31 Dec 2009, 10:36pm
Climate and Weather
by admin
4 comments

Record Cold Wave Predicted

A record cold wave is predicted for the next two weeks or more, across much of North America and Europe. The basis for that prediction is the periodic convergence of a pair of oceanic and atmospheric multi-year “oscillations”.

Major northern hemisphere cold snap coming

by Anthony Watts, Watts Up With That, Dec 30, 2009 [here]

Cold event setups in atmospheric circulation patterns are aligning. Two days ago I brought to your attention that there was a strong downspike in the Arctic Oscillation Index and that the North Atlantic Oscillation Index was also negative. See The Arctic Oscillation Index goes strongly negative [here].

Yesterday, Senior AccuWeather meteorologist Joe Bastardi let loose with this stunning prediction on the AccuWeather premium web site via Brett Anderson’s Global warming blog:

What is facing the major population centers of the northern hemisphere is unlike anything that we have seen since the global warming debate got to the absurd level it is now, which essentially has been there is no doubt about all this. For cold of a variety not seen in over 25 years in a large scale is about to engulf the major energy consuming areas of the northern Hemisphere. The first 15 days of the opening of the New Year will be the coldest, population weighted, north of 30 north world wide in over 25 years in my opinion.
… [more]

The Arctic Oscillation (AO) going negative means high pressure over the Arctic region and low pressure at midlatitudes (positive means low pressure over the Arctic, and high pressure at midlatitudes). The AO has gone strongly negative.

The Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) is a long-duration (20 to 40 years) fluctuation in sea surface temperature of the North Atlantic Ocean, with cool and warm phases. This year the AMO shifted to to the cold phase after 15 years in the warm phase.

Put those two together and not only do you get AMOAO (my cat says that), but you get jet streams driven south by the polar high pressure, bearing cold air upon already cold air from a cold Atlantic.

Not to mention the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) which went negative two years ago (or so), bringing cold waters to the eastern Pacific (our West Coast).

The confluence of all these colder-than-average conditions is predicted to generate one or more Arcto-boreal Canadian cold fronts that will plunge down the Rockies to Florida, sweep up the East Coast, howl across the North Atlantic, picking up more cold Arctic air along the way, and plunge headlong into Europe.

Both Europe and North America experienced severe cold waves in December, but that was just a warm up (a chill down?) to the coming record freeze, if the predictions are correct.

Anthony Watts advises, “If you live in these areas: bundle up, stock up. Get ready.”

I pass the warning and the advice on to you. Be prepared, it’s going to get colder than [fill in the blank].

Taxpayer Robbery Gate

by Paul Driessen [here], December 26, 2009 [here]

Aside from ideologues, hydrocarbon haters, Gaia worshipers, profiteers and power-grabbing politicians, most of the sentient world now realizes that the hysteria over global warming disasters is based on dubious to fraudulent temperature data, analyses, models, reports and peer reviews.

Climate Research Unit emails, HARRY_READ_ME.txt computer memos, and blatant tampering with Australian, Russian, UK and US temperature data make the scandal impossible to ignore or explain away. They certainly helped Copenhagen descend into an expensive, carbon-emitting gabfest, and cause China and India to reject any deal that would force them to curtail their energy generation, economic growth and poverty reduction programs.

Senator Barbara Boxer is an exception. Not only does she ignore the obvious. She is doing her best to divert attention from the scandal, circle the alarmist wagons, cover up the fraud, obstruct justice – and ram through yet another legislative power grab.

“This isn’t Climategate,” the California Democrat insists. “It’s email theft gate.” The problem isn’t the fraud; it’s that a hacker or whistleblower revealed the fraud.

Wrong, Senator. It’s not theft gate. It’s Taxpayer Robbery Gate.

We the People, our elected representatives and our climate realist scientists have a right to examine this supposed evidence of planetary disaster, to ensure that it’s driven by science, and not ideology. That it’s complete, accurate – and honest. That it backs up the alarmist scientists’ call for draconian, life-altering restrictions on energy use. That the CRU Cabal did not alter, lose, ignore, toss or destroy “inconvenient” data and evidence that might get in the way of their agendas and predetermined results.

Not only were we stonewalled for years, while these UK and US scientists refused to divulge their data, computer codes and methodologies. Not only did the scientists who wrote these emails and did this bogus research refuse to let taxpayers, other scientists and even members of Congress (and Parliament) see their raw data and analyses. Not only did they prevent debate and replace peer review with a perverted system that allowed only a small network of like-minded colleagues to examine – and applaud – their work. They also excluded, denounced and vilified anyone who asked hard questions or challenged their actions.

