Posts Tagged ‘global warming’

Global Cooling continues.

Sunday, February 16th, 2014

It is becoming more apparent that the earth is cooling in spite of continued leftist propaganda.

The first half of this year’s Northern Hemisphere (NH) winter season was especially brutal. December 2013 and January 2014 were the third-coldest Decembers and Januaries in the past 30 years averaged over the contiguous 48 United States, with temperatures plummeting to ?10°C in Atlanta and ?26°C in Chicago. Residents of North East India struggled with unusually severe snow and ?10°C temperatures without home heating. Snow and extreme cold also impacted the Kashmir Valley in India, where many elderly and very young people died of hypothermia. At the time of this writing, most of India is two to five degrees C colder than usual, a serious problem when 95% of all Indian homes lack central heating.

This has not deterred the alarmist camp which still believes the planet is warming due to human actions.

According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this shouldn’t be happening. The IPCC asserted in their Fourth Assessment Report (2007) that, as an impact of the carbon dioxide (CO2)-induced global warming that activists say is still going on:

There is likely to be a decline in the frequency of cold air outbreaks (i.e., periods of extreme cold lasting from several days to over a week) in NH winter in most areas.

The US administration is no better.

Yet, in his January 8 online video, Dr. John Holdren — President Obama’s Science and Technology advisor — explained that as a consequence of recent global warming that he maintains is occurring, the Arctic is warming roughly twice as fast as the mid-latitudes. This means that the temperature difference between the Arctic and the contiguous U.S is shrinking, thereby weakening the circumpolar vortex, a swirling mass of cold air that hovers over the Arctic. The result is that the boundaries of the vortex become wavier, allowing increased excursions of cold Arctic air into more southerly regions.

Of particularl concern are the warnings from solar scientists that over the next three decades, we are headed toward significant global cooling as the sun weakens into a grand minimum. The last time the sun was as weak as solar experts predict will occur starting after 2030, the Earth was in a particularly cold phase of the Little Ice Age that lasted from about 1350-1850, a period when there was great misery around the world.

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov of Russia’s Pulkovo Observatory in St. Petersburg warns:

After the maximum of solar Cycle 24, from approximately 2014, we can expect the start of the next bicentennial cycle of deep cooling with a Little Ice Age in 2055 plus or minus 11 years.

Dr Richard Lindzen, a well known climate scientist who doesn’t buy the warming hysteria Has teed off on the climate lobby.

MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot on September 27, 2013:

I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence. They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.

Their excuse for the absence of warming over the past 17 years is that the heat is hiding in the deep ocean. However, this is simply an admission that the models fail to simulate the exchanges of heat between the surface layers and the deeper oceans. However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability. Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.

The “Ocean Deep” theory has recently been proposed as an explanation.

Finally, in attributing warming to man, they fail to point out that the warming has been small, and totally consistent with there being nothing to be alarmed about. It is quite amazing to see the contortions the IPCC has to go through in order to keep the international climate agenda going.

Global cooling, as occurred during the The Little Ice Age, a period from 1300 to 1870, is far more dangerous.

maunder_minimum

The data in that graph ends at 2000. Since that year, the number of sunspots has sharply declined and is now approaching the Maunder Minimum.

index

The second graphic illustrates this.

The climate change debate should move away from unsubstantiated warming fears and focus instead on determining if the extreme cold of recent years is a precursor to significant global cooling. If it is, then reliable and inexpensive energy sources such as coal-fired electricity generation will become crucially important for our survival. The last thing we should be doing is closing down these stations in the questionable belief that we are helping to prevent global warming, a phenomenon that has already stopped all on its own.

Global warming trapped in ice

Friday, January 3rd, 2014

The global warming tourists got trapped in Antarctic ice last week.

russian ship

They were expecting much warmer conditions than 100 years ago when Mawson nearly lost his life there. They found that the sea ice was no more forgiving.

At least they had an easier time than the 2007 Shackelton trip.

sank_thumb

Operators had boasted that the Explorer—a ship only 82 yards (75 meters) in length with a shallow bottom and ice-hardened hull—could go places other vessels could not.

That one was a real bummer. They had high hopes but found unfriendly ice instead.

An Argentine rescue-and-command center received the first distress call at 12:30 a.m. ET Friday from the Explorer amid reports it was taking on water, despite efforts to use onboard pumps, said Captain Juan Pablo Panichini, an Argentine Navy spokesperson.

Throughout the day the ship listed heavily, its white superstructure and red hull starkly visible against the gray, choppy waters and overcast skies.

The Chilean Navy eventually lost sight of the ship, and wreckage indicated it had gone under completely, according to a navy press officer who declined to be identified in accordance with department policy.

Global Warming and Cooling.

