Showing posts with label Global Warming. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Global Warming. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Arctic Sea Ice Returns to Normal Levels

Originally posted at The Desk of Brian, www.deskofbrian.com: http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/hot-topics/global-warming-climate-change-whatever-else-they-ll-call-it/arcticseaicereturnstonormallevels

Despite all of the SUVs and abuse of the environment by Al Gore's standards, the earth continues to change climate - it colder. A historical winter and yielded so other news of relief, the Arctic Ice levels with return to normal.

From the NSIDC:


Barring an about face by nature or adjustments, it appears that for the
first time since 2001, Arctic Sea ice will hit the “normal” line as
defined by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for this time
of year.





Some of the statements released:

  • The Danish Meteorological Institute shows Arctic ice extent at the highest level in their six year record.

  • The Norwegians (NORSEX) show Arctic ice area above the 30 year mean.

Dr. Walt Meir on the cause:



Basically, it is due primarily to a lot more ice in the Bering Sea,
as is evident in the images. The Bering ice is controlled largely by
local winds, temperatures are not as important (though of course it
still need to be at or at least near freezing to have ice an area for
any length of time). We’ve seen a lot of northerly winds this winter in
the Bering, particularly the last couple of weeks.



Yes, they make my head hurt too - temperature are not as important...sigh. That's his quote, the article had the statement in parenthesis so I'll assume they added it.

From Dr. Mark Serreze of NSIDC:


“It’s nice to see a little recovery over the past couple of years,
but there’s no reason to think that we’re headed back to conditions
seen in the 1970s,” said NSIDC Director Mark Serreze, also a professor
in CU-Boulder’s geography department. “We still expect to see ice-free
summers sometime in the next few decades.”




Referring to the "Death Spiral Theory" that the Ice will just suddenly melt away by 2013. Read it here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

Some expects and blogs published how there is some recovery.


"...sea ice appears to have turned the corner as of Sept 13th data. While
that is just one data point, it turned the corner about this time last
year, and the year before."


One Global Warming blog:


So now that Arctic ice has returned to normal extent and area, we
eagerly await the explanation from the experts about how that fits into
the “death spiral” theory. Richard Feynman famously said “Science
is the belief in the ignorance of the experts
.”

and

Time will tell. 2010 is looking promising for sea ice
recovery again. After all, who wouldn’t want the Arctic Sea ice
to recover? WUWT is predicting a recovery again this year, which we
started mentioning as a prediction last fall.

So given what we know today, what will NSIDC highlight
in their April Sea Ice News?


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/climate_change_happening_before_your_eyes



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/15/arctic-sea-ice-melt-appears-to-have-turned-the-corner-for-2009/



http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/31/arctic-sea-ice-about-to-hit-normal-what-will-the-news-say/#more-17970

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Looking back at Global Warming analysis

Originally posted at DeskofBrian.com: http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/hot-topics/global-warming-climate-change-whatever-else-they-ll-call-it/lookingbackatglobalwarminganalysis

"Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future." - Ellen Goodman, 2007 Boston Globe article (see below)


This old article sites voters' prioritites, dumbfounded by the low ranking Global Warming received:



"The folks at the Pew Research Center clocking public attitudes show that global warming remains 20th on the annual list of 23 policy priorities. Below terrorism, of course, but also below tax cuts, crime, morality, and illegal immigration."



"One reason is that while poles are melting and polar bears are swimming between ice floes, American politics has remained polarized. There are astonishing gaps between Republican science and Democratic science. Try these numbers: Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it."


Funny how those bogus scientists manipulated the data to perpetuate this fallacy and 75% of smart Democrats were more than happy to accept it as absolute truth and NEVER be skeptical.



"This works for some. But a lot of social science research tells us something else. As Ross Gelbspan, author of "The Heat is On," says, "when people are confronted with an overwhelming threat and don't see a solution, it makes them feel impotent. So they shrug it off or go into deliberate denial."



Note the exhaustive efforts to denounce deniers and marginalize real questions regarding the science, especially the short term nature of evidence.


Instead of adding Goodman to the Quotes page, I felt we could just reflect on her faith and loyalty to the Global Warming cult that has consume so many, especially on the left.






Saturday, February 27, 2010

MSNBC blames snowstorms on Global Warming & Howard Dean blames Republicans

First Published "State of the Nation" at Desk of Brian.com: http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/msnbcblamessnowstormsonglobalwarming

MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan:



"And then as winter comes in, that warm air cools full of water, and you
get heavier precipitation on a more regular basis. In fact, you could
argue these storms are not evidence of a lack of global warming, but are evidence of global warming - thus the 26 inches of snowfall in the DC area and the second giant storm this year."