In short, we were robbed! They took our money, and defrauded us.

more »

Inhofe in Copenhagen: “It Has Failed … It’s Déjà Vu All Over Again.”

From the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works website [here]

Copenhagen, Denmark — Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, arrived in Copenhagen, Denmark this morning to “make certain the 191 countries attending COP-15 would not be deceived into thinking the US would pass cap-and-trade legislation.” In his remarks, Inhofe described the political and policy issues that must be addressed before the U.S. Senate would ratify a new climate change treaty. At this stage, as Sen. Inhofe noted, the prospect of achieving an overarching agreement-one that meets the conditions established in the Byrd-Hagel resolution-are bleak, mainly due to the intractable demands of China, India, and other developing nations. Those demands-more funds to deal with the impacts of climate change and the right to increase emissions, albeit at a slower rate of growth, among others-have repeatedly been raised by developing nations, but are simply too costly and unworkable for the United States to accept.

Remarks of Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member, Committee on Environment and Public Works

to the 15th United Nations Climate Change Conference, Copenhagen, Denmark, December 17, 2009

Copenhagen attendees, I want to turn back the clock to December 2003, when the United Nations convened the “9th Conference of the Parties” in Milan, Italy, to discuss implementation of the Kyoto Protocol. At the time, I was leading the Senate delegation to Milan as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works.

Fast forward to December 2009: the UN is holding its 15th global warming conference and the delegates are haggling over the same issues that were before them in 2003. I know this because I was there. Recently, with the Copenhagen talks underway, I reread the speech I delivered in Milan. I found that the issues at stake in 2003 are nearly the same as those in 2009. In short, nothing has changed and nothing has been done.

So let’s go back to 2003. In my speech, I told the conference that the Senate would not ratify Kyoto. Here’s what I said: “The Senate, by a vote of 95 to 0, approved the Byrd-Hagel resolution, which warned the President against signing a treaty that would either economically harm the United States or exempt developing countries from participating.” I went on to say this: “Both those conditions then, and still to this day, have not been satisfied. So, it’s worth noting that even if President Bush wanted to submit the treaty to the Senate, it couldn’t be ratified.” That was 2003.

Is that still true today? Of course it is. And yet here we go again: China, India, and other developing countries want nothing to do with absolute, binding emissions cuts. China and India have pledged to reduce the rate of growth, or intensity, of their emissions But that’s not acceptable to the US Senate. Moreover, China is opposed to a mandatory verification regime to prove it is actually honoring its commitments.

more »

16 Dec 2009, 10:22am
Climate and Weather
by admin
4 comments

The Copenhagen Climate Challenge

A “Climate Challenge” letter [here] has been delivered to UN Sec Gen Ban Ki Moon. Signed by 149 scientists around the world, the letter requests that convincing evidence of global warming be produced prior to any massive alteration of the world economy:

We the undersigned, being qualified in climate-related scientific disciplines, challenge the UNFCCC and supporters of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to produce convincing OBSERVATIONAL EVIDENCE for their claims of dangerous human-caused global warming and other changes in climate. Projections of possible future scenarios from unproven computer models of climate are not acceptable substitutes for real world data obtained through unbiased and rigorous scientific investigation. …

It is not the responsibility of ‘climate realist’ scientists to prove that dangerous human-caused climate change is not happening. Rather, it is those who propose that it is, and promote the allocation of massive investments to solve the supposed ‘problem’, who have the obligation to convincingly demonstrate that recent climate change is not of mostly natural origin and, if we do nothing, catastrophic change will ensue. To date, this they have utterly failed to do.

One of the signers, Dr. Bob Zybach, Ph.D., forest scientist, President, NW Maps Co., and Program Manager, Oregon Websites and Watersheds Project, Inc. [here], was interviewed in reference to the “Climate Challenge” letter by the Meford Mail Tribune:

Ecologist criticizes ‘herd mentality’ on climate

By Paul Fattig, Medford Mail Tribune, December 16, 2009 [here]

If you ask Bob Zybach, he will tell you there is a global warming problem.

But the forest ecologist figures it is nothing more than hot air from scientists and politicians gathered in Copenhagen at the United Nations’ global warming conference.