Sunday, October 20th, 2013

I have been frustrated by the antics of the AGW alarmists. Scientific American, for example, has lost whatever reputation it once had for objective science. In an another example, the actions of Michael Mann should make for an interesting discovery in his suit against Mark Steyn.

Today, I find a nice discussion of global warming and cooling over the past epoch. The Greenland ice cores are, or should be, the gold standard of temperature measurement. For example.

Summary:
Records of past temperature, precipitation, atmospheric trace gases, and other aspects of climate and environment derived from ice cores drilled on glaciers and ice caps around the world. Parameter keywords describe what was measured in this data set. Additional summary information can be found in the abstracts of papers listed in the data set citations.

Now, to the data.

(more…)

Why opposition to the XL pipeline is insane.

Sunday, December 4th, 2011

We are on the cusp of a new era in energy production in North America. Soon, assuming the Obama administration is defeated next year, we will be independent of the increasingly unstable middle east for oil. We need nuclear energy for electricity production. That is the most efficient source for base electrical generation. For transportation, we need oil or natural gas. For home heating, natural gas is the most efficient as it can be supplied by pipelines embedded in the streets and serving each house in urban neighborhoods. Rural customers can be served by CNG or propane tanks on the property. Even solar panels may contribute in tropical settings like southern California (where I live) or Arizona.

The present political climate, especially that in California, is enamored of irrational environmentalist theories that are holding up efficient solution to problems. The ban on incandescent light bulbs is an example of irrational legislation that will, hopefully, be reversed, at least outside of California which is hopelessly infected with environmentalist nonsense.

We are facing a foreign policy catastrophe in the middle east where even Israel, our single ally, may go under, albeit in the gotterdammerung of nuclear war. The Obama people have tossed aside our ally in Egypt, Mubarak, as Jimmy Carter did the Shah. The results will be similar. We have no friendly governments in the middle east except Israel and the increasingly fearful Jordan. Turkey is gone as the government, now largely Islamist, is edging toward Iran in policy.

I am not an isolationist but we need to anticipate a world where we are surrounded by hostile regimes. Self sufficiency must be our policy and the delusions of environmentalism are dangerous. Those opposed to our use of energy resources should consider suicide to make room for those of us who want to enjoy the promise of American life. Drilling for oil in the Gulf has been seriously damaged by Obama as many of these expensive drill rigs have left the Gulf for other parts of the world and will not return any time soon. In fact, there is evidence that George Soros has invested in some of these rigs that are now positioning themselves off Brazil for the same deep water drilling techniques that were criticized by Obama acolytes when they were located in the Gulf of Mexico where they were shut down by Soros-beneficiary Obama.

The technique of “fracking” has been criticized by the same environmentalists who oppose all sources of energy independence. They, of course, oppose all forms of oil production. Wind and Solar, which they do support, are capable of producing less than 10% of all energy needed by our huge economy. That way lies economic suicide and one wonders at times if that is the purpose. Tom Clancy, who has done a very good job of predicting the technological future, including the use of a jetliner as a flying bomb, has a novel, called Rainbow Six that considers an environmentalist group so radical that they plan to kill most of the earth’s population, excepting themselves, of course. I sometimes wonder if he was too extreme in what he attributed to the radicals around Obama.

Global Warming and acupuncture

Thursday, June 16th, 2011

It looks as though the sun is entering a new dormant period, similar to the Maunder Minimum which led to the Little Ice Age.

This will almost certainly end the global warming hysteria in a few years. The people who continue to cling to this sort of hoax, will be looking for the Next Big Thing. I don’t mean to imply that the earth did not warm over the past century. The Little Ice Age ended about 1850 so a warming trend is expected following such an event. The hoax is the contrived evidence that humans are responsible. I was skeptical about that from the first. The forces involved are too large. If humans affected climate, it probably began with the development of agriculture. Perhaps we have had no ice age in the past 10,000 years because of the effects of agriculture and forest changes. I have previously discussed this and nothing has changed my mind.

The next question is what will replace global warming as the religion of the bored classes ? There are signs that it may be “New Age” medicine. This sort of thing is common in certain circles and has considerable similarity to the global warming arguments.

The Center for Integrative Medicine, Berman’s clinic, is focused on alternative medicine, sometimes known as “complementary” or “holistic” medicine. There’s no official list of what alternative medicine actually comprises, but treatments falling under the umbrella typically include acupuncture, homeopathy (the administration of a glass of water supposedly containing the undetectable remnants of various semi-toxic substances), chiropractic, herbal medicine, Reiki (“laying on of hands,” or “energy therapy”), meditation (now often called “mindfulness”), massage, aromatherapy, hypnosis, Ayurveda (a traditional medical practice originating in India), and several other treatments not normally prescribed by mainstream doctors. The term integrative medicine refers to the conjunction of these practices with mainstream medical care.

