More Scientists Dissent - Blizzard Stops Warming Activist - Crucifix replaced by wind turbine? - Climate activists Propose Bet - Round Up
Another scientist dissents from climate fear: Warming claims 'scientifically insupportable' (May 2008 issue of Skeptic Magazine)
By Patrick Frank, a Ph.D. chemist with more than 50 peer-reviewed articles.
Excerpt: So the bottom line is this: When it comes to future climate, no one knows what they’re talking about. No one. Not the IPCC nor its scientists, not the US National Academy of Sciences, not the NRDC or National Geographic, not the US Congressional House leadership, not me, not you, and certainly not Mr. Albert Gore. […] But there is no falsifiable scientific basis whatever to assert this warming is caused by human-produced greenhouse gasses because current physical theory is too grossly inadequate to establish any cause at all. Nevertheless, those who advocate extreme policies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions inevitably base their case on GCM projections, which somehow become real predictions in publicity releases. […] General Circulation Models are so terribly unreliable that there is no objectively falsifiable reason to suppose any of the current warming trend is due to human-produced CO2, or that this CO2 will detectably warm the climate at all. Therefore, even if extreme events do develop because of a warming climate, there is no scientifically valid reason to attribute the cause to human-produced CO2. In the chaos of Earth’s climate, there may be no discernible cause for warming.39 Many excellent scientists have explained all this in powerful works written to defuse the CO2 panic,40 but the choir sings seductively and few righteous believers seem willing to entertain disproofs.
http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/featured_articles/v14n01_climate_of_belief.html
Update: U.S. Senate Report of Over 400 Scientists GROWS – Nearing 500 Dissenting scientists, as more declare skepticism everyday!
Excerpt: Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
Environmentalism Replaces Christianity? - 'The Crucifix has been replaced by the wind turbine'
Excerpt: Dr Macfie criticized what he claimed was a lack of objective, evidenced-based research in environmental science. Dr Macfie likened what he called "environmental activism" to a new religion infecting science. "The crucifix has been replaced by the wind turbine," he said.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23657735-2702,00.html
Blizzards force global warming activist to abandon Greenland trek
Excerpt: South African snow adventurer Correne Erasmus-Coetzer has been forced to abandon her dream of becoming the first African woman to cross the icy continent of Greenland on foot. The dream came to an end this week when the expedition of nine men and women came up against a ferocious wind and snow storm, and rapidly dwindling food supplies, as they approached the quarter-way mark of their 550km slog from the east to west coast of Greenland, across the Arctic Circle. […] Erasmus-Coetzer said the conditions in Greenland were worse than anything she had experienced during previous expeditions to the North and the South Poles.It was a bit like "walking in milk" she said, explaining that the sky was full of snow and this made it impossible to distinguish between the horizon and the sky. For nearly three days the expedition had been snowed-in by icy, gale-force winds which tore against their tents.There was no sun to charge her solar-powered phone and her sleeping bag was sopping wet.
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=139&art_id=vn20080509063053890C173182
Climate Activists in panic over peer-reviewed study finding ‘Global Warming Will Stop’- Warming Takes a Break for Nearly 20 Years? (See LINK for more info on original study)
Reuters: Global cooling theories put scientists on guard [Note: Reuters asserts skeptics are in the minority? Please see this full Senate report to easily debunk this claim: LINK]
Excerpt: The reaction to the Nature paper has underlined uncertainty about climate forecasting, as well as the fact that a minority of global warming doubters has not gone away. A new study suggesting a possible lull in manmade global warming has raised fears of a reduced urgency to battle climate change. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a group of hundreds of scientists, last year said global warming was "unequivocal" and that manmade greenhouse gas emissions were "very likely" part of the problem. And while the study published in the journal Nature last week did not dispute manmade global warming, it did predict a cooling from recent average temperatures through 2015, as a result of a natural and temporary shift in ocean currents. The IPCC predicted global temperature increases this century of 1.8 to 4 degrees Celsius. So the Nature paper has sparked worries that briefly cooler temperatures may take the heat out of action to fight the threat of more droughts and floods, while a debate about the article's findings has also underlined uncertainty about such forecasting. […]Gary Yohe, climate scientist at Wesleyan University in Connecticut, said that opponents of tougher action on global warming in the United States had seized on the Nature report as a sign that climate change was slowing down. Bjorn Lomborg, the Danish author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist", said a slowdown in warming might help governments focus on smarter, long-term solutions rather than being panicked into action.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUKL0982254220080509?sp=true
Climate Bet! Activists at RealClimate.org Angry at Peer-reviewed study showing ‘Global Warming Will Stop’
Excerpt: Here’s how the Realclimate bloggers set up the bet: The bet we propose is very simple and concerns the specific global prediction in their Nature article. If the average temperature 2000-2010 (their first forecast) really turns out to be lower or equal to the average temperature 1994-2004 (*), we will pay them € 2500. If it turns out to be warmer, they pay us € 2500. This bet will be decided by the end of 2010. […] To be fair, the bet needs an escape clause in case a big volcano erupts or a big meteorite hits the Earth and causes cooling below the 1994-2004 level. In this eventuality, the forecast of Keenlyside et al. could not be verified any more, and the bet is off.
