Source: WSJ

Editor’s Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article:

[SPPI Note:  SPPI has published papers by all the scientists in bold at the end of this article.] 

A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about “global warming.” Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: ‘The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.’ In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?” (more…)

Source:  Australian Climate Madness

Phew. The Cause is back on track. A new study has “found” Kevin Trenberth’s missing ocean heat:

“When we looked at the results of previous work suggesting inconsistencies, we found that it hadn’t factored in the considerable uncertainties between systems used to record the measurements.”

Loeb’s team conducted a new analysis of data captured between 2001 and 2010 of global satellite data collected daily by CERES satellite-based instruments, as well as upper ocean temperature measurements taken by expendable bathythermographs and more recently Argo floats.

They found that once these uncertainties had been factored in, along with considerable short-term variations known to result from temperature, cloud cover and humidity changes associated with El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO), the measurements were found to be in broad agreement.

What’s the saying, if you torture the data enough it will confess? And ACM old favourite David Karoly is crowing: (more…)

Source: talking about weather

When you’re a climate scientist on top of the world, using taxpayer dollars to socialize with your friends is easy. You just have to be careful to call the social events “symposiums.” What’s not easy, evidently, is using those same taxpayer dollars for beer and wine. Ah, the humanity!

An e-mail sent on June 16, 2008, from Ben Santer to Kevin Trenberth makes this painfully clear:

Anjuli has informed me that it will be possible to use up to $10,000 of my DOE Fellowship for the purpose of funding the Symposium. I’m assuming there may be DOE restrictions on using that money for purchasing wine and beer. I’ll check into this. (more…)

Source:  Wattsup

by Roy Spencer

LiveScience.com posted an article yesterday where the usual IPCC suspects (Gavin Schmidt, Kevin Trenberth, and Andy Dessler) dissed our recent paper in in the journal Remote Sensing.

Given their comments, I doubt any of them could actually state what the major conclusion of our paper was.

For example, Andy Dessler told LiveScience:

“He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct…”

Well, apparently Andy did not notice that those were OBSERVATIONS that disagreed with the IPCC climate models. And our model can quantitatively explain the disagreement. (more…)

Source: Forbes

Source:  C3 Headlines

Source:  IBD

Climate alarmists are now explaining away their failed predictions by claiming China’s power plants emit sulfur dioxide that cancels out carbon dioxide emissions. So should we burn more coal?

Among the emails unearthed during ClimateGate, when scientists working at or with Britain’s Climate Research Unit conspired to “hide the decline” in global temperatures, is one from Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research to Michael Mann, inventor of the now-discredited “hockey stick” graph that purported to show sudden and dangerous man-induced temperature rise. (more…)

Source:  SPPI

I would like to take as my text the following quote from the recent paper (PDF, 270k also on web here) by Dr. Kevin Trenberth:

Given that global warming is “unequivocal”, to quote the 2007 IPCC report, the null hypothesis should now be reversed, thereby placing the burden of proof on showing that there is no human influence [on the climate].

The “null hypothesis” in science is the condition that would result if what you are trying to establish is not true. For example, if your hypothesis is that air pressure affects plant growth rates, the null hypothesis is that air pressure has no effect on plant growth rates. Once you have both hypotheses, then you can see which hypothesis is supported by the evidence. (more…)

Source:  Wattsup

This is a row screencap from this Twitter page: http://twitter.com/scio11

It comes from the January 13-16th, 2011 Science Online conference held in the Research Triangle Park in Durham. Details at these URL’s

http://scienceonline2011.com/

http://scio11.wikispaces.com/

You can also follow us on Twitter – either the hashtag #scio11 or our official account @scio11

https://scio11.wikispaces.com/Program+Suggestions

This is the session under which those words were uttered:

“LESSONS FROM CLIMATEGATE”
“You guys have got to start fighting back” is the message many climatologists are hearing in the wake the slanderous attack on their integrity that has been called Swifthack, or Climategate. But for many scientists, fighting back means publishing a really good paper in a reputable journal. That doesn’t cut it anymore. How should scientists and their communicator allies go about planning a strategy? (more…)

Source:  American Thinker

By Norman Rogers

Can scientists become “Deadly Ninjas of Science Communication”?  That was proposed by Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War Against Science,” and a member of the board of directors of the American Geophysical Union.  Mooney advocated this idea in a presentation at the Union’s December 13-17 fall meeting in San Francisco.