Here we have what may become the replacement for AGW in the minds of the exquisite privileged class. It has all the requirements.
1. America is corrupt and inferior ? Yes.
2. Capitalism is corrupt and inferior ? Yes
3. Only the truly intelligent and sensitive can appreciate it ? Well.

You might think the weight of the clinical evidence would close the case on alternative medicine, at least in the eyes of mainstream physicians and scientists who aren’t in a position to make a buck on it. Yet many extremely well-credentialed scientists and physicians with no skin in the game take issue with the black-and-white view espoused by Salzberg and other critics. And on balance, the medical community seems to be growing more open to alternative medicine’s possibilities, not less.

That’s in large part because mainstream medicine itself is failing. “Modern medicine was formed around successes in fighting infectious disease,” says Elizabeth Blackburn, a biologist at the University of California at San Francisco and a Nobel laureate. “Infectious agents were the big sources of disease and mortality, up until the last century. We could find out what the agent was in a sick patient and attack the agent medically.” To a large degree, the medical infrastructure we have today was designed with infectious agents in mind. Physician training and practices, hospitals, the pharmaceutical industry, and health insurance all were built around the model of running tests on sick patients to determine which drug or surgical procedure would best deal with some discrete offending agent. The system works very well for that original purpose, against even the most challenging of these agents—as the taming of the AIDS virus attests.

But medicine’s triumph over infectious disease brought to the fore the so-called chronic, complex diseases—heart disease, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, and other illnesses without a clear causal agent. Now that we live longer, these typically late-developing diseases have become by far our biggest killers. Heart disease, prostate cancer, breast cancer, diabetes, obesity, and other chronic diseases now account for three-quarters of our health-care spending. “We face an entirely different set of big medical challenges today,” says Blackburn. “But we haven’t rethought the way we fight illness.” That is, the medical establishment still waits for us to develop some sign of one of these illnesses, then seeks to treat us with drugs and surgery.

A science blog states the case for scientific medicine.

Speaking of bad ideas, in contrast to his previous article, in which he managed at least to get the gist of what Ioannidis teaches but merely spun it in what I considered to be an annoying fashion, the entire idea behind Freedman’s new article channels the worst fallacies of apologists for alternative medicine. The whole idea behind the article appears to be that, even if most of alternative medicine is quackery (which it is, by the way), it’s making patients better because its practitioners take the time to talk to patients and doctors do not. In other words, it’s a massive “What’s the harm?” argument. Yes, that’s basically the entire idea of the article boiled down into a couple of sentences. Deepak Chopra couldn’t have said it better. Tacked on to that bad idea is a massive argumentum ad populum that portrays alternative medicine (or, as purveyors of quackademic medicine like to call it, “complementary and alternative medicine” or “integrative medicine”) as the wave of the future, a wave that’s washing over medicine and teaching us cold, reductionistic doctors to care again about patients and thus make them better. Freedman even contrasts this to what he calls the “failure” of scientific medicine. I kid you not. Worse, Freedman makes this argument after having actually interviewed some prominent skeptics, including Steve Salzberg and Steve Novella, in essence, missing the point.

I expect to see more and more of “alternative medicine” because it appeals to the science illiterate and it damns another traditional source of authority, scientific medicine. Global warming hysteria attacks capitalism and prosperity. Alternative medicine is also going to be useful to Obamacare as a way of cutting reimbursement for traditional care. That will be a powerful wind behind it.

Is an ice age coming ?

Monday, December 20th, 2010

There is a great deal of argument about the reality of anthropogenic global warming. Al Gore is on one side and the weather seems to be on the other. People are even talking about the “Gore Effect.” This is unexpected cold weather that seems to follow Al Gore around. If he comes to town to give a speech about how the world is warming, expect a cold snap or even snow.

Right now, Britain, and much of Europe, are enduring a terrible winter. This has been called the worst winter in Britain in 100 years. The British Met Office predicted a warm winter. London, however, was prepared for snow. A lot of snow. The result has been that London has kept up quite well with the weather except for Heathrow Airport which has been closed for two days. Why did London city do better than Heathrow and most of the rest of Britain ?

The Mayor explains.
He uses a private weather forecaster who is getting more and more respect from people who have to know about the weather, like farmers and business people. And the Mayor of London.

Is it really true that no one saw this coming?

Actually, they did. Allow me to introduce readers to Piers Corbyn, meteorologist and brother of my old chum, bearded leftie MP Jeremy. Piers Corbyn works in an undistinguished office in Borough High Street. He has no telescope or supercomputer. Armed only with a laptop, huge quantities of publicly available data and a first-class degree in astrophysics, he gets it right again and again.