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/betting-on-warming-or-cooling/
Commentary: The bully children have taken over at RealClimate.org! (From Global Warming Fact or Fiction website)
Excerpt: At one time I thought RealClimate.org was populated by scientists that were trying to explain complicated science. I guess I was wrong, it is run by children that want to show that they can beat up on others. What’s next from Mssrs. Rahmstorf, Mann, Bradley, Connolley, Archer, and Ammann? Will they defend Vice President Al Gore’s recent comments that the massive deaths in Myanmar are due to global warming? […] “…their latest article is reprehensible or at least foolish. I commented on their site but I don’t expect that my criticisms will survive their moderation. If they do publish it, I am sure their many supporters will condemn me. […] To save you the effort of clicking over to their site, 6 of their author panel has challenged the authors of a Nature magazine article to a bet of 2500 Euros if their prediction is not true. They even taunt the scientists to say that surely if they are at least 50% confident in their predictions that this would be easy money. I find this post to be at best foolish and at worst reprehensible. To make the claim that if someone doesn’t accept a silly bet that they must not believe in their published article is childish. I would expect the same behavior from 10 year old boys on the playground. I am sure that the multiple authors of this challenge thought that this would be a good idea in the heat of the moment but I hope that they have the maturity to realize that it was poor judgment after a few nights sleep and pull this ludicrous article. Is the new standard that all scientific articles should be judged by in the future? The scientist must not only put his reputation on the line by publishing the article for all to review and discuss but also must be willing to accept all monetary bets that dissenters throw out? To think that this site actually condemned others for paid speaking engagements in NYC a few weeks back. Where is the “discussing ideas and data in order to advance scientific understanding” (their words from their Jan 30 post). Is 2500 Euros the market rate for a challenge? While I don’t have the personal resources to cover the bet, would the authors of RealClimate.org take the bet for 50 million Euros? Since it is obvious that they believe their predictions more than 50%, this would be a lifestyle changing gift. […] Go to RealClimate.org and tell them that this “bet” idea is foolish and they should be ashamed of themselves. Maybe then they will get the hint and stick with discussing science.
More climate alarm stripped away: Sea Level Rising Slower
Excerpt: We see a rise in sea level that is below the estimate of the IPCC and we see no acceleration through the past five decades. Basically, nothing seems to be happening with sea level that is remotely out of the ordinary. IPCC certainly seems to be exaggerating the best estimate of sea level rise, and it make us wonder what else they might be exaggerating. [...] “The present study indicates that the estimates for the north Indian Ocean are consistent with global estimates, though somewhat lower.” Imagine that — once someone collects data in their part of the world, they seem to conclude that sea level is rising at a rate slower than the rate reported by the IPCC. [...] As we have covered many times in the past, sea level is certainly rising – of course, it has been rising for the past 10,000 years. During the last glacial period, sea level dropped 400 feet as water was tied up in ice, and as we have moved out of the cold glacial period, sea level has recovered. The question for climate change experts is not “Is sea level rising” but rather “Is sea level rise accelerating?”
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/05/06/slower-sea-level-rise/
Carbon Dioxide and the "Climate Crisis" - Reality or Illusion? - An Investigative Documentary by CO2Science
Excerpt: A new DVD -- Carbon Dioxide and the "Climate Crisis" - Reality or Illusion? (copyright © 2008 CO2Science) -- explores this perplexing problem through an insightful review of numerous scientific studies that have been largely ignored by the world's climate alarmists, and by illuminating commentary provided by a number of researchers who have spent the better parts of their careers studying the many facets of this complex subject.
http://www.co2science.org/video/ClimateCrisis.php
UN IPCC Lead Author Admits 'I am skeptical that [dealing with climate change] is going to make money'
Nice to see them finally admit it.
Excerpt: Here is what William Pizer, an economist at Resources for the Future and a lead author on the most recent report from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said at a symposium earlier this week here in Washington: "As an economist, I am skeptical that [dealing with climate change] is going to make money. You'll have new industries, but they'll be doing what old industries did but a higher net cost.... You'll be depleting other industries." Of course, many economists will recognize "the green is good for growth" trap that Obama and Clinton have stumbled into. It's just a modern iteration of the famous "broken windows fallacy" where people mistake the shifting of wealth and resources for the creation of new wealth and resources.
http://www.worldaffairsboard.com/political-discussions/44486-climate-change-economics.html
Propaganda-driven kids attack think tank - 'We are going to tell you about global warming … you horrible people'
Excerpt: Students at a California public school have written a series of letters to Chicago's Heartland Institute, which works to discover and develop free-market solutions to society's problems, attacking its members for "destroying our planet" by refusing to endorse the politics of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" film.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63764
UK Escapes the 'Green' Version of Marxism, For Now
Excerpt: In its report, the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) said the carbon trading scheme had an "inherent fairness", as everyone would get the same allowance. .But a government report said the scheme would cost up to £2 billion to set up and seemed like a "big brother" idea....However, Defra, which carried out interviews with 92 people, also found a "strong lack of trust in the government in doing this and a reluctance for individuals to have to contribute financially". One respondent said: "Just straight away it reminds me of going back to the war and rationing."
