December, 2009:

Fantastic New Resource: 500 Peer Reviewed Articles That Support Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming

Dec 31st, 2009

Comments are off for this post

I just found out about this fantastic article, “500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of ‘Man-Made’ Global Warming“. It lists, and links to, 500 peer reviewed, published articles that support a skeptical view towards “man-made” global warming, also known as AGW, or Anthropogenic Global Warming. Unfortunately, being peer reviewed scientific articles, many are not freely available unless you subscribe to the particular journal in question. But, virtually all of these articles can be purchased for a fairly nominal fee, and the abstracts for the articles are freely available. Also, many of the articles are freely available. It is not only a great resource for anyone interested in the topic (whether you believe in AGW or not), but it shows conclusively that there are responsible scientists that do not support “man-made” global warming, and their research clearly shows that the science is not settled. But, of course, you don’t hear much about these scientists and their work.

Another thing that I found very interesting about the articles when I glanced through the list and the brief descriptions of each article was the fact that a significant portion of the articles are quite recent. That is, many were published after 2005. This is very significant, since the last IPCC report was published in 2007, and the global warmingistas responsible for that report would not allow any article published after 2005 to be included. Thus, the report was based on old, and perhaps outdated, science. This article is a treasure-trove of information for anyone interested in the topic.

More Outrageous Commercials…Boycott Build-A-Bear

Dec 22nd, 2009

by EdTroy.

Comments are off for this post

I have written before about incredibly stupid commercials meant to brainwash the minds of young, impressionable children by making them believe that puppies will drown, bunny rabbits will starve, and polar bears will fall from the skies and die because their mean, thoughtless parents drive cars and heat their homes. I’ve also stated how evil it is that children in Palestine are brainwashed by cartoon-like characters on children shows to hate Jews and to grow up to be terrorists. Richard Dawkins famously stated that indoctrinating children with specific religious beliefs before they are old enough to think for themselves is a form of child abuse.
And, lets not forget the abominably wrong “About Your Father” letter from Clive Hamilton. In that, he actually said:

I am sure it’s hard for you to hear these words, but there is something you can do to help. Why not sit your dad down and have a good talk to him. Tell him you want him to stop helping the big companies that are spoiling the future for you and all the other kids at school. Tell him that the family would rather have less money if he had a different job, one you could be proud of.

So, I really did not think things could get too much worse. But, of course, I was wrong. Now, the Build A Bear company has come out with this atrocious attempt to brainwash children about global warming and other leftist trash. The videos talk about the North Polar ice cap melting in 2 days, and global warming causing the cancellation of Christmas. They even had the audacity to mention that the cute penguins (with Australia accents) were working at the “Global Village Research Center”. (Hillary would be so proud.) When mentioning the fact that the warming could cause the North Pole to disappear in 2 days, they dutifully reported 2 days as “The Day After Tomorrow.” When they showed their “research” book, I was actually surprised that they did not show the rediculously fraudulent cover of Al Gore’s newest book. (And, I am not even going to insert a shameless plug here, in the form of an Amazon link, because I don’t want anybody to buy his book, even if that purchase might net me a few cents.)

Part 2

Part 3

2 Part Article In National Post Gives Excellent Layman’s Explanation Of Climategate

Dec 22nd, 2009

by EdTroy.

Comments are off for this post

Of course, by now just about everyone has heard about Climategate, that huge (over 150 megabytes) release of files, e-mails, and computer code from the CRU (East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit). But, in spite of the significance of the “hack” (or whistle blower release of information), it has not been very well covered by the main stream media. Of course, since the release severely damages the “science” of man made global warming, (no matter how hard the main stream media tries to claim that it does not) it is not too surprising to learn that the main stream media was quite. After all, they are mostly owned by large corporations who plan to line their pockets through carbon tax trading at the expense of ordinary citizens. And, many media types are extremely liberal, and would welcome global government and “climate justice”.

But, finally, a well written, and I think pretty balanced article was written in Canada’s National Post by Terence Cororan. In this article, he goes though the thousand or so e-mails and puts them into context, and tries to explain what they mean in a language that can be understood by a non-scientist.

In the article, he points out that the released materials were clearly not random. They were picked from over 13 years worth of files and e-mails to describe what can not be considered anything more than the pure politicization of science, and “scientists” in search of validation of a theory to prove that man is causing unprecedented global warming, rather than a scientific search for the truth. And, the e-mails showed that some of the scientists had their own personal doubts about some of the findings and research.

The 2001 Synthesis Report looked authoritative in its carbon and temperature outlooks. But one of the “lead authors” was Kevin Ternberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado. Eight years later, Mr. Ternberth shows up in the emails. On Oct. 14, 2009, he wrote to Tom Wigley: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.” In other words, one of the lead authors of the 100-year climate forecasting exercise says there’s something wrong with the models — or the data.

After a while, the IPCC team at the CRU decided to bring Dr. Michael Mann on board. In an e-mail where he agreed to work with them, to Dr. Phil Jones, the leader of the CRU, Dr. Mann wrote the following.

Dear Phil,
Of course I’ll be happy to be on board. I think the opportunity for some direct collaboration between us (me, and you/tim/keith) is ripe, and the plan to compare and contrast different approaches and data and synthesize the different results is a good one. Though sidetracked by other projects recently, I remain committed to doing this with you guys, and to explore applications to synthetic datasets with manufactured biases/etc remains high priority. It sounds like it would all fit into the proposal you mention. There may be some overlap w/proposals we will eventually submit to NSF (renewal of our present funding), etc. by I don’t see a problem with that in the least.
Once the collaboration is officially in place, I think that sharing of codes, data, etc. should not be a problem. I would be happy to make mine available, though can’t promise its the most user friendly thing in the world.
In short, I like the idea. Include me in, and let me know what you eed from me (cv, etc.).
cheers,
mike

Terence Cororan’s comment to this e-mail was:

Exactly what those words mean is hard to know. It must be science talk

Personally, to me, it sounds ominously prescient of the “science” that is going to be done by the CRU and it’s associated “scientists”.

Part II of the article goes on to describe some of the actual scientific and peer review issues raised by Climategate .

It seemed that there was a lot of tension between the scientists as to what should be published and what should not be published.

Finally, in an important concluding remark, Mr. Mann tells Mr. Briffa to “correct” his definitions regarding “global temperature and non-temperature proxies.” Mr. Mann prefers using the words “global climate proxies,” thus giving the impression that proxies from tree rings and other sources and actual temperatures are one and the same for IPCC purposes. What Mr. Mann appears to be talking about here is the use of what CRU head Phil Jones would later refer to as Mr. Mann’s “trick” and how he was able to “hide the decline” that Mr. Briffa’s tree-ring research showed 20th century temperatures to be cooler rather than warmer.
A series of email exchanges, some heated and involving a range of scientists, follows. It appears, moreover, that Mr. Mann had interfered with the peer-review process of Mr. Briffa’s article at Science magazine. One of Mr. Mann’s associates, Raymond Bradley at the University of Massachusetts, on April 19, wrote to Science editor Julia Uppenbrink, saying, “I would like to disassociate myself from Mike Mann’s view” regarding the climate warming article. Mr. Bradley sends a blind copy of this email to Mr. Briffa.
The conflict eventually makes it up to Phil Jones, the head of CRU, who writes a stinging letter to Mr. Mann on May 6. “You seem quite pissed off with us all in CRU,” said Mr. Jones. “I am somewhat at a loss to understand why.” Mr. Jones, in strong words, then rips into Mr. Mann. He accused Mr. Mann of “slanging us all off to Science.” We all have disagreements, wrote Mr. Jones, but “We have never resorted to slanging one another off to a journal … or in reviewing papers or proposals.”
After a month of back and forth, Mr. Mann seems to offer an apology. In a mildly grovelling but self-serving and ultimately not-too-apologetic letter, he commends Mr. Briffa and others for doing such terrific work. “I appreciate having had the opportunity to respond to the original draft …. We have some honest disagreements among us …. Thanks for all the hard work and a job well done,” wrote Mr. Mann on May 14. Mr. Bradley, Mr. Mann’s associate in Massachusetts and co-creator of the hockey stick graph, sends a private response to Mr. Briffa: “Excuse me while I puke … Ray.”
More clashes occur later that year over the tree-ring record. Mr. Briffa, in September 1999, is still battling Mr. Mann. “I know Mike thinks his series is ‘the best’, and he might be right — but he may also be too dismissive of other data and overconfident of his own.” He adds: “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data,’ but in reality the situation is not quite so clear … I believe the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago.”

After all, it would not fit their agenda to have people knowing that it actually has been warmer in the past. How many times have we heard Al Gore, and others, state that “it has never been warmer”, or something like that. After all, if it was warmer 1000 years ago, that warming was clearly not caused by CO2, and thus their argument for human activities destroying the planet and bringing on major, life threatening catastrophes does not look so impressive or urgent. But, the sinister side of this is the very clear attempt to kill the publication of anything, no matter how well accepted and presented, that does not fit their agenda. This is not how science is supposed to work. As the article points out:

The Mann technique of aggressive intervention in the peer-review process over Mr. Briffa’s work sets the tone for what would become a major strategy as all the scientists within the IPCC loop waged war on any science and papers that contravened or questioned the official view.

One of the most famous incidents involving the IPCC, the CRU, and Dr. Mann and others is the infamous “hockey stick chart”. This was proudly displayed in the first IPCC finding, and trumpeted by Al Gore as proof that we are destroying the planet. Unfortunately for Al Gore and the IPCC, it was based on very bad science, and was later proven to be false by Steve McIntyre (of ClimateDepot fame), and Ross McKitrick. But, not without intensive efforts by Mann and others of the global warmingistas to block the publication of McIntyre’s and McKitrick’s work.

