[h=2]
23 Global Warming & Climate Change Stories All Americans Should Read Before Earth Day[/h]
Let's see how "open-minded" the left really is...
23 Global Warming & Climate Change Stories All Americans Should Read Before Earth Day[/h]
The following are 23 news stories from a variety of sources that everyone should consider before the avalanche of “go green” stories that will be unveiled on Earth Day – in the media and in our kids’ schools.
Whether or not one wants to promote the perfectly fine goal of fostering a better environment and leaving a cleaner planet for one’s children, that should not be carried out on the basis of disinformation, hysteria, or hidden political agendas.
[h=3]1. Humans are NOT to Blame for Global Warming, Says Greenpeace Co-founder… (Daily Mail)[/h]“There is no scientific proof of man-made global warming and a hotter earth would be ‘beneficial for humans and the majority of other species’, according to a founding member of environmental campaign group Greenpeace. The assertion was made by Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, a member of Greenpeace from 1971 to 1986, to U.S senators on Tuesday.”
[h=3]2. James Hansen Admits Global Temperature Standstill Is Real(The GWPF)[/h]“According to Hansen et al. the Nasa Giss database has 2012 as the ninth warmest year on record, although statistically indistinguishable from the last 12 years, at least. Noaa says it’s the tenth warmest year. The difference is irrelevant.”
[h=3]3. ‘Gaia’ Scientist James Lovelock: I Was ‘Alarmist’ About Climate Change (NBC)[/h]“The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time… it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,” he added.
[h=3]4. Climategate U-turn as Scientist at Centre of Row Admits: There Has Been No Global Warming Since 1995 (Daily Mail)[/h]“Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon. And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.”
[h=3]5. Climate Expert von Storch: Why Is Global Warming Stagnating? (Der Spiegel)[/h]“So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We’re facing a puzzle. Recent CO2emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn’t happened.”
[h=3]6. Warming Plateau? Climatologists Face Inconvenient Truth (Der Spiegel)[/h]“Data shows global temperatures aren’t rising the way climate scientists have predicted. Now the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change faces a problem: publicize these findings and encourage skeptics — or hush up the figures.”
[h=3]7. German Public Television Stuns Its Readers, Concedes Medieval Warm Period May Have Been 0.5°C Warmer Than Today! (Wetterthema via No Tricks Zone)[/h]“The ARD piece even goes on to say that the Medieval Warm Period from the years 800 to 1300 was similarly as warm as the ‘last climate normal period of 1961 to 1990, whose mean temperature is used as the reference value.’ The ARD writes further: Using alternative reconstructions that period was even about 0.5°C warmer than today.”
[h=3]8. Why Has Global Warming Stalled? (BBC)[/h]“There are plenty of possible explanations but none of them adds up to a definitive smoking gun.”
[h=3]9. Global Warming Pause ‘Central’ to IPCC Climate Report (BBC)[/h]“The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is meeting in Sweden to thresh out a critical report on global warming. Scientists will underline, with greater certainty than ever, the role of human activities in rising temperatures. But many governments are demanding a clearer explanation of the slowdown in temperature increases since 1998. One participant told BBC News that this pause will be a ‘central piece’ of the summary.”
[h=3]10. There Has Been No Global Warming Since 1998 (Telegraph)[/h]“The headline of this post really shouldn’t be controversial. It chimes perfectly with what Kevin ‘null hypothesis’ Trenberth wrote in that notorious 2009 Climategate email to Michael Mann: 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.”
[h=3]11. Senator Barbara Boxer’s Own Experts Contradict Obama On Global Warming (Forbes)[/h]“I don’t have much patience for people who deny climate change,” Obama added. However, climate scientists including United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lead author Hans von Storch report temperatures have remained essentially flat for the past 10 years, and indeed for the past 15 years.”
[h=3]12. ‘Global Warming’ is Rubbish says Top Professor (Yorkshire Evening Post)[/h]“He doesn’t believe in ‘global warming’ and says ‘climate change’ is a meaningless term used as a sop by big business to create money. Neil Hudson met Prof Les Woodcock.”
[h=3]13. Global Warming ‘Hiatus’ Puts Climate Change Scientists on the Spot (LA Times)[/h]“Since just before the start of the 21st century, the Earth’s average global surface temperature has failed to rise despite soaring levels of heat-trapping greenhouse gases and years of dire warnings from environmental advocates.”
[h=3]14. Man-made Global Warming: Even the IPCC Admits the Jig is Up (Telegraph)[/h]“Breaking news from the US – h/t Watts Up With That? – where a leaked draft of the IPCC’s latest report AR5 admits what some of us have suspected for a very long time: that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in ‘climate change’ than the scientific ‘consensus’ has previously been prepared to concede.”
[h=3]15. RSS Global Temperature Data: No Global Warming at All for 202 Months (Christopher Monckton at WUWT)[/h]“The least-squares linear-regression trend on the data from the RSS satellites since November 1996 shows there has been no global warming at all for 202 months (16 years 10 months). In a few more months, unless an el Niño comes along in January, its favorite month, RSS may be the first dataset to show 17 full years with a zero global warming trend.”
[h=3]16. ‘Nothing Off-limits’ in Climate Debate (The Australian)[/h]“THE UN’s climate change chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has acknowledged a 17-year pause in global temperature rises, confirmed recently by Britain’s Met Office, but said it would need to last ’30 to 40 years at least’ to break the long-term global warming trend.”
[h=3]17. 95% of Climate Models Agree: The Observations Must be Wrong (Dr. Roy Spencer)[/h]“I’ve updated our comparison of 90 climate models versus observations for global average surface temperatures through 2013, and we still see that >95% of the models have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979, whether we use their own surface temperature dataset (HadCRUT4), or our satellite dataset of lower tropospheric temperatures (UAH)…”
[h=3]18. 2013 Atlantic Hurricane Season Ends – No Major Hurricanes For First Time Since 1994 (MyFoxHurricaneBlog)[/h]“The accumulated cyclone energy (ACE) measures the total energy output of all tropical systems during the hurricane season. In 2013 the ACE is just 33% of the 1981 – 2012 average. 2013 is the 6th least active Atlantic season (measured by ACE) since 1950. 2013 has the fewest hurricanes since 1982 and is the first time since 1994 there are no major hurricanes.”
[h=3]19. 2013 is a Record Low Year for U.S. Tornadoes (WUWT)[/h]“When looking historically at where we are, we find that 2013 has slipped below the historical minimum, setting a new record for the ~60 years in the tornado database.”
[h=3]20. Accumulated Cyclone Energy (Weather Underground)[/h]“There is no evidence of a systematic increasing or decreasing trend in ACE for the years 1970-2012.”
[h=3]21. 2013 Will Finish One Of The Ten Coldest Years In US History, With The Largest Drop In Temperature (Real Science)[/h]“Before NASA and NOAA start tampering with the data, 2013 is one of the ten coldest years in the US since 1895, and has had the largest year over year decline on record. NOAA of course won’t talk about this, and will massively tamper with the data before releasing it. The graph (above) is the monthly average of all daily high and low temperatures at all NOAA USHCN stations.”
[h=3]22. And Now It’s Global Cooling! Return of Arctic Ice Cap as it Grows by 29% in a Year (Daily Mail)[/h]“A chilly Arctic summer has left 533,000 more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 29 per cent. The rebound from 2012’s record low comes six years after the BBC reported that global warming would leave the Arctic ice-free in summer by 2013.”
[h=3]23. Deaths From Hurricanes, Floods, Droughts, and Other Weather Events Are Down 98 Percent Since 1920s (Reason Foundation)[/h]“Extreme weather events were responsible for just .07% of the world’s deaths between 2000 and 2010. The extreme weather categories studied in the Reason Foundation report include droughts, floods, wildfires, storms (hurricanes, cyclones, tornadoes, typhoons, etc.) and extreme temperatures, both hot and cold.”
If the green movement is about “science,” then why are climate change activists against the challenging of their ideas? Is it because they have ulterior motives for pushing their agenda or are they naturally intolerant of the actual scientific process that entails the falsification of their views?