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/003034.html
Climatologist: 'You cannot find a record of any length, of any time period in the history of the earth where CO2 causes temperature to increase'
Excerpt: a global warming skeptic says it will do absolutely nothing to reverse climate change. “Like all the other concerns about CO2 it's a waste of money,” said Dr. Timothy Ball, a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. “CO2 isn't a problem,” says Ball. “It's probably the biggest misdirection in the history of science.” Ball is among a growing number of climatologists who question the validity of manmade global warming. “You cannot find a record of any length, of any time period in the history of the earth,” Ball said, “where CO2 causes temperature to increase.”
http://www.khon2.com/home/ticker/18715674.html
German scientist Ernst-Georg Beck debunks rising CO2 fears
Excerpt: Since the last 200 years the atmospheric CO2 concentration was three times as high as today, lastly since 1925 to 1950. The average CO2 concentration in the 19th century was 321 ppm, not 280. An additional greenhouse effect as postulated is purely speculative and do not exist at the moment. Within the last 10 years global temperature was falling and CO2 is rising. The combination of civilisation and climate (weather) is a political construction and non- scientific [7]. The statement shows: they do not know. Because the weather is not under control we cannot calculate it within a projected time (climate). Warm eras come and go repeatedly, the last one happened during 1920 and 1940.
http://www.schmanck.de/7pikeng.htm
Europe threatens carbon tax on Third World
Excerpt: the European Union (eu) is mulling a “controversial” greenhouse gas reduction plan, through which it will impose a carbon tax on goods imported from countries with no emission curbs under the Kyoto regime. The tariff, seen as a threat to international trade, is part of eu’s “carbon equalization system”. India has opposed the move to impose such a tax. […] The us government too is not in favour of such tariff. According to media reports, the us will stoutly resist calls for any form of trade protectionism as a response to climate change. However, the country had tried to introduce carbon taxes earlier. A proposal to this effect was drafted as part of America's Climate Security Act, 2007. Under the act, importers of certain greenhouse gas-intensive goods would be required to follow the same emission limits as American companies. The bill is being discussed at present.
http://www.downtoearth.org.in/full6.asp?foldername=20080515&filename=news&sec_id=4&sid=11
Peer-reviewed study finds Antarctic fails to warm as climate models predicted
[Note: The real world data continues to debunk the models. See this for report on inconvenient developments for promoters of man-made climate far in 2008 alone. Also see: Media Hype on ‘Melting’ Antarctic Ignores Record Ice Growth ]
April 5 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters
Excerpt: Antarctica hasn't warmed as much over the last century as climate models had originally predicted, a new study finds. […] Monaghan and his team found that while climate models projected temperature increases of 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.75 degrees Celsius) over the past century, temperatures were observed to have risen by only 0.4 F (0.2 C). "This is showing us that, over the past century, most of Antarctica has not undergone the fairly dramatic warming that has affected the rest of the globe," Monaghan said. The gap between prediction and reality seemed to be caused by the models overestimating the amount of water vapor in the Antarctic atmosphere. […] The cold air over the southernmost continent handles moisture differently than the atmosphere over warmer regions. "The research clearly shows that you can actually slow down sea-level rise when you increase temperatures over Antarctica because snowfall increases, but warmer temperatures also have the potential to speed up sea-level rise due to enhanced melting along the edges of Antarctica," Monaghan said.The gap between prediction and reality seemed to be caused by the models overestimating the amount of water vapor in the Antarctic atmosphere. The cold air over the southernmost continent handles moisture differently than the atmosphere over warmer regions.
Antarctica still pesky for the modellers
Excerpt: The modellers have only now tweaked their models so that they agree with the Antarrctic facts but they still have NO confidence that the tweaked models have any predictive power. Note that the prophecies of disaster all depend on getting Antarctica right. It contains 91% of the planet's glacial ice so unless that melts, sea level rise will be minor by Al Gore standards. A joint press release from the American Geophysical Union and the National Center for Atmospheric Research follows: Refer Peter Weiss [pweiss@agu.org].
http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2008/05/antarctica-still-pesky-for-modellers.html
Forecasting expert says polar bear models critically flawed
Excerpt: Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School says, “To list a species that is currently in good health as an endangered species requires valid forecasts that its population would decline to levels that threaten its viability. In fact, the polar bear populations have been increasing rapidly in recent decades due to hunting restrictions. Assuming these restrictions remain, the most appropriate forecast is to assume that the upward trend would continue for a few years, then level off. “These studies are meant to inform the US Fish and Wildlife Service about listing the polar bear as endangered. After careful examination, my co-authors and I were unable to find any references to works providing evidence that the forecasting methods used in the reports had been previously validated. In essence, they give no scientific basis for deciding one way or the other about the polar bear.” Prof. Armstrong and colleagues originally undertook their audit at the request of the State of Alaska. The subsequent study, “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public Policy Forecasting Audit,” is by Prof. Armstrong, Kesten G. Green of Monash University in Australia, and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. It is scheduled to appear in the September/October issue of the INFORMS journal Interfaces.
http://www.informs.org/article.php?id=1383
Claim that climate models are “consistent with” torn apart
Excerpt: Scientists are fond of explaining that recent observations of the climate are "consistent with" predictions from climate models. […]The number of things a thing can be "consistent with" is so large as to rob the expression of meaning, or communicative value. If my veterinarian looked at one of my cows and informed me that her swollen belly was "consistent with" her being pregnant, I'm not sure I'd find that of much value, as it's also "consistent with" a number of other things, some benign, some fatal. […] You hear "consistent with" employed in other circumstances as well, as for example when a prosecuting attorney says certain evidence is "consistent with" his or her theory of who committed a crime. However a good defense attorney will almost surely point out that the evidence in question is "consistent with" other explanations as well. Thus, at least in legal dealings, the "consistent with" argument doesn't get one very far. […]There's another problem I see with the "consistent with" construction: it never addresses the issue of probability. One sees this frequently with the use of "possible." For many folks the claim that something, no matter how implausible, is "possible" is enough to end a discussion. The mere theoretical possibility of something is to their minds proof of its reality. And the truth is it's virtually impossible to prove, especially to such people, that something is impossible. The best one can do is assess probabilities. However, to the true believer, even the highest statistical improbability carries little if any weight. The same, I think, is true for those who offer the "consistent with" argument. Although to their minds they may be equivalent, "consistent with" is not the same thing as "equal to," just as "possible" is not the same thing as "actual."