Reagan National in DC received 17 inches, fifth most in history, heavier than Snocapolypse and the Blizzard of 2003.1



Watch the Ratigan video



















































Snowstorms are NOT proof global warming is false. The faulty science and fraudulent scientists blaming mankind and fueling hysteria have created a landscape ripe for criticism.



Howard Dean doesn't get this: "One of the most disturbing things about the Republican Party over the
last couple of decades is they don't believe in science anymore, it's
not likely, not an approach that's likely to generate any kind of
creative thinking or any serious thinking about the future...People who use snowstorms as an example of why global warming doesn't exist don't understand the science and they don't care."




Ratigan is irresponsible and intellectually juvenile to assert that the snowstorms are the RESULT of global warming. Dean is an arrogant elitist pretending that we can't understand the science and using partisan politics as a crutch.



There have been cooling and heating patterns throughout history and escalated solar activity which drives temperature spikes.



I found countless videos documenting the exchange between Glenn Beck's attacks, Ratigan's response with his own chalkboard - total buffoonery on both sides.



Everyone is too busy trying "to be right" instead of just being skeptical, applying the scientific method and making reasonable scientific observations.









Top Ten List of Snowstorms in Washington DC: here





1. http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/snowfall-totals-washington-dc-snowfall-maps-predictions-2570581.html

Global Warming: Avoiding the Battle of Anecdotes

Originally posting at Desk of Brian: http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/state-of-the-nation/globalwarmingavoidingthebattleofanecdotes

Recently I joked that I was really, really wrong about President Obama, I never expected him to fix global warming so quickly.

I joked.

Unfortunately Republicans, Conservatives, and talking heads are all falling into the same trap as the global warming alarmists. We shouldn't look at the local weather or recent snow storms to evaluate the climate shifts of the earth.

Al Gore became the poster boy of these anecdotal claims such as escalated hurricane activity and general outbreaks of disease which were all attributed to the earth's rising temperature. Scotish sheep, cougar attacks, kidney stones, squirrel gene mutations and even the crash of Air France Flight 447 have at one time or another been linked by alarmists to global warming.

Al Gore's declaration "The debate is settled" was embraced and this new scientific arrogance highjacked environmentalism.

Meanwhile, Phil Jones, Michael Mann and many of the top scientists have been turned on their head with faulty data, manipulated research papers and emails disclosing their "cover-up."

Recently Jones discussed how there has been NO WARMING since 1995 and he finally acknowledged Medieval Warm Period. Additionally, the IPCC is under attack for the countless flaws with their preposterous 2007 claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt away, completely disappear, in 25 years.

From an article by Dana Milbank at the Washington Post: "Skip the hurricanes and Himalayan glaciers and keep the argument on the hundreds of billions of dollars spent annually on foreign oil, some of that going to terrorists rahter than to domestic job creation."

So now we're at the crux of problem.

Politics and science are horrible bedfellows and the global warming agenda is just that, an agenda to manipulate finances and lifestyles to benefit individuals NOT connected to fossil fuels.

There's no "skipping" the credibility of science and the assault on polluters.

I've yet to meet that arrogant, nasty polluter who shamelessly wants humans to disregard everything and destroy the planet. No, the mainstream stance is simple: we need to be good stewards of the planet without a hysterical, Chicken Little global warming reaction.

In contrast to Mr. Gore, the debate is never over. We should never abandon scientific scrutiny.

I wish both sides could be mindful that snow in Florida does NOT disprove global warming any more or less than the July heat wave in Philadelphia.

I've always question the validity science that ignores solar flare activity while proclaiming to measure the earth's temperatures from hundreds and hundreds of years ago.

No more anecdotal science and knee jerk reactions.

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Liberals feuding over Haiti?

Rachel Maddow of MSNBC and Jon Stewart of Comedy Central rarely ever spar. This last Thursday was an exception to the rule as Stewart mentioned Maddow's poorly timed jab as the Bush administration:

"The idea of more diplomacy and development -- the idea of more USAID power -- is a major part of the Obama administration's agenda," Maddow said. "... All of that, central to what the Obama administration says it wants to do differently than what Bush and Cheney did."

After Stewart mentions leaving ideology out of the Haiti reporting the Maddow clip concludes leaving Stewart to announce: "Not the right time."