[h=1]How the Obama administration turned the latest IPCC report into meaningless gobbledegook[/h]
113
5
124
6
Email Article
Print article Send a Tip
by James Delingpole 14 Apr 2014 535post a comment
[h=2]Even by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's own lamentable standards, its new report - by Working Group III of the Fifth Assessment Report - makes no sense whatsoever.[/h]Perhaps it never did but what definitely made it worse was the politicised meddling of the Obama administration.
Before the report's formal release, US officials - who had seen an earlier draft - wrote to the United Nations demanding it be amended.
So the report was duly amended to suggest that the benefits of wind turbines, solar panels, biofuels - not to mention the losses entailed by leaving fossil fuels in the ground - more than offset the massive costs and inconvenience involved.
This presumably is why the left-wing Guardian was able to give its coverage the headline "IPCC climate change report: averting catastrophe is eminently affordable".
Or - as some other newspapers did - you could decide that the report's main take home message that the IPCC had now come round to the virtues of nuclear energy and was guardedly approving of shale gas.
How could the report lend itself to such different conclusions? Because it was written by a vast international committee and then tinkered with further by politicians in order to be all things to all men.
Problem is when you try pleasing everyone you end up pleasing nobody.
But at least there's one thing on which almost everyone ought to be able agree. This truly is the lamest report in the IPCC's history.
Email Article
by James Delingpole 14 Apr 2014 535post a comment
Before the report's formal release, US officials - who had seen an earlier draft - wrote to the United Nations demanding it be amended.
"The discussion of the economic costs of mitigation is too narrow and does not incorporate co-benefits of action."
Loosely translated this means: "If we admit how much we're spending to such little purpose, the taxpaying public is going to kill us."
So the report was duly amended to suggest that the benefits of wind turbines, solar panels, biofuels - not to mention the losses entailed by leaving fossil fuels in the ground - more than offset the massive costs and inconvenience involved.
This presumably is why the left-wing Guardian was able to give its coverage the headline "IPCC climate change report: averting catastrophe is eminently affordable".
Catastrophic climate change can be averted without sacrificing living standards according to a UN report, which concludes that the transformation required to a world of clean energy is eminently affordable.
“It doesn’t cost the world to save the planet,” said economist Professor Ottmar Edenhofer, who led the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) team.
Perhaps this was an accurate summation of the report if you read it a certain way. But equally, it was accurate to report, as Breitbart London did, that it was basically a wish list for the eco-fascist new world order.“It doesn’t cost the world to save the planet,” said economist Professor Ottmar Edenhofer, who led the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) team.
Or - as some other newspapers did - you could decide that the report's main take home message that the IPCC had now come round to the virtues of nuclear energy and was guardedly approving of shale gas.
How could the report lend itself to such different conclusions? Because it was written by a vast international committee and then tinkered with further by politicians in order to be all things to all men.
Problem is when you try pleasing everyone you end up pleasing nobody.
But at least there's one thing on which almost everyone ought to be able agree. This truly is the lamest report in the IPCC's history.
[ Global Warming SCAM is costing us billions ]
[h=1]A Billion for Your Thoughts: ‘Environmentalism’ is Costing Us[/h] Apr. 21, 2014 10:00am
[h=2]John Linder[/h]
John Linder served in Congress for 18 years from Georgia. He and his wife, Lynne, have retired to a farm in Northeast Mississippi.
[h=2]18[/h] Shares
Environmentalism is a catchall phrase that has come to mean reducing human impact on the planet.
Its most recent elevation to political superiority had its origins in a Rachel Carson book published in 1962, “Silent Spring,” in which she argued that the ubiquitous pesticide, DDT, was accumulating in our environment causing the thinning of the eggs of birds resulting in fewer bald eagles. It was also accused of increasing cancer risks in children.
The discovery of DDT earned a Nobel Prize in 1948 for Swiss scientist, Paul Hermann Muller. It virtually eliminated malaria, which was a leading cause of death in the world.
Diane Seresona, second left, is overwhelmed by grief as she sees the body of Prudence Seresona, 27, who just passed away from Malaria at the makeshift camp for internally displaced people set up in the airport in Bangui, Central African Republic, Friday Dec. 13, 2013. Over 30,000 are believed to seek refuge around the airport. Elsewhere in town, French troops backed by an helicopter traded fire with unidentified assailants as France’s Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian arrived in Bangui. More than 500 people have been killed over the past eight days in sectarian fighting in Central African Republic. (AP Photo/Jerome Delay)
In response to Carson’s theory, politicians acted swiftly to save eagles and children. DDT was outlawed. This caused politicians to feel good, but it also contributed to the return of malaria, particularly in poor nations.
Millions of deaths later, here is what we know.
1. In 2010 alone nearly 220 million people were infected with malaria and 660,000 died, mostly in Africa.
2. After 25 years and 50 million preventable deaths, The World Health Organization has reversed its position and is telling those living in areas at risk of malaria to paint the inside walls of their home or hut with DDT.
In the 1970s, as new technologies allowed us to study more of our planet, it was noticed that the ozone layer in the stratosphere above Antarctica thinned at times. It was argued that less ozone allowed for more ultraviolet rays to reach the earth increasing our risk of skin cancers.
Scientists concluded that the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) used in producing freon for coolants used in air conditioning was the cause. They said that chlorine that escaped from the CFC molecule rose into the stratosphere and reacted with the ozone causing its depletion.
Politicians acted! In 1987, 25 nations signed the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer. They outlawed freon.
Thick smog hangs over Hong Kong on January 5, 2014. Hong Kong on December 30, 2013 launched a new air quality health index, the first in Asia to use the system, in its ongoing battle to combat air pollution, with the new index measuring the combined readings of four common pollutants — sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone and particulate matter. AFP PHOTO / ALEX OGLE
Millions of people throughout sub Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia starved from having no way to preserve food. Millions more died from eating rancid meat.
Billions of dollars and millions of deaths later, here is what we know.
1. The ultraviolet rays that are filtered out by ozone – UV-B – are not the rays that cause skin cancers. The rays, that do affect skin – UV-A – are unaffected by ozone filtration.
2. Ozone is not a chemical reaction, but a result of atmospheric dynamics.
The latest human insult to our planet is the fossil fuel we burn to produce energy. The resultant CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere which, we are told, endangers the future of the planet. Secretary of State John Kerry instructs us that climate change is the “world’s most fearsome destructive weapon.”
This scare was built on the same alarmism as the ozone hole. Dr. Will Happer, a Princeton physicist wrote “The Montreal Protocol to ban freons was the warm-up exercise for the IPCC. Many current IPCC players gained fame then by stampeding the U.S. Congress into supporting the Montreal Protocol. They learned to use dramatized, phony scientific claims like ‘ozone holes over Kennebunkport’” (President Bush Sr.’s seaside residence in New England). Happer added, “the notion that congress can do anything about climate is laughable.”
In order to scare children, polar bears have been declared at risk and placed on the endangered species list.
This is another political scam based not on science, but on computer models and fear. Politicians are prepared to do what politicians do. They will act!
In this Dec. 6, 2007, file photo, Oxfam activists wearing polar bear costumes stage a demonstration outside the venue of the U.N. climate change conference in Nusa Dua, Bali island, Indonesia. (AP/Dita Alangkara, File)
We will have to reduce our energy consumption, walk and bike more and take public transportation. We will be required to transfer trillions of dollars from developed nations to poorer nations.
On the precipice of spending trillions of dollars, here is what we know.
1. The computer models worshipped in this Church of Environmental Salvation cannot duplicate the known climate of the past 6,000 years. Do we trust them to predict the future?
2. The planet has experienced times when the CO2 levels were 50 times greater than the present level and survived just fine.
3. There are about 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears in the Artic region today as compared with 5,000 to 10,000 in the 1950s.
4. IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”
Those in Sub-Saharan Africa live lives that are brutal and short and do not need us lecturing them about the dangers of coal fired power plants. They need a source of energy to improve their lives with the chance to transport some fresh water and perhaps a CO2 molecule or two so that they can grow a plant to eat. In exchange they might reintroduce us to the life saving wonders of DDT.