“The bottom line is that the science on global warming is unsettled — there is no consensus on the science,” he said. “There is simply a hypothesis at this point. How about some proof?”

more »

12 Dec 2009, 3:40pm
Climate and Weather
by admin
5 comments

Monckton’s Answer to an Environmental Campaigner

Note: This is just one of numerous excellent short essays by Lord Christopher Monckton for the Science and Public Policy Institute [here].

Answer to an Environmental Campaigner

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, SPPI Blog, December 11th, 2009 [here]

Dear campaigner,

You write that, since humankind is adversely affecting the environment in various ways, humankind must also be adversely affecting the climate. Of course, this does not follow. It is a particular instance of the fundamental logical fallacy of relevance commonly known as the non sequitur.

Other Aristotelian fallacies commonly deployed by those advancing the alarmist argument are the argumentum ad populum or headcount fallacy (”there’s a consensus, so the consensus must be true”); and the argumentum ad verecundiam or reputation fallacy (”the IPCC and various august national scientific societies say “global warming” is mostly our fault, and they have a good reputation, so they must be telling the truth”). Any Classically-trained mind would at once dismiss these and many similar illogicalities as unworthy to be used as foundations for any valid conclusion.

You also write, wrongly, that the onus is on those who deny the hypothesis of anthropogenic “global warming” to prove the hypothesis wrong. To explain why your notion is incorrect, it is necessary to outline the scientific method as first enunciated by Abu Ali Ibn Al-Hassan Ibn Al-Hussain Ibn Al-Haytham in 11th-century Iraq, and as codified in its current form by Popper in a landmark paper of 1934.

The seeker after truth, says Al-Haytham, does not place his trust in any consensus, however broad or however venerable: instead, he subjects what he has learned of it to his hard-won scientific knowledge, and he scrutinizes, measures, and verifies whether it is true. The road to the truth, said Al-Haytham, is long and hard, but that is the road we must follow.

Popper presented the scientific method as an iterative algorithm for discerning the truth in that great majority of cases where complete, formal demonstration by mathematical methods is not available.

more »

We Have the Whole World in Our Hands

by Dr. Ed Berry, ClimatePhysics.com

It snowed in Sacramento this morning at elevations of a few hundred feet above sea level. Five inches of snow fell in Auburn at about 800 feet ASL. Meanwhile, it has been too cold to snow in Kalispell where the high today was 10 F. When I went out my front door, the birds, which always fly away, stayed perched on my fence and looked at me as if to say, “It’s too cold to fly.”

We are headed for -15 F. I filled the propane tank last month. This is the kind of weather where you must think survival. Prepare for the unexpected. Always have a plan to stay warm no matter what happens. Just like when you go sailing, always be prepared to capsize.

Meanwhile, Obama, Gore, the EPA, and eco-activists around the world say America must sign the Copenhagen Treaty to save the planet from overheating. I have news for them. First, their claimed climate change problem does not exist. Second, a treaty cannot save the planet, it can only take away our freedom. Third, it’s getting colder, not warmer.

They tell us the last decade was the warmest in the last century. They lie. How they lie has been exposed in the eco-activists emails and computer code. Simply put, they “adjust” the real data in a secret manner to get temperatures that fit their agenda. It’s called in their words, “hide the decline.” Then they shred the real data so outside scientists cannot check it.

At the same time they tell us they don’t know why the temperatures declined since 2001 when their computer models predicted it would get warmer. They say it was “supposed” to get warmer because their computer models said it would. So they claim the data is wrong!

Our answer is simple: their models are wrong. This proves their hypothesis is wrong, which proves their whole claim of global warming and climate change is wrong. That is how science works. If a prediction is wrong then the hypothesis is wrong. At least that’s how science worked before political correctness took over.

more »

EPA CO2 Rule a Huge Move Toward Totalitarian Control

The Environmental Protection Agency issued a CO2 “endangerment finding” Monday, formally declaring that CO2 poses a threat to human health and welfare, a designation that sets the federal government on the path toward regulating CO2 emissions from power plants, factories, automobiles and other major and minor sources [here].

Today we received the following e-mail from an expert environmental scientist

Mike,

The headlines in our paper today were as frightening for this country as anything I have seen in a long time. EPA has claimed control of the economy by usurping power over atmospheric composition as a health mattter. It would be funny if not so scary, but the EPA has a history of grabbing authority nowhere guaranteed by the constitution.

