.

... speaking to the BBC recently, Prof Mann, a climatologist at Pennsylvania State University, said he had always made clear there were "uncertainties" in his work.

"I always thought it was somewhat misplaced to make it a central icon of the climate change debate," he said.

Mann's claim that he never wanted his hockey stick belies the truth. At the time the graph was developed, there were actually two graphs being developed. Scientists didn't want to use the Mann version because they weren't sure about his numbers. Mann insisted that his version was the one that should be used because it looked more dramatic.

According to uncovered documents, Mann and his team wanted to present a simple story for policy makers, Others wanted scrupulous honesty about uncertainties contained in Mann's chart.The IPCC's core job is to present a "consensus" on the science, but in this critical case there was no easy consensus.

The tensions were summed up in an email sent on 22 September 1999 by Met Office scientist Chris Folland, in which he alerted key researchers that a diagram of temperature change over the past thousand years "is a clear favourite for the policy makers' summary"

But there were two competing graphs – Mann's hockey stick and another, by Jones, Briffa and others. Mann's graph was clearly the more compelling image of man-made climate change. The other "dilutes the message rather significantly," said Folland. "We want the truth. Mike [Mann] thinks it lies nearer his result." Folland noted that "this is probably the most important issue to resolve in chapter 2 at present."

The evidence shows that while people were suspicious of Michael Mann's research, Mann wanted his graph used because it more compelling. His "walking back" from the graph has more to do with the fact that it has been proven bogus, than any previous desire that it "not become an icon."

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES!

Global Warming Wednesday

Tip O' the Hat to Sammy Benoit at Yid with Lid for this week's debunking of Global Warming. The proof just keeps rolling in that this is a hoax of epic proportions. I am not one to buy into conspiracy theories, but the whole "Climate Change" nonsense is starting to look that way.

BAD NEWS For Global Warming Moonbats Thickest Ice Cap in Years

Oh Boy, poor Al Gore! He has had such an awful few weeks. First it was the announcement that he is separating from his wife of 40+ years. Then the revelation of his affair with friend Larry David's ex-wife, and today the biggest blow of all. A new observational study shows that the arctic ice is thicker than it has been in years, striking a blow to Gore's Billion Dollar Climate change buisness.

The Arctic meltdown is not as bad as some of the moonbats suggest at least according to geophysicist Christian Haas of the University of Alberta. His international team flew across the top of the planet last year for the 2,412-kilometre survey. They found large expanses of ice four to five metres thick, despite the record retreat in 2007.

"This is a nice demonstration that there is still hope for the ice," said Haas.

The survey, which demonstrated that the "bird" probe tethered to a plane can measure ice thickness over large areas, uncovered plenty of resilient "old" ice from Norway to the North Pole to Alaska in April 2009.

The thickness had "changed little since 2007, and remained within the expected range of natural variability," the team reports in the Geophysical Research Letters.

There is already speculation about how the ice will fare this summer, with some scientists predicting a record melt. Haas said he doesn't buy it.

He said the ice is in some ways in better shape going into the melt season than it has been for a couple of years. "We have more thick ice going into the summer than we did in 2009 and 2008," he said.

Much will depend on the intensity of the winds, and how the ice fractures and is blown around, he said. "But any talk about tipping points, a sudden drop and no recovery . . . I don't think it is going to happen."

.....Part of the problem with ice forecasting is that it based largely on data from satellites. They are good at measuring how large an area is covered by ice, but tell little about its thickness — which can measure in mere centimetres in the case of new ice, or metres in the case of ice several years old.

Its the equivalent of making a weather forecast without looking out the window. Which is the problem with most of the global warming predictions, which are based on computer modeling without the benefit of observation.

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES!

Global Warming Wednesday

Tip O' the Hat to Jim Hoft from Gateway Pundit For this weeks debunking of the Global Warming hoax.

Top UN Scientist: There Never Was Consensus On Global Warming - Only a Few Dozen Believed It

It was all hot air and hoax.

A top official with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admitted yesterday that there never was agreement on global warming and that only a few dozen scientists actually believed it.
The National Post reported:

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia – the university of Climategate fame — is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.

Hulme’s depiction of IPCC’s exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here.

And to think, it was just two years ago junk scientist Al Gore promised that the arctic ice cap would be melted entirely in 5 years.
And, they gave him a Peace Prize for that.

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES!

Global Warming Wednesday

Via The Middleberry Community Network, here is a great editorial titled The Great Global Warming Hoax?

