Archive for April, 2010

Gore adds to his carbon footprint, and gets media pass

Thursday, April 29th, 2010

Source:  LA Times

by Lauren Beale

Former Vice President Al Gore and his wife, Tipper, have added a Montecito-area property to their real estate holdings, reports the Montecito Journal.

The couple spent $8,875,000 on an ocean-view villa on 1.5 acres with a swimming pool, spa and fountains, a real estate source familiar with the deal confirms. The Italian-style house has six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine bathrooms.

New Book Notice

Tuesday, April 27th, 2010
Climate: the Counter-Consensus

The counter-consensus to quasi-scientific hype and induced panic on climate change is at last assembling. The argument is not in the first place as to whether or not climate change has been taking place, but whether any recent warming of the planet is appreciably due to human activity and how harmful it will prove. Tom Stacey, in his eloquent and provocative introduction, investigates our tendency to ascribe this and other perceived planetary crises to some inherent fault in ourselves, be it original sin or a basic moral failing. Climate: the Counter Consensus goes on to examine, with thoroughness and impartial expertise, the so-called facts of global warming that are churned out and unquestioningly accepted, while the scientific and media establishments stifle or deride any legitimate expression of an opposing view. In doing so, the book typifies the mission of Independent Minds to replace political correctness and received wisdom with common sense and rational analysis.

Follow this link to see a T.V. interview with Professor Carter, with the kind permission of the Rhema Broadcasting Group.

Professor Robert Carter – Professor Robert Carter is one of the world’s leading palaeoclimatologists, and his work investigates the past cycles of the earth’s unpredictable natural climate change, especially over the last few million years of planetary ice ages.

Ocean Acidification: How Bad Can it Get?

Tuesday, April 27th, 2010

Source:  CO2 Science

by Craig Idso

In a special issue of Oceanography published in December of 2009, Feely et al. review what we supposedly know about the current pH status of the world’s oceans, as well as what they say we can likely expect by the end of the current century.

Getting right to the crux of the matter, the three researchers write in their abstract that “estimates based on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change business-as-usual emission scenarios suggest that atmospheric CO2 levels could approach 800 ppm near the end of the century,” and that “corresponding biogeochemical models for the ocean indicate that surface water pH will drop from a pre-industrial value of about 8.2 to about 7.8 in the IPCC A2 scenario by the end of this century.” And, of course, they warn that, as a result, “the skeletal growth rates of calcium-secreting organisms will be reduced,” ending with the obligatory statement that “if anthropogenic CO2 emissions are not dramatically reduced in the coming decades, there is the potential for direct and profound impacts on our living marine ecosystems.”

Figure 1. Past and projected trends of fossil-fuel carbon utilization and the atmosphere’s CO2 concentration. Adapted from Tans (2009).

Well that’s Feely et al.’s story; but in the very same issue of Oceanography — in the article that appears just before their paper, in fact — NOAA’s Pieter Tans presents a much different take on the subject. (more…)

Who needs a committee report to spot rank deception?

Saturday, April 24th, 2010

Source:  ABC

by Joanne Nova

The issue of the ClimateGate emails leaked or hacked from the East Anglia CRU is not that complicated. The emails are damning because anyone who reads them understands that they show petty, unprofessional, and probably criminal behaviour. We know the guys who wrote them are not people we’d want to buy cars from. They are hiding information. We don’t need a committee to state the obvious.

The emails show some of the leading players in climate science talking about tricks to “hide declines”, they boast about manipulating the peer review process, and “getting” rid of papers they didn’t like from the IPCC reports. It’s clear the data wasn’t going the way they hoped, yet they screwed the results every way they could to milk the “right” conclusion. Above all else, they feared freedom of information requests, and did everything they could to avoid providing their data. ClimateGate shows these people were not practising science, but advocacy and have been doing it for decades. (more…)

Twenty Years of Advocacy, Not Journalism, on Global Warming

Saturday, April 24th, 2010

Source:  WSJ

By Rich Noyes

From the Media Research Center

The media has forged a consensus around climate change.