He then mocked Maddow, her audience and the network:

"Congratulations MSNBC viewers -- you're on the right side of this terrible, terrible tragedy"

Of course, that could and should be the end of it, right?

Nope.

Not on MSNBC -- Maddow replies on her show:

"I know that's politics, but, listen, I love me some Jon Stewart and the "Daily Show." I'm a big fan, but no apologies for reporting on which agency is the lead to respond to our national efforts to respond to Haiti, whether or not that agency is well-resourced, whether it had been subject to partisan attacks, how much the current administration values and prioritizes and indeed brags on that agency. We all as Americans are counting on our government to do a good job in responding to this catastrophe. This is what it looks like to report on our government's capacity to do just that.

Unfortunately the partisanship was brought to the table by you Rachel Maddow. Everyone knows the shortcomings of the previous administration, we don't need it highlighted right now. Did you mention how the local Democratic leadership in New Orleans failed their citizens during Katrina compared to Mississippi?

Rush Limbaugh's comments regarding President Obama using the disaster in Haiti is as deplorable as Danny Glover blaming global warming, but while we are still in the search and rescue phase political ideology could be checked at the door.


Danny Glover clip on GlitTV
http://sites.google.com/site/thedeskofbrian/Current-Events/dannygloversitesglobalwarmingascauseofhaitianearthquake

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Ocean Acidification is the new Buzzword


What was once "global cooling" was soon so scientifically invalid it was rebranded with the reactionary "global warming" that has turned into hysteria. Of course, again the science poses a burden to the agenda as the last decade has cooled, so "Climate Change" was the new tagline.

As many know, with the Climategate e-mails destroying the credibility of the top IPCC, UN and International scientists, the spin machine rolls on with the latest revamping: ocean acidification.

One can already find articles on the topic: The Tucsoncitizen.com, Mongabay.com, and even from the Copenhagen summit itself (Read here)

The name has or will be changed, but the agenda will be the same: create hysteria using extreme conditions in computer models to announce that mankind is destroying the earth. We must then spend billions on research to confirm these nearsighted claims and have the UN penalize the wealthy countries causing the problem while redistributing the funds to impoverished nations.

Maurice Strong, one of the leaders in this conspiracy is now in China (surprise!) despite ties to all of these bogus assertions, conferences and even the "Food for Oil" scandal. Strong is on the Board of Directors at the Chicago Climate Exchange (Chicago?) and is the close ally to Al Gore to push this agenda for their financial benefits.

Maurice Strong...China...Chicago and the budding new term "Ocean Acidification" -- you are now up to date, so let the emails begin.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6811984/Copenhagen-climate-conference-ocean-acidification-could-leave-one-billion-hungry.html

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

Dogs are worse for the environment than SUVs?


Reality seems more fictitious and unbelievable than the latest Adam Sandler film.

A recent headline on Yahoo caught my eye and I fully expected satire or a redirection to the comical Onion website. Unfortunately, this was and is not the case.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc_afp/lifestyleclimatewarminganimalsfood


From Paris, AFP, dogs are more harmful to the environment than large SUVs, including the gas guzzling Hummer. The new book "Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living" by New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale pet owners are the target of the environmental assault.

From the book: a medium-sized dog eats about 362 pounds of meat and 209 pounds of cereal each year, with 43 square miles of land needed to create just 2.2 pounds of dog food cereal. The Vales calculated the carbon footprint of a medium-sized dog as 2.08 acres, more than twice the 1.01 acres needed to create enough energy to build a Toyota Land Cruiser. However, the pair said the average driver travels about 12,000 miles a year, making the carbon footprint of the Toyota and the dog roughly equivalent.

A dog = Toyota SUV at 12,000 miles per year.

"Everything has an impact on the environment but I'm surprised by the size of these numbers. Without analyzing them further I find it difficult to believe," said John Buckey, managing director of carbonfootprint.com.

This is an article from 2008, in which the pooches (and children for that matter) are designated harmful for the environment. In case you want to dismiss this as the voice of the fringe or kooks, the author of this 2008 piece is Dr. Arthur Kling, a MIT grad, economist at the CATO institute and on Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.

http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2008/02/dogs_and_the_en.html




Strange times – Indeed.





http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2009/10/23/Book-Dog-SUV-have-same-carbon-footprint/UPI-30131256332111/

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Global Warming Summitt Declared a Failure

"The meeting was a disaster,” Lars-Erik Liljelund, the director general of Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt’s office, said in an interview today. “The process needs to be changed because if we continue like this, we won’t be any further a year from now."