In 1979, Dow Chemical sued EPA for arbitrary and capricious action in canceling the registration of a herbicide that had a very good safety record. In court, Dow argued that all the environmental and toxicological data were favorable, hence the action was arbitrary. The judge agreed with Dow, and indicated that he would not have made the decision to cancel on the basis of the data, both pro and con.

But the judge went on to say that he did not have the power to overturn the decision by the Administrator of EPA, a presidential appointee not constrained by being a member of the Cabinet. So the decision has stood for 30 years. I was an expert witness in that case, saw all the data, and was appalled at the unbridled power grab altogether unsupported by evidence. And that was a far smaller issue than what goes on today.

I hate to think how EPA Admin Lisa Jackson’s and Czar Carol Browner’s decision to take authority for atmospheric composition because climate altering gases represent “a toxic hazard” also gives them unlimited power to assist our president in almost any direction he wants to jump. The kaleidoscope of directions he moves on will be extremely hard to check with such authority in the bag. I wonder if our general public recognizes this as a huge move toward totalitarian control.

This issue is so scary that I surmize that it makes the Climategate issue child’s play simply because the president and his lackeys cannot be challenged on the CO2 endangerment finding. Health is the perfect button to bring on a perfect storm. Really scary.

A public outcry is essential, and right now if closer examination of what Jackson and Browner did is what I think it is. It will take some careful analysis, but I hope to God someone who knows how to do this is as concerned as I am about what is happening. Time is short, Barack is in Copenhagen, and Browner has taken charge. Couldn’t be worse.

Best, XXXXXXX

more »

Climate Follies: Chapter 54,873

The Climate Hoax folks are are firing all their guns at once and exploding into space. The Ether waves are jam-packed with egregiousness due to the high hat circus in Gropenhogging. Here are a few flips, flops, and flounderings from the Alarmist self-immolation spectacle.

First, NOAA was forced to admit the planet is cooling. They don’t know why, and they just hate it, but there’s no way to hide the facts any more:

North American 2008 Cooling Attributed to Natural Causes

Cool sea surface temperatures overrode warming

NOAA news release, December 4, 2009 [here]

Cooler North American temperatures in 2008 resulted from a strong natural effect, and the overall warming trend that has been observed since 1970 is likely to resume, according to university and NOAA scientists.

“Our work shows that there can be cold periods, but that does not mean the end of global warming. The recent coolness was caused by transitory natural factors that temporarily masked the human-caused signal,” said Judith Perlwitz, lead author of the study and a researcher with the Cooperative Institute for Research Environmental Sciences, and NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory, both in Boulder, Colo. The paper will be published Dec. 8 in Geophysical Research Letters. [We have it, see here] …

The analysis included historical data and climate model simulations that were conducted in the U.S. and internationally. The science team discerned both natural and human-caused influences for 2008.

“North American temperatures would have been considerably colder in 2008 had there been no human-induced warming influence present,” Perlwitz said.

From the paper:

There is increasing public and decision maker demand to explain evolving climate conditions, and assess especially the role of human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases. The 2008 North American surface temperatures diverged strongly from the warming trend of recent decades, with the lowest continental average temperatures since at least 1996.

In our diagnosis of 2008, the absence of North American warming was shown not to be evidence for an absence of anthropogenic forcing, but only that the impact of the latter was balanced by strong natural cooling. Considering the nature of both the 2008 NA temperature anomalies and the natural ocean variability that reflected a transitory interannual condition, we can expect that the 2008 coolness is unlikely to be part of a prolonged cooling trend in NA temperature in future years.

Hahahahahahaha!!!! So it’s “natural cooling” that has swamped Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW)? Just natural variability, something never considered before in their junk models. But not to worry; it’ll be getting warmer soon, according the uncorrected junk models. They have never been right in their predictions yet, but that doesn’t stop them from trying.

Not today, however, as the temps around Oregon are setting new LOW records. It’s 12F here in the Willamette Valley this morning. Brisk.

more »

Up Yours Gordon Brown

I don’t know. Maybe the screed I’m about to write is going to end up being inappropriate, unnecessary, and even childish. I have been insulted by none other than the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Gordon Brown. My feelings have been hurt, and my first inclination is to lash back.

No, you’re the moron here, Gordon.

But what’s the use? I would only debase myself down to Gordon Brown’s level if I was to do that.