Back in November, when the Met Office was still doing its “mild winter” schtick, Corbyn said it would be the coldest for 100 years. Indeed, it was back in May that he first predicted a snowy December, and he put his own money on a white Christmas about a month before the Met Office made any such forecast. He said that the Met Office would be wrong about last year’s mythical “barbecue summer”, and he was vindicated. He was closer to the truth about last winter, too.

He seems to get it right about 85 per cent of the time and serious business people – notably in farming – are starting to invest in his forecasts. In the eyes of many punters, he puts the taxpayer-funded Met Office to shame. How on earth does he do it? He studies the Sun.
He looks at the flow of particles from the Sun, and how they interact with the upper atmosphere, especially air currents such as the jet stream, and he looks at how the Moon and other factors influence those streaming particles.

He takes a snapshot of what the Sun is doing at any given moment, and then he looks back at the record to see when it last did something similar. Then he checks what the weather was like on Earth at the time – and he makes a prophecy.

Many of us climate skeptics believe that the sun controls our weather and Piers Corbyn believes that the last three winters could be the harbinger of a mini ice age that could be upon us by 2035, and that it could start to be colder than at any time in the last 200 years. He goes on to speculate that a genuine ice age might then settle in, since an ice age is now cyclically overdue.”

Are we now in a Dalton Minimum ?

Well, it doesn’t look good. How long before the climate science people open their eyes ?

it is a full two years since the month of solar minimum, this was a good opportunity to update a lot of graphs of solar activity.

Read the whole thing.

Global Warming Research Must Become More Transparent, UK Report Says

Tuesday, March 30th, 2010

Crossposted

By Bradley J. Fikes

Thanks to Watts Up With That?, which provided the UK parliamentary report on the Climategate global warming scandal in PDF.

Inevitably, the report will be spun according to whatever political views one holds. Those who back AGW will probably say it vindicates Phil Jones and the other University of East Anglia’ Climatic Research Unit scientists, because it finds no evidence that the science is false. Global warming skeptics will say the report provides evidence that the scientists’ practices were inadequate and need to be improved.

Of course, these interpretations can both be true. It’s like the dueling claims that global temperatures in the last decade are the highest recorded, and that there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995, or that there’s still a question about whether the Medieval Warm Period some thousand years ago could have been warmer than the present.

It all depends on which facts you emphasize.

Doublethink

However, the report is rather ambiguous on the evidence. in fact, it smacks of doublespeak and doublethink:

From Page 50, a troublesome paragraph:
“In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”. It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.”

So, the report says:
“We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that ‘global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity’.”.

That seems clear enough. But in the very next sentence the troublesome paragraph states:
“It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.”

So the report authors say there’s no reason to challenge the scientific consensus on global warming, but they didn’t seek evidence on CRU’s science. And anyway, examining the consensus view is the job of the Scientific Appraisal Panel.

With such clarity in writing, you can see why they’re in government.

Associated Press Saves The Day

An Associated Press article by Raphael G. Satter ignores the contradiction in favor of a pro-AGW interpretation. That’s much easier for readers than pointing out the report’s flaws.

Of course, as a professional reporter for the AP, Satter is beyond bias. He’s just telling it like he sees it — the facts just always seem to come out in favor of global warming activism, which has nothing to do whatsoever with any personal agenda. Even in the unlikely event that the vast majority of journalists were well to the left of the American public, you’d never detect a hint of it in their objective reporting.

Just to show how totally fair Satter and AP are in covering global warming, here’s part of an earlier Satter “news” article on a petition blitz organized by the UK’s Met office to drum up political support for AGW activism.

A typically unbiased AP story on global warmingA typically unbiased AP story on global warming

Click the photo for more unbiased AP global warming reporting.Hiding evidence

Just to recap, here’s the troublesome paragraph in the report, with the confusing stuff AP has helpfully omitted in boldface:

“In addition, insofar as we have been able to consider accusations of dishonesty—for example, Professor Jones’s alleged attempt to “hide the decline”—we consider that there is no case to answer. Within our limited inquiry and the evidence we took, the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact. We have found no reason in this unfortunate episode to challenge the scientific consensus as expressed by Professor Beddington, that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity”. It was not our purpose to examine, nor did we seek evidence on, the science produced by CRU. It will be for the Scientific Appraisal Panel to look in detail into all the evidence to determine whether or not the consensus view remains valid.

Highlighted -- the confusing stuff AP doesn't think you should know.Highlighted — the confusing stuff AP doesn’t think you should know.

And here’s Satter’s deft editing of that troublesome paragraph:

In their report, the committee said that, as far as it was able to ascertain, “the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact,” adding that nothing in the more than 1,000 stolen e-mails, or the controversy kicked up by their publication, challenged scientific consensus that “global warming is happening and that it is induced by human activity.”