The anti-skeptic campaign switched into overdrive with the arrival on the climate science scene of two Canadians, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. In mid-2003, after many efforts, Mr. McIntyre and Mr. McKitrick finally published a paper titled “Corrections to the Mann et al Proxy Data Base and Northern Hemisphere Average Temperature Series.”
The public battles between Mr. Mann and the two Canadians are already on the record. The emails reinforce the worst of suspicions that the official scientific community did all they could to smear Mr. McIntyre and Mr. McKitrick, prevent publication of the work of skeptics, manipulate the peer-review process and isolate all skeptics as cranks. On May 31, 2004, Phil Jones, head of the IPCC-designated Climatic Research Unit, wrote to Mr. Mann: “Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either appears I will be very surprised…”
Mr. Mann meddled in other ways. In January 2005, he called the editor of Geophysical Research Letters, the official science publication of the American Geophysical Union, to try to head off a paper by Mr. McIntyre. The editor, Steve Mackwell, defends the decision to publish and tells Mr. Mann that the McIntyre paper has been thoroughly peer reviewed by four scientists. “You would not in general be asked to look it over,” Mr. Mackwell told Mr. Mann. Later in 2005, Mr. Mann wrote to Mr. Jones on their troubles with the GRL journal after Mr. Mackwell’s term as editor was up: “The GRL leak may have been plugged up now w/ new editorial leadership.”

As the battles between the CRU and McIntyre and McKitrick intensified, McIntyre filed freedom of information act (FOIA) requests in the United States and Great Britain to request copies of the raw data that was used by the CRU. It was at about this time that the leaked documents show Dr. Jones telling people to delete any e-mails related to the data for which there is a FOIA request. And, as I reported earlier, it is at about this time that the CRU announced that it “lost the data” and thus could not fulfill the FOIA request!

It is a great set of articles. Go read them in full.

Important New Article On Greenland Climate In Journal of Climate

Dec 21st, 2009

by EdTroy.

Comments are off for this post

A new article has been published in the American Meteorological Society publication “Journal of Climate” on pages 4029 to 4049. Yes, it is a very long (20 pages) article. The lead author is Jason E. Box of the Byrd Polar Research Center and Department of Geography, Atmospheric Sciences Program at the Ohio State University in Columbus, Ohio. The article title is “Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Air Temperature Variability: 1840-2007”. While the data only goes back to 1840, and thus misses the colder portion of the “little ice age”, and it certainly does not cover the “Medieval Warm Period“, it is a very interesting article. Of course, since there were extensive crops and livestock herds in Greenland in the Medieval Warm Period, it was obviously much warmer then than it is now. But, the article clearly shows that there is nothing remarkable about recent temperatures in Greenland.

The highlight of the article is a graph showing temperatures in Greenland during that period of time. It clearly shows that temperatures were higher in the 1930’s, and it also shows that temperatures rose at a more rapid rate a long time ago, compared to the recent warming. Furthermore, it clearly shows a drop in temperature during the time period from 1930 to 1990. This is significant, because CO2 was rapidly rising during this time. Again, the data shows that temperature is not primarily a function of CO2. And, of course, if CO2 is the driver, there is absolutely no way to explain the rapid rise in temperature between 1885 and 1930.

This article is just more evidence that we have seen higher temperatures in the past; even the very recent past. It also clearly shows that temperature changes are not just the result of CO2. In fact, there is very strong evidence that temperature changes are mostly due to something that we don’t understand, as Dr. Phil Jones’ leaked e-mail revealed when he said that it is a “travesty” that we cannot explain the lack of global temperature increase over the last 11 years, in spite of a clear increase in CO2 levels.

This is just more evidence that we DO NOT understand climate change, and to cripple the world’s economies with carbon taxes before we really understand the science is not only ridiculous, it would be criminal.

A Simple Primer On Anthropogenic Global Warming Skepticism

Dec 21st, 2009

by EdTroy.

Comments are off for this post

Many people simply don’t understand global warming skeptics. Or, more specifically, they don’t understand AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) skeptics. And, I have to admit that there are many varieties of us, and we have a wide range of skeptical beliefs. Some are just skeptical that man is the primary cause of global warming. Some don’t even believe it is warming. Some believe that it was warming for a couple of hundred years after the “little ice age”, which bottomed out about 400 years ago, but that warming trend ended in the early 1900’s. So, we have a wide range of beliefs. In his excellent article, “Global Warming Skepticism 101“, self-professed AGW skeptic Dr. Roy Spencer offers a basic rundown of AGW skepticism.

I get so many questions from readers about a variety of global warming issues that I thought I would whip up some Q&A for those who want to understand the views of skeptics a little better. I will try to update these with links and additional answers as time permits.

Climate science is complex and the study of it is highly specialized. Nevertheless, there is a common theme that runs through the claims of the global warming establishment, from Al Gore’s movie An Inconvenient Truth, to the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): Weather and climate events that happen naturally are being increasingly blamed on the activities of humans. So, causation is at the root of most beliefs about global warming and climate change.

As one digs further into the science, the direction of causation also emerges as a key theme, and it is one that can totally change the degree to which it appears humans affect the climate system. In my own area of research I have found that mixing up cause and effect when examining how cloud cover varies with temperature has greatly misled the scientific establishment regarding how sensitive the climate system is to our addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

Not all skeptics believe the same things, though, so some skeptics will object to some of what I have listed below. These represent my opinions, not all of which are necessarily ascribed to by other skeptics. Additional details on many of these issues can be found throughout this website, including a Q&A list I published on April 19, 2009.

The following list, in no particular order, are my responses to common claims and accusations about global warming skeptics. If other scientists or laypersons want me to add to the list, or want to argue for changes, email me and I will update it as appropriate. Please be sure to check back for the latest update (posted above).

He then continues to address many of the conceptions, and misconceptions, that people have about AGW skeptics.

Read the whole article.

Not Only Is AGW Fraud, But Global Warming Itself Might Be A Lie

Dec 21st, 2009

by EdTroy.

2 comments

Along with most scientists who do not believe that CO2 is the main cause of global warming, I have believed that the globe was warming. Generally, the crux of the argument by scientists like me is, so what if the globe is warming? It has been warmer in the past, such as the Medieval Warming Period, the Holocene Climate Optimum, as well as other times. And, more importantly, the world has been much cooler. It is global cooling that will hurt us, not global warming. We went through the little ice age in the late 1700’s and the early 1800’s, and then we warmed up. Is the current warming just a continuation of that warming? I don’t know. Nobody knows. The earth warms and the earth cools. We don’t really understand why.And, the global warmingistas admit this too, when they state that they can’t explain the current lack of warming since 1998, even though CO2 continues to increase.

Is CO2 a greenhouse gas? Yes. But, it is a very minor greenhouse gas. The primary greenhouse gas is water vapor. Also, as a trace greenhouse gas, the effect of CO2 on temperature is not linear. It is logarithmic. That is, if a doubling of CO2 causes some temperature increase (lets say 0.5 degrees Celsius for the sake of this discussion), then, to get another 0.5 degree rise in global temperature would require the CO2 concentration to double again, thus ending up at 4 times the original concentration. And, to get another 0.5 degree increase would require yet another doubling, or 8 times the original CO2 concentration. So, to get a 1.5 degree Celsius temperature rise would require CO2 to increase by a factor of 8 times. Not likely in the next few centuries. And, this is assuming that temperature increases 0.5 degrees for a doubling of CO2, and I suspect the actual number is much lower.

As I have demonstrated, CO2 does not drive global temperature, anyway. We know that from the ice core samples, which clearly show that CO2 levels follow, rather than lead, temperature changes. Thus, CO2 cannot be a primary driver of global temperature.

But today I came across a very interesting article stating that even the assumption that temperatures have risen in the last 60 years may not be true. I have seen other, similar, articles that show that the very temperature measurements that we have been fed by the global warmingistas are very suspect, and have a lot of errors in them. We have seen in the Climategate e-mails and software comments that the global warmingistas were having a very hard time adjusting their data to get the results they wanted. Of course, by now we all know about the infamous “hide the decline” in the fraudulent “hockey stick” graph that was published in the original IPCC finding and Al Gore’s infamous book. (But, how many people actually know that the graph was proven to be totally fraudulent and invalid, and had to be removed from future editions of the IPCC findings? I suspect that not many people in the general public know that fact.)

But the article I found, today, does a very good job of showing just what kind of bogus science was performed by the warmingistas, who are supposedly Ph.D. educated scientists. In this article, along with another excellent article, The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero, anyone can see just how temperatures may have been manipulated to produce a warming, where, it is possible that none really happened, because of the various errors involved in the measurements, and the way those errors were unscientifically ignored. And, to make matters worse, it looks like some of the most egregious “adjustment” errors may have been performed on the latest data! This data (after 1950) is the very data that should be the most accurate, but NOAA data itself shows that this is the very data that was adjusted the most. And, it was adjusted UP by about 0.6 degrees C.

Things like this, as well as the fact that articles referenced above show how data has been incorrectly “adjusted” to create warming, tend to make me wonder if we have seen any real warming in the last 50 or 60 years. And, Russia has just announced that much of the data from their country was not used, even though it was available. Not only that, but the data that was used tended to be from locations likely to be warm, like cities, and data from rural locations, which are likely to have not warmed, were ignored.

The whole global warming scam just gets worse and worse.

Russia Today: Debate On Climate Change

Dec 21st, 2009

by EdTroy.

1 comment

This is a great debate on climate change. In it, Piers Corbyn of WeatherAction.com debates Michael MacCracken, Chief Scientist for Climate Change Programs with the Climate Institute, and Bjorn Lomborg, a social scientist at the Copenhagen Business School. Lomborg is also the director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center.

Corbyn points out that this is not about science; it is a political operation to hold back third world development. It is, in his words, a “thieves kitchen”, and he points out that the IPCC “scientists” have refused to prove that CO2 drives the climate. He also points out that the data is fraudulent and that other planets are warming. Obviously, warming on other planets must be caused by the sun, not man-made CO2. Corbyn clearly states that CO2 does not drive global temperatures. He states that global temperatures are controlled by the sun.