Perhaps, instead, maybe we can make this into a teaching moment.

The insult in question is Gordon Brown’s comment on December 4th last, reported in the UK Guardian [here]

“With only days to go before Copenhagen we mustn’t be distracted by the behind-the-times, anti-science, flat-earth climate sceptics,” Brown told the Guardian. “We know the science. We know what we must do. We must now act and close the 5bn-tonne gap. That will seal the deal.”

I am not enamored of being called an anti-science flat-earther. I am pro good science and believe the Earth to be more or less spherical.

Gordon let fly an aspersion frequently used by Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming Alarmists (CAGWA’s). Their argument is that anyone who dares to challenge their orthodoxy is ignorant beyond measure.

But we’re not. Actually, we’re smarter than the CAGWA’s — better educated, more knowledgable, more experienced, and more expert in matters of science, including climatology, than politicians like Gordon Brown and Al Gore.

The flat-earther insult is a desperation tactic on the part of those who are losing a debate they never wanted in the first place — because they knew all along that their hoax was a hoax and would melt under analytical scrutiny. We now know what has been long suspected: the CAGWA hoaxers mangled the data to support their theories because the real data show their theories to be crap [here].

The way they mangled the data is telling. After cherry picking a handful of tree ring density measurements from Asia as “proxies” for past global temperatures, they then junked that data from 1960 on because it didn’t fit the temperature readings from their handful of Urban Heat Island affected land-based stations. The “spliced” data eliminated the well-documented Medieval Warm Period and showed a hockey-stick-shaped uptick in temperatures in the late 20th Century.

They used this crabbed together junk time series as input to computer models. Garbage in, garbage out. The models that fit the pre-selected phony hockey stick temperatures also predict that the Earth is going to boil like Venus. Technically speaking, the magnitude of the the CO2 positive feedback coefficient (fudge factor) required to fit the fake uptick drove the models to predict Thermageddon in 100 years.

Gordon Brown calls that “science” and disparages anyone who dares to question it as “flat-earthers”.

People like Gordon Brown have been duped, or possibly they are sleazy graft merchants who want in on the carbon credit action.

Carbon credits are flim-flam nothings on paper that are now being bought and sold like real stocks in Europe. It’s a completely phony market, but it exists because (bankrupt) governments like Great Britain created it. It’s an ENRON-style market, a Ponsi scheme, where everybody in the world pays in and a handful of connected power elites pocket the cash.

All the Cap-and-Trade scams will not change the Earth’s temperature one scintilla. Neither will all the carbon taxes, economic shutdowns, windmills, solar panels, and nuclear power plants put together.

It turns out the Earth is not going to boil like Venus — that’s a hoax, a fraud, humbug. Instead the Earth is slowly undergoing neo-glaciation as the next Ice Age stadial builds. There has been no run-up in temperatures — the best unbiased scientific estimates are that the Earth has warmed between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees C since 1860. And the best unbiased scientific predictions are that we are in for cooling over the next 25 years due to the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. By 2035 the Earth will be as cold or colder than in 1860, the tail-end of the Little Ice Age.

That’s a full 3 degrees C cooler than the Earth was 9,000 years ago during the Climatic Optimum of the Holocene. With minor fluctuations, it has been all downhill since then. The Earth is following the same Ice Age script and schedule that it has for the last 1.8 million years.

All the global warming alarmism is based on phony science. There is no global warming happening now — just the opposite. And it’s too bad there isn’t, because WARMER IS BETTER. The monster under the bed that Gordon Brown wants you to be afraid of isn’t there, and if it was, it would be a good thing!

So up yours, Gordon. You are the Dark Ages superstition-monger, or should I say con artist, in the room — but the jig is up now. Your misleadership has been a tragedy for the entire world. Hopefully the citizens of GB will throw you out on your arse as soon as possible. Meanwhile, we have some similar CAGWA hoax political types to sweep out on this side of the pond.

29 Nov 2009, 3:54pm
Climate and Weather:
by admin
9 comments

More On Climategate

The full import of Climategate is slowly creeping into the Dead Tree Press, aka the Main Stream Media. The Blogosphere is miles ahead of the DTP/MSM, as usual though.

We mentioned several web sites with up-to-the-minute posts and discussions about Climategate in a previous post [here]. Another is Climategate at Watts Up With That [here], a compilation of all the related posts there.