A masterful job of editing out inconvenient truthA masterful job of editing out inconvenient truth

Isn’t it easier to understand when the narrative is predigested?

The Total Exoneration of Phil Jones And CRU*
*If you don’t pay attention to those emails about hiding and destroying data, which is totally acceptable practice among climate scientists.

Now let’s look at the second paragraph of Satter’s article, and then look again at the report.
Satter writes:

“The House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee said Wednesday that they’d seen no evidence to support charges that the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit or its director, Phil Jones, had tampered with data or perverted the peer review process to exaggerate the threat of global warming — two of the most serious criticisms levied against the climatologist and his colleagues.”

On pages 26-28, the report details allegations that the CRU violated the Freedom of Information Act, quoting from emails by Phil Jones and others.

This excerpt from a Phil Jones email to Michael Mann is on Page 26:
At 09:41 AM 2/2/2005, Phil Jones wrote:
Mike,[…]Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of
Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that. IPR should be relevant here, but I can see me getting into an argument with someone at UEA who’ll say we must adhere to it !. […]

The report then discusses these and other examples of emails that ask for research data to be hidden from skeptics.
On page 32, the report states:

It seems to us that both sides have a point. There is prima facie evidence that CRU has breached the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It would, however, be premature, without a thorough investigation affording each party the opportunity to make representations, to conclude that UEA was in breach of the Act. In our view, it is unsatisfactory to leave the matter unresolved simply because of the operation of the six- month time limit on the initiation of prosecutions. Much of the reputation of CRU hangs on the issue. We conclude that the matter needs to be resolved conclusively— either by the Independent Climate Change Email Review or by the Information Commissioner.

In other words, just because a bunch of scientists wrote emails to each other discussing the hiding or destruction of data to keep it from skeptics doesn’t necessarily means FOIA was breached. Or maybe it does. Let’s not be hasty about this. We’ll kick the can down the road and let someone else handle it.

Satter disposes of this complexity nicely.

Phil Willis, the committee’s chairman, said of the e-mails that “there’s no denying that some of them were pretty appalling.” But the committee found no evidence of anything beyond “a blunt refusal to share data,” adding that the idea that Jones was part of a conspiracy to hide evidence that weakened the case for global warming was clearly wrong.

So according to Satter, this email from Jones to Michael Mann isn’t evidence of a conspiracy to hide evidence that would weaken the case for global warming:

Just sent loads of station data to Scott. Make sure he documents everything better this time! And don’t leave stuff lying around on ftp sites – you never know who is trawling them. The two MMs have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone. Does your similar act in the US force you to respond to enquiries within 20 days? – our does ! The UK works on precedents, so the first request will test it. We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind. Tom Wigley has sent me a worried email when he heard about it – thought people could ask him for his model code. He has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that.

Obviously this email is totally innocent of unethical intent. It’s customary for climate scientists to be “worried” about FOIA requests and “hide behind” excuses not to honor them. Why should climate scientists share data with skeptics? They’re just trying to find something wrong with it! Real scientists should only share data with trusted colleagues, and keep the “dirty laundry” away from skeptics.

But the report insists on once again injecting doubt into what should be a total exoneration of these totally ethical scientists who would never, ever, practice deception or break the law.


In our view, it is unsatisfactory to leave the matter unresolved simply because of the operation of the six- month time limit on the initiation of prosecutions. Much of the reputation of CRU hangs on the issue. We conclude that the matter needs to be resolved conclusively— either by the Independent Climate Change Email Review or by the Information Commissioner.

All sarcasm aside, I’ll say one thing in favor of Satter and the Associated Press: The story included a link to the report, so people could read it for themselves.

AP's link to the UK parliament's reportAP’s link to the UK parliament’s report

Unfortunately, this is the message I got when clicking the link: http://bit.ly/c4VfsY

The AP's link to the reportThe AP’s link to the report

Surprisingly, those crazy climate denialist at Watts Up With That? managed to get a copy and even correctly posted it on their server.

Oh, that’s just the blogosphere. Everyone knows the news is defined by what professional journalistic outlets like AP cover, because they have an unimpeachable record of accuracy.

A consensus about what?

And what is this scientific “consensus” of which they speak? In the report, the consensus quoted on page 46 states that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity’.”

That definition is most interesting for what it doesn’t mention. No mention of carbon dioxide or greenhouse gases. It doesn’t even say how much warming is taking place, or whether it’s dangerous.

As a global warming skeptic, I find little objectionable in that bare-bones definition of “consensus.”

