Friday, March 12, 2010

Global Warming Articles-update May 24, 2010

I’ve posted all these before. But I wanted to collect them in one place for you to share with your friends who believe there is no god but Global Warming and al-Gore is its Prophet. Except for the first couple, all these posts are from this year.

Save this URL. I'll try to add to it in the future. A one-stop shop to fight the Warmiacs.


Great summary by a weatherman
A skeptical take on Global Warming

Book: The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to Global Warming

Good Climate Change video

Are You Ready For Global Cooling?
Excerpt: Noted scientists at a Chicago climate conference declare that global warming is not only dead, but that the planet faces a big chill for decades to come. What about those frozen wind turbines? It's not exactly Copenhagen or Kyoto, but the 700 scientists attending the fourth International Conference on Climate Change, sponsored by the Heartland Institute, had some chilling news of their own in the most liberal sense. "Global warming is over — at least for a few decades," Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told the gathering. "However, the bad news is that global cooling is even more harmful to humans than global warming, and a cause for greater concern."

Global warming: Michael Mann finds a new research plaything
Your tax dollars being ripped off. Excerpt: In the Guardian today there is an article following on about the story of malaria and climate change. I like the quote from Peter Gething of Oxford: "If we were to go back to the 1900s with the correct climate change predictions for the 20th century, modellers would predict expansion and worsening of malaria and they would have been wrong, and we believe they are wrong now." That's because despite global warming for the past 30 years, the geographic extent of malaria has lessened, leading logical thinkers to guess that climate change has not worsened the spread of malaria. Gething was referring to his study published yesterday in Nature that found that bednets and drugs will influence the spread of malaria far more than will climate change, challenging fears that warming will aggravate the disease in Africa.... But Matthew Thomas thinks differently. Matthew Thomas said that the study "plays down the potential importance of climate [change]". Who is Matthew Thomas? He is a researcher at... Penn State. Matthew Thomas is a researcher... at Penn State... who has just won a $1.8 million grant to study the influence of environmental temperature on transmission of vector-borne diseases. Think he has a dog in this hunt? Ask his co-investigator on the project. Michael Mann...

It’s the Sun, stupid
Excerpt: Four years ago, when I first started profiling scientists who were global warming skeptics, I soon learned two things: Solar scientists were overwhelmingly skeptical that humans caused climate change and, overwhelmingly, they were reluctant to go public with their views. Often, they refused to be quoted at all, saying they feared for their funding, or they feared other recriminations from climate scientists in the doomsayer camp. When the skeptics agreed to be quoted at all, they often hedged their statements, to give themselves wiggle room if accused of being a global warming denier. Scant few were outspoken about their skepticism. No longer. Scientists, and especially solar scientists, are becoming assertive. Maybe their newfound confidence stems from the Climategate emails, which cast doomsayer-scientists as frauds and diminished their standing within academia. Maybe their confidence stems from the avalanche of errors recently found in the reports of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, destroying its reputation as a gold standard in climate science. Maybe the solar scientists are becoming assertive because the public no longer buys the doomsayer thesis, as seen in public opinion polls throughout the developed world. Whatever it was, solar scientists are increasingly conveying a clear message on the chief cause of climate change: It’s the Sun, Stupid.

Princeton Scientist Tells Congress: Warming Hockey Stick is Bogus, CO2 Good for Mankind
Excerpt: William Happer Professor of Physics Princeton University spent much of his professional life studying the interactions of radiation with gases, which is one of the of the main physical phenomena behind the greenhouse effect, he has published over 200 papers in peer reviewed scientific journals on the subject. He was also the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy (DOE) from 1990 to 1993, where he supervised all of DOE’s work on climate change. In other words the guy knows what he is talking about. Yesterday Happer testified before the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming and gave them an earful. He told them why the hockey stick graph was wrong, that global warming and cooling are natural phenomena, CO2 is beneficial for man, and that the Global Warming Moonbats are suppressing research contrary to their positions. Let me state clearly where I probably agree with the other witnesses. We have been in a period of global warming over the past 200 years, but there have been several periods, like the last ten years, when the warming has ceased, and there have even been periods of substantial cooling, as from 1942 to 1975. Atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) have increased from about 280 to 385 parts per million over past 100 years. The combustion of fossil fuels, coal, oil and natural gas, has contributed to the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. And finally, increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will add a warming trend to the natural warmings and coolings of the earth’s surface. The key question is: how much warming will there be, and will the warming, and any other effects of the CO2, be good or bad for humanity? I, and many other scientists, think the warming will be small compared the natural fluctuations in the earth’s temperature, and that the warming and increased CO2 will be good for mankind.