The "unprecedented meeting", as President Obama pronounced, has yielded a major blow as the treaty is tabled for a year. Maybe we'll get some more e-mails public to prove that this is the greatest hoax in the history of science.

More from the Bloomberg article:

Rich countries offered to provide $100 billion a year by 2020 to help poor nations reduce carbon emissions, which is conditional on developing countries cutting gas discharges, according to the text. They may also pay out $30 billion in aid from next year through 2012.

“In terms of finance, it is vague, it is a big soup,” Pa Ousman Jarju, a Gambian delegate, said in an interview in Copenhagen. “It’s well below what is required.”


Well BELOW what is required -- got that. $30 billion NOW and $100 billion in ten years is simply NOT ENOUGH CASH for Gambia and other countries.


What did Obama say?

The agreement was reached after President Barack Obama had last-minute talks with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva and South African President, Jacob Zuma in Copenhagen today. It was then taken to all nations and most backed it. -- from the article



Scientific fallacy!?!?!

Nations should try to keep the global temperature increase before industrialization “below 2 degrees” Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), according to the agreement. Envoys from the U.S., Europe and China have supported the 2 degrees target. Poorer nations and environmental groups wanted 1 or 1.5 degrees, fearing a higher increase will raise sea levels and make coastal cities and some island states uninhabitable.


How carbon does it take to raise or lower the earth's temperature? This is the most absurd aspect of the global warming hysterical fear mongers. Within the last several months for example, we've discovered enormous algae beds that consume 10% of the world's Carbon dioxide. Moreover, these computer models predicting the elevated sea levels etc...still haven't explained (or been recalculated) for the decline in temperatures.


Dr. William Gray, who has predicted an active hurricane season in 2010, has denounced global warming hysteria as "indoctrination" and "one-sided".

From the press release: he warned that 'ClimateGate' revelations coming out of the University of East Anglia are but the tip of a giant iceberg of a well organized international climate warming conspiracy that has been gathering momentum for the past 25 years.

These e-mails are not the only question by skeptics, it's the straw breaking the camel's back. For years the IPCC has ignored amazing parallels in solar activity and previous warming patterns. Ice thinning in the arctic is being countered by the thickening and expansion in the Antarctic. The computer models are full of extreme worse case scenarios and treated as fact instead of a hypothesis.




http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=a6ailZ7R9TGc

http://www.wellandtribune.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2224184

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Global Warming: The Response

After the recent post regarding the question and answer ejection of a journalist, Phelim McAleer, after asking a difficult question.

I received one response and a link:

"They tried to take the mic from McAleer when he refused to let another journalist take their turn. McAleer took over the press event. UN Security arrived only because of McAleer's aggressive behavior."

This is the video I was directed to watch:



Stephen Schneider: "...private communications that people have between each other certainly are not public documents..."

This was the response that was hard to understand during the McAleer Q&A video.

Of course, as the poster stated, McAleer interrupts as the questioning continues. I think Schneider does a great job here of trying to speak to the integrity of science and the scientific community as a whole.

There's an interesting job at McAleer by Schneider about a post on his website. I don't know the back story here, but McAleer has a track record of attacking the Global Warming alarmists.

See, the bantering takes new form at that point. However, even after the first comment, the handlers were already closing in on McAleer to pry the microphone away.

Now, Schneider does go right back and adequately attacks McAleer for having an agenda, which he does, but Schneider can leave with just a victory - he has to take a cheap jab and the melee continued.


This is one of Schneider's videos to understand his point of view:



I want to be clear as to why I posted the original blog: trying to counter the mainstream global warming crowd and you will be attacked, called names, etc...

Being skeptical (that man is to blame, that it can be stopped or reversed, that the last ten years are cooler, that thirty years ago cooling was a bigger concern) should NOT dictate this response or reaction.

Some scientists (and myself) question the simple assertion that their models are scientific valid and NOT just worse case scenarios that, in fact, are very unlikely and not as devastating as advertised. For example, best case scenarios are 1.5 degrees increase and 6-7 degrees are possible -- all the while dismissing the cooling over the last 10 years. Just not a good hypothesis.



McAleer's website: http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/home

Schneider is NOT a flip flopper as some portray because he predicted cooling, but this is because of a warming and pollutants that would block the sun. I've had trouble finding originals of his work.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/173/3992/138


One thing is for sure, we have a hard time coming together and discussing this.