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001420teats_on_a_bull.html
Comic Relief: RealClimate.org warming activists claim new Nature study ‘very tentative’ and contains ‘doubtful’ ‘assumptions’ (By RealClimate activist and Professor Raymond T. Pierrehumbert,of the University of Chicago)
Excerpt: Realclimate will emphasize the very tentative nature of this forecast, and caution that there is a danger that if one doesn’t fully realize how doubtful some of the assumptions are, climate modelers may well be slammed with the accusation that “they predicted a cooling but it didn’t happen.”
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/09/betting-on-warming-or-cooling/
Reality Check: RealClimate.org Admits Climate Models Are not 'Forecasts'! (By fmr. Colorado State climatologist Roger Pielke, Sr.)
Excerpt: Now, from an unlikely source (Real Climate) have come the statements: “A scenario only illustrates the climatic effect of the specified forcing - this is why it is called a scenario, not a forecast. To be sure, the first IPCC report did talk about “prediction” - in many respects the first report was not nearly as sophisticated as the more recent ones, including in its terminology. “ “One should not mix up a scenario with a forecast - I cannot easily compare a scenario for the effects of greenhouse gases alone with observed data, because I cannot easily isolate the effect of the greenhouse gases in these data, given that other forcings are also at play in the real world.” [...] In other words, policymakers are being given global and regional multi-decadal model results by the IPCC which are not predictions but sensitivity model runs since a variety of important first order climate forcings and feedbacks are not included in the models! Real Climate now has finally reported to us this serious limitation to the interpretation of the results from climate models.
Flashback: Australian paleoclimate scientist Dr. Bob Carter noted in 2007 that “the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.” Carter explained that the “temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.”
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21920043-27197,00.html
Flashback: MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen’s March 2008 presentation of data from the Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office found the Earth has had “no statistically significant warming since 1995.” http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/03/11/a-note-from-richard-lindzen-on-statistically-significant-warming
Comic Relief Part 2: Gore Discounts Natural Climate Variability
Excerpt: The latest peer-reviewed scientific data showing the dominance of natural climate variability appears to be directly at odds with Gore's central climate message. On May 25, 2006, Gore declared, "We are the most powerful force of nature now. We are literally changing the relationship between the Earth and the Sun." Gore added that mankind's CO2 emissions have "the capacity to bring civilization itself to a dead halt." http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=a17defa8-802a-23ad-4912-8ab7138a7c3f&Issue_id=
Man-made Global Warming Fear Movement Based on Only two Decades of Fear
Excerpt: “Their entire global warming scare was based on around two decades of warming in the late 20th century so if that is followed by 20 years of stasis and cooling, which one of those two episodes represents the trend? How can we be sure that there is ANY trend?” - Australian John Ray, Ph.D., who publishes the website Greenie Watch said on May 2
Global Warming Fear Machine ‘Unraveling’ – Compared to Nostradamus predictions
“It’s All Unraveling” – Oh dear! The inevitable is happening. The ‘global warming’ trope is unraveling on a daily basis - scientifically, economically, and politically. The wheels are coming off the hysterical bandwagon, and it is not going to be a salutary sight watching the politicians and the media junkies jumping cart and trying to throw mud in everyone’s eyes.” […] How on Earth have folk been conned into believing such hubris? It is so like The Prophecies by Nostradamus” – May 2, 2008 - UK Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London.
“This whole climate change issue is rapidly disintegrating. From now onwards climate alarmists will be on the retreat. […] All indications are that we are now on the threshold of global cooling associated with the second and less active solar cycle.” – May 2, 2008 - By Professor Dr. Will J.R. Alexander, Emeritus of the Department of Civil and Biosystems Engineering at the University of Pretoria in South Africa and a former member of the United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=a17defa8-802a-23ad-4912-8ab7138a7c3f&Issue_id=#update
Rising CO2 Fears Debunked
By Stephen Wilde, a Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society
Excerpt: The greenhouse effect, as a whole, may smooth out rises and falls in temperature from other causes but is not itself the determining factor for global temperature. If the heat from the sun declines the global temperature will fall with or without any greenhouse effect and if the heat from the sun increases the global temperature will, of course, rise. The greenhouse effect does not create new heat. All it does is increase the residence time of heat in the atmosphere. […] All it needs to cast doubt on the CO2 theory is an alternative possibility to explain a rising global temperature trend over the past 500 years and there is one. Everyone will have heard of the Little Ice Age and the global temperature would appear to have been recovering from it ever since. On a balance of probability is that not the more likely explanation of an overall warming trend ever since? Why introduce manmade CO2 at all except for politically motivated reasons?
http://co2sceptics.com/news.php?id=1041
12-Year –Old idolizes Al Gore
Excerpt: Camden Maracle, 12, a student at Quinte Mohawk School in Tyendinaga, studied the effects global warming is having on Earth. "Global warming is going to cause the world's ecosystem to break down," Maracle said. However, Maracle believes global warming might not destroy the world. "Humans, animals and plants have been able to adapt to different environments and are able to live on," he said. Maracle said he chose to study the effects of global warming because he has always been interested in the subject."When I grow up I want to be like Al Gore," Maracle said. Marmora Senior School students Hunter Gooderham, 11, and Martin
http://www.communitypress.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=975045&auth=Bill+Tremblay
Coolest April in 11 years in U.S.