Must Read: Is Global Warming Really Cause for Alarm?
Excerpt: We’re often asked, "What really causes all these alarms about global warming disasters?" As scientists and policy analysts who’ve studied our ever-changing climate for a combined 65 years and attribute the changes primarily to natural forces, we’ve wondered that ourselves and also asked: Why is warming always framed as bad news? Why does so much “research” claim a warmer planet “may” lead to more childhood insomnia, more juvenile delinquency, war, juvenile delinquency, violent crime and prostitution, death of the Loch Ness Monster – and even more Mongolian cows dying from cold weather? We’re not making this up. In fact, this is just the tip of the proverbial melting iceberg of climate scare stories chronicled at Number Watch. Clearly, too much money is being spent on one-sided global warming advocacy cloaked as “research,” not enough on natural causes and adaptation. Despite the best of intentions, too much money can corrupt, or at least skew the science. As they say, follow the money. Remember Indiana Jones’ immortal words: “Fortune and glory.”

Green Boom Turns To Bust
Excerpt: As Europe grapples with the fallout from Greece’s economic woes, at least one unexpected corner of the economy is suffering: renewable energy companies. That’s because few wind, solar, and other green power installations would be profitable without subsidies, and as governments across Europe curb spending in response to the Greek crisis, those funds are being cut back, Bloomberg BusinessWeek reports in its May 24 issue.

Consensus? What consensus?
Excerpt: Ahead of the interview, I thought I’d just check out the Conference Speaker’s list. There are 80 scheduled speakers, including distinguished scientists (like Richard Lindzen of MIT), policy wonks (like my good friend Chris Horner of CEI), enthusiasts and campaigners (like Anthony Watts of the web-site), and journalists (including our own inimitable James Delingpole). Of the 80 speakers, I noticed that fully forty-five were qualified scientists from relevant disciplines, and from respected universities around the world — from the USA, Canada, Mexico, Russia, Sweden, Norway, UK, Australia and New Zealand. All of them have reservations about climate alarmism, ranging from concerns that we are making vastly expensive public policy decisions based on science that is, to say the least, open to question, through to outright rejection of the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) model. Several of these scientists are members or former members of the IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. But how do 45 sceptical scientists stack up, you may well ask, against the 2500 on the official IPCC panels? But of course there aren’t 2500 relevant scientists on the IPCC panel. Many of them are not strictly scientists at all. Some are merely civil servants or environmental zealots. Some are economists — important to the debate but not experts on the science. Others are scientists in unrelated disciplines. The Chairman of the IPCC Dr. Ravendra Pachuari, is a Railway Engineer.

Cameron's Wasted Energies
Excerpt: David Cameron last week renewed his promise to cut the U.K. government's carbon emissions by 10% in the next 12 months, and is now taking suggestions on how to achieve that. Here's a thought: How about cutting the central government itself by 10%? That's about the only way the new Prime Minister can simultaneously reduce government emissions and the cost of government. If, on the other hand, the government's plans for shrinking its emissions involve similar measures as its plans to "green" the private sector, Mr. Cameron might ask himself whether, with a budget deficit of 12% of GDP, he can afford this particular boondoggle. It's fashionable to profess that "greening" the economy can be accomplished at no cost, so great are the benefits of efficiency gains and renewable energy. But the history of civilization, from start to finish, can be seen as one long drive to make more efficient use of available resources. If something can be done more efficiently, at least outside of the public sector, someone is probably already doing it. And if they're not, it's because the costs outweigh the benefits. This is for the simple reason that "greening" the private economy requires subsidies, or heavy-handed regulation, or both. But government can't subsidize itself, so Mr. Cameron's quest is certain to cost taxpayers more than they get back in the form of more-efficient government energy use.

Global Warming: How to approach the science.
Excerpt: Here are two statements that are completely agreed on by the IPCC. It is crucial to be aware of these facts and of their implications. 1. A doubling of CO2, by itself, contributes only about 1C to greenhouse warming. All models project more warming, because, within models, there are positive feedbacks from water vapor and clouds, and these feedbacks are considered by the IPCC to be uncertain. 2. If one assumes all warming over the past century is due to anthropogenic greenhouse forcing, then the derived sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of CO2is less than 1C. The higher sensitivity of existing models is made consistent with observed warming by invoking unknown additional negative forcings from aerosols and solar variability as arbitrary adjustments. Given the above, the notion that alarming warming is ‘settled science’ should be offensive to any sentient individual, though to be sure, the above is hardly emphasized by the IPCC.

The ash cloud that never was
From the folks who know what the temperature will be a hundred years from now. Excerpt: The airport chaos that hit tens of thousands of travellers yesterday was based on a faulty ash cloud prediction. Officials closed south-eastern airspace for ten hours following a Met Office alert about dangerous levels of ‘black’ ash. Yet when the forecasters took fresh soundings, and sent up a plane to check, they found their assessment was flawed: there was no such ash.

A cooling trend
Excerpt: The story of the scientists’ relationship is much more than a curiosity. The fact that these serious-minded colleagues and longtime friends disagree so vehemently highlights the immense difficulty of finding common ground on human-caused global warming. That’s because their disagreements are not just about interpretations of scientific data, but about how they assess the risks, amid the uncertainty over global warming’s future impact. Their divide mirrors a much larger political split, as the US Senate begins to debate a climate bill written in large part by Massachusetts Senator John F. Kerry. All parties to the debate have the same evidence to draw on; their conclusions are another matter. Lindzen and Emanuel’s collision spotlights the ultimate sticking point: What steps should we take, and at what cost? That is: How much insurance against the possibility of catastrophe should a prudent planet buy?