John Linder served in Congress for 18 years from Georgia. He and his wife, Lynne, have retired to a farm in Northeast Mississippi. He can be contacted at: linderje@yahoo.com
[h=1]A Billion for Your Thoughts: ‘Environmentalism’ is Costing Us[/h] Apr. 21, 2014 10:00am
[h=2]John Linder[/h]
John Linder served in Congress for 18 years from Georgia. He and his wife, Lynne, have retired to a farm in Northeast Mississippi.[h=2]18[/h] Shares
Environmentalism is a catchall phrase that has come to mean reducing human impact on the planet.
Its most recent elevation to political superiority had its origins in a Rachel Carson book published in 1962, “Silent Spring,” in which she argued that the ubiquitous pesticide, DDT, was accumulating in our environment causing the thinning of the eggs of birds resulting in fewer bald eagles. It was also accused of increasing cancer risks in children.
The discovery of DDT earned a Nobel Prize in 1948 for Swiss scientist, Paul Hermann Muller. It virtually eliminated malaria, which was a leading cause of death in the world.
Diane Seresona, second left, is overwhelmed by grief as she sees the body of Prudence Seresona, 27, who just passed away from Malaria at the makeshift camp for internally displaced people set up in the airport in Bangui, Central African Republic, Friday Dec. 13, 2013. Over 30,000 are believed to seek refuge around the airport. Elsewhere in town, French troops backed by an helicopter traded fire with unidentified assailants as France’s Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian arrived in Bangui. More than 500 people have been killed over the past eight days in sectarian fighting in Central African Republic. (AP Photo/Jerome Delay)In response to Carson’s theory, politicians acted swiftly to save eagles and children. DDT was outlawed. This caused politicians to feel good, but it also contributed to the return of malaria, particularly in poor nations.
Millions of deaths later, here is what we know.
1. In 2010 alone nearly 220 million people were infected with malaria and 660,000 died, mostly in Africa.
2. After 25 years and 50 million preventable deaths, The World Health Organization has reversed its position and is telling those living in areas at risk of malaria to paint the inside walls of their home or hut with DDT.
In the 1970s, as new technologies allowed us to study more of our planet, it was noticed that the ozone layer in the stratosphere above Antarctica thinned at times. It was argued that less ozone allowed for more ultraviolet rays to reach the earth increasing our risk of skin cancers.
Scientists concluded that the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) used in producing freon for coolants used in air conditioning was the cause. They said that chlorine that escaped from the CFC molecule rose into the stratosphere and reacted with the ozone causing its depletion.
Politicians acted! In 1987, 25 nations signed the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer. They outlawed freon.
Thick smog hangs over Hong Kong on January 5, 2014. Hong Kong on December 30, 2013 launched a new air quality health index, the first in Asia to use the system, in its ongoing battle to combat air pollution, with the new index measuring the combined readings of four common pollutants — sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone and particulate matter. AFP PHOTO / ALEX OGLEMillions of people throughout sub Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia starved from having no way to preserve food. Millions more died from eating rancid meat.
Billions of dollars and millions of deaths later, here is what we know.
1. The ultraviolet rays that are filtered out by ozone – UV-B – are not the rays that cause skin cancers. The rays, that do affect skin – UV-A – are unaffected by ozone filtration.
2. Ozone is not a chemical reaction, but a result of atmospheric dynamics.
The latest human insult to our planet is the fossil fuel we burn to produce energy. The resultant CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere which, we are told, endangers the future of the planet. Secretary of State John Kerry instructs us that climate change is the “world’s most fearsome destructive weapon.”
This scare was built on the same alarmism as the ozone hole. Dr. Will Happer, a Princeton physicist wrote “The Montreal Protocol to ban freons was the warm-up exercise for the IPCC. Many current IPCC players gained fame then by stampeding the U.S. Congress into supporting the Montreal Protocol. They learned to use dramatized, phony scientific claims like ‘ozone holes over Kennebunkport’” (President Bush Sr.’s seaside residence in New England). Happer added, “the notion that congress can do anything about climate is laughable.”
In order to scare children, polar bears have been declared at risk and placed on the endangered species list.
This is another political scam based not on science, but on computer models and fear. Politicians are prepared to do what politicians do. They will act!
In this Dec. 6, 2007, file photo, Oxfam activists wearing polar bear costumes stage a demonstration outside the venue of the U.N. climate change conference in Nusa Dua, Bali island, Indonesia. (AP/Dita Alangkara, File) We will have to reduce our energy consumption, walk and bike more and take public transportation. We will be required to transfer trillions of dollars from developed nations to poorer nations.
On the precipice of spending trillions of dollars, here is what we know.
1. The computer models worshipped in this Church of Environmental Salvation cannot duplicate the known climate of the past 6,000 years. Do we trust them to predict the future?
2. The planet has experienced times when the CO2 levels were 50 times greater than the present level and survived just fine.
3. There are about 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears in the Artic region today as compared with 5,000 to 10,000 in the 1950s.
4. IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”
Those in Sub-Saharan Africa live lives that are brutal and short and do not need us lecturing them about the dangers of coal fired power plants. They need a source of energy to improve their lives with the chance to transport some fresh water and perhaps a CO2 molecule or two so that they can grow a plant to eat. In exchange they might reintroduce us to the life saving wonders of DDT.
John Linder served in Congress for 18 years from Georgia. He and his wife, Lynne, have retired to a farm in Northeast Mississippi. He can be contacted at: linderje@yahoo.com
it aint be good to be ruining the environment, know what im saying
but theres no proof at all of man made climate change ya dig
there are no models that prove or disprove man made climate change
there are air bubbles stuck in artic ice that display lower levels of atmospheric CO2
but tree rings also show these fluctuations, meaning these ups and downs of atmospheric CO2, be normal
fin
but theres no proof at all of man made climate change ya dig
there are no models that prove or disprove man made climate change
there are air bubbles stuck in artic ice that display lower levels of atmospheric CO2
but tree rings also show these fluctuations, meaning these ups and downs of atmospheric CO2, be normal
fin
[ Global Warming SCAM is costing us billions ]
A Billion for Your Thoughts: ‘Environmentalism’ is Costing Us
Apr. 21, 2014 10:00am
John Linder
18
Shares
Environmentalism is a catchall phrase that has come to mean reducing human impact on the planet.
Its most recent elevation to political superiority had its origins in a Rachel Carson book published in 1962, “Silent Spring,” in which she argued that the ubiquitous pesticide, DDT, was accumulating in our environment causing the thinning of the eggs of birds resulting in fewer bald eagles. It was also accused of increasing cancer risks in children.
The discovery of DDT earned a Nobel Prize in 1948 for Swiss scientist, Paul Hermann Muller. It virtually eliminated malaria, which was a leading cause of death in the world.
In response to Carson’s theory, politicians acted swiftly to save eagles and children. DDT was outlawed. This caused politicians to feel good, but it also contributed to the return of malaria, particularly in poor nations.
Millions of deaths later, here is what we know.
1. In 2010 alone nearly 220 million people were infected with malaria and 660,000 died, mostly in Africa.
2. After 25 years and 50 million preventable deaths, The World Health Organization has reversed its position and is telling those living in areas at risk of malaria to paint the inside walls of their home or hut with DDT.
In the 1970s, as new technologies allowed us to study more of our planet, it was noticed that the ozone layer in the stratosphere above Antarctica thinned at times. It was argued that less ozone allowed for more ultraviolet rays to reach the earth increasing our risk of skin cancers.
Scientists concluded that the chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) used in producing freon for coolants used in air conditioning was the cause. They said that chlorine that escaped from the CFC molecule rose into the stratosphere and reacted with the ozone causing its depletion.
Politicians acted! In 1987, 25 nations signed the Montreal Protocol to protect the ozone layer. They outlawed freon.
Millions of people throughout sub Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia starved from having no way to preserve food. Millions more died from eating rancid meat.
Billions of dollars and millions of deaths later, here is what we know.
1. The ultraviolet rays that are filtered out by ozone – UV-B – are not the rays that cause skin cancers. The rays, that do affect skin – UV-A – are unaffected by ozone filtration.