The word “Climategate” was coined at WUWT by a commentator, Bulldust, the day the CRU email dam broke (11/19/2009) and the global warming hoax was exposed. The discussion there has been excellent and comprehensive, with links to the other leading climate realist sites.

Here are some of the latest musing from the Web:

Climategate: The Silence is Deafening from the Corporate Media

J Speer-Williams, Infowars, PrisonPlanet, November 29, 2009 [here]

By now most of us in the alternative media are aware of the some 61 megabytes of global warming research data of emails, documents, and computer code released by whistleblowers (or hackers), that have exposed climate scientists, at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain, as the frauds they’ve proven themselves to be.

This decade of emails and documents clearly concludes that global warming scientists have manipulated scientific data to “hide the decline” in global temperatures; and the fact that, there has been no statistically significant global warming for fifteen years, but our world has experienced a rapid and significant cooling for nine years.

So breath-taking has been this leaked data, to date, it has produced some startling headlines in the alternative media:

(1) Climategate: Greatest Scandal in Modern Science!”

(2) “Climategate? Smoking Gun? Blood in the Water?”

(3) “Global Warming Scientists Seek to Protect Their Government Funding by Corrupting the Peer-review Process.”

(4) “Climate Bombshell: Hackers {or Whistleblowers] Leak Emails Showing Conspiracy.”

(5) “Email Leaks Turn Up Heat on Global Warming Advocates.”

(6) “Climategate Scientists Caught Red-handed in Monumental Fraud.”

(7) “Bad Scientists? No Criminals!”

Now, these global warming scientists, who have been so severely exposed for the frauds they are, are crying, “Persecution!”. While their own emails prove they have been very busy planning how best to get tenured professors fired, who will not shallow the rotten fish of anthropogenic global warming, how to black-ball them from scientific journals, and prevent them from participating in the peer-review process. …

more »

Australian Government in Upheaval Over Cap and Trade

The Australian version of Cap-and-Trade legislation, known there as the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), split the minority party yesterday.

Note: the Liberal Party (whom we would call conservatives) compete with the Labor Party (whom we would call liberals); the latter are currently the majority party in Australia’s parliamentary system.

Both parties proposed some version of ETS in the last elections, but many Liberals (conservatives) have soured on global warming alarmism all together. The majority Labor Party continues to push horrendous ETS legislation that will cripple the Australian economy for zero effect on global “climate change”.

In the wake of ClimateGate at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) in Great Britain, further revelations about temperature data tampering in New Zealand [here], and the increasing realization that much of the climate record has been “interpreted” with political bias, Liberal Party members now find themselves at odds with their party leadership:

Senior Liberals desert Turnbull

by Emma Rodgers, ABC, Nov 26, 2009 [here]

The Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios this afternoon in protest against the emissions trading scheme.

Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith and Senators Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz have all quit their portfolios because they cannot vote for the legislation.

Senate whip Stephen Parry has also relinquished his position. …

Malcolm Turnbull felled by grassroots revolt

Dennis Shanahan, The Australian November 27, 2009 [here]

MALCOLM Turnbull’s leadership has been destroyed in a spectacular and unprecedented fashion.

For the first time, a grassroots revolt by local Liberal branches and members has brought down the leader of the parliamentary Liberal Party. …

His declaration last night that “nothing has changed” denied reality and his vow that the Rudd government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme must pass as a matter of honour denied the belief among his colleagues that he had fudged the majority support in the partyroom.

And his passionate defence of the Rudd government ETS and the adoption of the arguments that the Liberals cannot be climate change deniers only further angered his ETS opponents yesterday. …

more »

25 Nov 2009, 1:39pm
Climate and Weather
by admin
3 comments

What Is — and What Isn’t — Evidence of Global Warming

Note: Dr. William M. Briggs, Ph.D. [here] is a statistical consultant in New York and San Francisco. He is an American Meteorological Society member and serves on their Probability and Statistics Committee. His specialty is on the philosophy of evidence, forecasting, and model goodness. He is the author of Breaking the Law of Averages: Real-Life Probability and Statistics in Plain English.

by William M. Briggs, PajamasMedia, November 25, 2009 [here]

All the evidence we’ve heard regarding global warming never constituted, in any manner, actual evidence that it was taking place.

“Climategate” has everybody rethinking global warming. Many are wondering — if leading scientists were tempted to finagle their data, is the evidence for catastrophic climate change weaker than previously thought?

