Archive for July, 2010

BP, Greenpeace & the Big Oil Jackpot

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

Source:  No Frakking Concensus

In what passes for debate about climate change one of the most tiresome allegations is that skeptics are lavishly funded by big oil. As a result of this funding, so the argument goes, the public has been confused by those who’ll say anything in exchange for a paycheck.

“Follow the money” we’re told and you’ll discover that climate skeptics are irredeemably tainted. Ergo nothing they say can be trusted. Ergo their concerns, questions, and objections should be dismissed out of hand.

It’s therefore amusing that the current oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is now drawing attention to the close relationship between climate change activists and BPaka British Petroleum, an entity for which the descriptor “big oil” was surely invented.According to the Washington Post the green group Nature Conservancy – which encourages ordinary citizens to personally pledge to fight climate change – “has accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years.” (more…)

Climate Scandals

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

Source:  No Tricks Zone

Here’s a list with links of many of the scandals we’ve seen in climate science.
As of June 5, 2010

1. Acceleration-gate
Claims that sea level rise is accelerating are shown to be misleading.
2. Africa-gate
IPCC wrongly claims that in some African countries yields from rain-fed agriculture could be
reduced by up to 50 percent by 2020.
3. AIT-gate and British High Court
35 errors or gross exaggerations are found in Al Gore’s Oscar winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth.
4. Amazon-gate
IPCC cites “robust” source: green activist organisation WWF.
5. Antarctic sea-gate#
Antarctic sea ice underestimated by 50%. (more…)

Peer-Review Flaws, circa 2002

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

Source:  here

People familiar with what happened in climate science during the last year might find Lawrence K. Altman’s NYT article “THE DOCTOR’S WORLD; When Peer Review Produces Unsound Science” of June 11, 2002 more than prescient (emphasis all mine, of course):

[...] Yet for all its acclaim, the system [of peer-review] has long been controversial. Despite its system of checks and balances, a number of errors, plagiarism and even outright fraud have slipped through it.

[...] A particular concern is that because editors and reviewers examine only what authors summarize, not raw data, the system can provide false reassurances that what is published is scientifically sound.

[...] Researchers reported [in the "The Journal of the American Medical Association" in June 2002] considerable evidence that many statistical and methodological errors were common in published papers and that authors often failed to discuss the limitations of their findings. Even the press releases that journals issue to steer journalists to report peer reviewed papers often exaggerate the perceived importance of findings and fail to highlight important caveats and conflicts of interest. (more…)

The “Ruling Class” and Global Warming “Science”

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

SPPI Reprint Series:

America’s Ruling Class and the Perils of Revolution by Angelo Codevilla.

This extensive essay, which covers a number of fronts, provides some essential insights for understanding the global warming scare, its promotion by national governments and international organizations, and why “climate science” focused on catastrophic global warming is a special interest creation/fantasy by and for the “ruling class.” It also provides insight into why non-alarmist, non-ruling-class scientists and spokespersons must be vilified and silenced by advocates for and fellow-travelers of the ruling class in business and government.

Some key excerpts:

Once an official or professional shows that he shares the manners, the tastes, the interests of the class, gives lip service to its ideals and shibboleths, and is willing to accommodate the interests of its senior members, he can move profitably among our establishment’s parts.
If, for example, you are Laurence Tribe in 1984, Harvard professor of law, leftist pillar of the establishment, you can “write” your magnum opus by using the products of your student assistant, Ron Klain. A decade later, after Klain admits to having written some parts of the book, and the other parts are found to be verbatim or paraphrases of a book published in 1974, you can claim (perhaps correctly) that your plagiarism was “inadvertent,” and you can count on the Law School’s dean, Elena Kagan, to appoint a committee including former and future Harvard president Derek Bok that issues a secret report that “closes” the incident. Incidentally, Kagan ends up a justice of the Supreme Court. Not one of these people did their jobs: the professor did not write the book himself, the assistant plagiarized instead of researching, the dean and the committee did not hold the professor accountable, and all ended up rewarded. By contrast, for example, learned papers and distinguished careers in climatology at MIT (Richard Lindzen) or UVA (S. Fred Singer) are not enough for their questions about “global warming” to be taken seriously. For our ruling class, identity always trumps. (more…)

The satellites are missing

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

The Hansen Model: Another very simple disproof of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

Source:  Debunk House

by David Middleton

Dr. James Hansen is the Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.  Dr. Hansen is right up there with Al Gore, Michael Mann and the Climategate CRU on the list of people helping the UN to swindle the United States and other western democracies out of trillions of dollars through his promotion of the Anthropogenic Global Warming fraud.

Hansen kind of got the ball rolling in 1988 with his publication of a climate model that predicted dire global warming over the next 20 years if mankind did not stop burning fossil fuels… Hansen et al. 1988.

Hansen constructed three scenarios… “Scenario A assumes continued exponential trace gas growth, scenario B assumes a reduced linear linear growth of trace gases, and scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000.” (more…)

The Hockeystick Graph You Should Be Worried About

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

The median duration of unemployment is more than twice as high today than any time in the last 50 years.

Book Review – HEATSTROKE: NATURE IN AN AGE OF GLOBAL WARMING

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

Source:  Journal Bioscience, vol. 60, 552-553

REVIEW OF HEATSTROKE: NATURE IN AN AGE OF GLOBAL WARMING by Anthony D. Barnosky, 2009 (Washington, DC: Island Press) 269pp.

By Daniel B. Botkin

[Dr. Botkin in not associated with SPPI.]