Carbon Scam: Bulgaria Suspended From CO2 Emissions Trading
Excerpt: Bulgaria will be suspended from carbon emissions trading under the Kyoto Protocol as a result of poor transparency and untrustworthiness, the country's environment minister said on 13 May. The decision represents a heavy blow for the government in Sofia, which expected to receive €250m in revenue from the scheme this year, according to Dnevnik, EurActiv's partner publication in Bulgaria. Bulgaria will be suspended from the scheme as of 30 June if a United Nations' committee revokes its accreditation under the treaty. A formal decision is expected by the end of June. Environment Minister Nona Karadzhova said there was no chance of any reversal. The suspension, which is expected to last until at least November, comes after UN checks had shown that Bulgaria's national system for recording greenhouse gas emissions, which is key for ensuring compliance under Kyoto, was not transparent and trustworthy, Karadzhova explained. She said the ban would prevent Bulgarian companies from trading on greenhouse gas emission schemes under Kyoto, and would also affect their participation in the European Union's emissions trading scheme (EU-ETS).

Crisis in New Zealand climatology
Excerpt: The official archivist of New Zealand’s climate records, the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), offers top billing to its 147-year-old national mean temperature series (the “NIWA Seven-station Series” or NSS). This series shows that New Zealand experienced a twentieth-century warming trend of 0.92°C. The official temperature record is wrong. The instrumental raw data correctly show that New Zealand average temperatures have remained remarkably steady at 12.6°C +/- 0.5°C for a century and a half. NIWA’s doctoring of that data is indefensible. The NSS is the outcome of a subjective data series produced by a single Government scientist, whose work has never been peer-reviewed or subjected to proper quality checking. It was smuggled into the official archive without any formal process. It is undocumented and sans metadata, and it could not be defended in any court of law. Yet the full line-up of NIWA climate scientists has gone to extraordinary lengths to support this falsified warming and to fiercely attack its critics.

A Bad Bet on Carbon
Excerpt: ON Wednesday, John Kerry and Joseph Lieberman introduced their long-awaited Senate energy bill, which includes incentives of $2 billion per year for carbon capture and sequestration, the technology that removes carbon dioxide from the smokestack at power plants and forces it into underground storage. This significant allocation would come on top of the $2.4 billion for carbon capture projects that appeared in last year’s stimulus package. That’s a lot of money for a technology whose adoption faces three potentially insurmountable hurdles: it greatly reduces the output of power plants; pipeline capacity to move the newly captured carbon dioxide is woefully insufficient; and the volume of waste material is staggering. Lawmakers should stop perpetuating the hope that the technology can help make huge cuts in the United States’ carbon dioxide emissions.

E.P.A. Unveils Rule to Regulate Greenhouse Gases
Let’s double electric and gas prices to help the poor! Excerpt: The Environmental Protection Agency unveiled a final rule on Thursday for regulating major emitters of greenhouse gases, like coal-fired power plants, under the Clean Air Act. Starting in July 2011, new sources of at least 100,000 tons of greenhouse gases a year and any existing plants that increase emissions by 75,000 tons will have to seek permits, the agency said. In the first two years, the E.P.A. expects to issue about 550 permits covering the coal-fired plants, refineries, cement manufacturers, solid waste landfills and other large polluters, said Gina McCarthy, the agency’s assistant administrator

The battle over climate bill begins
After a hard day hoeing potatoes and fending off marauders, our surviving grandchildren will sit around the campfire and laugh at the threat of Global Warming. Excerpt: Sens. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) will unveil a sweeping climate change and energy bill Wednesday that requires greenhouse gas reductions while offering major new incentives for nuclear power, coal, natural gas and offshore drilling. The bill — which faced several delays en route to Wednesday’s unveiling — faces highly uncertain prospects given the Senate calendar, senators’ election year jitters, the lack of a Republican co-sponsor and outrage over the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.

Global Warming Petition
Excerpt: We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. This petition has been signed by over 31,000 American scientists.

Quote for Mr. Gore
We know accurately only when we know little, with knowledge doubt increases. --Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe

The Problems with Al Gore
Excerpt: But Al Gore refuses to debate his critics. He has repeatedly dodged a debate with Christopher Monckton. Instead of engaging skeptics in reasoned discussions, Gore has relentlessly demonized those who disagree with him. In a series of infamous character assassinations, he has stated that people who are skeptical of the hysterical global warming scenario he has been promoting (and profiting from) are comparable to the lunatic fringe that believes the Apollo Moon landings were filmed on a movie stage. He has also compared global warming skeptics to people who believe the Earth is flat. Scientific issues like climate change are not morality plays. Scientists are objective and tentative. To be a scientist is to be skeptical. Science is never "settled," because there can be no finality in any empirical system of knowledge. Only God has all the data. Scientists employ multiple working hypotheses. They work together cooperatively, eager to have their mistakes pointed out to them, so as to advance a disinterested search for truth.