Actually, the evidence was never even evidence.

There is a fundamental misunderstanding — shared by nearly everybody about the nature of anthropogenic global warming theory (AGW) — over exactly what constitutes evidence for that theory and what does not.

Remember when we heard that the icebergs were melting, that polar bears were decreasing in number, that some places were drier than usual and that others were wetter, that the ocean was growing saltier here and fresher there, and that hurricanes were becoming more terrifying? Remember the hundreds of reports on what happens when it gets hot outside?

All of those observations might have been true, but absolutely none of them were evidence of AGW.

more »

25 Nov 2009, 11:52am
Climate and Weather
by admin
leave a comment

Two Views of ClimateGate from RealClearPolitics

I don’t subscribe to, promote, or frequently visit the website RealClearPolitics. That said, two recent posts there are quite interesting:

ClimateGate: The Fix is In

By Robert Tracinski, RealClearPolitics, November 24, 2009, [here]

In early October, I covered a breaking story about evidence of corruption in the basic temperature records maintained by key scientific advocates of the theory of man-made global warming. Global warming “skeptics” had unearthed evidence that scientists at the Hadley Climatic Research Unit at Britain’s University of East Anglia had cherry-picked data to manufacture a “hockey stick” graph showing a dramatic-but illusory-runaway warming trend in the late 20th century.

But now newer and much broader evidence has emerged that looks like it will break that scandal wide open. Pundits have already named it “Climategate.”

A hacker-or possibly a disillusioned insider-has gathered thousands of e-mails and data from the CRU and made them available on the Web. Officials at the CRU have verified the breach of their system and acknowledged that the e-mails appear to be genuine.

Yes, this is a theft of data — but the purpose of the theft was to blow the whistle on a much bigger, more brazen crime. The CRU has already called in the police to investigate the hacker. But now someone needs to call in the cops to investigate the CRU. …

These e-mails show, among many other things, private admissions of doubt or scientific weakness in the global warming theory. In acknowledging that global temperatures have actually declined for the past decade, one scientist asks, “where the heck is global warming?… The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” They still can’t account for it; see a new article in Der Spiegel: “Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out.” I don’t know where these people got their scientific education, but where I come from, if your theory can’t predict or explain the observed facts, it’s wrong. … [more]

The Skeptics Are Vindicated

By David Warren, RealClearPolitics, November 25, 2009 [here]

A computer hacker in England has done the world a service by making available a huge quantity of evidence for the way in which “human-induced global warming” claims have been advanced over the years.

By releasing into the Internet about a thousand internal e-mails from the servers of the Climate Research Unit in the University of East Anglia — in some respects the international clearing house for climate change “science” — he has (or they have) put observers in a position to see that claims of conspiracy and fraud were not unreasonable.

More generally, we have been given the materials with which to obtain an insight into how all modern science works when vast amounts of public funding is at stake and when the vested interests associated with various “progressive” causes require a particular scientific result. …

Nigel Lawson (a.k.a. Baron Lawson of Blaby), the former British chancellor of the exchequer, who is among prominent persons demanding a full and open public inquiry, summarized the content of the e-mails in this way:

“Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals.” … [more]

EPA CO2 Comment Deadline Approaching

by Daniel Simmons, posted at Watts Up With That, Nov 25, 2009 [here]

I wanted to bring your attention to an EPA comment period that closes this Friday. As you previously covered on Watts Up With That, EPA is working on declaring that CO2 and GHGs greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare under the Clean Air Act [here].

That endangerment finding is the first step to regulating GHGs and the second is to develop the actual regulations to regulate GHGs for cars and light trucks. On Friday, the comment period for EPA’s proposed regulations on cars and light trucks closes. It would be very helpful to push back on the proposed endangerment finding by pushing back on the proposed regulations on cars and light trucks and sending EPA as many comments as possible on the proposed GHG regulations for cars.

We want to make sure as many people as possible know about this proposed rule and generate as many comments as possible. To facilitate people sending comments to EPA on the proposed rule, we put up a page that contains a model comment to send to EPA [here].

Also, the EPA’s Proposed Rule is [here] and a direct link to the Docket to submit comments to EPA is [here].

People can also send email on this rule directly to EPA at a-and-r-Docket@epa.gov.