For more than two decades, the so-called mainstream media have preached the dangers of manmade global warming, insisting American businesses and consumers must make massive economic sacrifices to ward off a global climate catastrophe. Not even last November’s exposure of e-mails from leading scientists on the alarmist side of the debate — showing them conniving to fudge or suppress data, discredit critics and distort the peer review process — has caused journalists to finally take a skeptical approach to radical environmentalists’ doomsaying.

A new study from the MRC’s Business & Media Institute documents how ABC, CBS and NBC have been just as strident in their advocacy in the months following “ClimateGate” as they were in the 20 years that preceded the scandal. At the same time, a review of the Media Research Center’s archives going back to the late 1980s shows just how strongly reporters have pushed the liberal line on global warming. Here are just some of the many examples: (more…)

Notes on Global Warming and Abuse in the Peer Review Process

Friday, April 23rd, 2010

Source: Informath

by Douglas Keenan


Following discusses one aspect of how the peer review process affects the study of global warming.

The problems with the peer review process have implications for our understanding of global warming (as well as for science generally). Once something has been published in a peer-reviewed journal—particularly a prestigious journal—it tends to be considered as established, possibly even heralded as “truth”. This means that other researchers will often rely on its conclusions, with little, if any, further checking. The extent to which this happens varies among different branches of science. It seems to be especially so in the study of global warming. (more…)

The main statistical error found with the ?hockey stick? graph of temperatures

Friday, April 23rd, 2010

Source: Informath

by Douglas Keenan

Following is a simplified description of the main statistical error found with the ?hockey stick? graph of temperatures during the past millennium.

Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes are three respected scientists in America. In 1998 and 1999, they jointly published some research on how temperatures have changed during the past millennium. According to their research, the temperature in the Northern Hemisphere was roughly constant during the millennium, up until the twentieth century; then, in the twentieth century, temperatures increased very substantially. Their graph of hemispheric temperatures is shown below.

Hockey Stick graph

The graph was dubbed the ?hockey stick?, because of its shape. It became an icon for many people concerned about global warming, and it was prominently featured in the 2001 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (more…)

Climate Science In Denial

Thursday, April 22nd, 2010

Source: WSJ

Global warming alarmists have been discredited, but you wouldn’t know it from the rhetoric this Earth Day.


In mid-November of 2009 there appeared a file on the Internet containing thousands of emails and other documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain. How this file got into the public domain is still uncertain, but the emails, whose authenticity is no longer in question, provided a view into the world of climate research that was revealing and even startling.

In what has come to be known as “climategate,” one could see unambiguous evidence of the unethical suppression of information and opposing viewpoints, and even data manipulation. The Climatic Research Unit is hardly an obscure outpost; it supplies many of the authors for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Moreover, the emails showed ample collusion with other prominent researchers in the United States and elsewhere. One might have thought the revelations would discredit the allegedly settled science underlying currently proposed global warming policy, and, indeed, the revelations may have played some role in the failure of last December’s Copenhagen climate conference to agree on new carbon emissions limits. But with the political momentum behind policy proposals and billions in research funding at stake, the impact of the emails appears to have been small. (more…)

Italian Senate Calls For Re-Assessment Of Climate Policy, IPCC Science

Wednesday, April 21st, 2010

Source:  Istituto Bruno Leoni

by Carlo Stagnaro, Istituto Bruno Leoni

The Italian Senate stands for climate realism. A motion passed on last Wednesday commits the Italian government to promote a sound discussion on climate policies with the European Union and the United Nations, with particular regard to the major changes that have occurred after the economic recession, the Climategate scandal, and the failure to reach a global deal in Copenhagen. In fact, the Senate asks both that the current commitments under the EU climate and energy package are re-negotiated, and that an independent investigation is started on the IPCC process. (more…)

Voters Take Global Warming A Bit Less Seriously

Tuesday, April 20th, 2010

Voters continue to show less worry about global warming.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 54% of voters still believe global warming is a serious problem, but that’s down eight points from a year ago. The new numbers includes 29% who consider it very serious, a number, too, that has been inching down in recent months.

