Posts Tagged ‘global warming’

NASA Climategate Exposed

Friday, January 15th, 2010

[SPPI Note:  The Smith-D’Aleo paper mentioned in this press release was commissioned by SPPI, and the full copyrighted version will be released and posted at SPPI in the next few days.  We consented for a shortened version to be used by John Coleman for his program.  All five segments of the program can be viewed here:  http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/81583352.html ]

*********

Climate researchers have discovered that NASA researchers improperly manipulated data in order to claim 2005 as “the warmest year on record.”

KUSI-TV meteorologist, Weather Channel founder, and iconic weatherman John Coleman will present these findings in a one-hour special airing on KUSI-TV on January 14 at 9 p.m. EST. A related report will be made available on the Internet at 6 p.m. EST on January 14 at www.kusi.com.

In a new report, computer expert E. Michael Smith and Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo discovered extensive manipulation of the temperature data by the U.S. government’s two primary climate centers: the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, North Carolina and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at Columbia University in New York City. Smith and D’Aleo accuse these centers of manipulating temperature data to give the appearance of warmer temperatures than actually occurred by trimming the number and location of weather observation stations. The report is available online at http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NOAAroleinclimategate.pdf. (more…)

Wikipedia’s climate doctor

Monday, January 11th, 2010
How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles
by Lawrence Solomon
December 19, 2009
Source: Courtesy of http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx

T

he Climategate Emails describe how a small band of climatologists cooked the books to make the last century seem dangerously warm.

The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD.

The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history.

The Medieval Warm Period, which followed the meanness and cold of the Dark Ages, was a great time in human history — it allowed humans around the world to bask in a glorious warmth that vastly improved agriculture, increased life spans and otherwise bettered the human condition. (more…)

Dr. Craig Idso: Climate Heretic

Thursday, January 7th, 2010

The Heretics: Dr. Craig Idso
by Rich Trzupek

Source: Courtesy of Front Page

Given the dogmatic fervor of global warming proponents, and their intolerance of skeptics who dare to question the latest commandment (see: cap-and-trade [1]) in the green scripture, it is perhaps no coincidence that the environmentalist movement sometimes seems to have more in common with theology than with science. If that is true, then the logical word to describe those scientists who have challenged environmental hysteria and extremism is “heretics.” In a series of profiles, Front Page’s Rich Trzupek [2] will spotlight prominent scientists whose “heretical” research, publications, and opinions have helped add a much-needed dose of balance and fact to environmental debates that for too long have been driven by fear mongering and alarmism. In a field that demands political conformity, they defiantly remain the heretics.  – The Editors

Like many scientists, Dr. Craig Idso [4] has a problem with the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but his perspective is a bit different. He believes the planet can use more. “As carbon dioxide concentrations rise, we expect plants to be more biodiverse,” Idso said. “We expect a great greening of planet earth.” (more…)

The intractable non-problem of climate change

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

  • The Royal Society of Edinburgh, a science pressure-group largely funded by taxpayers, has decided to join the rent-seeking classes worldwide in trying to extract cash from you and me in the name of Saving The Planet from the non-threat posed by “global warming”. The lobby-group has set up an enquiry into the gap between the policies the governing classes would like to inflict upon us and the policies that we, the governed, might be willing to accept. Here is the joint submission from me, my lovely wife, the Carie Estate, and Monckton Enterprises Ltd. The bureaucrats won’t enjoy it, but perhaps our readers will. The Royal Society’s questions are in bold face: our replies are in Roman face.

TO THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF EDINBURGH

Gentlemen, – In this joint submission, made in January 2010, two individuals and two organizations have the honour to answer the questions that you have posed about the State’s grandiose policy of attempting to intervene in the evolution of the complex, non-linear object that is the terrestrial climate. Our advice to you is that the policies you advocate would be unbearably costly, damaging and futile. You will not succeed where Canute failed.

  • Do changing weather patterns affect you or your organization?

No. After 300 years’ largely natural warming, it is unsurprising that recent years have been warmer than average. In 50 years the weather is as likely to be cooler than the present as it is to be warmer, according to an eminent Professor of Meteorology whom we have consulted. (more…)

Ocean Acidification: Another Failing Scare Story?

Wednesday, January 6th, 2010

Source: Courtesy of Master Resource

by Chip Knappenberger
January 6, 2010

As projections of catastrophic climate changes are being beaten down by the far less than catastrophic actual climate response, other calamities that may result from our untoward use of fossil fuels are being offered up for our consideration. Besides the well-worn pitfalls of our failure to achieve energy independence, or to be the first to grasp green technologies, a new problem is being worked into the mix—ocean acidification.