Lomborg correctly points out that developing countries basically look at Copenhagen as a “honey pot”.

More Damning Climategate Revelations: Apparently CRU Selectively Used Russian Temperature Data

Dec 16th, 2009

by EdTroy.

Comments are off for this post

In a stunning new revelation, the Russian IAE (Institute of Economic Analysis) reported that the CRU, and other agencies that are trying to convince the world that man-made global warming is real have very selectively used temperature data from Russia. Although lots of data was available, it seems that the CRU and other agencies tended to use data from stations in urban (and therefore warm) areas of Russia. They also, apparently, tended to select incomplete data sets which tended to show warming, while ignoring data from other locations that did not support their global warming agenda.

According to an article in the December 16, 2009 edition of Rianovosti, while the data the CRU inexplicably “cherry picked” to push its agenda that some of the largest warming had occurred in Russia, the truth is that no significant warming has occurred in Russia, if all of the available data is used.

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory.

Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports.

Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

While this is a fact that was known to many of us that have been studying the fraud of anthropogenic global warming for some time, it is certainly not something that was trumpeted by the main stream media, and it was certainly not something that was known by the general public.

The article later states that these revelations bring into question much of the other temperature data that has been disseminated by the CRU. (And, of course, by other similarly biased agencies, such as NASA.)

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

This is just further evidence that COP-15 and the whole subject of anthropogenic global warming has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with politics, money, transfer of wealth, and global governance and control over the lives of the people of the world.

If you want my personal prediction, I suspect we will see a complete and total release of all of the raw Russian temperature data. The CRU has been hiding the raw data for their “homogenized” data set for a long time under the guise of data privacy. That is, they have been saying that they do not own the original, unedited and unadjusted raw data, and thus they cannot release if for independent analysis. Recently, on only a select few raw data sets, sites like “Watts Up With That” have been demonstrating severe problems with the way that the CRU (and other agencies) have “adjusted” the raw data to get results that suit their political agenda; that is, results that show rising temperatures, where logical and sensible “adjustment of that data” shows no temperature increase, or much less temperature increase. Russia sells a lot of oil. Russia has a vested interest in showing that anthropogenic global warming is total bunk. Since some of the “biggest” temperature increases trumpeted by the CRU, NASA, and others has “apparently” happened over Russia, I suspect they will release the raw data for independent analysis, which may prove that AGW is nothing more than an Al Gore wet dream.

Global Governance Is Real Goal Of Global Warmingistas: Don’t Expect Free Speech Or A Free Press In Their Utopia

Dec 14th, 2009

by EdTroy.

Comments are off for this post

It has been clear to some of us for quite some time that the whole “thing” about global warming had nothing to do with science and everything to do with politics. The very fact that Al Gore is the poster child for anthropogenic global warming should be a clue to anyone, whose life and intelligence goes beyond watching American Idol and listening to anything said by Oprah Winfrey, that this is not about science. Al Gore knows very little about science and reality, based on some of his claims. If you will recall, he “invented the internet”. And, even more recently, he claimed that the temperature in the center of the earth was “millions of degrees.” PUULEEEASE! What a moron.

Of course, he showed us his famous graph of CO2 concentrations over the last 650,000 years, along with the temperature over those same 650,000 years. So far, so good. But, he showed them in a very deceptive way, so that the casual viewer could not see the true relationship between CO2 and temperature. He claimed that an increase in CO2 lead to an increase in temperature. In a recent post, I take that same data and present it in the way that a scientist would be likely to present it (if he was not trying to “hide the decline”). It show that just the opposite of what Al Gore claims is true. That data shows that temperature goes up, and then CO2 goes up. Thus, while there is a slight relationship between CO2 and temperature, CO2 levels ARE NOT the primary cause of temperature change. In fact, these graphs make it even more clear that CO2 does not drive temperatures, as the global warmingistas would have you believe, because even on a large time scale, it is clear that temperatures plummet into the various ice ages long before CO2 levels decline.

Recently, some hackers, or an inside “whistle-blower”, released over 150 megabytes of data, files, and e-mails from the CRU. These materials clearly show a pattern of deception, and a lack of scientific integrity, by the various people involved. And, these people are the scientists at the very heart of the whole global warming conspiracy. The CRU is the organization that decides what gets peer reviewed and what does not, what gets put in the IPCC reports and what does not. They are also one of the primary repositories of the raw climate temperature data, which they have done their utmost to keep private, and away from the eyes of scientists that might find problems with their analysis and methods. (Certain scientists who are not part of the global warming cabal have, on many occasions, embarrassed the global warmingistas, including NASA, into having to change some of their results and pronouncements.)

Now, the release of these files has been very embarrassing for the global warmingistas. A natural, inquisitive press would have questions about this, but the main stream media has been amazingly (but predictably) silent about the whole affair. When they do mention the affair, it is generally in the tone of: “Nothing to see here. Move along.” But, some journalists do have questions, and rightfully so. But, the global warmingistas will have none of that questioning in Copenhagen. They have even used armed guards to remove a journalist who bring up legitimate questions, as can be seen in the video below, where journalist Phelim McAleer tries to ask a question about the leaked CRU data of Stanford Professor Stephen Schneider. He is removed by armed guards for daring to ask the most simple and important questions about the “science” of global warming.

And, Phelim McAleer was lucky. At least he was able to receive press credentials. Some well known journalists, such as Dr. Jerome Corsi, were completely denied press credentials.

In a previous incident in the United States, Phelim McAleer had his microphone cut off while asking Gore what he thought about a British court ruling that there were nine significant factual errors in his film, “An Inconvenient Truth”. After hemming and hawing for a while, Al Gore stated that the result was that the court “ruled in favor” of allowing British school children to see his film. In true global warmingista style, he “hid the decline” by making it sound like the court did not find any fault with his movie. In fact, according to an article in Time Magazine:

While accepting the broad arguments of the film, the judge pointed out nine scientific errors and omissions that he believes Gore raised in the context of alarmism and exaggeration. For instance, Gore refers to a study indicating that polar bears have, in recent years, started drowning as they swim up to 60 miles (97km) in search of ice. According to Justice Burton, “The only scientific study that either side before me can find is one which indicates that four polar bears have recently been found drowned because of a storm.” He also dismissed what he called the film’s “Armageddon scenario” in which the world’s melting ice caps could cause sea levels to rise by up to 20 feet (6m) in the near future. Such a rise could take place, he said, but “only after, and over, millennia.”

There was also not sufficient evidence to back the film’s claims that global warming caused Hurricane Katrina, the melting of snows on Mount Kilimanjaro or the evaporation of most of Lake Chad, he said.

Government attorneys amended their existing teacher guidance notes following a preliminary ruling last Tuesday, and specifics of those guidelines were debated with Dimmock’s attorneys before the court. Those notes detail, on a scene-by-scene basis, the areas where teaching staffs nationwide will be required to point out opposing arguments and scientific errors. According to the guidance, which is now available on the government’s Teachernet web site, it is designed to help teaching staff “encourage their pupils to assess the validity and credibility of different information sources and explore different points of view so as to form their own opinions.”

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1670882,00.html#ixzz0ZbDsvqTm

The following two videos discuss the global warming fraud, and the fact that this is about global governance and total control of your life, not man-made global warming. (I also agree with Alex Jones that whoever did release this material should be applauded. In fact, I think Al Gore’s Nobel prize should be taken from Gore and given to whoever released the CRU data.) In the second of these two videos, at the 3:50 mark, the President of the European Union, Herman Van Rompuy (a member of the Bilderberg Group) says: “2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet. Our mission, our presidency, is one of hope supported by acts and by deeds.”

This is the second part of the video by Alex Jones.

In the following clip, Al Gore brags about how the global warming issue will bring about “Global Governance”. This is at about the 1:05 point in the video. He then talks about energy efficiency; this from a person whose home uses 12 to 20 times as much electricity as the average American home. (And this is only after he did a lot to reduce the energy useage in that home!) And, of course, remember through all of this that Al Gore has made something like $100 million dollars off the global warming scam, and he stands to make many times that much in the coming years if this scam is not stopped.)

And, as if this is all not bad enough, and as if we have not heard from the horses’ mouths (or horses’ somethings) that the real agenda behind global warming due to man-kind’s emission of CO2 is global governance, we finally get to the admission of the head of the IPCC itself, Dr. Pachauri. In his blog, he states:

The Copenhagen Conference of the Parties to come up with an agreement on climate change is clearly not making much headway. This may be the result of frozen mindsets, strong vested interests and ignorance. The question is whether the additional time that the world would now have to arrive at an agreement at the next Conference of the Parties in Mexico will give us time and space to look at the larger problem of unsustainable development, of which climate change is at best a symptom. Human society cannot continue to ignore the vital dependence that exists between human welfare and the health of our natural resources.

In other words, climate change is not “really” the agenda. Rather, we need to slow down the development of the civilized, industrial world, and, by implication, transfer wealth to the third world nations. (And we all know what would happen if we did that. The wealth would just go into the pockets of the two bit dictators that rule many, if not most, of the third world nations. The people of those nations would be no better off, but their rulers would laugh all of the way to the bank. But, the globalists don’t see it that way. They simply refuse to let go of their Marxist, Utopian views.)

Finally, it is all summed up by Lord Monckton.

Look What Obama’s Dishing Out This Thanksgiving

Dec 12th, 2009

by EdTroy.