America Already a Green Exemplar
Excerpt: Any dispassionate analysis of the record – and we’ll get to that in a bit – makes it clear that the United States has done a truly remarkable job of cleaning up the air, water and soil in this country. Every one of us has been a part of that and the money that we have expended to make green happen, should anyone ever account for those costs, would boggle the mind. You pay for green every time you purchase a vehicle chock full of the latest and greatest emissions controls. You pay for green with every check you write to your local utility, for without your increased financial obligations the utility could not pay for all of the new pollution controls that they have had to install. You pay for green in every gallon of paint you buy, with every trip to the grocery store and every time you crack a water faucet, for all of these acts, and hundreds more, factor in the cost of going as green as we have chosen to go. Yet, in spite of all you have done simply by tacitly accepting the need to “save the planet” and quietly paying whatever price was demanded, it’s not nearly enough for the environmental movement. On this Earth Day, like every Earth Day, they’ll metaphorically their wag their fingers and tell you that you need to do more. What organizations like Greenpeace, the Sierra Club and the National Resources Defense Council never do on Earth Day, because it would constitute financial suicide if they did, is to extend a hand and say “thank you” in recognition of all that you have accomplished. Just what have you accomplished? In less than half a century you have funded a series of initiatives that has proven to, should someone actually dare to employ any objective means of measurement, forever shattered the image of America as the world’s cesspool. When the Clean Water Act was passed, lakes were declared “dead” and rivers were burning. Thirty eight years later, such images have disappeared in popular culture. Public and private sewage treatment plants are subject to such stringent standards and tight oversight that regulatory agencies have increasingly been forced to turn their attentions to stormwater run-off in order to find a purpose. Before the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) was passed in 1980, unlicensed landfills and “midnight dumping” created scores of toxics hot spots each year. Today, such occurrences are so rare that a generation of attorneys who made their livings negotiating CERCLA settlements are desperately looking for something else to do. But nowhere has the green progress we have made been so evident, if so roundly ignored, than in terms of air pollution.

1970 Quote
"Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make. The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years." --Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University biologist. Ehrlich’s book, The Population Bomb, was given to my as received wisdom by my professors. Probably why I have no children. Certainly why I now take warnings of global warming/cooling with a pinch of NaCl.

Climate Science In Denial
Follow the money. Excerpt: Global warming alarmists have been discredited, but you wouldn’t know it from the rhetoric this Earth Day. In mid-November of 2009 there appeared a file on the Internet containing thousands of emails and other documents from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in Great Britain. How this file got into the public domain is still uncertain, but the emails, whose authenticity is no longer in question, provided a view into the world of climate research that was revealing and even startling. In what has come to be known as “climategate,” one could see unambiguous evidence of the unethical suppression of information and opposing viewpoints, and even data manipulation. The Climatic Research Unit is hardly an obscure outpost; it supplies many of the authors for the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Moreover, the emails showed ample collusion with other prominent researchers in the United States and elsewhere. One might have thought the revelations would discredit the allegedly settled science underlying currently proposed global warming policy, and, indeed, the revelations may have played some role in the failure of last December’s Copenhagen climate conference to agree on new carbon emissions limits. But with the political momentum behind policy proposals and billions in research funding at stake, the impact of the emails appears to have been small. The general approach of the official scientific community (at least in the United States and the United Kingdom) has been to see whether people will bother to look at the files in detail (for the most part they have not), and to wait until time diffuses the initial impressions in order to reassert the original message of a climate catastrophe that must be fought with a huge measure of carbon control…. Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Celebrate Earth’s Best Friend
Excerpt: How stark is the difference in environmental quality between nations that encourage the market and those that stifle it? A study published in the January issue of the science journal Nature documents that so much pollution from Asia is crossing the Pacific Ocean that U.S. ozone levels are rising even though U.S. ozone precursor emissions are declining. States in the Western United States are having difficulty meeting federal ozone standards because pollution from relatively poor nations in East Asia is offsetting declines in U.S. emissions. For nations such as China, India, Bangladesh, Laos, and Vietnam—each languishing in the bottom third of The Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom World Rankings—imposing expensive environmental mandates on citizens who cannot afford food, clothing, and shelter is not an option. Western-style environmental protections first require Western-style wealth. And Western-style wealth was made possible, and will remain possible, only through free markets and economic liberty.

The Amazing Disappearance of Winter due to Global Warming
Excerpt: In an urgent call to the media by the Union of Concerned Scientists (composed primarily of "citizen scientists", i.e., political activists dedicated to promoting the Obama agenda on energy and nuclear disarmament) it was breathlessly announced that spring has arrived ten days earlier this year due to global warming. This was a stunning revelation to me, as I thought the seasons were caused by the Earth's tilt toward the Sun. I was intrigued by the premise that this group of obviously qualified authorities might believe that global warming has caused the Earth's axis to shift to the point that spring comes ten days early. But alas, that wasn't the case. In an April 20 Reuters article on this proclamation, it was revealed that the winter season is apparently shrinking due to "spring creep". Oddly, there was no mention of a corresponding "summer creep", which logically should occur if the world is getting warmer. However, these are activist scientists, not logisticians. (I live in Chicago. I’m for Spring starting January 1, and will do anything to help it. If it drowns the Democrat cities on the coasts, that just proves there is a God. Note to the trolls. This is a JOKE. Look it up.)