There is indeed strong evidence of human influence on climate, such as in the Himalayan glaciers. Research has found the glacial melting is almost entirely (90 percent) caused by soot and other aerosol particulates. Unfortunately for the alarmists, greenhouse gases are not aerosols.

The “global” aspect of this “consensus” definition is about the only thing I would take exception to. I don’t think this is conclusively proven. And someone tell the committee that prepared the report that “global warming” is out of fashion. The politically correct description is “climate change,” because it allows for both unusually hot and cold changes to be attributed to human influence.

But let’s say there is some global human warming influence. It’s quite plausible that human-produced aerosols, changes in land use or greenhouse gas emissions have some warming effect on global temperatures. But is the influence overwhelming, somewhat important, or minor in comparison with natural climate fluctuations? And what is the relative importance of these human-created warming influences? The quoted “consensus” definition doesn’t say.

What global warming skeptics like myself really object to is the hysterical we-stand-to-get-fried apocalyptic demonization of CO2 and the Draconian measures proposed to combat this unproven menace. But don’t expect most of the mainstream media reporters, who have swallowed the global warming Kool-Aid, to note the difference.

Such is the slippery, Janus-faced use of language about “consensus” by global warming alarmists.

Even Phil Jones now admits that a lot of warming isn’t due to CO2 after all, according to the UK Guardian.

But for the first time he did concede publicly that when he tried to repeat the 1990 study in 2008, he came up with radically different findings. Or, as he put it, “a slightly different conclusion”. Fully 40% of warming there in the past 60 years was due to urban influences. “It’s something we need to consider,” he said.

What’s not in the report
For a supposedly exhaustive investigation into whether CRU scientists unethically tried to suppress skeptical research, the report leaves a lot out.
Here’s one Climategate email from a scientist, Keith Briffa, seeking help about reviewing a skeptical paper. You can see that Briffa meticulously follows the norms of peer review as practiced in climate science.

From: Keith Briffa
To: Edward Cook
Subject: Re: Review- confidential REALLY URGENT
Date: Wed Jun 4 13:42:54 2003

I am really sorry but I have to nag about that review – Confidentially I now need a hard and if required extensive case for rejecting – to support Dave Stahle’s and really as soon as you can. Please
Keith

And returning the scientific courtesy ….
(email portion from Briffa omitted)
Hi Keith,
Okay, today. Promise! Now something to ask from you. Actually somewhat important too. I got a paper to review (submitted to the Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Sciences), written by a Korean guy and someone from Berkeley, that claims that the method of reconstruction that we use in dendroclimatology (reverse regression) is wrong, biased, lousy, horrible, etc. They use your Tornetrask recon as the main whipping boy. I have a file that you gave me in 1993 that comes from your 1992 paper. Below is part of that file. Is this the right one? Also, is it possible to resurrect the column headings? I would like to play with it in an effort to refute their claims. If published as is, this paper could really do some damage. . .

Isn’t the impartiality of climate science peer review a beautiful thing to behold?

Now, on to the news coverage:

Bloomberg says:
U.K. Climate Science ‘Damaged’ by Leaked E-Mails, Lawmakers Say

Canada’s National Post says
‘Climategate’ scientists didn’t manipulate data: lawmakers

The UK Independent says:
Climate change scandal: MPs exonerate professor

The UK Daily Mail says
Climategate university condemned for ‘unacceptable culture of secrecy’

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer says
House of Commons: No “Climategate”

Eureferendum says
It was never going to be any different

Climate Progress says
House of Commons exonerates Phil Jones

Uncommon Sense On Global Warming

Monday, March 29th, 2010

Crossposted

By Bradley J. Fikes

The Breakthrough Institute is a rarity among progressive think tanks: It repudiates the scare tactics, along with exaggeration and spin used by most left-wing lobbying groups, such as the deceptively named Union of Concerned “Scientists” and Center for American Progress.

This think tank members, such as Roger Pielke, Jr., recognize that the hard work of global warming skeptics is not necessarily “anti-science,” but represents a differing viewpoint that has been shut out of scientific discussion in favor of a phony consensus, driven by the politics of demonization instead of rational discussion. People like Steve McIntyre, (shown in cartoon below), have helped bring down that consensus, although the worst damage has been done by the global warming activists themselves.

The fearsome, well-funded global warming skeptic movement.The fearsome, well-funded global warming skeptic movement.

Now two of the Breakthrough Institute’s leaders have called for environmentalist organizations to abandon the 20-year quest to push all their interests, such as reducing energy consumption, under the global warming mantra. They want these subjects to be discussed on their own merits, without the global warming fear tactics. And I wholeheartedly concur.

Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus write in Yale 360 that not only have the wheels come off the supposedly invincible global warming juggernaut, but that the wreckage threatens other environmentalist goals. In short, the hysterical rhetoric has lost credibility with the public. Even some mainstream media reporters are experiencing synaptic activity over facts that have been obvious for months, if not years.

They write:

“While the urge to blame fossil-fuel-funded skeptics for this recent bad turn of events has proven irresistible for most environmental leaders and pundits, forward-looking greens wishing to ascertain what might be salvaged from the wreckage would be well advised to look closer to home. Climate science, even at its most uncontroversial, could never motivate the remaking of the entire global energy economy. Efforts to use climate science to threaten an apocalyptic future should we fail to embrace green proposals, and to characterize present-day natural disasters as terrifying previews of an impending day of reckoning, have only served to undermine the credibility of both climate science and progressive energy policy.”

Amen to that. Shameless appeals to fear don’t work any more. Many environmental goals are worthy in their own right, but they’ve been tainted as propaganda vehicles for global warming. Scientists are pressured to bring their research into line with the so-called consensus, prostituting the integrity of science. Even zoos and aquariums have been turned into propaganda vehicles.

At last, the dirty secret is out. While global warming activists claim to be motivated by science, their true agenda is enacting their far-left, anti-business agenda. Rational environmentalists are wise to keep their distance from them.

Earth Hour’s California Power Failure

Sunday, March 28th, 2010

Crossposted

By Bradley J. Fikes

UPDATED at end of post.

The news media has stuffed us with a surfeit of naive, boosterish articles about the importance of Earth Hour, that self-congratulatory expression of feel-good environmental chic and global warming hype.

Leave it to the relentlessly factual Anthony Watts to illuminate what really happened in the eco-center of environmentalism, California: Nothing. Zip. Zilch, zero, nada.

According to power consumption records from the California Independent System Operator, the much-heralded Earth Hour made no perceptible difference in energy consumption. Below is a graph illustrating the great non-effect of Earth Hour:
earthhour2010

Watts writes:

If there was a big effect from Earth Hour, you’d see a step event like the street lights at 7AM as everybody turned off their home lights in California at 8:30PM (2030). Plus, the greens don’t seem to realize that no power plants get switched off, so there’s really no CO2 savings. The power plants are run based on demand forecast. Short term spikes from well intentioned stunts really don’t make a blip of difference to CO2 emissions.

Earth Hour is a failure in California and according to Richard North at the EU Referendum, a failure in Britain too.

It’s nice to see some real fact-checking taking place in the blogosphere, while the media’s faithful acolytes of the Church Of Global Warming continue to emit information pollution.

What did I do during Earth Hour? I was busy replacing old fluorescent lights at home. I celebrate the modern conveniences of life, and reject meaningless, atavistic stunts like Earth Hour — regardless of how wholeheartedly some people comply with it.

North Korea is so enviro-friendly, it observes Earth Hour continually!North Korea is so enviro-friendly, it observes Earth Hour continually!

UPDATE: Some in the media get it about this political event.
From the UK Telegraph

It’s time for “Earth Hour”, a pointless, hypocritical and silly stunt organised by the WWF in which people turn off their lights and other appliances and delude themselves into thinking they’ve made a difference. So here goes.
Click.
Click.
Where’s the oven switch? Ah, yes. Click.
Nearly forgot the loo! This one’s on a cord. Done!
Now to turn up the stereo.
Telly on, though sound off.
Laptop one: already on.
Laptop two: booting up now.
And why not the printer? Done.
Maybe my electricity bill will be a pound or two higher. And, of course, I won’t have shortened the planet’s life by a nanosecond, any more than the thousands of Guardian readers, Lib Dems, sad celebs, smug tech journalists and poor brainwashed children will have made a difference.
Still, if this is “Earth Hour”, might as well be able to see it properly, no?”

And while people have their lights and computers on, they might find it interesting to read about how the UN’s IPCC and other global warming activists have biased their “science” toward global warming alarmism.

Learning about the fallacies of that political movement would be a much more productive use of their time than mindlessly turning out the lights and holding candles to honor the anti-science political agenda of Earth Hour.

UPDATE X2
While Watts disdains political stunts like Earth Hour, he’s all in favor of rational energy conservation, and carries it out in his daily life. His latest home project was installing a new kind of LED that emits more pleasing, less harsh light. He’s installed some compact fluorescent lights, but doesn’t like their drawbacks, such as their use of mercury, and their often-poor quality.

I do much of the same energy-conservation lighting in my home, although the only LEDs I use now are night lights. I use no incandescents, not even in the refrigerator. And I’ve also found that most CFLs don’t live up to their promise. The ones that are heavily subsidized by utilities often are of the el cheapo variety, and don’t last long. In my home, I use a few of the better CFLs, but mostly rely on the regular 48? tube fluorescents — plenty of them. My vision is not the best, and I like being able to see where I’m going and what I’m doing.