2. Ozone is not a chemical reaction, but a result of atmospheric dynamics.
The latest human insult to our planet is the fossil fuel we burn to produce energy. The resultant CO2 traps heat in the atmosphere which, we are told, endangers the future of the planet. Secretary of State John Kerry instructs us that climate change is the “world’s most fearsome destructive weapon.”
This scare was built on the same alarmism as the ozone hole. Dr. Will Happer, a Princeton physicist wrote “The Montreal Protocol to ban freons was the warm-up exercise for the IPCC. Many current IPCC players gained fame then by stampeding the U.S. Congress into supporting the Montreal Protocol. They learned to use dramatized, phony scientific claims like ‘ozone holes over Kennebunkport’” (President Bush Sr.’s seaside residence in New England). Happer added, “the notion that congress can do anything about climate is laughable.”
In order to scare children, polar bears have been declared at risk and placed on the endangered species list.
This is another political scam based not on science, but on computer models and fear. Politicians are prepared to do what politicians do. They will act!
We will have to reduce our energy consumption, walk and bike more and take public transportation. We will be required to transfer trillions of dollars from developed nations to poorer nations.
On the precipice of spending trillions of dollars, here is what we know.
1. The computer models worshipped in this Church of Environmental Salvation cannot duplicate the known climate of the past 6,000 years. Do we trust them to predict the future?
2. The planet has experienced times when the CO2 levels were 50 times greater than the present level and survived just fine.
3. There are about 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears in the Artic region today as compared with 5,000 to 10,000 in the 1950s.
4. IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer, speaking in November 2010, advised that: “…one has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. Instead, climate change policy is about how we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth…”
Those in Sub-Saharan Africa live lives that are brutal and short and do not need us lecturing them about the dangers of coal fired power plants. They need a source of energy to improve their lives with the chance to transport some fresh water and perhaps a CO2 molecule or two so that they can grow a plant to eat. In exchange they might reintroduce us to the life saving wonders of DDT.
John Linder served in Congress for 18 years from Georgia. He and his wife, Lynne, have retired to a farm in Northeast Mississippi. He can be contacted at: linderje@yahoo.com
good article thanks for posting
[ Don't let actual data get in the way of these lemmings... ]
[h=1]Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 9 months[/h]
'212 months without global warming represents more than half the 423-month satellite data record, which began in January 1979'
'Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming'
By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotMay 4, 2014 7:11 AM with 20 comments
Special to Climate Depot
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley,
According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for April 2014 is just in, the global warming trend in the 17 years 9 months since August 1996 is zero. The 212 months without global warming represents more than half the 423-month satellite data record, which began in January 1979. No one now in high school has lived through global warming.
The long Pause may well come to an end by this winter, when an el Niño event is expected in the equatorial eastern Pacific, causing global temperature to rise quite sharply. The el Niños of 1998, 2007, and 2010 are visible in the graph. El Niños occur about every three or four years, though no one is entirely sure what triggers them. They cause a temporary spike in temperature, often followed by a sharp drop during the la Niña phase, as can be seen in 1999, 2008, and 2011-2012, where there was a “double-dip” la Niña.
The ratio of el Niños to la Niñas tends to fall during the 30-year negative or cooling phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the latest of which began in late 2001. So, though the Pause may pause for a few months at the turn of the year, it may well resume late in 2015.
Either way, it is ever clearer that global warming has not been happening at anything like the rate predicted by the climate models, and is not at all likely to occur even at the much-reduced rate now predicted. There could be as little as 1 Cº global warming this century, not the 3-4 Cº predicted by the IPCC.
Key facts about global temperature:
Our latest topical graph shows the RSS dataset for the 212 months August 1996 to April 2014 – more than half the 423-months satellite record.
Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates appreciably below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.
The graph is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the RSS website. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file, takes their mean and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity.
The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted across the dark blue spline-curve that shows the actual data is determined by the method of least-squares linear regression, which calculates the y-intercept and slope of the line via two well-established and functionally identical equations that are compared with one another to ensure no discrepancy between them. The IPCC and most other agencies use linear regression to determine global temperature trends. Interestingly, Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails.
Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne, kindly verified the reliability of the algorithm that determines the trend on the graph and the correlation coefficient, which is very low because the data are highly variable and the trend is flat.
Related Links:
Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 8 months – No Warming Since August 1996
Climate Depot Analysis: ‘There have been at least nine ten separate explanations for the standstill in global warming’ – 1) Low Solar Activity; 2) Oceans Ate Warming; 3) Chinese Coal Use; 4) Montreal Protocol; 5) Readjusted past temps to claim ‘pause’ never existed 6) Volcanoes 7) Decline in Water Vapor 8) Pacific Trade Winds 9) ’Stadium Waves’ 10) ‘Coincidence’
Sea level rise slows while satellite temperature ‘pause’ dominates measurement record
Antarctic Sea Ice Expands To New Records – Approaching The Largest Anomaly Ever Recorded
‘The Himalayan glacier melt really was the least of the errors’ – UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol turns on UN: ‘The IPCC does not guard itself against selection bias and group think’ – ‘Alarmism feeds polarization. Climate zealots want to burn heretics of global warming on a stick’
Harvard Univ. Prof. On UN IPCC: ‘Serious ‘conflict of interest’ between scientists and governments’ – Top climate expert’s sensational claim of government meddling in crucial UN report – UN Lead Author Robert Stavins ‘was one of only two scientists present, surrounded by ‘45 or 50’ government officials’
Earth ‘Serially Doomed’: UN Issues New 15 Year Climate Tipping Point – But UN Issued Tipping Points in 1982 & Another 10-Year Tipping Point in 1989!
The global warming movement continues to lose scientists, many formerly with the UN IPCC.
Another Dissenter: Geoscientst & former UN Consultant Dr. David Kear declares warming fears ‘based on unfounded unscientific beliefs’ – An ‘innocent gas, CO2, has been demonized and criminalized’
Another Prominent Scientist Dissents! Fmr. NASA Scientist Dr. Les Woodcock ‘Laughs’ at Global Warming – ‘Global warming is nonsense’ Top Prof. Declares
Green Guru James Lovelock on Climate Change: ‘I don’t think anybody really knows what’s happening. They just guess’ – Lovelock Reverses Himself on Global Warming
More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore
Top Swedish Climate Scientist Says Warming Not Noticeable: ‘The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all’ – Award-Winning Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: ‘We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified’
‘High Priestess of Global Warming’ No More! Former Warmist Climate Scientist Judith Curry Admits To Being ‘Duped Into Supporting IPCC’ – ‘If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic’
German Meteorologist reverses belief in man-made global warming: Now calls idea that CO2 Can Regulate Climate ‘Sheer Absurdity’ — ‘Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us’
UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report - Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
‘Some of the most formidable opponents of climate hysteria include politically liberal physics Nobel laureate, Ivar Giaever; Freeman Dyson; father of the Gaia Hypothesis, James Lovelock — ‘Left-center chemist, Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the fathers of the German environmental movement’
Flashback: Left-wing Env. Scientist Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a ‘corrupt social phenomenon…strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass’
Al Who? Gallup Poll: Americans concern about global warming falls to 1989 levels! — Climate ranks lowest among ENVIRONMENTAL Issues
Update: Excuse number 10 for the global warming ‘pause’ — ‘Coincidence!’, according to NASA scientists: ‘Coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends’
Greenpeace Co-Founder Tells U.S. Senate: Earth’s Geologic History ‘fundamentally contradicts’ CO2 Climate Fears: ‘We had both higher temps and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today’
[h=1]Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 9 months[/h]
'212 months without global warming represents more than half the 423-month satellite data record, which began in January 1979'
'Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming'
By: Marc Morano - Climate DepotMay 4, 2014 7:11 AM with 20 comments
Special to Climate Depot
By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley,
According to the RSS satellite data, whose value for April 2014 is just in, the global warming trend in the 17 years 9 months since August 1996 is zero. The 212 months without global warming represents more than half the 423-month satellite data record, which began in January 1979. No one now in high school has lived through global warming.