Big Nature and Tiny Us
Excerpt: Nineteen years ago, Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines coughed up twenty million tons of sulfur dioxide. In Mexico, nine years earlier, the Chichón eruption perceptibly cooled the planet. Recent human history has other examples of globally cooling volcanoes. Mount St. Helens, erupting in 1980, threw gases and particles in the sky which were clearly visible for hundreds of miles. The Icelandic Laki eruption in 1783 was believed by Ben Franklin to have cooled the planet, and thirty-two years later, the Tambora volcano in Indonesia produced the "year without a summer," in which distant New England experienced snowfalls in July. Krakatau, exactly one year after Laki, was twenty times more powerful than Mount St. Helens and cooled the planetary temperature perceptibly. These volcanoes are dramatic evidence of a mundane truth: We exercise very little power over our environment.

Gore takes cash for water campaign from chemical firm
Cash is cash, business is business. Excerpt: Al Gore, the self-styled squeakiest-clean and deepest-green politician in American history, has some explaining to do this weekend. His environmental organisation has taken money to raise awareness about the need for clean water from a controversial chemicals company involved in the aftermath of one of the world’s worst pollution disasters. Dow Chemical, the US firm which now owns the leaking pesticides factory responsible for thousands of deaths in Bhopal, India, is sponsoring Life Earth events in 150 cities today. The event aims to raise money for clean water programmes. Research by environmental organisations has found dangerous levels of highly toxic chemicals in rivers, lakes and other water supplies close to several other factories owned by Dow and its subsidiaries in countries including the United States, Brazil and South Africa.

Why cleaner air could speed global warming,0,3774828.story
Excerpt: You're likely to hear a chorus of dire warnings as we approach Earth Day, but there's a serious shortage few pundits are talking about: air pollution. That's right, the world is running short on air pollution, and if we continue to cut back on smoke pouring forth from industrial smokestacks, the increase in global warming could be profound.

Whitewashing is quick work!
Excerpt: Hard on the heels of the report of the one-day British Parliamentary inquiry into the Climategate scandal comes the report of the grandly-named International Science Assessment Panel set up by the University of East Anglia (UEA). Surprise, surprise, it finds nothing wrong except a few lapses in concentration caused by all the hard work climate scientists are doing to save the planet. Unfortunately for the alarmist cheerleaders who will treat these reports as complete exoneration, they suffer from exactly the same problems as the scientific reports Climategate centered around. They are sloppy and incomplete while pretending to be the comprehensive answer. As such, they damage the authority of science just as much as Climategate itself.

Top Climate Scientist Under Fire for 'Exaggerating' Global Warming
Excerpt: Britain's top statistician absolved U.K. scientists following the climate-data scandal -- and blasted U.S. researcher Michael Mann for exaggerating the size of global warming. An inquiry by a panel of scientists into the behavior and methodologies of researchers at Britain's East Anglia University found Britain's climatologists scatterbrained and sloppy, but ultimately innocent of intentionally skewing climate data. But one of the top scientists selected for the panel slammed the methodologies used by Penn State climatologist Michael Mann to devise his infamous "Hockey Stick."

A House bill aiming to make research and data open to the public
Excerpt: Climategate demonstrated what can go wrong when a few misguided scientists take control of data and keep it from the public. Now there’s a movement afoot to make open access to data and research papers a law. Washington, DC – Fueling the growing momentum toward openness, transparency, and accessibility to publicly funded information, the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2010 (FRPAA) has been introduced today in the U.S. House of Representatives by Rep. Mike Doyle (D-PA) and a bi-partisan host of co-sponsors. The proposed bill would build on the success of the first U.S. mandate for public access to the published results of publicly funded research at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and require federal agencies with annual extramural research budgets of $100 million or more to provide the public with online access to research manuscripts stemming from funded research no later than six months after publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

Global Warming, R.I.P.
Excerpt: We buy newspapers and magazines, we watch television news and listen to radio programs because we want to know what is going on. Very few of us are apt to be satisfied with a press no more informative than was Pravda in the heyday of the Soviet Union. This scandal, worldwide in its proportions and profound in its import, was ready-made for enterprising reporters, and, to be fair, they have made their mark . . . in foreign countries such as Great Britain – where The Guardian, a left-wing daily firmly committed to the global warming hypothesis, has nonetheless distinguished itself by the vigor it has displayed in pursuing evidence of scientific fraud in this regard. None of the news outlets mentioned in the first paragraph of this essay has pursued the story. At best, long after the facts have come out, they have noted their deployment by the global-warming skeptics. Were it not for the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal, Americans who limited their purview to the mainstream media would have hardly a clue as to what is happening.....This is, of course, part of a larger trend. The mainstream press has largely forgotten its function, and these days it flacks where it used to report. It is this that explains why fewer and fewer Americans subscribe to newspapers and magazines and watch the television networks listed above. And this explains why the internet has been such a boon. But, this fact notwithstanding, we are in a pickle – for, to date anyway, none of the operations on the internet that report the news have the resources requisite for pursuing such a story. We are, in fact, dependent on the foreign press.