But 43% now say global warming is not serious, including 21% who say it is not at all serious. The number who say global warming is not serious at all is at its highest level measured in regular tracking in over a year. The overall number of voters who question the seriousness of global warming crossed into the 40s for the first time in January. (more…)

Last in Class: Critics Give U.N. Climate Researchers an ‘F’

Tuesday, April 20th, 2010

Soure: FOX News. com

By Gene J. Koprowski

It may be time for the United Nations’ climate-studies scientists to go back to school.A group of 40 auditors — including scientists and public policy experts from across the globe — have released a shocking report card on the U.N.’s landmark climate-change research report.

And they gave 21 of the report’s 44 chapters a grade of “F.” (more…)

There He Goes Again: Mann Claims His Hockey Stick was Given “Clean Bill of Health”

Monday, April 19th, 2010


Spinmeister Michael Mann is quoted in this article from the Telegraph yesterday as follows:

Prof Hand (Head of the UK Royal Statistical Society) praised the blogger Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit for uncovering the fact that inappropriate methods were used which could produce misleading results. “The Mann 1998 hockey stick paper used a particular technique that exaggerated the hockey stick effect,” he said.

Prof Mann, who is Professor of Earth System Science at the Pennsylvania State University, said the statistics used in his graph were correct. “I would note that our ’98 article was reviewed by the US National Academy of Sciences, the highest scientific authority in the United States, and given a clean bill of health,” he said. “In fact, the statistician on the panel, Peter Bloomfield, a member of the Royal Statistical Society, came to the opposite conclusion of Prof Hand.” (more…)

Rear Mirror: Top Scientists Assess Climate Change Emails

Monday, April 19th, 2010

Source:  Suite 101.c0m

Full Analysis of Global Warming Scandal

by John O’Sullivan

Dr. John P. Costella examined 1079 leaked emails and 72 other documents from the computers of the UK’s Climatic Research Unit to reveal ‘shocking misconduct and fraud.’

Dr. Costella?s study has been widely accepted by all sides of the global warming debate as a faultless assessment. Climategate publicly began on November 19, 2009 allegedly pointing to a conspiracy to fraudulently bolster greenhouse gas theory. The British mainstream media, more than any other nation, have widely reported on the scandal. The Daily Telegraph notably carried the story. (more…)

Aussie Skeptic Attacks Climate Data Fraud

Monday, April 19th, 2010

Source: Climate Change Fraud

by John O’Sullivan

Two Dead Elephants in  Parliament.

Climate skeptic, Malcolm Roberts, mounts a lucid rebuttal of the man-made global warming theory in his publication, ‘Two Dead Elephants in Parliament.’

Among others, Roberts exposes two fatal flaws in the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) greenhouse gas theory. Firstly, the IPCC incorrectly relies on the analogy that the Earth’s atmosphere acts like a giant greenhouse, which it doesn’t.

Secondly, Roberts then points out that by their own admission, the IPCC admits to ‘low’ or ‘very low’ understanding of 80% of all factors impacting climate. (more…)

The True Nature of Sceptics

Monday, April 19th, 2010

Source:  The Australian

by Frank Furedi

Unafraid, questioning minds are central to the pursuit of truth and democracy

AT Easter, the official Greenpeace website carried a blog written by Gene Hashmi, communications director of its affiliate in India. Hashmi pointed his finger at sceptics who fuelled “spurious debates around false solutions” and concluded with the not too subtle threat: “We know who you are. We know where you live. We know where you work. And we be many but you be few.”

Welcome to a world where the term sceptic has acquired the meaning usually associated with a Dark Age heresy.

Fearing a backlash to a statement that most normal readers would interpret as an incitement to violence, Greenpeace pulled the blog from its site. (more…)