Excerpt: The average temperature in April 2008 was 51.0 F. This was -1.0 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 29th coolest April in 114 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.1 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.
Flashback: Earth's 'Fever' Breaks: Global COOLING Currently Under Way
Excerpt: All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
UK region sees longest cold spell since 1892
Excerpt: And, according to the station, the region as a whole has been cooler over the past year. A spokesperson from Bablake Weather station said: "It looks like global warming has plateaued out in our region over the past 12 months. "Every month since May 2007 has been cooler than its counterpart 12 months previously in Coventry, and April 2008 has now continued that trend for a twelfth consecutive month." He added: "Looking at the records, this is the longest such spell locally since our records began in 1892 - the previous record stood at eight months in both 1897 and 1934."
Real World Data Confounds Predictions of Climate Doom
When the United Nations World Meteorological Organization recently reported that global temperatures had not risen since 1998, the explanation given by WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud was that the cool spell was the effect of the Pacific Ocean's La Nina current, "part of what we call 'variability.' " Well, oops, the Earth will do it again. According to a report by German researchers published in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature, shifting Atlantic ocean currents will cool parts of North America and Europe over the next decade as well. Noel Keenlyside of the Leibnitz Institute of Marine Science at Germany's Kiel University says "in the short term, you can see changes in the global mean temperature that you might not expect given the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change." […] The new buoys, known as Argos, drift along the world's oceans at a depth of about 6,000 feet constantly monitoring the temperature, salinity, and speed of ocean currents. Every 10 days or so a bladder inflates, bringing them to the surface as they take their readings at various depths. Once on the surface, they transmit their readings to satellites that retransmit them to land-based computers. The Argos buoys have disappointed global warming alarmists in that they have failed to detect any signs of imminent climate change. As Dr. Josh Willis noted in an interview with National Public Radio, "there has been a very slight cooling" over the buoy's five years of observation. Actual observations trump computer models and as we learn more about the Earth we start to realize how puny and irrelevant man's contribution to climate change really is.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=294880707561262
Gore faces college protesters: 'Gore is in there saying we need to put a tax on air' (Note: Say what? "Gore acknowledged" there are climate dissenters? Could it be?)
Excerpt: Gore acknowledged there are people who disagree with his view on climate change and called for political dialogue based on facts. When several people heckled him during his speech, he turned to them and said, "Excuse me sir, I'm trying to talk to these people and I'm pretty sure they want to hear what I have to say." His polite response sparked enthusiastic cheers from the audience. Nonetheless, about a dozen protesters persistently held a sign that read "No Carbon Tax - It's a Scam" outside. "We're just trying to wake people up to the fact that global warming and the war on terrorism are both false," said Anthony Heil, 25, one of the protesters affiliated with the Web site www.wearechangeohio.com. "Al Gore is in there saying we need to put a tax on air."
http://media.www.thelantern.com/media/storage/paper333/news/2008/05/06/Campus/Gore-Young.Minds.Hold.Solutions.To.Climate.Crisis-3365510.shtml
Alaska sees snow, record cold in April
Excerpt: It was a snowy April across Alaska, in what is normally one of the driest months of the year. Quite a few record daily and monthly snowfall totals were observed at locations across the state. Accordingly, precipitation in water equivalence was above normal. Along with the snow, colder than normal conditions prevailed, and mean monthly temperatures around Alaska were 2 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit below average. http://www.sitnews.us/0508news/050508/050508_weather.html
Polar Bear Scare Could Maul Energy Production
Excerpt: Under pressure from environmentalists, the U.S. Department of the Interior must decide by May 15 whether to protect polar bears under the Endangered Species Act. But such protections could mean increased government control over energy and “widespread social and economic impacts” for ordinary Americans. “The consequences of listing the polar bear will have widespread social and economic impacts without providing any more protection for the bears,” said Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) in an April 2007 news release. […] [Arctic biologist Dr. Mitch] Taylor went so far as to say the real problem might be too many polar bears. “People who live here have a pretty good grasp of what that is like to have too many polar bears around,” he wrote.
http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080507104256.aspx
Climate fear promoters urged to use ‘anti-slavery and anti-apartheid’ arguments
Excerpt: Organisations campaigning on climate change need to learn the lessons of the anti-slavery and anti-apartheid movements, says Ann Pettifor. By focusing on individuals rather than governments, initiatives such as the recent Energy Saving Day are bound to fail in their bid to reduce emissions, she argues. […] Throughout history, social movements have focused on the need for government action. The anti-slavery movement sought to change laws that permitted slavery. The suffragette movement only ensured votes for women once discriminatory laws had been displaced; the anti-apartheid movement was only successful once apartheid laws had been removed. In the US, the black civil rights movement campaigned from 1947 until the introduction of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act to end discrimination in certain spheres. […] To succeed, climate change campaigns first need first to unite - at both national and international levels. Secondly, they must unite behind a radical goal that requires structural change, regulation and enforcement that will urgently drive down emissions and sequester carbon dioxide. […] As things stand, the movement remains disparate, atomised and marginalised.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7385615.stm
Actress feels guilty after watching Gore's film: 'So now I am embarrassed' for driving sedan [Note: I don't understand why she is embarrassed. It's not like Gore follows his own advice.]