Today, there are a plethora of low-mercury tube fluorescents that give off light tailored to most environments. A warmer hue is good for bathrooms, bedrooms and living rooms. I use the daylight-simulating kind in my home office. And at my desk there, I use a lamp with an extremely bright CFL from Feit Electronics, model BPESL23TM/D. The color temp of 6500 provides great contrast. It provides the illumination of a 100-watt incandescent using just 23 watts. And it emits a lot less heat than an equivalent incandescent, an important consideration in warm weather.

The proof of savings is in my electric bill, which most of the year is less than $30 a month.

Your mileage may vary. Some people prefer to use incandescents, and I say (no pun intended), more power to them. Such domestic decisions should be a matter of personal choice, not controlled by conformity-enforcing eco-fascists and their job-killing parasitical political hacks.

Technology is supposed to improve our lives. I’d rather use the same amount of light, or more, and consume less electricity year-round, than give up the blessings of electrical light and take a symbolic plunge back into the Dark Ages.

Gerald R. North Attacks Bloggers At Panel On Global Warming Research

Friday, February 19th, 2010

(Crossposted)

By Bradley J. Fikes

The leak of Climategate emails is part of a campaign of “vilification” waged by skeptical bloggers against climate science, influential climate researcher Gerald R. North said Friday.Slide from Gerald R. North's presentation

Slide from Gerald North’s presentation at Friday AAAS panel

North, of Texas A&M University, was part of a panel on Climategate and the proper conduct of scientific research at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual convention, held this year in San Diego.

North said skeptical bloggers have harassed climate scientists with demands for data, assisted in their efforts at times by “energy-friendly members of Congress”.
But despite blogger harassment and potential misuse of data, North said scientists should be open and share their data, even with nonscientists, as part of good scientific practice and building public trust.
North defended global warming research as by and large accurate, repeating highlights of a report from the National Academy of Sciences, produced by a team chaired by North. Condensed copies of the report, “Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years,” were distributed at the panel discussion.
North said global temperatures in the last few decades are the highest they’ve been in 700 years and that it is “plausible” that the warmth exceeded that of any time in the last 1,000 years.
But these scientists have been troubled by unfair attacks and repeated demands for data from various blogger skeptics, North said, whom he did not name.
The “hacked emails” that triggered Climategate and the investigations of climate scientists Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia in Britain and Michael Mann of Penn State University are “phase 2″ of the “vilification” according to a slide North showed.
North said climate scientists face an “asymmetry” in responding to attacks from blogger skeptics, because the attacks were outside the norms of scientific criticism, including demands that the global warming researchers commit suicide.
“That is a big challenge for us,” North said, because researchers are uncertain of how to respond to blogger requests and challenges.
“Sometime you answer, and you think you’re being helpful to someone, and they turn right around and do harm,” North said. “Should we share data with persons … who might misuse the data? I’m inclined to make everything available.”
Other panelists were noted evolutionary biologist Francisco J. Ayala, Sheila Jasanoff, a professor of science and technology studies at Harvard, and Philip A. Sharp, a Nobel prize-winning geneticist.
Jasanoff devoted most of her talk to describing the context of science in society, and how that relationship has changed.
While once scientists could reasonably demand to be left alone, massive public funding of science makes that no longer an option, she said.
Jasonoff only touched lightly over the Climategate emails, which cover a 13-year span up to November, 2009.
“We know they’re 10 years old,” Jasanoff said. “How do you make use of 10-year-old stuff?”
The statement about the emails’ age parallels similarly incorrect statements made by former Democratic vice president Al Gore.
The panel did not include any global warming skeptics.

UPDATE: Chris Mooney has a blog post on the discussion. As an AGW believer who says we “stand to get fried” if we don’t act, Mooney’s opinion is quite different from mine. I think AGW science need to be re-studied and errors and bias need to be removed. Some of it may be true, but as we have seen in the last few months, AGW activists have made major claims that turn out to be ungrounded.
In particular, the fad of blaming every climate trend on CO2 is distorting science. In some of the most spectacular examples of the supposed effects of AGW, CO2 is at best a minor player. The main culprits are local, not global.
Mooney writes: “I get the sense that scientists and their institutions are so concerned over what has occurred in the past few months that there are going to be very real changes made, so as to ensure that better defenses of science are mounted in the future.”


I hope these “better defenses” emphasize openness and transparency, and promptly admitting and correcting errors with humility and without anger or defensiveness. If they are just more politicized advocacy efforts that don’t take skeptical views seriously, the efforts will fail.

Let’s have a mature discussion of differences of opinion on global warming science, and leave out the politicized attacks and name-calling.