Monday, December 14, 2009

Don't even bring up Climategate or face ejection





Journalist Phelim McAleer dared the unthinkable: he asked a scientist at the Copenhagen summit about those pesky "Climategate" emails.

Oh the horror.

Dr. Stephen Schneider (Stanford University), his assistant and the UN Security did NOT appreciate this journalist doing his job.



This pompous high road attitude over the "means" in which the emails were obtained is proof positive these folks are liars and hiding the truth.

Was this the response to journalists over Watergate tapes or the Lewinsky dress? Of course not. Phil Jones and the other global warming conspirators need to be outed and if the scientists were honest, they would distance themselves from the manipulated science, denounce Jones and NOT attack the tapes and the journalists.


They are literally trying to pry the microphone away from McAleer before having security confront McAleer and his credentials.

Wow, that's the best and the brightest of global warming science responding to questions. Sorry, let's explore that: this was a non-confrontational question, simply asking for Schneider's opinion on Jones et al.

Then watch how they are threatened over turning off the camera and not rolling tape or face ejection and confiscation of the camera.

This is McAleer's statement:

"I have met Mr Christopher Ankerson the UN’s head of security for the conference and he has confirmed it was Professor Schneider’s staff who asked the security guards to come corral us at the press conference. Mr Ankerson could not say what grounds the security guard had for ordering us to stop filming.

This is a blatant attempt to stop journalists doing journalism and asking hard questions. It is not the job of armed UN security officers to stop legitimate journalists asking legitimate questions of senior members of the UN’s IPCC." - McAleer.




http://www.eutimes.net/2009/12/un-security-stops-journalists-questions-about-climategate-scandal/

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

Science does NOT matter to this administration



This global warming cult predates Obama administration but it's only fair to analyze the comments and status today.

"That is why today, I am also signing a Presidential Memorandum directing the head of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy to develop a strategy for restoring scientific integrity to government decision making. To ensure that in this new Administration, we base our public policies on the soundest science; that we appoint scientific advisors based on their credentials and experience, not their politics or ideology; and that we are open and honest with the American people about the science behind our decisions. That is how we will harness the power of science to achieve our goals – to preserve our environment and protect our national security; to create the jobs of the future, and live longer, healthier lives."1


No they won't.

We are in the middle of the unraveling the greatest scam in the history of science and the Obama administration went to "Plan B" - have the EPA intercede and regulate CO2 as a pollutant (only months after a White House memo stated otherwise)

This science has been led by the UN with the IPCC and has been outed as a fraud and void of honest peer review and viable data.

In May, Lisa Jackson, EPA, said in a memo2

"Science must be the compass guiding our environmental protection decisions. We cannot make the best decisions unless we have confidence in the integrity of the science on which we rely. Therefore, it is my promise that scientific integrity will be the backbone of my leadership of the Agency."

Ms. Jackson, the leading scientists are pending investigation and review of their research and yet the EPA announces regulation of CO2.

People DO NOT have confidence in the science and are questioning the integrity -- unfortunately the Obama administration, the EPA and others don't see that.












1.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/remarks-of-the-president-as-prepared-for-delivery-signing-of-stem-cell-executive-order-and-scientific-integrity-presidential-memorandum/


2. http://www.epa.gov/Administrator/scientificmemo.html

As the Global Warming Soap Opera Turns


Do as they say, not as they do?

The climate change summit in Copenhagen prepares for an onslaught of scientists, but more specially the 1,200 limos, 140 private jets and 5 hybrids.1 Hardly the ecofriendly means of transportation for the scientific elite.

From the Telegraph article: "The government has some alternative fuel cars but the rest will be petrol or diesel. We don't have any hybrids in Denmark, unfortunately, due to the extreme taxes on those cars. It makes no sense at all, but it's very Danish." -- Majken Friss Jorgensen, managing director of Copenhagen's biggest limousine company

By the way, the carbon footprint of the summit has not been released.

Estimates for Copenhagen, where 16,500 people from 192 countries will fly in using private jets, consume 200,000 meals and produce an estimated 41,000 tons of carbon dioxide, roughly equal ALL of the carbon emissions of Morocco in 2006.


Extreme taxes on those cars? No hybrid cars in Denmark? -- I need to move on.


Jon Stewart provide a smile or two with jabs at Al Gore: "Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. OH. OH the irony."


There are two Academy Award members that are calling for Al Gore to return his Oscar. Roger L. Simon and Lionel Chetwynd made the request after the linked emails revealed to many, confirmed for many others, that the scientific foundation of global warming has been manipulated.