The long Pause may well come to an end by this winter, when an el Niño event is expected in the equatorial eastern Pacific, causing global temperature to rise quite sharply. The el Niños of 1998, 2007, and 2010 are visible in the graph. El Niños occur about every three or four years, though no one is entirely sure what triggers them. They cause a temporary spike in temperature, often followed by a sharp drop during the la Niña phase, as can be seen in 1999, 2008, and 2011-2012, where there was a “double-dip” la Niña.
The ratio of el Niños to la Niñas tends to fall during the 30-year negative or cooling phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the latest of which began in late 2001. So, though the Pause may pause for a few months at the turn of the year, it may well resume late in 2015.
Either way, it is ever clearer that global warming has not been happening at anything like the rate predicted by the climate models, and is not at all likely to occur even at the much-reduced rate now predicted. There could be as little as 1 Cº global warming this century, not the 3-4 Cº predicted by the IPCC.
Key facts about global temperature:
- The RSS satellite dataset shows no global warming at all for 213 months from August 1996 to April 2014. That is more than half the entire 423-month satellite record.
- The fastest centennial warming rate was in Central England from 1663-1762, at 0.9 Cº per century – before the industrial revolution began. It cannot have been our fault.
- The global warming trend since 1900 is equivalent to 0.8 Cº per century. This is well within natural variability and may not have much to do with us.
- The fastest warming trend lasting ten years or more occurred over the 40 years from 1694-1733 in Central England. It was equivalent to 4.3 Cº per century.
- Since 1950, when a human influence on global temperature first became theoretically possible, the global warming trend is equivalent to 1.2 Cº per century.
- The fastest warming rate lasting ten years or more since 1950 occurred over the 33 years from 1974 to 2006. It was equivalent to 2.0 Cº per century.
- In 1990, the IPCC’s mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was equivalent to 3.5 Cº per century.
- The global warming trend since 1990, when the IPCC wrote its first report, is equivalent to 1.4 Cº per century – two-fifths of what the IPCC had then predicted.
- In 2013 the IPCC’s new mid-range prediction of the near-term warming trend was for warming at a rate equivalent to 1.7 Cº per century – just half its 1990 prediction.
- Though the IPCC has cut its near-term warming prediction, it has not cut its centennial warming prediction of 3.7 Cº warming to 2100 on business as usual.
- The IPCC’s prediction of 3.7 Cº warming by 2100 is more than twice the greatest rate of warming lasting more than ten years that has been measured since 1950.
- The IPCC’s 3.7 Cº-by-2100 prediction is more than three times the observed real-world warming trend since we might in theory have begun influencing it in 1950.
- Since 1 January 2001, the dawn of the new millennium, the warming trend on the dataset of five major datasets is zero – 0.0 Cº per century. No warming for 13 years 3 months.
- Recent extreme weather cannot be blamed on global warming, because there has not been any global warming. It is as simple as that.
Our latest topical graph shows the RSS dataset for the 212 months August 1996 to April 2014 – more than half the 423-months satellite record.
Terrestrial temperatures are measured by thermometers. Thermometers correctly sited in rural areas away from manmade heat sources show warming rates appreciably below those that are published. The satellite datasets are based on measurements made by the most accurate thermometers available – platinum resistance thermometers, which not only measure temperature at various altitudes above the Earth’s surface via microwave sounding units but also constantly calibrate themselves by measuring via spaceward mirrors the known temperature of the cosmic background radiation, which is 1% of the freezing point of water, or just 2.73 degrees above absolute zero. It was by measuring minuscule variations in the cosmic background radiation that the NASA anisotropy probe determined the age of the Universe: 13.82 billion years.
The graph is accurate. The data are lifted monthly straight from the RSS website. A computer algorithm reads them down from the text file, takes their mean and plots them automatically using an advanced routine that automatically adjusts the aspect ratio of the data window at both axes so as to show the data at maximum scale, for clarity.
The latest monthly data point is visually inspected to ensure that it has been correctly positioned. The light blue trend line plotted across the dark blue spline-curve that shows the actual data is determined by the method of least-squares linear regression, which calculates the y-intercept and slope of the line via two well-established and functionally identical equations that are compared with one another to ensure no discrepancy between them. The IPCC and most other agencies use linear regression to determine global temperature trends. Interestingly, Professor Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia recommends it in one of the Climategate emails.
Dr Stephen Farish, Professor of Epidemiological Statistics at the University of Melbourne, kindly verified the reliability of the algorithm that determines the trend on the graph and the correlation coefficient, which is very low because the data are highly variable and the trend is flat.
Related Links:
Global Temperature Update: No global warming at all for 17 years 8 months – No Warming Since August 1996
Climate Depot Analysis: ‘There have been at least nine ten separate explanations for the standstill in global warming’ – 1) Low Solar Activity; 2) Oceans Ate Warming; 3) Chinese Coal Use; 4) Montreal Protocol; 5) Readjusted past temps to claim ‘pause’ never existed 6) Volcanoes 7) Decline in Water Vapor 8) Pacific Trade Winds 9) ’Stadium Waves’ 10) ‘Coincidence’
Sea level rise slows while satellite temperature ‘pause’ dominates measurement record
Antarctic Sea Ice Expands To New Records – Approaching The Largest Anomaly Ever Recorded
‘The Himalayan glacier melt really was the least of the errors’ – UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol turns on UN: ‘The IPCC does not guard itself against selection bias and group think’ – ‘Alarmism feeds polarization. Climate zealots want to burn heretics of global warming on a stick’
Harvard Univ. Prof. On UN IPCC: ‘Serious ‘conflict of interest’ between scientists and governments’ – Top climate expert’s sensational claim of government meddling in crucial UN report – UN Lead Author Robert Stavins ‘was one of only two scientists present, surrounded by ‘45 or 50’ government officials’
Earth ‘Serially Doomed’: UN Issues New 15 Year Climate Tipping Point – But UN Issued Tipping Points in 1982 & Another 10-Year Tipping Point in 1989!
The global warming movement continues to lose scientists, many formerly with the UN IPCC.
Another Dissenter: Geoscientst & former UN Consultant Dr. David Kear declares warming fears ‘based on unfounded unscientific beliefs’ – An ‘innocent gas, CO2, has been demonized and criminalized’
Another Prominent Scientist Dissents! Fmr. NASA Scientist Dr. Les Woodcock ‘Laughs’ at Global Warming – ‘Global warming is nonsense’ Top Prof. Declares
Green Guru James Lovelock on Climate Change: ‘I don’t think anybody really knows what’s happening. They just guess’ – Lovelock Reverses Himself on Global Warming
More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims – Challenge UN IPCC & Gore
Top Swedish Climate Scientist Says Warming Not Noticeable: ‘The warming we have had last a 100 years is so small that if we didn’t have climatologists to measure it we wouldn’t have noticed it at all’ – Award-Winning Dr. Lennart Bengtsson, formerly of UN IPCC: ‘We Are Creating Great Anxiety Without It Being Justified’
‘High Priestess of Global Warming’ No More! Former Warmist Climate Scientist Judith Curry Admits To Being ‘Duped Into Supporting IPCC’ – ‘If the IPCC is dogma, then count me in as a heretic’
German Meteorologist reverses belief in man-made global warming: Now calls idea that CO2 Can Regulate Climate ‘Sheer Absurdity’ — ‘Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us’
UN Scientists Who Have Turned on the UN IPCC & Man-Made Climate Fears — A Climate Depot Flashback Report - Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” – UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
‘Some of the most formidable opponents of climate hysteria include politically liberal physics Nobel laureate, Ivar Giaever; Freeman Dyson; father of the Gaia Hypothesis, James Lovelock — ‘Left-center chemist, Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the fathers of the German environmental movement’
Flashback: Left-wing Env. Scientist Bails Out Of Global Warming Movement: Declares it a ‘corrupt social phenomenon…strictly an imaginary problem of the 1st World middleclass’
Al Who? Gallup Poll: Americans concern about global warming falls to 1989 levels! — Climate ranks lowest among ENVIRONMENTAL Issues
Update: Excuse number 10 for the global warming ‘pause’ — ‘Coincidence!’, according to NASA scientists: ‘Coincidence, conspired to dampen warming trends’
Greenpeace Co-Founder Tells U.S. Senate: Earth’s Geologic History ‘fundamentally contradicts’ CO2 Climate Fears: ‘We had both higher temps and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today’
[h=1]BREAKING: THE “97 PERCENT CLIMATE CONSENSUS” CANARD[/h]TV watchers will recall the familiar advertising trope of yesteryear in which we were told “4 out of 5 dentists [or doctors] recommend” using fluoride toothpaste, aspirin for headaches, or some such. We were always left to wonder whether that fifth doctor was a moron or something, never pausing to consider that the fifth doctor might well recommend the same thing, but emphasize something else first (like flossing perhaps, or Tylenol instead of aspirin because of sensitive stomachs, etc). But Archie Bunker was coming back on the air in 30 seconds, so most of us didn’t follow up on these puzzles.