Excerpt: Actress Christina Ricci: “Well, I live in Los Angeles so that’s a lot of driving right there. I had a sports car once - a Porsche 911. It was pretty awesome. I loved that car, but now I have a regular sedan. “I’m actually ashamed to tell you what car I have now, to be honest. (a Mercedes S-class sedan) I got into a long lease before I saw the Al Gore movie [An Inconvenient Truth] so now I’m embarrassed. But my lease has to be up before I can buy a proper environmental car.” –Actress Christina Ricci in a recent interview with with the Times Online.
http://www.ecorazzi.com/2008/05/05/the-green-quote-christina-ricci-is-embarrassed-of-her-car/
'The Deniers' details flaws in the theories on global warming
Excerpt: An anti-nuclear, Toronto-based, urban-loving, 1970s peace activist who opposes subsidies to the oil industry might be the last person expected to detail cracks in the science of global warming. But Lawrence Solomon has done just that in a short book with a long subtitle: The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud (and those who are too fearful to do so).
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=68c9a6c9-4f1d-4fc8-b330-d26c4b56549a
New Book profiles scientific dissenters on global warming
Excerpt: Mr. Solomon writes. "In each case, not only was I able to find a truly eminent, world-renowned leader in the field who disputed the point in question, but in each case the denier had more authority, sometimes far more authority, than those who put forward the building block in the first place." The debate over anthropogenic — that is, human induced — climate change, is, in other words, just a bit more complicated than Al Gore suggested on "Oprah." Few books have captured this cognitive dissonance as well as "The Deniers," Mr. Solomon's essential, engrossing travelogue through the world of climate-change dissent. In "The Deniers"' deniers are not the usual suspects paraded out by a media eager for Scopes Monkey Trial II: Flat Earthers' Revenge. They aren't blustery, ill-informed television pundits or slash-and-burn polemicists. Rather, Mr. Solomon introduces us to legendary scientists with impeccable resumes and prestigious appointments at major universities and mainstream research institutes; thoughtful, serious professionals who, at their own professional peril, looked at one or another of the shibboleths of global warming alarmism — from the debunked "hockey stick" graphic and misread ice core samples to the amateurish or incorrect computer models and fear-mongering — and bravely refused to join the herd, profitable as that may be these days.
http://washingtontimes.com/article/20080506/EDITORIAL/404827900/1013
UK Paper links cyclone to global warming
Excerpt: But the logic of global warming means that the oceans will get warmer, which means that wind and rainstorms could become more terrible. The statistics are debatable, but the reasoning is sound enough. A warmer planet means that more energy is going into the system: this energy will express itself somewhere. There is a well-established link between ocean temperature and hurricane or cyclone hazard. An increase in the number and violence of tropical cyclones seems plausible.
http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/comment/story/0,,2278280,00.html
Real cause of global warming discovered: University Research Contributes To Global Warming
Excerpt: Add university research to the long list of human activities contributing to global warming. Hervé Philippe, a Université de Montréal professor of biochemistry, is a committed environmentalist who found that his own research produces 44 tonnes of CO2 per year. The average American citizen produces 20 tonnes.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080507155305.htm
Column: Global Cooling Is Coming!
Excerpt: Take away the intense politics surrounding the global warming debate, take away the self-interest groups, business interests, legal, bureaucratic and mass media influences that all seek to make a buck out of driving public hysteria over the fads and fashions of the age, and pure science—given the history of cyclical changes in the Earth’s temperatures—reveals that man has little influence on the overall surface temperature of the Earth. Man’s influence on temperature is localized at best. Scientists all agree that the greatest single driver of Earth’s climate is the sun, the source of our Earth’s energy. Only 160 years have elapsed since the end of the Little Ice Age. It was the onset of the Little Ice Age in the 12th century that drove the Viking residents of Greenland from their previously lush pastures on that large island to settle south in warmer climes. During the Little Ice Age, the evidence tells us that glaciers expanded, threatening many a mountain village with destruction. Since 1850, with the end of that cooling cycle—well before the Industrial Age began to add its pollutants to Earth’s atmosphere—the world’s ice packs have been receding. The problem with the global warmists is that the theories of their politicized pseudo-science do not match the more exact science of those responsible for accurate measurement of global temperatures.
http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?q=5107.3382.0.0
It's getting warmer? Oops: More bad news for climate change Chicken Littles
Excerpt: Contrary to what Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio say, the global warming debate is not over. Hysterical warnings about flooded coastlines and boiled polar bears remain nothing more than hot-air predictions. Their belief in an approaching apocalypse is based on nothing more than theory and blind faith, when the measures they advocate -- the dismantling of capitalist economies and making energy unaffordable for the masses -- demand hard evidence. Well, the latest data on climate change is in and, not surprisingly, it favors the "deniers." The United Nations World Meteorological Organization, the body that provides climate models to the U.N.'s alarmist global warming panel, reported last week that not only have world temperatures remained stable for the past decade, but that global average temperatures for 2008 will be cooler than those of 2007. Call us crazy, but that has to make it hard to sell the public on giving up their cars and detached homes in favor of mass transit and high-rise tenements. […] In fact, if the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were your local weatherman, a pink slip would have landed in its mailbox a long time ago. A study in last year's International Journal of Climatology determined the temperature increases predicted by the hyperpolitical body's climate models have already been proved unreliable, throwing every doomsday theory the greens can muster into question. That won't stop the greens from preaching the gospel of global warming. And it certainly won't stop their media enablers from reporting it as truth -- witness the lack of news reports on the WMO data. But bit by bit, cold, hard, scientific fact is deflating many assertions of the climate change alarmists.