If Global Warming Kills Us, Blame the Weatherman
Excerpt: Who do Americans trust more than any other type of media personality? The weatherman. Sometimes formally trained meteorologists, sometimes not, our news station weathercasters nevertheless command more attention than other journalists; for local news stations, the weather report is very often the most popular segment. And over the years, the reliability of meteorologists has improved significantly; next-day forecasts, at the very least, are pretty reliable. But a new study says that weathercasters are reaching much further into the future with their reporting. According to George Mason University’s Center for Climate Change Communication, some 87 percent of weathercasters also talk publicly about climate change.

The disclosure of climate data from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia
Excerpt: Phil Willis MP, Committee Chair, said: “Climate science is a matter of global importance. On the basis of the science, governments across the world will be spending trillions of pounds on climate change mitigation. The quality of the science therefore has to be irreproachable. What this inquiry revealed was that climate scientists need to take steps to make available all the data that support their work and full methodological workings, including their computer codes. Had both been available, many of the problems at CRU could have been avoided.” The focus on Professor Jones and CRU has been largely misplaced. On the accusations relating to Professor Jones’s refusal to share raw data and computer codes, the Committee considers that his actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community but that those practices need to change.

"Change" Is Not New by Thomas Sowell
Excerpt: The recent statement that the earth was warmer in the Middle Ages than it is today, made by the climate scientist who is at the heart of the recent scandal about "global warming" statistics, ought to at least give pause to those who are determined to believe that human beings must be the reason for "climate change." Other climate scientists have pointed out before now that the earth has warmed and cooled many times over the centuries. Contrary to the impression created in much of the media and in politics, no one has denied that temperatures change, sometimes more than they are changing today. …It is those who have been pushing the hysteria who have been playing fast and loose with the facts, wanting to keep crucial data from becoming public, and even "losing" some of that data that supposedly proved the most dire consequences. It has not been facts but computer models at the heart of the "global warming" crusade.

Green think tank tells environmentalists: Leave climate change science behind
Excerpt: Leaders of a contrarian environmental think tank, The Breakthrough Institute, have a way to get beyond the climate science wars: Break the link between global warming research and the push for low-carbon energy. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, in a new essay in Yale Environment 360, argue that environmentalists are too eager to link natural disasters and dangerous weather to man-made climate change. They say this is a losing hand that has been made even weaker by the furor over the now-infamous hacked climate science emails, and controversy surrounding the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Freeing Energy Policy From The Climate Change Debate
Excerpt: The 20-year effort by environmentalists to establish climate science as the primary basis for far-reaching action to decarbonize the global energy economy today lies in ruins. Backlash in reaction to “Climategate” and recent controversies involving the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s 2007 assessment report are but the latest evidence that such efforts have evidently failed. While the urge to blame fossil-fuel-funded skeptics for this recent bad turn of events has proven irresistible for most environmental leaders and pundits, forward-looking greens wishing to ascertain what might be salvaged from the wreckage would be well advised to look closer to home. Climate science, even at its most uncontroversial, could never motivate the remaking of the entire global energy economy. Efforts to use climate science to threaten an apocalyptic future should we fail to embrace green proposals, and to characterize present-day natural disasters as terrifying previews of an impending day of reckoning, have only served to undermine the credibility of both climate science and progressive energy policy.

A National Survey Of Television Meteorologists About Climate Change:
Excerpt: In January and February 2010, using a web-based method, we surveyed all broadcast TV members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association (NWA) using member email lists provided by the two professional associations. All participants were offered $30 to complete the approximately 20-minute survey. Of the 1,408 names and email addresses provided by AMS and NWA, 35 people were ineligible because we determined that they no longer worked as TV meteorologists, and 44 email addresses proved to be incorrect (and despite an active search, correct email addresses could not be located). Therefore, the valid initial denominator of our sample was 1,373. Fifty-nine of these people refused to participate, 743 did not respond, and 571 completed at least some portion of the survey, yielding a minimum response rate of 41.6% (which assumes that all non-respondents were eligible to participate).

Global Warming Advocates Threaten Blizzard of Lawsuits
Let sue ‘em back and crash the courts. Excerpt: Environmentalists, unable to squeeze "cap and trade" rules through the U.S. Senate, have a new strategy for combating what they believe is man-made global warming: They're going to sue. They're revving up their briefs and getting ready to shop for judges who will be sympathetic to their novel claim that the companies they believe contribute to global warming are a "public nuisance."

Global Warming on Trial
Excerpt: In 2005, the late Dr. Michael Crichton wrote a book of fiction called State of Fear. The plot of the storyline is the exposé of the fraudulent science behind the global warming theory in the middle of a fictitious court case. The book was a bestseller, and in a strange twist of circumstances, it landed Dr. Crichton in front of a Senate committee. Now it seems that life is indeed imitating art. In the past few years, there have been many court cases concerning the actions of governments to the alleged threat of global warming. The latest has been filed by Texas against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with respect to the Endangerment Finding of Carbon Dioxide (CO2).