Comments are off for this post

NOTE: This article on Obama’s decision, along with Eric Holder, to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and 4 of his co-conspirators in a civil court in New York City, is by Michelle Rodenborn. She is a practicing attorney, specializing in the areas of customs and international trade law. Her blog is: http://libertyswatchdogs.blogspot.com. Her law practice website is: http://www.rodenborn.com. She has been kind enough to allow me to republish this article, in full, on my site. Please repay that favor by visiting her sites. To view the original posting, along with comments, go to http://libertyswatchdogs.blogspot.com/2009/11/look-what-obamas-dishing-out-this_9395.html
__________________________________________________________________________________

Barack Obama is serving sitting duck this Thanksgiving, featuring the raw meat of Bush and Cheney Administration officials and CIA officers, offered up on a platter to his far left base. Stewing in the same juices of this cold dish will be the citizens of New York, the police officers charged with their protection, and the safety of all the American people.

I am referring to the travesty announced Friday, November 13 by Attorney General Eric Holder: Obama’s decision, clothed in sanctimonious righteousness, to stop the Military Commission proceedings against 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and that of 4 of his co-conspirators, and to commence criminal action against them in a civil court in New York City.

KSM had wanted to plead guilty before the Commission, but now that process has been terminated in favor of a show trial that will be a circus unlike any we have witnessed, an unmitigated debacle with parades of lawyers, undoubtedly well financed by the same terror sponsoring states that brought us 9/11 in the first place, and media pundits hovering on their every move. We can expect repeated motions, trials, mistrials, and retrials over the years and decades to come.

This decision endangers everyone, but especially anyone involved in the court system in New York. The judge, jurors and witnesses in the KSM case may need protection for years, (“juror intimidation” takes on a whole new meaning here), and New York City is at even greater risk for terrorist attack.

The prosecution will be hampered by the fact that the procedural rules have now been changed in the middle of the game: Evidence gathering, including interrogations, was not done in anticipation of having to introduce it in this kind of trial. Military Commissions have less strict rules for introduction of evidence, and the prosecution will face a whole host of challenges (on Miranda rights, due process, coerced confessions, to name a few) that were never contemplated by those involved in building the case.

The trial will delight our enemies and provide an unexpected platform for the terrorists to play to the world with hateful messages about America.

On top of that, the terrorists’ lawyers will press to expose our intelligence gathering, interrogation techniques, security practices, and a whole host of other information that could end up harming America.

That happened in the 1993 WTC bombing case, where information was revealed that the US considered Osama bin Laden a terrorist co-conspirator, which in turn led to OBL changing his hiding place in Sudan to Afghanistan. (“KSM Hits Manhattan-Again,” The Wall Street Journal, November 14, 2009, p. A14.)

Consider these comments from Andrew McCarthy, the prosecutor in the Blind Sheikh trial in 1995 for the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Center, on the dangers of trying KSM in civilian court:

“Nothing results in more disclosures of government intelligence than civilian trials. They are a banquet of information, not just at the discovery stage but in the trial process itself, where witness-intelligence sources must expose themselves and their secrets…

We are now going to have a trial that never had to happen for the defendants who have no defense. And when defendants have no defense for their own actions, there is only one thing for their lawyers to do: put the government on trial in hopes of getting the jury (and the media) spun up over government errors, abuses and incompetence. …It will be a soapbox for al-Qaeda’s case against America…” (“Holder’s Hidden Agenda, “the corner,” nationalreviewonline.)

And, last but not least, this opens up the real possibility that one or more of the terrorists will be set free. If that’s not a possibility, why have the trial? This is particularly galling in view of the fact that KSM can’t stop bragging about the WTC attack, and states that he wants to die, presumably ready to fall into the arms of the 27 virgins waiting for him in Islamic heaven.

Obama-era “change” now means that we go back to a September 10 mentality, back to the ‘90’s way of treating Islamic jihadists not as the enemy combatants they are but as your garden variety criminal, say a car thief or a burglar.

Our democrat leaders have apparently learned nothing from the experience of 9/11, refusing for purely ideological and political reasons to see Islamic terrorism for what it is: the waging of an ongoing war to kill all infidels by religiously motivated extremists who are more than willing to die in order to murder us. As Nidal Malik Hasan, the Ft. Hood killer explained: “We love death more than you love life.”

So how did we get from the awakening of 9/11 back to the naïveté of 9/10? I will try to explain my view in as reasoned and dispassionate a manner as the subject matter and my intense feelings about it allow. But, before I take to that task, first permit me to indulge in stating exactly what is on my mind:

That this decision by Obama is the single most recklessly dangerous, ill-intended, bone-headed, irresponsible, morally confused, politically motivated, ideologically conceived piece of demagoguery from the President that we have seen in almost a year’s worth of bad moves.

Now, back to how we returned to the ’90’s after all those years in the 21st century.

Denial and Wishful Thinking as Policy

With the ascension to power by this far left President and a democrat controlled Congress, the administration immediately imposed an Orwellian “doublespeak” terminology to describe our conflicts with radical Islam.
Doublespeak consists of words “deliberately constructed for political purposes: words, that is to say, which not only had in every case a political implication, but were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them.” The underlying theory is that if something can’t be said, then it can’t be thought. (Wikipedia Encyclopedia.)

The Obama administration notified us that they would no longer use certain terms: They did not recognize a “war on terror” or “terrorists” or “enemy combatants,” but only “overseas contingency actions,” “man-caused disasters,” and “insurgents.”

Obama has often made a point of describing Islam categorically as a “religion of peace,” while failing to discuss its inspiring many followers to wage violent jihad against non-believers. In that same vein, Obama ignored the obvious jihadist nature of the terrorist attack on Ft. Hood by Nidal Malik Hasan.

Hasan, who cried “Allahu Ahkbar,” the jihadist war cry, before killing 13 and wounding 30 of our soldiers, had had numerous recent email contacts with a radical Yemeni imam with ties to Al Qaeda, and had openly defended Islamic suicide bombers (likening them to an American soldier falling on a bomb to save his comrades), and the beheading of infidels. The acronym, SOA, “Soldier of Allahu,” was on his business cards.

Most of us can instantly add up these facts and see that they spell “terror attack,” not just some guy going “postal.” Yet Obama, he who is “so smart,” did not even address these facts, instead referring to Hasan’s rampage as “an inexplicable act of violence.” What’s inexplicable is Obama’s characterization given the facts. (It is worth noting that Obama didn’t have any trouble jumping to conclusions that Cambridge police officers were guilty of “racial profiling” or assigning sinister motives to the killing of the abortion doctor, George Tiller.)

There’s a patently fallacious but commonly held belief on the part of many on the left, apparently including the President, that if we just change our behavior and how we look at people, that they will treat us right; that if we don’t treat the terrorists as terrorists they will cease to be terrorists.

And, so the theory goes, if other would-be terrorists in the rest of the world see how nice we’re being to the not-really-terrorists, then they won’t become not-really-terrorists either. This is farcical. This is fantasy. And this is dangerous. And anyone with common sense, and with no political agenda to drive, can see it.

Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, who as a judge presided over the trial stemming from the first World Trade Center attack in 1993, criticized Obama’s decision to transfer KSM to civilian court. Speaking at a legal convention on Friday, Mukasey described the proposed move as:

“…a decision I consider not only unwise, but based on a refusal to face the fact that what we are involved with here is a war with people who follow a religiously-based ideology that call on them to kill us, and to return instead to the mindset that prevailed before September 11…that such acts can and should be treated as conventional crimes and tried in conventional courts.”

Mukasey went on to comment on the pattern of decisions coming from the Obama administration after the decision to close Guantanamo, describing them as:

“…a system in which policy is fashioned to fit and proceed rhetoric rather than being thought out in advance with arguments then formulated in support of it.” (“Mukasey Blasts Pre-9/11 Mentality in KSM Decision,” by Philip Klein, The American Spectator.)

Appeasement as Policy

Obama takes pains often to apologize to the world at large and especially to worldwide Muslims, even some of our enemies, for what he calls America’s many “mistakes,” seemingly referring to “mistakes” made in the ‘70’s with the Shah of Iran and, of course, Bush’s alleged “mistakes” for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
To appeal to and appease the world’s Muslims, Obama has gone to the extent of bowing at the waist to the Saudi king, and kowtowing to the Iranian “Supreme Leader,” while refusing to speak up on behalf of the Iranian people protesting a violent, repressive regime.

And today, after months of being pressed by his hand-picked generals to provide more troops to the Afghan front, Obama is still waffling on what to do, even though this is the war he said was the “right” war to fight against the Muslim Taliban. Not surprisingly, the morale of our troops in Afghanistan is at an all time low, and close to 100 soldiers have fallen while Obama continues to ponder.

So a pattern of appeasement of Muslims and wishful thinking about terrorism appears to have jelled in the decision to try the 9/11 mastermind KSM and his cohorts in a civil courtroom. But that’s not the only, or even the main, reason for Obama’s decision to try the terrorists in civil court.

The Other Agenda

The trial in a public courtroom is Obama’s back-handed way of doing what the radical left has wanted him to do all along but he didn’t have the guts to do: investigate Bush and Cheney on the legality of CIA interrogations with the hope that war crimes indictments might result.

Obama hasn’t acceded to the left’s demands for congressional investigations on the CIA interrogations because that would prove too hot for him politically. But he can accomplish even more handily what the far left wants, the humiliation and possible prosecution of Bush-Cheney officials, through the back door of a civil trial of KSM et al.

It will be Bush and Cheney and their former lawyers, and some former DOJ, FBI and CIA officials who will really be on trial, with defense requests to detail every interrogation, waterboarding incident, and the like, along the way. The far left is salivating over this juicy meal being served up by Obama.

Military Commissions Are the “Rule of Law” for Terrorist Detainees

It is popular liberal myth that Military Commissions (MC) are a break with our legal tradition and were formulated by Bush-Cheney out of whole cloth in some secretive, backroom attempt to circumvent “the rule of law.”

“The rule of law” is a phrase repeatedly thrown out in the context of the detainee discussion, usually by non-lawyers who have not bothered to bog themselves down with actually studying the law or the history of the matters on which they pontificate.