Likewise we ought to wonder about the favorite cliché of the Climatistas these days—that “97 percent of scientists ‘believe in’ climate change.” As I’ve written before, the only real surprise is that the number isn’t 100 percent. There is virtually no one who thinks the climate hasn’t changed or won’t change in the future, or that there is no human influence on the phenomenon. The leading so-called “skeptics”—like MIT’s Richard Lindzen or Cato’s Patrick Michaels or NASA’s John Christy or Roy Spencer—would be included in the 97 percent figure. I’m guessing the outlying 3 percent are actually just anomalies of an arbitrary classification scheme (more on this in a moment) that serve the same point as a magician’s misdirection—to get you to buy an illusion. In this case, the illusion is that the scientific community is nearly unanimous in thinking we’re on the brink of catastrophe unless we hand our car keys over to Al Gore.
No one can possibly keep up with the flood of scientific articles published on climate-related topics these days (we’re spending way too much on climate research right now, but that’s a topic for another day), so it is ridiculous to offer sweeping generalizations like this about the character of the scientific literature. I keep up with a fair amount of it in Nature, Science, and a couple of the other main journals, and what is quite obvious is that most climate-related articles are about specific aspects of climate, such as observed changes in localized ecosystems, measurement refinements (like ocean temperatures, etc), energy use and projections, and large data analysis. Many of these articles do not take a position on the magnitude of possible future warming, and fewer still embrace giving the car keys over to Al Gore. Only a handful deal with modeling of future climate change, and this is where the debate over climate sensitivity and the severe limitations of the models (especially as relates to clouds) is quite lively and—dare I say it—unsettled. (Just read the IPCC Working Group I chapter on climate models if you don’t believe me.) The “97 percent of scientists ‘believe in’ climate change” cliché is an appalling abuse of science, and a bad faith attempt to marginalize anyone who dissents from the party line that we need to hand our car keys over to Al Gore. The tacit message is: if you dissent from the party line, you must be in that 3 percent who think you shouldn’t brush your teeth, take painkillers for headches, etc.
Where did this 97 percent figure come from? This story has become interesting over the last few days. The most prominent form of it comes from Prof. John Cook of the University of Queensland in a paper published last year that purported to have reviewed over 11,000 climate science articles. Does anyone really believe that Cook and his eight co-authors actually read through all 11,000 articles? Actually, the abstract of the paper supports the point I made above that most papers don’t actually deal with what the Climatistas say:
The plot thickens. Prof. Cook refused to share his data with anyone. Shades of the East Anglia mob and their tree ring data. But also like the East Anglia mob, someone at the University of Queensland left the data in the ether of the internet, and blogger Brandon Shollenberger came across it and starting noting its weaknesses. Then the predictable thing happened: the University of Queensland claims that the data was hacked, and sent Shollenbeger a cease-and-desist letter. That just speaks lots of confidence and transparency, doesn’t it?
Likewise we ought to wonder about the favorite cliché of the Climatistas these days—that “97 percent of scientists ‘believe in’ climate change.” As I’ve written before, the only real surprise is that the number isn’t 100 percent. There is virtually no one who thinks the climate hasn’t changed or won’t change in the future, or that there is no human influence on the phenomenon. The leading so-called “skeptics”—like MIT’s Richard Lindzen or Cato’s Patrick Michaels or NASA’s John Christy or Roy Spencer—would be included in the 97 percent figure. I’m guessing the outlying 3 percent are actually just anomalies of an arbitrary classification scheme (more on this in a moment) that serve the same point as a magician’s misdirection—to get you to buy an illusion. In this case, the illusion is that the scientific community is nearly unanimous in thinking we’re on the brink of catastrophe unless we hand our car keys over to Al Gore.
No one can possibly keep up with the flood of scientific articles published on climate-related topics these days (we’re spending way too much on climate research right now, but that’s a topic for another day), so it is ridiculous to offer sweeping generalizations like this about the character of the scientific literature. I keep up with a fair amount of it in Nature, Science, and a couple of the other main journals, and what is quite obvious is that most climate-related articles are about specific aspects of climate, such as observed changes in localized ecosystems, measurement refinements (like ocean temperatures, etc), energy use and projections, and large data analysis. Many of these articles do not take a position on the magnitude of possible future warming, and fewer still embrace giving the car keys over to Al Gore. Only a handful deal with modeling of future climate change, and this is where the debate over climate sensitivity and the severe limitations of the models (especially as relates to clouds) is quite lively and—dare I say it—unsettled. (Just read the IPCC Working Group I chapter on climate models if you don’t believe me.) The “97 percent of scientists ‘believe in’ climate change” cliché is an appalling abuse of science, and a bad faith attempt to marginalize anyone who dissents from the party line that we need to hand our car keys over to Al Gore. The tacit message is: if you dissent from the party line, you must be in that 3 percent who think you shouldn’t brush your teeth, take painkillers for headches, etc.
Where did this 97 percent figure come from? This story has become interesting over the last few days. The most prominent form of it comes from Prof. John Cook of the University of Queensland in a paper published last year that purported to have reviewed over 11,000 climate science articles. Does anyone really believe that Cook and his eight co-authors actually read through all 11,000 articles? Actually, the abstract of the paper supports the point I made above that most papers don’t actually deal with what the Climatistas say:
We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW[Anthropogenic Global Warming], 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. [Emphasis added.]
Pause here and note that it is odd to see that some folks apparently haven’t gotten the memo that you’re not supposed to call it “global warming”—“climate change” is the term of art now. Anyway, to continue, read this slowly and carefully:
Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.
Let’s translate: Among the one-third of papers that “endorse” the “consensus,” there is near unanimity. In other words, among people who agree with the consensus, nearly all of them agree with the consensus. Again—the only mystery here is that the number isn’t 100 percent. Perhaps this would have been too embarrassing to report, like a North Korean election. For this exercise all climate scientists may as well be called named Kim Jong Il.
The plot thickens. Prof. Cook refused to share his data with anyone. Shades of the East Anglia mob and their tree ring data. But also like the East Anglia mob, someone at the University of Queensland left the data in the ether of the internet, and blogger Brandon Shollenberger came across it and starting noting its weaknesses. Then the predictable thing happened: the University of Queensland claims that the data was hacked, and sent Shollenbeger a cease-and-desist letter. That just speaks lots of confidence and transparency, doesn’t it?
John Kerry: If We're Wrong on Climate Change, 'What's the Worst That Can Happen?'
"If we make the necessary efforts to address this challenge – and supposing I’m wrong or scientists are wrong, 97 percent of them all wrong – supposing they are, what’s the worst that can happen? Weput millions of people to work transitioning our energy, creating new and renewable and alternative; we make life healthier because we have less particulates in the air and cleaner air and more health; we give ourselves greater security through greater energy independence – that’s the downside. This is not a matter of politics or partisanship; it’s a matter of science and stewardship. And it’s not a matter of capacity; it’s a matter of willpower."
"Two major recent reports, one from the UN and one from retired U.S. military leaders, warn us not just of the crippling consequences to come, but that some of them are already here. Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent. Why? Because if crops can’t grow, there’ll be food insecurity. If there’s less water because of longer droughts, if there are stronger and more powerful storms, things will change in a hurry and they will change for the worse."
face)(*^%
"If we make the necessary efforts to address this challenge – and supposing I’m wrong or scientists are wrong, 97 percent of them all wrong – supposing they are, what’s the worst that can happen? Weput millions of people to work transitioning our energy, creating new and renewable and alternative; we make life healthier because we have less particulates in the air and cleaner air and more health; we give ourselves greater security through greater energy independence – that’s the downside. This is not a matter of politics or partisanship; it’s a matter of science and stewardship. And it’s not a matter of capacity; it’s a matter of willpower."