Climategate in Review
Excerpt: Those of us keeping abreast of the climate literature have known for quite some time that the explanation for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) relating to climate change, was far from the entire story, with almost all dissenting opinion having been actively suppressed. But the full extent of the problem was not made clear until November 19, 2009, when approximately 160 megabytes of data files and email correspondence was leaked from Britain's government-funded University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit (CRU).

Another Look at Climate Sensitivity
OK, a quick pop quiz. The average temperature of the planet is about 14°C (57°F). If the earth had no atmosphere, and if it were a blackbody at the same distance from the sun, how much cooler would it be than at present?
a) 33°C (59°F) cooler
b) 20°C (36°F) cooler
c) 8° C (15°F) cooler
The answer may come as a surprise. If the earth were a blackbody at its present distance from the sun, it would be only 8°C cooler than it is now. That is to say, the net gain from our entire complete system, including clouds, surface albedo, aerosols, evaporation losses, and all the rest, is only 8°C above blackbody no-atmosphere conditions.

The ‘global warming’ story you haven’t heard: part two
Excerpt: I counted the references cited in the final, published version of Chapter 11 and got a tally of 330. Of those, fully 139 – or 42 percent – were non-peer-reviewed grey literature.…At this juncture it’s worth remembering that the IPCC’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, has repeatedly claimed that the IPCC relies solely on peer-reviewed material to make its case. By now we know this isn’t remotely true.

Swedes call out Jones on data availability
Excerpt: Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry. It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data. Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests. This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.

Emails from "attack ad" science group posted
Your tax dollars at work? Excerpt: According to recently disclosed e-mails from a National Academies of Science listserv, prominent climate scientists affiliated with the U.S. National Academies of Science have been planning a public campaign to paper over the damaged reputation of global warming alarmism. Their scheme would involve officials at the National Academies and other professional associations producing studies to endorse the researchers’ pre-existing assumptions and create confusion about the revelations of the rapidly expanding “Climategate” scandal.

Crime, punishment and Climategate
Excerpt: Al Gore and his Climategate colleagues in the academy and the press are like the North Carolina police officers and prosecutors who put an honest man behind bars. Almost all of them began with open minds and the best intentions. At some point they honestly concluded that the Earth was in great peril. They began viewing evidence through this lens, accentuating data that bolstered their view, discounting findings at odds with the “truth.” As their investment in the idea of global warming increased—their careers, good names and sense of themselves—their minds closed. Dissension, debate and doubt became too dangerous. Members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change trumpeted faulty data, climate scientists stifled legitimate inquiry and influential journalists likened those who questioned global warming to Holocaust deniers in the name of truth. In a recent column, James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal found it “amusing” that the New Yorker’s Elizabeth Kolbert had rejected the seriousness of the Climategate scandal in a recent podcast. “She sounds extremely defensive,” Taranto wrote, “as if she feels personally threatened by questions about global-warmist doctrine.” Of course she does. Kolbert has written numerous articles and a celebrated book, “Field Notes On a Catastrophe,” detailing the threat of global warming. Her investment in it is immense. It cannot be easy for her to even entertain the possibility that she—so smart, so accomplished—might have been duped, even a little bit. This is not how journalism or science is supposed to work, but it is how human thought has always functioned.

Cherry blossoms a little battered but poised to peak April 3-8
Alert Al Gore about GW-denying Elm trees—if the globe was warming, they’d be blooming earlier. Excerpt: The ground has been frozen under layers of snow. Daffodils are just now breaking the surface. The elm trees are two weeks late in starting to flower. And Washington's hallowed cherry blossoms? A little banged up from the blizzards and wind and hampered by a lingering chill in the soil, but apparently not too far off schedule.

CRUTEM3 “…code did not adhere to standards one might find in professional software engineering”
Excerpt: I am writing at this late juncture regarding this matter because I have now seen that two separate pieces of written evidence to your committee mention me (without using my name) and I feel it is appropriate to provide you with some further information. I am a professional computer programmer who started programming almost 30 years ago. I have a BA in Mathematics and Computation from Oxford University and a DPhil in Computer Security also from Oxford. My entire career has been spent in computer software in the UK, US and France. I am also a frequent blogger on science topics (my blog was recently named by The Times as one of its top 30 science blogs). Shortly after the release of emails from UEA/CRU I looked at them out of curiosity and found that there was a large amount of software along with the messages. Looking at the software itself I was surprised to see that it was of poor quality. This resulted in my appearance on BBC Newsnight criticizing the quality of the UEA/CRU code in early December 2009 (see

Royal Statistical Society backs “models and data in the public domain"
Excerpt: And the hits just keep on coming for UEA/CRU and Dr. Jones. Now I wonder, where the heck is the American Meteorological Society? Earlier we reported on The Royal Society of Chemistry making a statement to the Parliamentary inquiry saying they as an organization support open data sharing. They join the Institute of Physics in making a strong statement on the practices of UEA/CRU. Now the Royal Statistical Society has weighed in with much the same opinion.