Lastly, the Obama administration wheeled out Lisa Jackson, head of the EPA, to announce the most draconian policy ever. Ignoring skeptics, corrupt science, the government will tighten regulations. In May, the White House memo announced how CO2 was NOT a pollutant. Read my blog here.

This is nauseating politics at its worst.

Just in case my stance is unclear: we need to be good stewards of the earth, conservationists, fighting pollution and abuse - BUT NOT hysterically reacting to a questionable claim to allow for politics and money to decide our choices.











1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6736517/Copenhagen-climate-summit-1200-limos-140-private-planes-and-caviar-wedges.html


http://raymondpronk.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/white-house-memo-carbon-dioxide-is-not-a-pollutant-and-a-cap-and-trade-program-carbon-dioxide-tax-serious-economic-impact-the-smoking-gun-video/

Monday, November 30, 2009

Global Warming Fraud goes to the White House


The response to the Global Warming e-mails (State of the Nation blogged here) first were redefining "trick" to mean "short cut", then marginalize the content because of the means they were obtained. Some scientists have been vocal to minimize these "few" scientists asserting that the science is valid with widespread credibility.

While some will scream "right-wing media" and "Rush Limbaugh propaganda", it is the Canada Free Press which delivers the next blow with this article connecting the Global Warming confessions to the White House Science Czar John Holdren.

Nicknamed "Climategate", the article reveals "Canada Free Press (CFP) columnist Canadian climatologist Dr. Tim Ball terms "a truculent and nasty manner that provides a brief demonstration of his lack of understanding, commitment on faith and willingness to ridicule and bully people".

That would be John Holdren and the tactics to used to promote global warming, oppressing dissent by skeptical scientists.

Ball: "...It is already clear the entire claims and positions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are based on falsified manipulated material and is therefore completely compromised. The fallout will be extensive as material continues to emerge. Reputations of the scientists involved are already destroyed, however fringe players will continue to be identified and their reputations destroyed or sullied."

Solar physicists Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon were mocked and ridiculed for their contradictory work confirming the existence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) from a multitude of sources. Their work challenged attempts to get rid of the MWP because it contradicted the claim by the proponents of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

"In practice, burden of proof is an evolving thing – it evolves as the amount of evidence relevant to a particular proposition grows" - Holden's very political statement from an email. Especially disturbing from a scientist.

These are the major players at the IPCC and the global warming theorists. An announced hearing in Washington will present a dog and pony show to suppress critics and validate the global warming hysteria.

Some interesting comments/exerts:

Re: Flattening and declining temperatures since 2000: "This means we can't fully comprehend or understand exactly what is going on. We know that it cooled in 2008 but we are not 100 per cent sure why even though we can point to the fact that there was a major La Nino event" -- Dr. Kenneth Trenberth

"I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow--even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!" -- Phil Jones (suppressing data that would contradict AGW)

"I think we have to stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal" -- Michael Mann


If nothing else maybe we can revisit the "Debate is over" assertion and seek out honest science.



http://www.examiner.com/x-20909-Columbia-Independent-Examiner~y2009m11d27-Science-Czar-John-Holdren-involved-in-Climategate-scandal


http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/climategate_holdren_email/2009/11/27/291545.html?s=al&promo_code=9234-1

http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/69795-climate-email-controversy-headed-for-capitol-hill-airing

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Global Warming Fraud finally revealed





There must have been cheers around on the Duke University campus as their solar activity studies (which correlated temperature fluctuations with the sun's activity) officially gained credibility. Emails leaked from a hacker revealed what many of us have been shouting: global warming is a sham.

The hysteria surrounding CO2 levels and man-made contributions have been overly hyped to achieve political and financial means. The world's leading scientist reveal the details of collusion, corruption and scientific fraud.

From the e-mails:

UK Climatologist Phil Jones instructs fellow scientists to "hide the decline" in recent global temperatures. Some evidence appears to show a halt in a rise of global temperatures from about 1960, contradicting the current global warming theme.

Jones stated in one email: ..."just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (i.e., from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline" - this is Michael Mann, a professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University.

Michael Mann (i.e. Mike) is famous for the "hockey stick" graph, but the "trick" is really a "short cut" according to Mann and Jones.

Mann's official statement: "I'm not going to comment on the content of illegally obtained emails. However, I will say this: both their theft and, I believe, any reproduction of the emails that were obtained on public websites, etc, constitutes serious criminal activity. I'm hoping the perpetrators and their facilitators will be tracked down and prosecuted to the fullest extent the law allows."