"Two major recent reports, one from the UN and one from retired U.S. military leaders, warn us not just of the crippling consequences to come, but that some of them are already here. Ninety-seven percent of the world’s scientists tell us this is urgent. Why? Because if crops can’t grow, there’ll be food insecurity. If there’s less water because of longer droughts, if there are stronger and more powerful storms, things will change in a hurry and they will change for the worse."
face)(*^%
“Science works by creating theories based on assumptions,” Dr. Ball notes, “then other scientists—performing their skeptical role—test them. The structure and mandate of the IPCC was in direct contradiction of this scientific method. They set out to prove the theory rather than disprove it.”
“The atmosphere,” Dr. Ball notes, “is three-dimensional and dynamic, so building a computer model that even approximates reality requires far more data than exists and much greater understanding of an extremely turbulent and complex system.” No computer model put forth by the IPCC in support of global warming has been accurate, nor ever could be. --
“Ridiculous claims—like the science is settled or the debate is over—triggered a growing realization that something was wrong.” When the global warming advocates began to tell people that cooling is caused by warming, the public has realized how absurd the entire UN climate change argument has been.--
Dr. Ball is the author of 'The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science'
“The atmosphere,” Dr. Ball notes, “is three-dimensional and dynamic, so building a computer model that even approximates reality requires far more data than exists and much greater understanding of an extremely turbulent and complex system.” No computer model put forth by the IPCC in support of global warming has been accurate, nor ever could be. --
“Ridiculous claims—like the science is settled or the debate is over—triggered a growing realization that something was wrong.” When the global warming advocates began to tell people that cooling is caused by warming, the public has realized how absurd the entire UN climate change argument has been.--
Dr. Ball is the author of 'The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science'
[h=1]Politics: Sorry, global warmists: The '97 percent consensus' is complete fiction[/h]
How dare you question them?
You hear it all the time. Why, 97 percent of all climate scientists agree that global warming is dangerous and man is causing it.The debate is over and it's time to act! (With the very kinds of tax and regulatory policies liberals would advocate anyway.)
Did you ever think to question, though, what the basis of this 97 percent figure might be? Joseph Bast and Roy W. Spencer did. Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute, while Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite. Writing today in the Wall Street Journal, the two men examine the most frequently cited sources for this claim and find them wanting. No matter how many times you hear politicians repeat the claim, there is no 97 percent consensus:
This explains a lot. It certainly explains the East Anglia e-mails, which sound like they were written by people who are trying to sustain a scam and are nervous about being exposed. It explains the insistence of the so-called "climate science community" to try to silence the work of skeptics and prevent their papers from being published. Science is not the practice of enforcing orthodoxies and siliencing apostates who question things, and yet that's what these folks do with regularity and their backers in the political realm cheer them on.
And it exposes yet again the pliability of the mainstream media, which continually cites this "97 percent" number without ever questioning where it came from or whether there is any basis for it. It reminds me of activists used to claim back in the 1980s that there were 4 million homeless, and the media would repeat the number as a matter of course without ever questioning its validity or its origin. They just figured that since they heard it all the time from people who ought to know, that was authoritative enough for them. (Besides, it seemed to be an indictment of Reagan policies, so hey, why not?)
There's all kinds of statistical nonsense floating around out there, and a lot of it that should be questioned never is because the people who ought to be doing the questioning want to believe. It's like the X-Files.
Once you recognize this, it really shows how insidious is the effort of the political class to marginalize so-called "deniers." These people are citing completely bogus data themselves - certainly to make the "consensus" claim and almost as certainly to make the claim of man-made global warming as well, not to mention their claims about what it will cause to happen in the future if we don't "act" (i.e. raise taxes, put government in charge of industry, etc.). Their entire proposition is a lie, and they're going to shut you up if you say anything about it, because the debate over, damn it!
And why should anyone be surprised about this? The same people who told you "if you like your plan you can keep your plan" now tell us there is no room for questioning them on man-made global warming or its future effects.
Usually people who are dealing in facts and truth don't have a conniption fit when someone questions them. They are confident about their assertions and they figure they can withstand a healthy challenge. If it's ever occurred to you that global warmists seem awfully insecure in the way they denounce their critics, now you know a little more about why.
Image Credit: Spinster Cardigan via Flickr[h=3]Published by: Dan Calabrese on Tuesday May 27th, 2014[/h]
How dare you question them?
You hear it all the time. Why, 97 percent of all climate scientists agree that global warming is dangerous and man is causing it.The debate is over and it's time to act! (With the very kinds of tax and regulatory policies liberals would advocate anyway.)
Did you ever think to question, though, what the basis of this 97 percent figure might be? Joseph Bast and Roy W. Spencer did. Mr. Bast is president of the Heartland Institute, while Dr. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer on NASA's Aqua satellite. Writing today in the Wall Street Journal, the two men examine the most frequently cited sources for this claim and find them wanting. No matter how many times you hear politicians repeat the claim, there is no 97 percent consensus:
Where did Mr. Kerry get the 97% figure? Perhaps from his boss, President Obama, who tweeted on May 16 that "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous." Or maybe from NASA, which posted (in more measured language) on its website, "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."
Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.
One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.
Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.
That's just the beginning. Bast and Spencer examine source after supposed source of this claim and methodically destroy the credibility of every single one. You're left with the realization that this statistic, constantly cited by left-wing politicians, is completely bogus. And the very people who beat skeptics over the head with these bogus numbers are the ones who say we are "anti-science" for refusing to agree with them.Yet the assertion that 97% of scientists believe that climate change is a man-made, urgent problem is a fiction. The so-called consensus comes from a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been contradicted by more reliable research.
One frequently cited source for the consensus is a 2004 opinion essay published in Science magazine by Naomi Oreskes, a science historian now at Harvard. She claimed to have examined abstracts of 928 articles published in scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and found that 75% supported the view that human activities are responsible for most of the observed warming over the previous 50 years while none directly dissented.
Ms. Oreskes's definition of consensus covered "man-made" but left out "dangerous"—and scores of articles by prominent scientists such as Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Sherwood Idso and Patrick Michaels, who question the consensus, were excluded. The methodology is also flawed. A study published earlier this year in Nature noted that abstracts of academic papers often contain claims that aren't substantiated in the papers.
This explains a lot. It certainly explains the East Anglia e-mails, which sound like they were written by people who are trying to sustain a scam and are nervous about being exposed. It explains the insistence of the so-called "climate science community" to try to silence the work of skeptics and prevent their papers from being published. Science is not the practice of enforcing orthodoxies and siliencing apostates who question things, and yet that's what these folks do with regularity and their backers in the political realm cheer them on.
And it exposes yet again the pliability of the mainstream media, which continually cites this "97 percent" number without ever questioning where it came from or whether there is any basis for it. It reminds me of activists used to claim back in the 1980s that there were 4 million homeless, and the media would repeat the number as a matter of course without ever questioning its validity or its origin. They just figured that since they heard it all the time from people who ought to know, that was authoritative enough for them. (Besides, it seemed to be an indictment of Reagan policies, so hey, why not?)
There's all kinds of statistical nonsense floating around out there, and a lot of it that should be questioned never is because the people who ought to be doing the questioning want to believe. It's like the X-Files.
Once you recognize this, it really shows how insidious is the effort of the political class to marginalize so-called "deniers." These people are citing completely bogus data themselves - certainly to make the "consensus" claim and almost as certainly to make the claim of man-made global warming as well, not to mention their claims about what it will cause to happen in the future if we don't "act" (i.e. raise taxes, put government in charge of industry, etc.). Their entire proposition is a lie, and they're going to shut you up if you say anything about it, because the debate over, damn it!
And why should anyone be surprised about this? The same people who told you "if you like your plan you can keep your plan" now tell us there is no room for questioning them on man-made global warming or its future effects.