It would be very helpful if you would let your readers know about this comment period. Because of Thanksgiving and the cap-and-trade bills, this proposed rule hasn’t gotten very much attention and yet it relies on the same science as EPA’s other regulations and will help trigger a regulatory cascade of EPA inserting itself into many areas of life because those activities emit GHGs.

Here’s more background: To address climate change (and relying on the standards sources of climate science–the IPCC, NCDC, GISS, etc.) EPA is proposing to use the Clean Air Act to require 35 mpg fleetwide fuel economy standards by 2016—four years faster than Congress’ plan in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007. Not only will this rule drive up car and truck prices and limit consumer choice, it will start a regulatory cascade with EPA regulating GHGs using a number of sections of the Clean Air Act.

But EPA’s data show that the rule is all cost and no benefit. According to EPA, the proposed rule will increase car and truck prices an average $1,100 (74 Fed. Reg. 49460). As a result of less CO2 in the air, the rule will lead to decrease in global mean temperature by 16 thousandths of a degree Celsius (0.016°C) in 2100 and a decrease in mean sea level rise by 1.5 mm (74 Fed. Reg. 49589). That’s not a joke — that’s what the rule says. Obviously 16 thousandths of a degree Celsius, 90 years down the road, will not affect the climate in any way.

It would be bad enough if the rule only imposed exorbitant costs and with no benefits. But this will start the regulatory cascade that many of us have written about. To finalize this rule, EPA would also finalize their “endangerment finding” (in other words, EPA would find that GHGs from motor vehicles harm public health and welfare). CO2 and GHGs will become subject to National Ambient Air Quality Standards, New Sour Performance Standards, Hazardous Air Quality Standards, among other regulatory schemes.

If EPA makes an endangerment finding for GHGs, that action would make two permitting programs apply to GHGs—prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and Title V. PSD applies to stationary sources which emit more than 250 tons a year and Title V applies to stationary sources which emit 250 tons per year. According to EPA, this would force as many as 6 million buildings (school, churches, hospitals, office buildings, farms, etc.) to comply with the Clean Air Act’s permitting provisions. To try to address this problem, EPA has proposed a “tailoring rule.” The point of the tailoring rule is that 250 tons per year of emissions can be read to mean 25,000 tons per year. Again, that’s not a joke [here].

Please let the EPA know your views right away. Time is of the essence.

21 Nov 2009, 1:31pm
Climate and Weather
by admin
6 comments

Global Warming Fraud Conspiracy Exposed

Breaking news all over the Internet: hacked email and data files from the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (aka HADCRUT, a world center of global warming alarmist “science”) reveal that scientific fraud and collusion in that fraud have underlain the putative “findings” of a warming planet.

The Evidence of Climate Fraud

By Marc Sheppard, American Thinker, November 21, 2009 [here]

A folder containing documents, data and, e-mails purportedly “hacked” from Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) may be smoking-gun proof of a worldwide conspiracy to exaggerate the existence, causation, and threat of global warming. And the list of apparent conspirators includes many of the world’s leading climate alarmists — the very scientists on whose work the entire anthropogenic global warming theory is based. …

For more details and technical discussion see Jeff Id’s The Air Vent [here] (where unknown hackers first sent the purloined files); Steve McIntyre’s Climate Audit [here] (McIntyre has been a leading critic of HADCRUT and a target of the GW fraud conspirators); and Watts Up With That [here] (the 2008 Weblog Award winner for Best Science Blog).

The files reveal:

* Data have been deliberately and knowingly manipulated to give the false impression that current global temperatures are unusually high and climbing, the so-called “Hockey Stick” model used in Al Gore’s movie “An Inconvenient Truth”.

* Alarmist “scientists” have interfered with the publication of realistic climate papers that contradict the fraudulent findings.

* HADCRUT has illegally withheld (and possibly destroyed) the original, unadulterated data that real scientists of integrity might use to expose the fraudulent data manipulations.

In a conspiratorial twist, a (British) Freedom of Information request to release HADCRUT climate station data had been denied just days before the “hacked” files were ftp-ed to The Air Vent. Every indication is that the “hacking” was an inside job, possibly done by someone connected to the East Anglia University Information Services (who conducted the FOI review and issued the refusal to release the requested information). For more on that aspect, see the Climate Audit mirror site [here] (the Climate Audit server has been overloaded with visitors so a second “mirror” site was set up).

more »

 
  
  • Colloquia

  • Commentary and News

  • Contact

  • Follow me on Twitter

  • Categories

  • Archives

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • Meta