Ocean acidification. Sounds bad doesn’t it. Much worse than say, “the oceans are becoming less basic” which is a more accurate, but less worrisome-sounding description. In either case, it is used to describe the situation in which the oceans absorb an increasing amount of carbon dioxide as the atmospheric partial pressure of CO2 increases. The dissolution of CO2 in the oceans has the net effect of increasing the hydrogen ion concentration which drives the ocean’s pH lower. The pH of the global oceans averages about 8.1 so it is considered a base rather than an acid (acids have pH values less than 7.0) and has perhaps dropped by 0.1pH units (a logarithmic scale) since the Industrial Revolution.

The reason we are being told that this is bad, is that it potentially disrupts some ocean ecosystems, primarily coral reefs and other calcifying organisms. The idea is that a lower pH interferes with the production of shells and/or causes the shells of some organisms to dissolve—leading to thinner, weaker defenses and other detrimental effects increasing the vulnerability of these organisms and jeopardizing the livelihood of other organisms that depend on them leading to a downward spiral of ever-increasing breadth. (more…)

Warming trends in England from 1659

Monday, January 4th, 2010

by Lubos Motl

Source: courtesy of  The Reference Frame

Because the Hadley Center has released the final temperatures in Central England for 2009, I decided to calculate a few things. Although I have also played with the monthly data, this text will be purely about the 1659-2009 annual data. It’s 351 years in total.

The average of the 351 numbers is 9.217 °C. The Pythagorean average of the deviation of the annual data from this average is 0.659 °C. The global warming advocates like to emphasize the warming trend in the last 30 years. How does the warming trend in the last 30 years – and in all other 30-year periods since 1659 – look like in Central England?

Click to zoom in: the y-axis is the warming trend in °C per century, the x-axis is time from 1659-1688 to 1980-2009.

In the late 17th and early 18th century, there was clearly a much longer period when the 30-year trends were higher than the recent ones. There is nothing exceptional about the recent era. Because I don’t want to waste time with the creation of confusing descriptions of the x-axis, let me list the ten 30-year intervals with the fastest warming trends: (more…)

Monckton Australian Tour

Monday, January 4th, 2010

Apocalypse? NO! ‘Global Warming’ is Not a Global Crisis

Christopher Monckton, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, has accepted an invitation to visit Australia for a major lecture tour on the theme Apocalypse? NO! ‘Global Warming’ is Not a Global Crisis in late January to early February 2010. He will be accompanied by his wife Juliet, Viscountess Monckton of Brenchley.

Professor Ian Plimer, who will also accompany Lord Monckton on his whirlwind tour of the mainland’s capital cities starting in Sydney on January 26 and finishing in Perth on February 8, says: “Although I modestly state that I am a good performer, Lord Monckton is superb. I have seen him fielding a very hostile BBC and other networks.  He has the ability to change thinking.”

Given that a “Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme” is unnecessary and would be harmful, it is critical that the public gets a chance to hear a globally-recognised presenter give a clear, rational explanation of the issue before the Australian Parliament votes on ETS again. Lord Monckton is the ideal person to carry out this task, and also to put the case to the mass media.

For all the details of this exciting tour please email:

John Smeed, D.MechE, FIEAust, CPEng johnsmeed@adna.com.au and

Case Smit, BSc, CIH(ret), CP(Env), FAusIMM, RPEQ case.smit@gmail.com

A Response to Michael Mann

Tuesday, December 29th, 2009

by -Paul C. Knappenberger

December 29, 2009

Back of December 18, 2009, the Washington Post ran an editorial (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/17/AR2009121703682.html) by Penn State’s Dr. Michael Mann, who attempted to explain why the recent release of the Climategate emails “doesn’t alter evidence for climate change.” But Dr. Mann—a central figure in the released emails—is speaking only from one side of the issue—his side.  While the contents of the Climategate emails may not alter the evidence of climate change published in the scientific “peer-reviewed” literature, it is an entirely different matter when it comes to evidence of climate change that may have been kept out of the peer-reviewed literature.  And the Climategate emails illuminate continual efforts from Dr. Mann and colleagues to limit the contents of the peer-reviewed scientific literature to only those types of results and conclusions that they liked.  As such, the extant scientific literature of the past 5 to 10 years cannot be considered to be a fair representation of what it would have been had it not been manipulated. Thus, it is impossible to judge whether or not the evidence for climate change has been altered by the Climategate emails, contrary to Dr. Mann’s claims.