Here’s an example of what some bloggers who support Obama’s decision are saying:

“By prosecuting KSM in a civilian court, we say to the world that we are not a nation of groupthinking workshops assembled by one administration’s attorneys to find a way to move our treatment of terrorists entirely outside the legal system. That’s what the Bush administration tried to do, and because we are a nation of checks and balances, they failed. With a new government that respects the legal system, it’s time that we manifest that respect.”

Folks, if people you know start talking like that, take them aside and tell them their stupid is showing. This is simply not the state of the law or our history.

Military Commissions stretch far back into American history. They have been used since 1847 to prosecute thousands in the US and abroad during the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, Reconstruction, the Spanish-American War and World War II.

MC defendants have included:
• a former Ohio Congressman accused of sympathizing with the Confederacy during the Civil War (ordered confined for the rest of the war),
• eight accused conspirators in President Lincoln’s assassination (four sentenced to hang, four given prison sentences),
• and eight Germans accused of arriving in the U.S. by submarine to carry out sabotage attacks (six were electrocuted). (Wikipedia Encyclopedia.)

So even the two former Presidents on whom Obama likes to style himself, Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, had no trouble using the Military Commission proceedings even against US citizens, in Lincoln’s case, and against those whose sabotage mission was not successful, in FDR’s.

Beyond all that history, we have a current law on the books, the 2006 Military Commissions Act, which was adopted with bipartisan support and followed a Supreme Court case that obliged the executive and legislative branches to come up with a detailed plan to prosecute illegal “enemy combatants” captured after 9/11.

That bipartisan support included then Senator Barack Obama who is shown in this video clip approving a military tribunal for the likes of KSM who, he said, would get all the “bells and whistles” that such a tribunal could provide. (See the video at http://tinyurl.com/ygrtzc5).

The fact that Obama is now turning away from his previously held view on the MCs underscores the political nature of this new decision.

Another Holder Decision Acknowledges the Integrity of MC Trials

MC trials had earned a reputation for fairness and independence, the 2006 Act having devised a careful process to try detainees. In fact, Holder’s recent decision to allow some MC trials to go forward against other terrorists (those accused of the 2000 bombing of the U.S.S. Cole) indicates that the administration must have confidence in the integrity of those proceedings.

In trying to justify why KSM was to be tried in civil court while the Cole detainees are to be tried in an MC, all Holder could offer was the fact that the Cole bombers struck a military target overseas while KSM struck targets in the US. He might as well have made the distinction based on the terrorists’ astrological signs or birth order, for his stated reasons were simply made up, nonsensical justifications for something that he can’t legally justify.

As the Wall Street Journal editorial points out:
“Mr. Holder’s justification betrays not a legal consistency but a fundamentally political judgment that he can make as he sees fit.” (The Wall Street Journal, supra.)

This decision of Obama’s has been made for purely political reasons and it puts us all at risk. An OJ trial on steroids and to the nth degree, in which defendants with no real defense will, through their legal defense team, instead attack America and the previous administration, is not the “change” we need.

Perhaps Obama’s thinking is that we’ll all be so glued to our TV sets watching the ultimate reality show that we won’t notice the rampant unemployment, unprecedented spending and deficits, and government takeover of the private sector.

The Obama administration says that this trial will send a message to the world. Indeed it will. But it’s not the one he’s telling us. The message is that America can be played, and be played the fool by politicians who prize their political agendas over the welfare of the American people.

We need to start calling a spade a spade. We need to distinguish between the acts of your average “nut case” and those of people whose ideology allows blowing up little children in suicide attacks, beheadings of “infidels,” flying planes into buildings, and killing our soldiers in the name of “Allahu Ahkbar.”

These are terrorist acts and are not “man-caused disasters.” Man-caused disasters are things like the Obama presidency.

Global Warmingistas Now Resort To Armed Guards To “Hide The Decline”

Dec 12th, 2009

by EdTroy.

Comments are off for this post

Journalist and film maker Phelim McAleer was forcibly removed from a meeting in Copenhagen by armed guards after asking questions of Stanford Professor Stephen Schneider about the destruction of e-mails and the other reprehensible activities of Phil Jones and his colleagues at the CRU and other institutions. They not only prevented him from asking questions, but they threatened to take away his video equipment and expel him from the conference. The global warmingista Nazis are in full battle mode. They are clearly circling the wagons because they realize that the people of the world are finally starting to catch on to their fraud.A fraud that may be the greatest in history; certainly in the last hundred years of scientific history.

As a scientist, I am disgusted and disheartened by the behavior being exhibited by the global warmingistas. To decree that the “science is settled”, and to stifle any dissenting views, is totally at odds with the scientific process and tradition. And, we not only know, from the leaked CRU materials that this is happening, but we now see various scientific societies and publications circling the wagons and taking the same attitude as the main stream media, which is to say: “Nothing to see here; move along.”

The Crux Of The Global Warming Fraud: Global Warmingistas Claim CO2 Drives Temperature, But Just The Opposite Is True

Dec 11th, 2009

by EdTroy.

7 comments

By now, just about everyone has seen Al Gore’s PowerPoint presentation or his movie where he lectures about the wonders of the data contained in ice cores. After a brief explanation, he puts up a graph that shows the CO2 records from ice cores drilled at the Vostok research station in Antarctica that cover the last 650,000 years. Then, he proceeds to put another graph, below the first graph, that shows the air temperature when those ice core samples were formed. Then, in a smug, self-satisfied manner, he asks “Did they ever fit together?”, just like school children look at a globe and ask if South America and Africa ever “fit together”. Well, Al, yes, the pieces do fit together, but not in the way that you stated. You stated that there is a relationship between global temperature and atmospheric CO2. Well, that is correct, but not in the way that you claim.

Watch this video and you will see what I mean. After you watch the video, then go on to my graphics and further discussion below. But, please watch the video first so you can grasp the full measure of the fraud that has been committed against the citizens of the world by the global warmingistas.

Now that you have been reminded of the global warming propaganda, and heard some views from accomplished climate experts (although perhaps not recognized by the global warmingista climate Nazi’s associated with the IPCC cabal, of course), you can continue to read on.

As a scientist, I always found it odd that Al Gore showed two graphs when he showed the supposed relationship between CO2 and temperature. Yes, they certainly seem to show a correlation, but why show two separate graphs? Usually, when a scientist wants to show the relationships between various things, he plots them on the same graph. That way the viewer can get a good feeling for the true relationships between the variables. And the first set of graphs is not the only time he does this. When he trots out his most famous graphic showing CO2 and temperature variations over the last 650,000 years, he first plots the CO2, and then he plots the temperature. But, again, he plots two separate plots, one above the other. This might be acceptable if he showed a fine grid structure so that you could easily measure changes in the vertical axis versus time, but he does not provide a vertical grid. (I wonder why!?) Granted, at least his second graph shows both quantities on a common horizontal axis (time scale), instead of two totally different graphs, but one plot is located above the other. Without a grid, fine time differences are impossible to discern. The figure below is essentially that same data, plotted as Al Gore plotted it, but with an additional item (dust) thrown in. (Dust is not relevant to this conversation, it just happened to be plotted on this graph that I found of Vostok ice core data.)

This is the Vostok ice core data going back about 400,000 years. On this chart, as on Al Gore’s chart (which are basically the same except that his chart goes back a little further), the current time is on the left side of the chart. This makes it a little hard to interpret, since most of us are used to seeing time go from left to right on a chart, with the left side representing the oldest data, but you can understand the chart just the same.

On this chart, three things immediately stand out.

1) There is an ice age about every 100,000 to 150,000 years. We are due for one. Of course, since we don’t really understand what causes climate change, and we certainly don’t really understand what causes the ice ages, we cannot say for sure that one is imminent. But, just looking at the graph, I would say that we had better worry about a coming ice age rather than global warming. In fact, if the trend continues, maybe we need to figure out a way to warm the planet to temper the next ice age.

2) It has been warmer in the past at the peaks of the warm interglacial periods. So, if it does get warmer, it is definitely not unprecedented. Anyone who states that it has never been this warm is simply uninformed or lying. If they mean it has not been this warm in the last couple of hundred years, that may be correct. But, since we are coming out of the little ice age, you would expect warmer temperatures. It has been warmer in the last few thousand years, and this is shown in the data.

3) The current interglacial warm period seems relatively flat, and cooler, than previous interglacial warm periods.

So far, so good. If you look at this graph, you might conclude, as Al Gore would have you believe, “When there is more carbon dioxide, temps get warmer.” Right here, you can see a flaw in his argument if you go back to the video at about the 3:52 mark. You can clearly see that temperatures were significantly warmer in the last interglacial warm period compared to today’s temperatures, in spite of the fact that CO2, today, is higher. If Gore’s argument that CO2 controls the temperature is true, this fact, alone, should make you question his claim.

But, now for the fun part. As I said, as a scientist I could never understand why Al Gore did not superimpose the graphs so you can get a better feeling for the relationship between CO2 and temperature. I suspected it might be because he was trying to hide something. So, I decided to download the Vostok ice core data and plot it out for myself. The data is freely available at the CDIAC site. Once I had the data, I loaded it into Matlab and plotted it out. This time, unlike the chart above, I plotted both temperature and CO2 on top of each other, and I reversed the time scale so that now time goes from oldest on the left to most recent on the right. The graph below is the result.