http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/17380689.html
Calls for billions to be given to climate change
Excerpt: Money received by the government from auctioning carbon emission permits should be used to tackle climate change, business and environment groups claim today. The Confederation of British Industry (CBI) and WWF-UK say the government will receive £1.6 billion from selling permits between 2008 and 2012. These permits are issued as part of the EU's Emissions Trading Scheme, which puts a price on carbon that businesses use and creates a market for carbon.
http://www.inthenews.co.uk/news/finance/science/calls-billions-be-given-climate-change-$1221855.htm
Climate Change In The Classroom
Excerpt: When Mark Colley learned late last year that his daughter viewed "An Inconvenient Truth" during a middle-school science class without advance parental notice, he was intrigued. When he learned his daughter's teacher allegedly presented no rebuttal to former Vice President Al Gore's popular documentary film warning about the perils of climate change, he was stunned. "When you do that, you stop becoming a teacher and start becoming an advocate," said Colley, who considers Gore's movie "a political statement." "Under no circumstances would I pull my daughter out of her science class. She can get the other side of the argument at home," he said. "But I am concerned that there are 29 kids in that class walking away thinking that they know everything there is to know about global warming."
The Midvale Middle School teacher did not return telephone calls for comment.
http://www.kypost.com/content/middleblue3/story.aspx?content_id=3680f1df-db1a-498b-97ee-90c4ec784794
Paper Grocery Bags Require More Energy Than Plastic Bags
Excerpt: the reality is that paper isn't better than plastic. One hundred million new plastic grocery bags require the total energy equivalent of approximately 8300 barrels of oil for extraction of the raw materials, through manufacturing, transport, use and curbside collection of the bags. Of that, 30 percent is oil and 23 percent is natural gas actually used in the bag-the rest is fuel used along the way. That sounds like a lot until you consider that the same number of paper grocery bags use five times that much total energy. A paper grocery bag isn't just made out of trees. Manufacturing 100 million paper bags with one-third post-consumer recycled content requires petroleum energy inputs equivalent to approximately 15,100 barrels of oil plus additional inputs from other energy sources including hydroelectric power, nuclear energy and wood waste. Making sound environmental choices is hard, especially when the product is "free," like bags at most grocery stores. When the cashier rings up a purchase and bags it in a paper bag, the consumer doesn't see that it took at least a gallon of water to produce that bag (more than 20 times the amount used to make a plastic bag), that it weighed 10 times more on the delivery truck and took up seven times as much space as a plastic bag in transit to the store, and will ultimately result in between tens and hundreds of times more greenhouse gas emissions than a plastic bag. Biodegradable bags don't fare much better than paper bags; in a recent life cycle analysis, one type of compostable plastic bag was found to use somewhat less total energy and generate less solid waste, but represent more fossil fuel use, greenhouse gas emissions, and fresh water use than the comparable paper bag. […]. In a landfill, paper bags, petroleum-based plastic bags and even degradable plastic bags share roughly the same fate. Modern landfills are managed for stability, not decomposition. Plastic bags can be better in a landfill because their compact size takes up the least space and, as opposed to biodegradable bags, they release zero greenhouse gas emissions. Reusable shopping bags may be the norm at Whole Foods a year from now, but they're not for everyone in every circumstance. A multi-use plastic or durable bag is environmentally and economically cost-effective only if it is actually used multiple times. Some of these bags are recyclable or compostable, others are not. The basic principles of conservation apply here: the greenest individual choice is the one that results in the greatest actual reduction, reuse and recycling.
http://www.reason.org/commentaries/smithheisters_20080417.shtml
Shock: Alarmist Admits Skeptics are ‘Better Informed’ Than man-made global warming believers
Excerpt: In short, and I am sorry to say it, anti-greens (skeptics) appear to be more willing to comment, more structured, more able to quote peer reviewed research, more apparently rational and apparently wider read and better informed. […] When I launched the TalkClimateChange forums last year, I was initially worried as to where I would find people who didn’t believe in global warming. I had planned to create a furious debate, but in my experience global warming was such a universally accepted issue that I expected to have to dredge the slums of the internet in order to find a couple of deniers who could keep the argument thriving. The first few days were slow going, but following a brief write-up of my site by Junk Science I was swamped by climate skeptics who did a good job of frightening off the few brave Greens who slogged out the debate with. Whilst there was a lot of rubbish written, the truth was that they didn’t so much frighten the Greens away - they comprehensively demolished them with a more in depth understanding of the science, cleverly thought out arguments, and some very smart answers. If you want to learn about the physics of convection currents, gas chromatography, or any number of climate science topics then read some of the early debates on TalkClimateChange. I didn’t believe a word of it, but I had to admit that these guys were good. In the following months the situation hardly changed. As the forum continued to grow, as the blog began to catch traffic, and as I continued to try and recruit green members I continued to be disappointed with the debate. In short, and I am sorry to say it, anti-greens (Reds, as we call them) appear to be more willing to comment, more structured, more able to quote peer reviewed research, more apparently rational and apparently wider read and better informed. And it’s not just TalkClimateChange. Since we re-launched the forums on Green Options and promoted the “Live Debate“ on Nuclear Power, the pro-nuclear crowd have outclassed the few brave souls that have attempted to take them on (with the exception of our own Matt from TalkClimateChange). So how can this be? Where are all these bright Green champions, and why have I failed to recruit them into the debate? Either it’s down to poor online marketing skills, or there is something else missing.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/04/interesting-but.html
Gore's Alarmism Failing: Concern for Global Warming Same as 19 Years Ago!