Of course he won't comment on content, only cry foul that they have been released and discredit them as "illegal" - was that the response when the Watergate tapes made headlines?


Here's another gem:

Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,

Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today or first thing tomorrow. I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annual land and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH land N of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999 for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 with data through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.

Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Cheers, Phil



So basically thermometers stopped being beneficial to the study they were said to have "lost sensitivity" -- they eliminated BAD data!!!

This is the IPCC, a huge scientific leader in the global warming movement, being outed to have FIXED data.

Two other American scientists named in leaked e-mails are Gavin Schmidt of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, and Kevin Trenberth, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research, in Colorado --- no word from them.




First in 2007, when Dr James Hansen's data was revealed to have been systematically "adjusted" to show recent temperatures as higher than those reported by the other three official sources.

The result was the in GISS revising its figures.(exposed by two science blogs, Watts Up With That, run by Anthony Watts, and Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit)


Gavin Schmidt has been distancing himself from the GISS having played the fall guy for a false report of "Hottest October on Record" when the data was falsified from the previous month's data. (outed by the aforementioned blogs)


George Monbiot, a leading environmentalist, said Phil Jones should resign from the Climatic Research Unit. Jones and other researchers suppressed scientific data and climatologist admitted it was a travesty that scientists could not explain a lack of global warming in recent years.


This onion has no end because the layers of lies runs to the core. Working in research and the medical field, I can tell you that biggest crime is sacrificing the integrity of the science.

Global warming is a hoax and has distracted us from being good stewards of the planet. Billions and billions has been wasted on bogus research and climate control measures which could have better served on conservation.








should resign: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1230635/Scientist-climate-change-cover-storm-told-quit.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/21/ap/world/main5727910.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/5510-gavin-schmidt-wants-it-known-he-has-no-connection-with-the-giss-temperature-record

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

New Climate Study further debunks Global Warming Hysteria


Bristol University further confirms what many scientists and scientific journals have been claiming: that despite increased CO2 levels, the earth can absorb it.

The new report by Dr. Knorr further proves the earlier claims that CO2 is NOT a pollutant and that the earth's ecosystem is so fluid that these "changes" are negligible in historical contexts.

"Previous studies suggested that in the next ten years the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will accelerate because there is a lot less uptake by the Earth, there is no indication of this" - Dr. Knorr

As the article mentions, another great piece of research1,2 is the amazing benefits of phytoplankton to absorb CO2 as ice melts. In this second report:

"In a recent report from the journal Global Change Biology, scientists from British Antarctic Survey (BAS) estimate that this new natural 'sink' is taking an estimated 3.5 million tonnes of carbon from the ocean and atmosphere each year."

These plankton are consuming 10% of this "heightened" CO2 output and WE DIDN'T KNOW that a few years ago. From Dr. Peck:

"Although this is a small amount of carbon compared to global emissions of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere it is nevertheless an important discovery. It shows nature's ability to thrive in the face of adversity. We need to factor this natural carbon-absorption into our calculations and models to predict future climate change. So far we don't know if we will see more events like this around the rest of Antarctica's coast but it's something we'll be keeping a close eye on."

I have and will contend that we need to be good stewards of God's Green Earth. With that said the global warming hysteria became a joke when Al Gore said the debate is over. The debate and scientific research is NEVER over.

In May the White House tried to bury a report that CO2 is NOT a pollutant because it would contradict their "green" movement and the pending CAP and Trade Bill.

Well, the debate is NOT over, but I'll let the scientists speak for themselves:


"CO2 is not a pollutant. In simple terms, CO2 is plant food. The green world we see around us would disappear if not for atmospheric CO2. These plants largely evolved at a time when the atmospheric CO2 concentration was many times what it is today. Indeed, numerous studies indicate the present biosphere is being invigorated by the human-induced rise of CO2. In and of itself, therefore, the increasing concentration of CO2 does not pose a toxic risk to the planet." - John R. Christy, Ph.D. Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Alabama


"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but a naturally occurring, beneficial trace gas in the atmosphere. For the past few million years, the Earth has existed in a state of relative carbon dioxide starvation compared with earlier periods. There is no empirical evidence that levels double or even triple those of today will be harmful, climatically or otherwise. As a vital element in plant photosynthesis, carbon dioxide is the basis of the planetary food chain - literally the staff of life. Its increase in the atmosphere leads mainly to the greening of the planet. To label carbon dioxide a "pollutant" is an abuse of language, logic and science." - Robert M. Carter, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental and Earth Sciences, James Cook University