To make this graph clear, the blue line is temperature, with the scale for that line on the left side. That temperature is “relative” to the normal Vostok temperature, whatever that is. It is in degrees Centigrade. The green line is CO2 concentration, in parts per million. The scale for CO2 concentration is on the right hand side of the chart. On this graph, the data goes back 410,000 years. The CO2 data starts at about 2000 years back(which would be the year 0 CE), while the temperature data starts in the year 2000 CE (which is shown as 0 on the graph). That is why this chart does not show CO2 going to the present 381 ppm, and the data stops before the right hand side of the graph. It only goes to about 280 ppm, which was the value at about 0 CE. (I did not take the time to find more recent data for the CO2 concentration, but we know it has gone up over the last 2000 or so years to about 381 parts per million. Obviously, that change has not made a significant change in recent temperature, since that seems to have “flat-lined” in the current interglacial period when compared to previous interglacial periods.) The temperature data extends to 0, or the year 2000 CE.) As I mentioned, I put the time scale on this graph from left to right, with left being the oldest data and the right hand of the chart being the most recent data (year 2000 CE). I did this to make the understanding of the graph more intuitive, since most of us are more familiar with time lines going from oldest to most recent as you go from left to right. To see the graph more clearly, click on it to enlarge it. If you look really closely, you can see that CO2 increases AFTER temperature increases; not the other way around, as Al Gore would have you believe. It is even more clear how temperature goes down before CO2 goes down. If CO2 was controlling temperature, clearly temperature would only go down AFTER CO2 went down. Remember, this is the same Vostok ice core data used by Al Gore; it is just presented more clearly. Also, it is very clear that temperatures have been higher in the past. And, that global cooling seems to be more common over history than global warming. Just looking at the graphs, I would be far more worried about global cooling, since it is far more destructive to life than warming.

Do you see anything interesting, now that the data is pretty close to being superimposed, and the time line is more familiar to us? If you notice that the temperature goes up before the CO2 goes up, you see what was pointed out in the movie clip. Also, it is even more clear that temperature drops, sometimes precipitously, before CO2 levels drop. If CO2 was driving temperature, neither of these two facts would be observed. So, here you see in a simple graph what Al Gore and the global warmingistas clearly did not want you to see. CO2 DOES NOT DRIVE TEMPERATURE. IT NEVER DID, AND IT DOES NOT NOW. True, they “showed you the data”, but they did it in an extremely deceptive way, (remember “hide the decline”) so that you could not see the true relationship between CO2 and temperature. (Of course, the natural question now might be: “Why does an increase in temperature cause an increase in CO2?” That is a different subject, but it is generally believed to be because as the oceans warm up, they release CO2, just as a warm glass of soda can not hold as much CO2 as a cold glass of soda.)

To make things even clearer, I show two more graphs. These graphs are created from the exact same data set. The only thing I have done is to “zoom in” on a smaller time scale, since the time scale on the first graph is so large that it is sometimes hard to tell which rises first, CO2 or temperature, although it is always clear that temperature drops well before CO2 drops. This fact, alone, clearly demonstrates that CO2 does not drive temperature. Also, because of the huge time scale involved, I would tend to trust the more recent data, both because there is more of it and it might be more accurate.

The graph above shows the data from about 245,000 years ago, which corresponds to some of the discussion in the video clip, where they point out that the concentration of CO2 never drove the temperature.

In the next graph, I show an even more recent period. Here, again, you can clearly see where temperature goes up, and then CO2 goes up. You can even see some very fine structure, where temperature drops, after which the rate at which the CO2 concentration is increasing slows down. This, again, shows that temperature drives CO2 levels in the atmosphere, not the other way around.

The whole push to curb CO2 emissions is purely political. It is intended as a way to force global governance, enormous wealth transfers, and more governmental control over individuals. It has nothing to do with a concern for the climate, global temperatures, saving polar bears, or preventing an increase in sea levels.

And, if you think I “adjusted the data”, as the global warmingistas have been caught doing many times in the past with their data, and as they even discuss in the recently released CRU e-mails and files, go ahead and download the data and plot it yourself. It is freely available at the CDIAC (Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center). You will get the same results. And, this is another example of why total scientific transparency is so important. If the raw, original data was not available at CDIAC, you would have no recourse but to believe what Al Gore and his minions have been telling you.

Official reference for Vostok ice core data:

Historical Isotopic Temperature Record from the Vostok Ice Core

The data available from CDIAC represent a major effort by researchers
from France, Russia, and the U.S.A. We ask as a professional courtesy
(and as a condition for its use by you) that when you refer to this
data set in publications you cite the following papers.

Jouzel, J., C. Lorius, J.R. Petit, C. Genthon, N.I. Barkov,
V.M. Kotlyakov, and V.M. Petrov. 1987. Vostok ice core: a continuous
isotope temperature record over the last climatic cycle (160,000
years). Nature 329:403-8.

Jouzel, J., N.I. Barkov, J.M. Barnola, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz,
C. Genthon, V.M. Kotlyakov, V. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, J.R. Petit,
D. Raynaud, G. Raisbeck, C. Ritz, T. Sowers, M. Stievenard, F. Yiou,
and P. Yiou. 1993. Extending the Vostok ice-core record of
palaeoclimate to the penultimate glacial period. Nature 364:407-12.

Jouzel, J., C. Waelbroeck, B. Malaize, M. Bender, J.R. Petit,
M. Stievenard, N.I. Barkov, J.M. Barnola, T. King, V.M. Kotlyakov,
V. Lipenkov, C. Lorius, D. Raynaud, C. Ritz, and T. Sowers. 1996.
Climatic interpretation of the recently extended Vostok ice records.
Climate Dynamics 12:513-521.

Petit, J.R., J. Jouzel, D. Raynaud, N.I. Barkov, J.-M. Barnola,
I. Basile, M. Bender, J. Chappellaz, M. Davis, G. Delayque,
M. Delmotte, V.M. Kotlyakov, M. Legrand, V.Y. Lipenkov, C. Lorius,
L. Pepin, C. Ritz, E. Saltzman, and M. Stievenard. 1999.
Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the
Vostok ice core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436.

Source: J. R. Petit
D. Raynaud
C. Lorius
Laboratoire de Glaciologie et de Geophysique de l’Environnement
38402 Saint Martin d’Heres Cedex, France

J. Jouzel
G. Delaygue
Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environment
(UMR CEA/CNRS 1572)
91191 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France

N. I. Barkov
Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute
Beringa Street 38
St. Petersburg 199397, Russia

V. M. Kotlyakov
Institute of Geography
Staromonetny, per 29, Moscow 109017, Russia

January 2000

The Climate Science Isn’t Settled

Dec 10th, 2009

by EdTroy.

Comments are off for this post

In a December 1, 2009 opinion piece in the online Wall Street Journal titled “The Climate Science Isn’t Settled“, MIT professor Richard Lindzen points out that the climate science is far from settled.

Is there a reason to be alarmed by the prospect of global warming? Consider that the measurement used, the globally averaged temperature anomaly (GATA), is always changing. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes down, and occasionally—such as for the last dozen years or so—it does little that can be discerned.

Claims that climate change is accelerating are bizarre. There is general support for the assertion that GATA has increased about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since the middle of the 19th century. The quality of the data is poor, though, and because the changes are small, it is easy to nudge such data a few tenths of a degree in any direction. Several of the emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) that have caused such a public ruckus dealt with how to do this so as to maximize apparent changes.

The general support for warming is based not so much on the quality of the data, but rather on the fact that there was a little ice age from about the 15th to the 19th century. Thus it is not surprising that temperatures should increase as we emerged from this episode. At the same time that we were emerging from the little ice age, the industrial era began, and this was accompanied by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominent of these, and it is again generally accepted that it has increased by about 30%.

Although these facts are known by many scientists, as well as people who have actually studied the various papers and books on the subject of climate change, these are facts that are not commonly known by the general public. This is partially due to the lack of interest in science by the general public, as well as the almost total lack of scientific literacy in the United States. It is also partially due to the fact that the global warmingistas have an almost total lock on both the media and government money. (I have to laugh when someone says that some article was published by some think tank that is supported by an evil corporation and is therefor invalid propaganda. The fact is that for every million dollars a corporation may spend on anti global warming research, the governments of the world spend billions of dollars on “global warming” research.) And, as has been pointed out in the leaked e-mails, the warmingistas also basically control what gets “peer reviewed” and what gets included in documents such as the IPCC Assessment documents. Dissenting views, no matter how well documented or reasonable, are not allowed.

He later points out that:

The main statement publicized after the last IPCC Scientific Assessment two years ago was that it was likely that most of the warming since 1957 (a point of anomalous cold) was due to man. This claim was based on the weak argument that the current models used by the IPCC couldn’t reproduce the warming from about 1978 to 1998 without some forcing, and that the only forcing that they could think of was man. Even this argument assumes that these models adequately deal with natural internal variability—that is, such naturally occurring cycles as El Nino, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, etc.

Yet articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false.

Next he points out that people are falsely lead to believe that occasional, perfectly natural things, like floods, droughts, and no ice at the North Pole, are due to “global warming”. These things have happened throughout the history of the world, and they will continue to happen. There is no relationship between them and man-made CO2.

The notion that complex climate “catastrophes” are simply a matter of the response of a single number, GATA, to a single forcing, CO2 (or solar forcing for that matter), represents a gigantic step backward in the science of climate. Many disasters associated with warming are simply normal occurrences whose existence is falsely claimed to be evidence of warming. And all these examples involve phenomena that are dependent on the confluence of many factors.

Our perceptions of nature are similarly dragged back centuries so that the normal occasional occurrences of open water in summer over the North Pole, droughts, floods, hurricanes, sea-level variations, etc. are all taken as omens, portending doom due to our sinful ways (as epitomized by our carbon footprint). All of these phenomena depend on the confluence of multiple factors as well.

It’s a great read, and an important read, given what is currently going on in Copenhagen and with the EPA in the United States about to declare CO2 a dangerous pollutant. Read it all.

Why Total Scientific Transparency Is Vital In Climate Studies

Dec 10th, 2009

by EdTroy.