Excerpt: Well, despite Nobel Laureate Al Gore's massive campaign to scare the world into thinking the planet is facing imminent doom at the hands of global warming, Americans don't seem to be buying it. In fact, a new Gallup poll released moments ago revealed, "a little more than a third say they worry about [global warming] a great deal, a percentage that is roughly the same as the one Gallup measured 19 years ago." […] And here's the delicious conclusion that should keep the Global Warmingest-in-Chief up at night: Although there have been fluctuations on this measure of worry over the years, the percentage of Americans who worry a great deal about global warming is no higher now than it was 19 years ago. And the percentage who do worry a great deal -- 37% -- is still well less than a majority, and in fact lower than the percentage who worry a great deal about such environmental issues as pollution of drinking water, pollution of lakes and reservoirs, and toxic waste in the soil.
Nickelodeon Aims at Kids with Green Message
Excerpt: Nickelodeon officially launches it's the Big Green Help, the network's multiplatform campaign designed to empower kids to get involved in earth friendly and energy saving related activities. This week Nickelodeon will feature green-centric messaging between all programming as well as a several environmentally themed online games. New campaign partners include, The LeBron James Family Foundation, the National Wildlife Federation, the Natural Resources and Defense Council, the NFL, Boys & Girls Clubs of America, and Girls Scouts of the USA.
http://enews.cynopsis.com/c.asp?sCJZWRkmcy337QCSnxNX2w5sszyblCs5o+xRzowD8TcA
Someone sold carbon dioxide hysteria to the Girl Scouts
Excerpt: Girl Scout Store - Global Warming Polar Bear Iron-On Patch
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/04/someone-sold-carbon-dioxide-hysteria-to.html & http://goshop.girlscouts.org/gsusaonline/GSProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=GLOBAL%20WARMING%20POLAR%20BEAR%20IRON-ON%20PATCH
As Earth Cools, Data Centers Busy Re-inventing the Past
Excerpt: Tom Peterson of NCDC in the next Bulletin of the AMS will be co-authoring a paper Study: Global cooling a 1970s myth. In it he tries to downplay the cooling and the coverage and hype it received. Why the efforts to downplay the cooling? Like the Medieval warm period and Little Ice Age, the mid-20th century cold period has been a thorn in the side of alarmists because it implies natural factors at play. And remember a lot of the cooling came during the post World War II boom. Mann did his best to do away with the Medieval Warm Period and his band of merry men are still trying to find proof it didn’t exist despite the steady stream of peer review papers that suggest it did and was not confined to Europe but was worldwide. CO2Science has done an excellent job collating those studies here while World Climate Report has done due diligence finding evidence not only that the Little Ice Age was real but was global.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/as_earth_cools_data_centers_busy_re_inventing_the_past/
UN IPCC Sceptical Scientist Debunks Environmental “Truths” (Chemist Dr. Vincent Gray)
Excerpt: FUTURE GENERATIONS: Since we are “damaging” “the environment” we must stop doing it, and maintain a static world for future generations. The world will evolve whether we like it or not. Future generations will face challenges and problems which we cannot comprehend. They will not thank us for making plans which may turn out to be harmful. It is enough to try and cope with our own problems, with provision for only a short time ahead, sufficient for our very limited insight into what the future may hold. THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE: The scientific discipline of Risk Analysis assesses precautions to be taken against unexpected hazards according to the degree of risk and the cost of the precautions. The Precautionary Principle does the reverse. The greatest precautions and the greatest costs are to be taken when the risk is small or even zero. All risks are exaggerated and the highest cost and greatest inconvenience are always chosen. .
http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=252&Itemid=1
Lack of Clouds, not CO2 drove Early Supergreenhouse Periods
Excerpt: In a report released earlier this month, Penn State Paleoclimatologists determined that lower biological productivity during the Cetaceous and Eocene periods may have been the lever that caused supergreenhouse episodes during these periods by controlling cloud formation. “In today's world, human generated aerosols, pollutants, serve as cloud condensation nuclei," says Lee R. Kump, professor of geosciences. "Biologically generated gases are dominant in the prehuman world. The abundance of these gases is correlated with the productivity of the oceans." The researchers found that changes in the production of cloud condensation nuclei, the tiny particles around which water condenses to form rain drops and cloud droplets, decreased earth's cloud cover and increased the sun's warming effect 6-10% during supergreenhouse events in which the mean annual temperatures in the tropics were above 100 degrees Fahrenheit and polar temperatures were in the 50-degree Fahrenheit range. […]How about CO2? Proxies indicated that these prehuman periods never exceeded 4X the current CO2 level, which is not enough for their models to create the supergreenhouse conditions, but changing the earth's albedo could.
http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2008/04/lack_of_clouds_not_co2_drove_e_1.html (More details on Study Here: http://live.psu.edu/story/30099 )
Marc Morano
Communications Director
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) Inhofe Staff
202-224-5762
202-224-5167 (fax)
Good Neighbor Committee
P.O. Box 155 - La Salle, CO 80645
info@goodneighborlaw.com
| Good Neighbor Law© 2006 |