Mooney is concerned that global warming skeptics are getting the upper hand in the ongoing debate.  Mooney has an unquestioning belief that disaster will overtake the world if we don’t mend our CO₂-emitting ways.  Many other speakers at the meeting, like Mooney, suggested that if scientists improved their communications skills, the skeptics could be defeated.

At the same fall meeting four years ago, Al Gore spoke to ten thousand assembled scientists.  The scientists treated him like a rock star.  Why would the scientists love Al Gore?  His movie, An Inconvenient Truth, was full of scientific errors.  But this is about not biting the hand that feeds you.  When Al Gore spreads global warming hysteria, financial and political support for climate science increases.  Scientists become guests on TV shows instead of lab drones.But a dark cloud is gathering over climate science.  Public fear of global warming is declining.  Most of the activist scientists gathered in San Francisco were blind to the possibility that there is any defect in their scary product.  It must be that forces of darkness (perhaps Republicans or coal companies) are financing skeptics.  Apparently the skeptics, cleverly disguised as grassroots activists, have an uncanny knack for propaganda. (more…)

Source:  Canada Free Press

By Dr. Tim Ball

Science must have accurate and adequate data. It’s the basis for producing or testing theories; without it results are meaningless. Inadequate data seriously limits climate research, but scientists and governments who manipulate it for political goals make it impossible. This occurs because most government weather and climate agencies work to create and confirm results of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

On Oct 14, 2009 Kevin Trenberth, member of the IPCC and leading member of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) group, wrote one of the leaked emails that exposed climate science corruption. He said, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.” He made similar comments back in 1999 on the release of the National Research Council (NRC) report on weather data. The press release reported, “Deficiencies in the accuracy, quality and continuity of the record….place serious limitations on the confidence in the research results.” Trenberth commented “It’s very clear we do not have a climate observing system…This may be a shock to many people who assume that we do know adequately what’s gong on with climate, but we don’t.” This didn’t stop him participating in IPCC and CRU research. (more…)

Source:  Quadrant on Line

by David Archibald

Edited extract: “Why did so many scientists get it wrong?” from David Archibald’s book - The Past and Future of Climate:

If the data and forecasts in this book are correct, then the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, the Royal Society in the United Kingdom, the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO in Australia are all wrong. How can this be? Firstly, there aren’t that many scientists involved in the IPCC deliberations. The inner core is possibly twenty souls. Secondly, they were untroubled by the necessity to concoct fraudulent data to get their desired results. The only unknown question regarding the IPCC scientists is “Did they actually believe in the global warming that they were promoting?” (more…)

by Paul Driessen and Dr. Willie Soon

Global warming alarmists have chosen the wrong part of the climate cycle to head north

First, American Ann Bancroft and Norwegian Liv Arnesen trekked off across the Arctic in the dead of the 2007 winter, “to raise awareness about global warming,” by showcasing the wide expanses of open water they were certain they would encounter. Instead, icy blasts drove temperatures inside their tent to -58 F, while outside the nighttime air plunged to -103 F.

Open water is rare at those temperatures, the intrepid explorers discovered. Facing frostbite, amputated toes and even death, the two were airlifted out 18 miles into their 530-mile expedition.

Next winter it was British swimmer and ecologist Lewis Gordon Pugh, who planned to breast-stroke across open Arctic seas. Same story. Then fellow Brit Pen Hadow gave it a go, but it was another no-go. (more…)

Source:  WeeklyStandard

By Steven F. Hayward

It is increasingly clear that the leak of the internal emails and documents of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in November has done for the climate change debate what the Pentagon Papers did for the Vietnam war debate 40 years ago-changed the narrative decisively. Additional revelations of unethical behavior, errors, and serial exaggeration in climate science are rolling out on an almost daily basis, and there is good reason to expect more. (more…)