Below is a letter-to-the editor of the Washington Post that I submitted is response to Dr. Mann’s December 18th op-ed. Since it has been more than 10 days since I submitted it, I’ll assume that the Post has decided not to run it (they did not run any letter-to-the-editor on this topic, despite having received 651 comments on-line, the majority of them quite negative).  My letter is reproduced here:

In his December 18, 2009 op-ed, Dr. Michael Mann largely misses to point about the most important aspect of the contents of the climate emails. It is not so much what has appeared in the scientific literature after “decades of work by thousands of scientists around the world” regarding human-caused climate change, but what has not appeared in the literature. The emails reveal signs of manipulation of the peer-review process, and what’s worse, intimidation of individual researchers, from a group of prominent scientists who seek to closely guard their view of the evidence and who are largely intolerant of countervailing hypothesis or interpretations. The degree to which the extant scientific literature can be judged a fair representation of what our scientific understanding may have been like absent these tactics is impossible to ascertain. The unfortunate, but undeniable side effect, is that the foundation of state, national, and international assessments of the potential impacts of climate change and considerations of what actions may be necessary to mitigate them has been shaken—not by what our knowledge is, but by what it should be. The latter of which, through the actions revealed in the emails, has been rendered largely unknowable.

Dr. Patrick Michaels, a close colleague of mine, expresses a similar sentiment (including some specific details) his recent op-ed published in the Wall Street Journal titled, “How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html)

Got a problem? Blame global warming!

Monday, December 28th, 2009

This post from 2006 is worth a re-read.

Thursday 2 November 2006

From allergies to maple syrup shortages to yellow fever: apparently every contemporary ill is caused by climate change.

John Brignell

‘It’s all them atom bombs what’s doing it.’ That is what the old dears used to say in the event of unusual weather when I was growing up in the back streets of Tottenham in north London. There is something deep in the human psyche that requires a cause to be identified for every effect. Presumably this has an evolutionary advantage: man the toolmaker was able to turn abstract concepts, such as consequence and purpose, to his benefit.

Mind you, even in those far off innocent days they did not fly into a panic, as now, over a mild October. They just enjoyed it. They even had a term for it – Indian Summer. What a fine example of ratchet reporting we have seen in recent weeks, with almost every British newspaper showing horror pictures of… late flowering gardens. Yet they studiously ignored the fact that this has been the year without a spring, when the tree blossom was a month late (see these pictures from my website, Numberwatch, as illustration).

That instinct has been a gift for the shamans of each age, ours no less than those that went before. Now carbon, the very stuff of life, has been cast in the role of original sin and its dioxide, absolutely essential to the existence of life on earth, condemned as a pollutant. Just as deviation from the strictures of the gods resulted in calamities such as floods and earthquakes in the past, so our new godless religion decrees that every disaster and minor discomfort arises from our engagement in industry, progress and the pursuit of well-being. (more…)

Our Heart to Lord Christopher Monckton

Tuesday, December 22nd, 2009

Source: Courtesy of American Thinker

December 21, 2009

by Jane Jamison

The United Nations Conference on Climate Change (UNCCC or COP15) in Copenhagen has concluded with no treaty , no “agreement”, no “goals” other than trivial ones, no “enforcement” provisions, and no “reparations” to third world countries, whom do we thank?

The person credited with the first, most credible denouncement of man-made global warming is MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, who presented a paper in 2005 called “Is the Global Warming Alarm Founded on Fact?”

There are the unknown conscientious “objectors” who, just prior to the UNCCC, released thousands of emails and documents proving decades of fraud by the “global warming” institutions and “scholars.”  Then came the many scholarly websites (junkscience.com, wattsupwiththat.com, climatedepot.com, icecap.us, cfact.org, sppi.org—to mention just a few) and the scientists who worked over-time analyzing the leaked documents.  They have pieced together at least twenty years of “faked” global warming graphs and organized suppression of opposing points of view.

Many of us had perhaps “heard” of the Copenhagen climate summit in recent years, but knew only that it was some sort of kooky follow-up to the Kyoto Treaty, which President Bush had refused to sign.