Comments are off for this post

Anthony Watts has a new article that shows in a very clear way why complete transparency is necessary in the scientific process. We have just been told by several outlets that the last decade was the warmest “since records began.” Well, that may be true, but we have only been keeping “accurate” records for less than 200 years, at the most. And, the accuracy of those records has frequently come into questions, because of improper siting of thermometers (such as locating them near air conditioner heat outlets, over blacktop, or near or even on buildings), as well as calibration errors, etc. However, we know that it has been warmer in the past, in spite of lower CO2, because the medieval warm period was warmer. To see the data, refer to the map below. The data is very consistent in that matter. In Michael Mann’s “hide the decline” trick, data from tree rings was replaced by data from thermometers after 1961, apparently because the tree ring data did not make things look so hot. But, if temperature data derived from tree rings was good enough before 1961, why would it be bad after 1961?

If this does not convince you that it has been warmer in the past, there is the next graph. This is a graph of the near-surface temperature of the northern hemisphere over the past 11,000 years. It was compiled by David Archibald after Dansgaard, et al (1969) and Schönwiese (1995).

We know that the CRU was reluctant to release their raw temperature data to many researchers. I guess they were embarrassed that it had been exposed that they had been incorrectly “adjusting” temperature data for over 20 years. In fact, Phil Jones stated, in response to a request for the data for independent review: “We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it. There is IPR to consider.”

Now, before going any further, let me state that I am not denying that the earth is getting warmer. The data seems to indicate that it is. But, we are coming out of the “little ice age” as shown on the graphs referenced above. Naturally, after an ice age, you would expect things to get warmer. But, if you look at the graphs, there is nothing astonishing about today’s temperatures. And, more importantly, there is nothing to say that any rise in the earth’s temperature is caused by CO2. In fact, when you look at the predictions of numerous IPCC “approved” computer models, that are based on temperature rising because of increasing CO2 levels, they simply do not predict what we are seeing, as shown by the graph below. These are the kinds of problems that were being referred to by Kevin Trenberth in his October 12, 2009 e-mail to Michael Mann when he stated:

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.”

In other words, our models predict global warming due to CO2, but the measurements indicate it is not happening. OK, so far, but instead of asking where the models were going wrong, he blames the measurements!

Now for the really interesting stuff. In “The Smoking Gun at Darwin Zero“, Watts explains, and shows, how data must be “adjusted” (and rightfully so) to account for changes in measurement situations. For example, if you move a thermometer from one location to another, and it suddenly reads consistently lower or higher, you must make an adjustment. In the same way, if you change to a different housing for the thermometer, or go to an automated thermometer, or whatever, you must make adjustments. But, these adjustments are somewhat subjective, and have to be made very carefully, or, as he shows very clearly, you can get wildly different results! And, he goes on to explain how there were very few measurement stations in Australia, and he further shows how incorrect adjustments can lead to wild warming, which just so happens to agree with the IPCC data for Australia. Granted, this is just one case, at one location, but it clearly shows how the “researcher” can get almost any data they want, depending on the adjustments they make. And, without releasing all of the relevant, raw data to other researchers, there is no scientific transparency. If you don’t have scientific transparency, you don’t have science. And, as I reported earlier, the CRU, under threat of having to release the raw data, lost the data. And, note that this happened around the time that CRU researchers were instructing other researchers to delete e-mails so that they could not be subject to freedom of information act release.

Global Warmingistas Hit Another Low With Letter To Children “About Your Father”

Dec 9th, 2009

by EdTroy.

Comments are off for this post

A couple of weeks ago, I published a piece on two of the stupidest commercials that I had ever seen. One was to scare children to believe that global warming would drown puppies and starve bunny rabbits, and the other showed the ever-lovable polar bears falling out of the sky because of global warming caused by people flying around in airplanes. (Or whatever the intent was.)

Now, it seems, noted Australian global warmingista Clive Hamilton has posted a letter to children “about your father”. It is a shameless scare tactic, even worse than the commercials above. I guess it stung him when Australians got some sense and shelved their cap and tax plan. The letter starts:

Hi there,

There’s something you need to know about your father.

Your dad’s job is to try to stop the government making laws to reduce Australia’s carbon pollution. He is paid a lot of money to do that by big companies who do not want to own up to the fact that their pollution is changing the world’s climate in very harmful ways.

Really? How about someone showing us the evidence, not computer models that have been shown to be faulty? And, as far as money is concerned, how many tens, or even hundreds of billions of dollars, have been handed out to the government supported “climate scientists” of the world? They have received far more from the public trough than the “skeptics” have received from the coffers of public and private corporations.

He continues:

Because of their pollution, lots of people, mostly poor people, are likely to die. They will die from floods, from diseases like dengue fever, and from starvation when their crops won’t grow anymore.

Well, actually, plants generally thrive in warm climates. And, gardeners pump CO2 into their greenhouses to enhance plant growth. In times gone by, during the medieval warming period for example, grapes grew in England, and people thrived in Greenland. (Because Greenland was green, then.) At least he did not mention malaria, the spread of which has absolutely nothing to do with global warming, or temperatures, for that matter. In fact, it was all but eradicated by DDT. But then, the environmental wackos got DDT banned, saving some animals (maybe) but causing the deaths of tens of millions of human beings.

Later, he states:

Your life is going to be worse too because of what your dad is doing when he goes to work each morning. By the time you are as old as your parents, Australia will be having a lot more heat waves, like the one in Melbourne earlier this year, and there will be more bush fires too.

This is simply hyperbole without evidence. Again, it was warmer in the past, and people learned to adapt and “live with it”. (Although I personally think that a global cooling is more likely in the next 20 to 30 years, but that is beside the point, here.)

Later, he tells the kids not to hate their parents; they just don’t know any better.

So your dad is not really a bad person. He is not deliberately making the world a worse place for you and all the other kids. But he is telling lies to himself so he does not have to face up to the truth about what he does at work.

The thing is, though, that what your dad is doing is wrecking the future for my children too, and that makes me feel upset. Many Australians feel the same way; they think that what your father does is just plain wrong, and that he should stop

Talk about wrecking the future for the children! How about the $552 TRILLION dollars that cap and tax will cost the world, according to the UN itself, in the next century? If that does not ruin their future, I don’t know what will.

Near the end of the letter is the real kicker, where he says the child should “sit their father down” and tell him to get a different job!

I am sure it’s hard for you to hear these words, but there is something you can do to help. Why not sit your dad down and have a good talk to him. Tell him you want him to stop helping the big companies that are spoiling the future for you and all the other kids at school. Tell him that the family would rather have less money if he had a different job, one you could be proud of.

Read the whole thing. It is the most shameful piece of baloney that I have ever read.

Open Letter to Secretary-General of United Nations

Dec 9th, 2009

by EdTroy.

Comments are off for this post

An open letter to Ban Ki Moon, the Secretary-General of the United Nations pertaining to climate change is being circulated by the Copenhagen Climate Challenge. This open letter, so far signed by over 140 climate-related scientists, asks for convincing evidence for climate change, not speculation, horror stories, and computer models that have proven to be wrong. (Remember the climate gate letter that states we can’t explain the lack of temperature increase in the last decade, and it’s a “travesty”. That, alone, is proof that the science is not “settled” because there are obviously flaws with the computer models.
The petition is well worth the read. And, if you qualified, add your name.

It’s A Climategate Christmas

Dec 9th, 2009

by EdTroy.

Comments are off for this post

A great collection of Christmas carols for the holidays from Minnesotans 4 Global Warming.

Enjoy!

Third World Nation Representatives Get Their Panties In A Knot In Copenhagen

Dec 8th, 2009

by EdTroy.

Comments are off for this post

It seems the leaks related to Copenhagen and climategate will not stop! First, we had the leaked e-mails and documents from the Climate Research Center. The files were supposedly stolen by a Russian hacker, but I suspect it was an “inside job” by someone whose conscience finally caught up with them, realizing the apparent level of the fraud, and the cost to the world economy of Al Gore’s imagination. ($552 trillion in 21st century, alone, according to the UN!) As somebody quipped, it looks like Al Gore might have his dreams of becoming the first climate billionaire destroyed by the internet that he invented. Then, you had the leak of an e-mail from a global warmingista to the science reporter at the NY Times, Andrew Revkin. This supporter had been a staunch friend of the global warming true believers, but made the apparently unforgivable transgression in a recent posting of giving mention to Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., a person who is not particularly kind to the global warming fraud. To make things even worse, Revkin mentioning that prostitutes in Copenhagen would offer their services for free to the attendees of the climate conference.

But now, you have yet another leak. This is called the “Danish Text“. I have to admit that it is a strange document, but then most government documents are strange in their wording. They seem to be nothing but platitudes and a recitation of correct terms and political correctness. This document is no different. In fact, interestingly, I found two mentions in it of the importance of “gender equality”. In section I. “A Shared Vision for Long-Term Cooperative Action” it states, in part:

The Parties recognize the urgency of addressing the need for enhanced action on adaptation to climate change. They are equally convinced that moving to a low-emission economy is an opportunity to promote continued economic growth and sustainable development in all countries recognizing that gender equality is essential in achieving sustainable development. In this regard, the Parties:

I guess putting “gender equality” into the document is sort of like having to use the words “global warming” or “climate change” in virtually any grant application, no matter what the topic of the grant. But, it goes on, in more ridiculous, “feel good, government gobbledygook” to state in section II “Adaptation”:

The adverse effects of climate change are already taking place and are posing a serious threat to the social and economic development of all countries. This is particularly true in the most vulnerable developing countries, which will be disproportionally affected. The adverse impact of climate change will constitute an additional burden on developing countries´ efforts to reduce poverty, to attain sustainable development and to achieve the United Nations Millennium Development Goals. Both adaptation and mitigation efforts are fundamental to the fight against climate change. Adaptation must include action to reduce risk and vulnerability, taking into account gender equality, and build resilience in order to reduce the threats, loss and damages to livelihoods and ecosystems from disasters caused by extreme
weather events and from slow-onset events caused by gradual climate change.