Usually people who are dealing in facts and truth don't have a conniption fit when someone questions them. They are confident about their assertions and they figure they can withstand a healthy challenge. If it's ever occurred to you that global warmists seem awfully insecure in the way they denounce their critics, now you know a little more about why.
[ No surprise here... ]
Scientists Admit Polar Bear Numbers Were Made Up To ‘Satisfy Public Demand’
Michael Bastasch
This may come as a shocker to some, but scientists are not always right — especially when under intense public pressure for answers.
Researchers with the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) recently admitted to experienced zoologist and polar bear specialist Susan Crockford that the estimate given for the total number of polar bars in the Arctic was “simply a qualified guess given to satisfy
public demand.”
Crockford has been critical of official polar bear population estimates because they fail to include five large subpopulations of polar bears. Due to the uncertainty of the populations in these areas, PBSG did not include them in their official estimate — but the polar bear group did include other subpopulation estimates.
PBSG has for years said that global polar bear populations were between 20,000 and 25,000, but these estimates are likely much lower than how many polar bears are actually living in the world.
“Based on previous PBSG estimates and other research
reports, it appears there are probably at least another 6,000 or so bears living in these regions and perhaps as many as 9,000 (or more) that are not included in any PBSG ‘global population estimate,’” Crockford wrote on her blog.
“These are guesses, to be sure, but they at least give a potential size,” Crockford added.
PBSG disclosed this information to Crockford ahead of the release of their Circumpolar Polar Bear Action Plan in which they intend to put a footnote explaining why their global population estimate is flawed.
“As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic,” PBSG says in its proposed footnote. “Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000. It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.”
by Taboola
Sponsored Content
“It is also important to note that even though we have scientifically valid estimates for a majority of the subpopulations, some are dated,” PBSG continues. “Furthermore, there are no abundance estimates for the Arctic Basin, East Greenland, and the Russian subpopulations.”
“Consequently, there is either no, or only rudimentary, knowledge to support guesses about the possible abundance of polar bears in approximately half the areas they occupy,” says PBSG. “Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.”
PBSG’s admission also comes after academics and government regulators have touted their polar bear population estimates to show that polar bear numbers have grown since the 1960s. PBSG estimates have also been used to show that polar bear populations have stabilized over the last 30 years.
Polar bear populations became the centerpiece of the effort to fight global warming
due to claims that melting polar ice caps would cause the bears to become endangered in the near future. Years ago, some scientists predicted the Arctic would be virtually ice free by now.
Polar bears became the first species listed under the Endangered Species Act because they could potentially be harmed by global warming. But some recent studies have found that some polar bear subpopulations have actually flourished in recent years.
“So, the global estimates were… ‘simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand’ and according to this statement, were never meant to be considered scientific estimates, despite what they were called, the scientific group that issued them, and how they were used,” Crockford said.
“All this glosses over what I think is a critical point: none of these ‘global population estimates’ (from 2001 onward) came anywhere close to being estimates of the actual world population size of polar bears (regardless of how scientifically inaccurate they might have been) — rather, they were estimates of only the subpopulations that Arctic biologists have tried to count,” she added.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/30/s...de-up-to-satisfy-public-demand/#ixzz33VNoZr8Y
Scientists Admit Polar Bear Numbers Were Made Up To ‘Satisfy Public Demand’
3:02 PM 05/30/2014
Share15727
15727
847
Share
847
Share
Michael Bastasch
This may come as a shocker to some, but scientists are not always right — especially when under intense public pressure for answers.
Researchers with the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) recently admitted to experienced zoologist and polar bear specialist Susan Crockford that the estimate given for the total number of polar bars in the Arctic was “simply a qualified guess given to satisfy
public demand.”Crockford has been critical of official polar bear population estimates because they fail to include five large subpopulations of polar bears. Due to the uncertainty of the populations in these areas, PBSG did not include them in their official estimate — but the polar bear group did include other subpopulation estimates.
PBSG has for years said that global polar bear populations were between 20,000 and 25,000, but these estimates are likely much lower than how many polar bears are actually living in the world.
“Based on previous PBSG estimates and other research
reports, it appears there are probably at least another 6,000 or so bears living in these regions and perhaps as many as 9,000 (or more) that are not included in any PBSG ‘global population estimate,’” Crockford wrote on her blog.“These are guesses, to be sure, but they at least give a potential size,” Crockford added.
PBSG disclosed this information to Crockford ahead of the release of their Circumpolar Polar Bear Action Plan in which they intend to put a footnote explaining why their global population estimate is flawed.
“As part of past status reports, the PBSG has traditionally estimated a range for the total number of polar bears in the circumpolar Arctic,” PBSG says in its proposed footnote. “Since 2005, this range has been 20-25,000. It is important to realize that this range never has been an estimate of total abundance in a scientific sense, but simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand.”
by Taboola
Sponsored Content
“It is also important to note that even though we have scientifically valid estimates for a majority of the subpopulations, some are dated,” PBSG continues. “Furthermore, there are no abundance estimates for the Arctic Basin, East Greenland, and the Russian subpopulations.”
“Consequently, there is either no, or only rudimentary, knowledge to support guesses about the possible abundance of polar bears in approximately half the areas they occupy,” says PBSG. “Thus, the range given for total global population should be viewed with great caution as it cannot be used to assess population trend over the long term.”
PBSG’s admission also comes after academics and government regulators have touted their polar bear population estimates to show that polar bear numbers have grown since the 1960s. PBSG estimates have also been used to show that polar bear populations have stabilized over the last 30 years.
Polar bear populations became the centerpiece of the effort to fight global warming
due to claims that melting polar ice caps would cause the bears to become endangered in the near future. Years ago, some scientists predicted the Arctic would be virtually ice free by now.Polar bears became the first species listed under the Endangered Species Act because they could potentially be harmed by global warming. But some recent studies have found that some polar bear subpopulations have actually flourished in recent years.
“So, the global estimates were… ‘simply a qualified guess given to satisfy public demand’ and according to this statement, were never meant to be considered scientific estimates, despite what they were called, the scientific group that issued them, and how they were used,” Crockford said.
“All this glosses over what I think is a critical point: none of these ‘global population estimates’ (from 2001 onward) came anywhere close to being estimates of the actual world population size of polar bears (regardless of how scientifically inaccurate they might have been) — rather, they were estimates of only the subpopulations that Arctic biologists have tried to count,” she added.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/30/s...de-up-to-satisfy-public-demand/#ixzz33VNoZr8Y
1,350 peer reviewed scientific papers that refute climate change catastrophe.
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
Just in case you thought it was really about the climate...
http://maroonedinmarin.blogspot.com/2014/09/hilarious-peoples-climate-marchers.html
http://maroonedinmarin.blogspot.com/2014/09/hilarious-peoples-climate-marchers.html
[h=3]HILARIOUS! Peoples Climate Marchers Trash The Town To Promote Communism[/h]
Up in New York City today, there was a big march called the Peoples Climate March, to raise "awareness" about combating the man-made fraud known as GloBULL Warming.
Algore was there, as was actor Leonardo di Crapio.
But this "march" showed the hypocrisy not only of the big promoters like di Crapio and algore, who will fly private jets to promote fighting supposed "climate change," but also the participants.
Because it's not a lefty rally unless you have the participants trashing the place (photos via Twitchy).
But unless you took the title of the march at face value, you probably wouldn't guess what the real objective of the marchers was (via Twitchy)...
The term "Peoples" should have given away the real objective of the rally, because it always stands for communism (Peoples Republic of..., Peoples Temple).
Up in New York City today, there was a big march called the Peoples Climate March, to raise "awareness" about combating the man-made fraud known as GloBULL Warming.
Algore was there, as was actor Leonardo di Crapio.
But this "march" showed the hypocrisy not only of the big promoters like di Crapio and algore, who will fly private jets to promote fighting supposed "climate change," but also the participants.
Because it's not a lefty rally unless you have the participants trashing the place (photos via Twitchy).
But unless you took the title of the march at face value, you probably wouldn't guess what the real objective of the marchers was (via Twitchy)...
The term "Peoples" should have given away the real objective of the rally, because it always stands for communism (Peoples Republic of..., Peoples Temple).