In the late 1960s I began studying possible ecological effects of global warming, and  first published a paper about these possibilities in 1973.  Thus, I have watched with surprise, and sometimes dismay, the sudden development of scientific and public concern over this issue.  When I first began to explore the mechanisms by which a trace gas such as CO2 could influence our planet’s climate, getting into the then abstruse topics of atmospheric physical chemistry and energy exchange, there were just a few scientists — mainly climatologists, meteorologists, and ecologists —  who even knew about the possibility, and even fewer who were doing scientific research on it.

It was a time when not many were aware that life of any kind could affect the environment at a planetary level, but several of us were exploring those possibilities.  I was fortunate to be one of the first to help NASA begin using satellite remote sensing to study a planetary perspective on life.  I also worked with scientists at IBM to develop one of the first computer models that could be used to forecast possible effects of climate change on any kind of ecological system.  It seemed at that time, through the 1970s into the early 1980s,  an uphill battle to even get a large number of scientists to believe in such possibilities, let alone the public. (more…)

More Antics of the Ruling Class

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

Washington State’s Climate Exec Order Challenged

By

Today the Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s Constitutional Law Center announced they would, on behalf of Washington State taxpayers, sue Democrat Gov. Christine Gregoire because last year she issued an executive order implementing climate change measures that the Democrat-run state legislature had rejected.

“We believe Gov. Gregoire’s climate change executive order is an unconstitutional order,” said Michael Reitz, director of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation’s Constitutional Law Center, who represents the taxpayers in this case. “Gov. Gregoire violated the doctrine of separation of powers by snatching a failed bill out of the legislative process and issuing it in the form of an executive order. If the governor wants to pass laws, she’s in the wrong branch of government.” (more…)

Climatewash

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

Source:  Herald Sun

by Andrew Bolt

Clive Crook may be a warmist, but is honest enough to describe whitewash when he sees it:

I am for a carbon tax. I also believe that the Climategate emails revealed, to an extent that surprised even me (and I am difficult to surprise), an ethos of suffocating groupthink and intellectual corruption…

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 wilfully 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.

The Penn State inquiry exonerating Michael Mann—the paleoclimatologist who came up with “the hockey stick”—would be difficult to parody. Three of four allegations are dismissed out of hand at the outset: the inquiry announces that, for “lack of credible evidence”, it will not even investigate them…. Moving on, the report then says, in effect, that Mann is a distinguished scholar, a successful raiser of research funding, a man admired by his peers—so any allegation of academic impropriety must be false… (more…)

US Government Halts Funds For Climate Unit

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

Source:  The Sunday Times

The American government has suspended its funding of the University of East Anglia’s climate research unit (CRU), citing the scientific doubts raised by last November’s leak of hundreds of stolen emails.

The US Department of Energy (DoE) was one of the unit’s main sources of funding for its work assembling a database of global temperatures.

It has supported the CRU financially since 1990 and gives the unit about £131,000 a year on a rolling three-year contract. (more…)

Breaking: Phil Jones got to endorse papers for Oxburgh inquiry

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

Source:  WUWT

by Anthony Watts

Previously I have said this about the lack of integrity regarding the recent Climategate investigations:

The investigations thus far are much like having a trial with judge, jury, reporters, spectators, and defendant, but no plaintiff. The plaintiff is locked outside the courtroom sitting in the hall hollering and hoping the jury hears some of what he has to say. Is it any wonder the verdicts keep coming up “not guilty”? (more…)

The Depths to Which Some Roots Will Go

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

Source:  CO2 Science

Reference
Iversen, C.M. 2010. Digging deeper: Fine-root responses to rising atmospheric CO2 concentration in forested ecosystems. New Phytologist 186: 346-357.

What was done
Colleen Iversen of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, Tennessee (USA) reviewed the pertinent scientific literature “to examine the potential mechanisms for, and consequences of, deeper rooting distributions under elevated CO2 as they relate to ecosystem carbon and nitrogen cycling,” focusing primarily on forests. (more…)

Ocean Acidification (Effects on Marine Plants: Phytoplankton, Foraminifera) — Summary

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

Source:  CO2 Science

Foraminifera are amoeboid protists with reticulating pseudopods, i.e., fine strands of cytoplasm that subdivide into branches that merge to form a dynamic network. They are typically less than one mm in size (but can be much larger), and they produce an elaborate calcium carbonate shell called a test, which may have one or more chambers. As for their impact on the undersea marine environment, these widespread calcifying protozoa, acording to Schiebel (2002), are responsible for 32-80% of the global deep-ocean flux of calcite. Therefore, it is important to determine the degree to which various forams — as they are often called — may or may not be harmed by likely future increases in what has come to be known as ocean acidification. (more…)

Why Are Climate Alarmists Getting More Alarmed About CO2?

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

Source:  CO2 Science

As the push for binding global targets on anthropogenic CO2 emissions rose to a deafening crescendo — just prior to, during and following the United Nations Fifteenth Conference of Parties (COP15) held in Copenhagen, Denmark, 7-18 December 2009 — two groups of climate alarmists published a pair of papers claiming that even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had underestimated the magnitude of future global warming that they claim will likely result from the continued unbridled burning of fossil fuels such as coal, gas and oil.

In these two papers, which appeared in Nature Geoscience, Pagani et al. (2010, but published online 20 Dec 2009) and Lunt et al. (2010, but published online 6 Dec 2009) calculated what they call “earth-system climate sensitivity,” based on things that they and others had inferred about planetary conditions during the Pliocene period of some three to five million years ago. (more…)