There’s that “gender equality” again. Maybe they are trying to tell the Muslim countries something, since their Sharia law institutionalizes a lack of gender equality, and a huge number of the attendees are from Muslim nations. I don’t know, but it is strange. But then, they talk about how “adverse effects of climate change are already taking place and are posing a serious threat to the social and economic development of all countries.” Really? Name one case where climate change has caused disasters and has threatened social and economic development. And, don’t say hurricane Katrina. That was caused by a failure of government, stupid politics, and human stupidity. There have been very powerful hurricanes in that area before, and there will probably be worse ones in the future. It is simply stupid to build a large city in a hurricane-prone region that is under sea level. And, by the way, even more stupid to rebuild, since you know it will happen again. Move inland! And, this simple principle of mitigating effects from climate change, if it is happening, makes the most sense. People worry about low-lying island nations in the Pacific, like Tuvalu. The biggest danger to them is not gradual sea level rise; it is tsunamis. It is just a matter of time, and you can’t plan for a tsunami. Rather than spending trillions of dollars on trying to reduce CO2, which has not been proven to be doing anything harmful, anyway, it would make more sense, and cost a lot less, to just move them to Australia, or somewhere on higher ground. But, such simple solutions seem to be too complicated for the global warmingistas.

But, these items are not what got the third world nations so upset. It was, I think, a combination of being divided into two classes of third world nations. The document talks about “developing countries” and “least developed countries”. I guess if you are a 2 bit dictator from a third world country, it is humiliating to be told that you are from a “least developed country.” And, to make matters worse, they were told that they would not get all of the manna from heaven ($$$$) that they expected to get. Oh my, they may not be able to pay for that private jet that whisked them to Copenhagen in style, or pay for the $470 meal tabs; but at least the chicks are free. And, as a final blow, the document pretty much does away with Kyoto and also lessens the role of the UN in the whole scam. And, as any self-respecting 2 bit dictator knows, what can be better than a scam, especially when it is run by the UN. (Think oil for food, just for one example.)

Global Warmingistas Now Dis NY Times Reporter Who Had Been One Of Their Best Mouthpieces

Dec 7th, 2009

by EdTroy.

Comments are off for this post

The whole Climategate scandal just keeps getting better and better. For a long time, Andrew Revkin has been a favorite mouthpiece for the Anthropogenic Global Warmingistas. But, last week in an article in the NY Times, he mentioned that prostitutes in Copenhagen would service the COP-15 attendees for free. He did not go into the details, but it seems that Lord Mayor Ritt Bjerrengaard did not want the climate conference attendees taking advantage of the entirely legal services offered by prostitutes in Copenhagen. (Now, I guess, we know why many of the attendees went to the conference, anyway, even after the document release from the CRU showed that the whole global warming thing was a scam, anyway, as I have been saying for years.) I don’t know what kind of mayor this is. After all, aren’t mayors supposed to support local trade and commerce? I could not understand her sending postcards to all of the hotels requesting that guests “Be sustainable – don’t buy sex”. I’m not sure what sustainability has to do with sex, unless the implication is that you cannot sustain your wallet if you buy all the sex you want. But, I digress.

In his posting, Revkin also mentioned that he found it amusing that almost everything seems to be blamed on global warming, including an article that claimed “Climate change linked to fish aggression“. Now, I have to admit, I agree with him, here. It has been pointed out in many articles that so many things are “related” to global warming that have no relationship whatsoever to global warming. Most famously, blaming Hurricane Katrina on global warming, and other similarly ridiculous claims. Several people have even pointed out how researchers in many diverse areas must include the mention of climate change, or global warming, in their grant request if they hope to receive any money, even if their field of research may have nothing to do with climate change. If you want to see just how absurd it has become, look at this document from Australia that delineates the projects that were funded by Australia under the rubric of “Global Warming” or “Climate Change”. It is truly staggering. But, in the document, it is stated that:

To identify projects either directly or indirectly related to climate change research, a search of projects awarded funding
under the NCGP was undertaken using the following search criteria: (i) the keywords ‘climate change’, ‘global warming’
or ‘greenhouse gas’ in the ‘Project title’, ‘Project abstract’ or ‘National Benefit Text’ fields of the application; and (ii) projects
that had selected the Socio-Economic Objective (SEO) code of 770101 (climate change) as being relevant to the research.
The list of projects identified through this search was then checked for relevance. In addition, a separate search
was undertaken of Centres funded through the ARC Centres of Excellence scheme. The details are as at the time research
proposals were approved for funding and exclude any post-award variations that may subsequently have been approved.

In other words, as long as you manage to work the magic words into the correct place, you will get your grant, based on a need to fund research into “Global Warming”. And, if you read through the list of grants that follows this “rule”, it is completely clear that most of them have nothing whatsoever to do with climate change or global warming. Truly astonishing.

He also mentioned some other threads, both for and against, global warming. But, another sin he committed was mentioning Roger Pielke, Jr. Pielke, apparently, rightfully criticized a conference call related to the Climategate e-mails because it was sponsored by a climate change advocacy group (Center For American Progress.) This call included Prof. Michael Mann, one of the scoundrels at the very heart of the Climategate debacle, and other global warmingistas. Obviously, it was not going to be very objective.

And then, finally, Revkin put in a link to the “Hide The Decline” audio that I featured last week. This transgression was not brought up, but it had to be grating to Michael Schlesinger of the University of Illinois. He is another well known global warmingista, and in response to Revkin’s posting, he sent Revkin this e-mail:

Andy:
Copenhagen prostitutes?
Climate prostitutes?
Shame on you for this gutter reportage.
This is the second time this week I have written you thereon, the first about giving space in your blog to the Pielkes.
The vibe that I am getting from here, there and everywhere is that your reportage is very worrisome to most climate scientists.
Of course, your blog is your blog.
But, I sense that you are about to experience the ‘Big Cutoff’ from those of us who believe we can no longer trust you, me included.
Copenhagen prostitutes?
Unbelievable and unacceptable.
What are you doing and why?
Michael

Just more evidence that the whole global warming thing is a religion based on bad science, the purpose of which is global governance. It also shows a total lack of tolerance for dissenting views, which is one of the main problems exhibited in the leaked CRU e-mails. Science is about the free exchange of ideas. Over time, the best (true) ideas will prevail. To lock out opposition and to shut the doors to any ideas that do not fit the agenda is not science; it is politics.

Climategate Professor To Global Warming Skeptic “Shut Up…..Asshole”

Dec 5th, 2009

by EdTroy.

1 comment

This is truly some priceless video of a “debate” on climate change on BBC television. Apparently, it occurred on December 4, 2009. During the first part of the show, they discuss “Climategate” in general. Ed Miliband, MP, British Climate Change Secretary, tries to defend the science and says that just because of some e-mails, 4000 scientists who have come to “a belief about the climate” cannot be wrong. (Welcome to the Church Of Global Warming; pastor Al Gore at your service; please leave your wealth at the door.)

It goes on to state that the important questions are: “Was the data manipulated?” And: “Why not share the data?”. Unfortunately, it does not mention that the data that was requested to be shared was “lost” when it looked like they would have to share it under a FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) request. And, it looks like there will be a lawsuit in the United States to force NASA to release some of it’s raw data. In response to questions about data manipulation, I especially liked Prof. Watson’s weasel-worded response “..they have occasionally, uhm, tweaked a, uh, uh, diagram, so that in the case of the decline thing they, they, plotted, uh, real temperature data from thermometers, along with their tree ring data.” This occurs at about the 5 minute mark.

Then, at about the 6:40 mark, it gets even better. Prof. Watson states “you’ve got to look at this rationally. What’s happening here is that because the skeptics can’t attack this particular, this science, they are attacking the, the character, they’re using character assassination on the scientists who are doing it.”

Then, we get to the best part. Part 2 is incredible. We are lectured about how the global warming deniers are simply engaged in character assassination and denial of the evidence. The moderator states that someone stated that “one string of e-mails doesn’t undermine the science.” At that, Marc Morano, a noted climate change skeptic, stated that “it exposes the manufactured consensus.” After this, Morano asks the professor what he thinks of “Mike Hulme’s call saying this is authoritarian; that this is partisan; that it exposes it; suggesting the UN has run it’s course. There is now mention of Dr. Hans van Storch; ” At this point, a bit of shouting happens. At the 0:57 mark, Prof. Watson diplomatically says “Will you SHUT UP just a second” in his attempted response to Morano’s comments. And, it just gets better from here. The professor states that the science must be totally open (and, of course, we know that it was not, from reading the e-mails), and it must get away from character assassination (while the e-mails gloat about the death of a climate change skeptic, as well as offers to punch at least one climate change denier).

At about the 1:50 point, Morano points out that we have UN scientist against UN scientist. And, we now have “the best science that politics and activists can manufacture.” This is followed by the priceless rolling of the eyes of professor Watson. It is so typical of the global warmingistas and their contempt for reason, rationality, and civil discourse on the actual science. If a statement does not further the ideology that they want to force on the population of the world, it is absurd and must be ridiculed.

The final “money shot”, however, comes at the 2:33 mark, when Prof. Watson makes his final comment about Marc Morano: “What an asshole”. This after Watson talks about the “character assassination” and the “temperature of the debate”. Truly classic.

December, 2009:

Search

World Climate Widget

Like what you see and want to keep the material coming? All donations gratefully accepted

Recent Posts

Iranium: Why Iran Must Be Stopped Before They Go Nuclear

Fitna: A short movie by Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders.

Excellent Short Clip On CO2 Caused Global Warming Scam

Archives

Suggested Reading List

Amazon Deals

Our Amazon Recomendations

Twitter Updates

Atheist Blogroll

Links

Blogroll

Categories

Boycott the companies that support Copenhagen cap and tax

Tags

Categories

Archives

Calendar

Pages

Meta