If it were not for the charismatic and diligent leadership of one man, America and the rest of the industrialized world might not have understood the expense and the socialistic aspects of the proposed Copenhagen treaty until it was way too late. Let us send a “heart” out to the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley, otherwise known as Lord Christopher Monckton of the Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), for his tireless efforts in the past two months. (more…)

Russian Temps Turn Up Heat On Warmers

Saturday, December 19th, 2009

Source:  Courtesy of IBD

A Russian think tank alleges that climate-change data obtained from that country have been cherry-picked to overstate a rise in temperatures. With Russia accounting for a large portion of the world’s land mass, incorrect data there could affect the analysis of global temperatures.

The Institute of Economic Analysis, an independent Moscow-based organization, issued the report Tuesday. It was titled, “How Warming Is Being Made: The Case of Russia.”

It alleged that England’s Hadley Centre for Climate Change and the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, the U.K.’s two top climate research outfits, had improperly selected climate data from Russia.

The Hadley Centre has issued a statement saying it was impossible for them to have tampered with the data. The same statement conceded possible flaws, but these were due to “the limited availability of Northern Hemisphere high latitude observations.” It further claimed that its data may actually have underestimated the warming trend in Russia. (more…)

In case anyone doubts the global warming political agenda…

Friday, December 18th, 2009

via Americans for Prosperity Youtube Channel

Taken at Copenhagen, IPPC conference of parties, December 2009

Possible Copenhagen Agreement Announced

Friday, December 18th, 2009

by Terry Hurlbu

Source: Courtesy of the Essex County Conservative Examiner

After a day of raucous protest and often violent and apparently indiscriminate police reponse, the delegations of thirty of the 192 participants in the Fifteenth Conference of Parties produced a draft political agreement, with explicit plans to transform this into a treaty within six months. However, recent reports suggest that this agreement, when presented to most of the other delegates, did not pass muster.

The announcement of a draft agreement came in the early hours of Friday morning (Central European Time), as first reported by Agence France-Presse, as quoted in the Sydney Morning Herald (Sydney, Australia). The agreement specifically mentioned a plan for an annual climate-change mitigation fund, similar to that mentioned by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yesterday. Further details were sketchy, but the AFP quoted an anonymous participant as saying that the agreement might “call for preventing global temperatures from going up more than 2.0 degrees Celsius [2.0 Kelvins] compared to pre-industrial times.”

However, within hours of the presentation of this agreement to the delegates, several G-77 delegations stated that the limitations proposed on their own emissions were too great. Furthermore, the Chinese delegation does not appear to have abandoned their stance on a pledge to reduce “emissions intensity,” a calculation that would still allow them to increase emissions overall.

Yesterday another anonymous source had suggested that the Chinese delegation had predicted that “a short political declaration of some sort” would be the ultimate result of the conference. This draft agreement would fit that description. The Chinese delegation did participate in the all-night session.

Christopher, Viscount Monckton of Brenchley had predicted, a month before, that some sort of eleventh-hour agreement would be reached. Yesterday he filed this report on the Science and Public Policy Institute blog, criticizing the often brutal and indiscriminately violent police response to the protests that took place outside the meeting. The viscount reported that the UN had abruptly decided to exclude all but a relative handful of the 20,000 accredited observers from the conference. Worse yet, when he showed up, not having been notified that he (and thousands of others) had been barred from the conference, a Danish police officer twice grabbed him, and then, as he turned away, the officer shoved him from behind and sent him sprawling. He was treated at the scene for minor cuts and bruises. (more…)

Climategate by any Other Name Would Still Smell

Tuesday, December 15th, 2009

Written by Paul Driessen

December 15, 2009

Senator Barbara Boxer is trying to divert attention away from the scandal over fraudulent global warming data, graphs, analyses, computer models and reports. “This isn’t Climategate. It’s email theft gate,” she insists.

Actually, Senator, it’s Taxpayer Robbery Gate.

We, the taxpayers, We the people – paid for this work. In fact, we paid billions of dollars for this research. It’s ours. We own it. And we’re being ripped off – robbed!

Moreover, providing the data and computer codes is a condition of employment for these scientists. We have a right to examine it, to make sure it’s complete, accurate – and honest. To make sure these scientists haven’t altered or thrown away “inconvenient” data and evidence that might get in the way of their agenda.

But for decades now, the scientists who wrote these emails and did this suspect research have refused to let us taxpayers, other scientists and even members of Congress and Parliament see their data and analyses. They’ve prevented debate and real peer review. The only scientists who’ve been brought into the loop with them are their good buddies, who back up everything they say. Anybody who might ask hard questions or challenge their data and conclusions has been excluded – and denounced and vilified. (more…)