Editor's Introductory Note: Our planet has been slowly warming since last emerging from the "Little Ice Age" of the 17th century, often associated with the Maunder Minimum. Before that came the "Medieval Warm Period", in which temperatures were about the same as they are today. Both of these climate phenomena are known to have occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, but several hundred years prior to the present, the majority of the Southern Hemisphere was primarily populated by indigenous peoples, where science and scientific observation was limited to non-existent. Thus we can not say that these periods were necessarily "global".

However, "Global Warming" in recent historical times has been an indisputable fact, and no one can reasonably deny that.

But we're hearing far too often that the "science" is "settled", and that it is mankind's contribution to the natural CO2 in the atmosphere has been the principal cause of an increasing "Greenhouse Effect", which is the root "cause" of global warming. We're also hearing that "all the world's scientists now agree on this settled science", and it is now time to quickly and most radically alter our culture, and prevent a looming global catastrophe. And last, but not least, we're seeing a sort of mass hysteria sweeping our culture which is really quite disturbing. Historians ponder how the entire nation of Germany could possibly have goose-stepped into place in such a short time, and we have similar unrest. Have we become a nation of overnight loonies?

Sorry folks, but we're not exactly buying into the Global Hysteria just yet. We know a great deal about atmospheric physics, (bio) and from the onset, many of the claims were just plain fishy. The extreme haste with which seemingly the entire world immediately accepted the idea of Anthropogenic ( man-made ) Global Warming made us more than a little bit suspicious that no one had really taken a close look at the science. We also knew that the catch-all activity today known as "Climate Science" was in its infancy, and that atmospheric modeling did not and still does not exist which can predict changes in the weather or climate more than about a day or two in advance.

So the endless stream of dire predictions of what was going to happen years or decades from now if we did not drastically reduce our CO2 production by virtually shutting down the economies of the world appeared to be more the product of radical political and environmental activism rather than science. Thus, we embarked on a personal quest for more information, armed with a strong academic background in postgraduate physics and a good understanding of the advanced mathematics necessary in such a pursuit. This fundamental knowledge of the core principles of matter and its many exceptionally complex interactions allowed us to research and understand the foundations of many other sciences. In short, we read complex scientific articles in many other scientific disciplines with relative ease and good understanding - like most folks read comic books.

As our own knowledge of "climate science" grew, so grew our doubts over the "settled science". What we found was the science was far from "settled".. in fact it was barely underway.

It was for a while a somewhat lonely quest, what with "all the world's scientists" apparently having no doubt. Finally, in December 2007 we submitted an article to one of our local newspapers, the Addison Independent, thinking they would be delighted in having at minimum an alternative view of the issue. Alas, they chose not to publish it, but two weeks after our submission (by the strangest coincidence), published yet another "pro-global-warming" feature written by an individual whom, to the best we could determine, had no advanced training in any science at all, beyond self-taught it would appear. Still, the individual had published a number of popular books on popular environmental issues, was well-loved by those of similar political bent, and was held in high esteem among his peers. We had learned a valuable lesson: Popular Journalists trump coupled sets of 2nd-order partial differential equations every time. Serious science doesn't matter if you have the press in your pocket.

In fairness to the Addison Independent and its editors, our article was somewhat lengthy and technical, and presumably the average reader most likely could not follow or even be interested in an alternative viewpoint, since everyone knew by now that the global warming issue was "settled science". And we confess that we like the paper, subscribe to it, and know a number of folks who work there personally. They're all good folks, and they have every right to choose what does or doesn't go in their publication. They also have a right to spin the news any direction they choose, because that's what freedom of the press is all about. Seems everyone, both left and right, does it - and it's almost certain we will be accused of doing the same here. And we just may be, as hard as we may try to avoid it. We humans aren't all shaped by the same cookie cutter, and that's a blessing that has taken us as a species to the top of the food chain.

But by then we had been sharing our own independent research of the literature with others via email, and receiving a surprising amount of agreement back in return. (We're in contact with a large number of fellow scientists around the country, dating back to our college days in the 17th century when beer was a quarter a bottle). One local friend, in particular, kept pressing us to publish, and even offered to set up a "debate" with the Popular Journalist who had usurped our original article. This we politely declined, arguing that "debate" cannot prove or disprove science...science must stand on its own.

But then something unusual happened. On Dec. 13, 2007, 100 scientists jointly signed an Open Letter to Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, requesting they cease the man-made global warming hysteria and settle down to helping mankind better prepare for natural disasters. The final signature was from the President of the World Federation of Scientists.

At last, we were not alone...

GOD BLESS AMERICA AND DEATH TO HER ENEMIES!