"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. On the contrary, it makes crops and forests grow faster. Economic analysis has demonstrated that more CO2 and a warmer climate will raise GNP and therefore average income. It's axiomatic that bureaucracies always want to expand their scope of operations. This is especially true of EPA, which is primarily a regulatory agency. As air and water pollution disappear as prime issues, as acid rain and stratospheric-ozone depletion fade from public view, climate change seems like the best growth area for regulators. It has the additional glamour of being international and therefore appeals to those who favor world governance over national sovereignty. Therefore, labeling carbon dioxide, the product of fossil-fuel burning, as a pollutant has a high priority for EPA as a first step in that direction." - S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia


"Carbon and CO2 (carbon dioxide) are fundamental for all life on Earth. CO2 is a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas. CO2 is product of our breathing, and is used in numerous common applications like fire extinguishers, baking soda, carbonated drinks, life jackets, cooling agent, etc. Plants' photosynthesis consume CO2 from the air when the plants make their carbohydrates, which bring the CO2 back to the air again when the plants rot or are being burned." - Tom V. Segalstad, Ph.D. Professor of Environmental Geology, University of Oslo


"To suddenly label CO2 as a "pollutant" is a disservice to a gas that has played an enormous role in the development and sustainability of all life on this wonderful Earth. Mother Earth has clearly ruled that CO2 is not a pollutant." - Robert C. Balling Jr., Ph.D. Professor of Climatology, Arizona State University


"Many chemicals are absolutely necessary for humans to live, for instance oxygen. Just as necessary, human metabolism produces by-products that are exhaled, like carbon dioxide and water vapor. So, the production of carbon dioxide is necessary, on the most basic level, for humans to survive. The carbon dioxide that is emitted as part of a wide variety of natural processes is, in turn, necessary for vegetation to live. It turns out that most vegetation is somewhat 'starved' for carbon dioxide, as experiments have shown that a wide variety of plants grow faster, and are more drought tolerant, in the presence of doubled carbon dioxide concentrations. Fertilization of the global atmosphere with the extra CO2 that mankind's activities have emitted in the last century is believed to have helped increase agricultural productivity. In short, carbon dioxide is a natural part of our environment, necessary for life, both as 'food' and as a by-product." - Roy Spencer, Ph.D. Meteorology


"I am at a loss to understand why anyone would regard carbon dioxide as a pollutant. Carbon dioxide, a natural gas produced by human respiration, is a plant nutrient that is beneficial both for people and for the natural environment. It promotes plant growth and reforestation. Faster-growing trees mean lower housing costs for consumers and more habitat for wild species. Higher agricultural yields from carbon dioxide fertilization will result in lower food prices and will facilitate conservation by limiting the need to convert wild areas to arable land." - David Deming, Ph.D. Professor of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma


"Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a colorless, odorless trace gas that actually sustains life on this planet. Consider the simple dynamics of human energy acquisition, which occurs daily across the globe. We eat plants directly, or we consume animals that have fed upon plants, to obtain the energy we need. But where do plants get their energy? Plants produce their own energy during a process called photosynthesis, which uses sunlight to combine water and carbon dioxide into sugars for supporting overall growth and development. Hence, CO2 is the primary raw material that plants depend upon for their existence. Because plants reside beneath animals (including humans) on the food chain, their healthy existence ultimately determines our own. Carbon dioxide can hardly be labeled a pollutant, for it is the basic substrate that allows life to persist on Earth." - Keith E. Idso, Ph.D. Botany


"Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed. Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist. Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible. They are surely not environmental pollutants." - Arthur B. Robinson, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry








1. http://www.enn.com/ecosystems/article/40686

2. http://en.mercopress.com/2009/11/10/phytoplankton-flourishes-in-antarctic-open-areas-of-water-where-ice-retreat

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Al Gore: Profiteer from Global Warming & Diane Sawyer

This is a great article by David Dick on Al Gore and his profit motives and global warming. The former VP is making billions and billions by escalating and manipulating scientific data to perpetuate global warming hysteria.

http://www.examiner.com/x-12465-Washington-County-Independent-Examiner~y2009m11d4-Al-Gore-pushes-Global-Warming-for-personal-profit


Diane Sawyer of Good Morning America here actually asks Gore some difficult questions.

I'll inbed the video when I track it down.