Head of 'Climategate' research unit admits he hid data
Excerpt: The scientist at the heart of the 'Climategate' row over global warming hid data 'because it was standard practice', it emerged today. Professor Phil Jones, director of the University of East Anglia's prestigious climatic research unit, today admitted to MPs that the centre withheld raw station data about global temperatures from around the world. 9comment from the Marine buddy who sent this item: More testimony to Parliament, this time verbal, from Phil Jones. As noted in one of the comments following the article, hiding data is NOT a standard scientific procedure. It is usual to release ALL data so other scientists can verify (or not) the conclusions reached. Failure to do so puts "Climate Science" at the same level of credibility as alchemy and astrology. Ron P.)

Institute of Physics on Climategate
Excerpt: The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.

House Democrats challenge EPA on greenhouse gases
The Warmists’ house continues to crumble. Excerpt: Two top House Democrats have introduced a measure aimed at blocking the Environmental Protection Agency from regulating pollution-causing greenhouse gases. House Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson of Minnesota and Armed Services Chairman Ike Skelton of Missouri want to veto the EPA's finding in December that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare.

University ‘tried to mislead MPs on climate change e-mails’
The rot spreads. Excerpt: The university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen e-mails has been accused of making a misleading statement to Parliament. The University of East Anglia wrote this week to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee giving the impression that it had been exonerated by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). However, the university failed to disclose that the ICO had expressed serious concerns that one of its professors had proposed deleting information to avoid complying with the Freedom of Information Act.

IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri to face independent inquiry
Excerpt: Environment and Climate ministers meeting in closed session in Bali last night insisted that an independent review should be carried out following the publicising of mistakes in its last report, and a row surrounding Dr Pachauri's robust response to his critics.

A Pending American Temperaturegate
Excerpt: Our study of data-massaging by the U.S. government agency charged with collecting temperature information raises uncomfortable questions.We have been repeatedly told (perhaps "lectured" is a better word) the past twenty years that global warming is occurring. With Climategate and subsequent confessions and bailouts by scientists at the CRU, Penn State, Arizona State, IPCC, et al., we are learning that little to none of the factual content in their "peer reviewed" articles is true. The Medieval Warming Period did occur, and it was warmer than currently; the oceans are not going to flood the plains; and the Arctic Ocean may not be turning into a summer water park. Of course, the mainstream media, especially in the United States, has reported little of this news, and President Obama appears not to be well-informed. But now the global warming story grows more interesting because here in America, we may have our own little "gate." I will call it ATG, for "American Temperaturegate." NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) informs us, based on their "Adjusted Data" for the period from the last decade of the 19th century to 2006, that the temperature for the contiguous U.S. has increased at a rate of 0.69oC/century. Click here. NCDC arrives at this conclusion by massaging raw data from a set of meteorological stations located in the contiguous U.S. which they selected on the basis of a 2.5-degree latitude- and 3.5-degree-longitude grid. For more on this, click here and here. The most-asked question, most recently by D'Aleo and Watts, is whether the NCDC's reported increase is correct. Perhaps the value is due to a dominant use (over-selection) of stations in urban locations or because of other issues, such as leaving out stations at higher altitudes for the more recent history and retaining them for the more distant past.

Manmade Global Warming: How a Lie Died
Excerpt: Private industry and governments around the world have spent trillions of dollars in the name of saving our planet from manmade global warming. Academic institutions, think tanks and schools have altered their curricula and agenda to accommodate what was seen as the global warming “consensus.” Mounting evidence suggests that claims of manmade global warming might turn out to be the greatest hoax in mankind’s history.

Climate Change: Developing Countries Control The Thermostat
Excerpt: It has long been recognized that no policies undertaken solely by Western countries can reduce future global warming, regardless of the developed world's past and current contributions to atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. Rather, fast-growing developing countries control the climate change thermostat, says H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis.

Climate scientists hope independent reviews will reverse public’s loss of trust
Excerpt: The two most influential advisory bodies on climate change are planning independent reviews of their research in an attempt to regain public trust after revelations about errors and the suppression of data. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is to appoint an independent team to examine its procedures after admitting having made errors that exaggerated the severity of the impact of global warming. The Met Office, which supplies the global temperature trends used by the IPCC, has proposed that an international group of scientists re-examine 160 years of temperature data. The Met Office proposal is a tacit admission that its previous reports on such trends have been marred by their reliance on analysis by the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit.

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
Well, Obama pr0mised if he was elected the seas would stop rising. Sure happened fast, though. Excerpt: Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown.

Debunking climate change doesn't mean the climate isn't changing
Excerpt: The climate of the Earth is changing. It's been changing for billions of years. And saying that it won't happen next Tuesday is not even close to agreeing that it has somehow stopped changing. It will change. But the exaggerations of the environmental movement have done nothing but earn the scientific community a level of trust normally reserved for politicians. Of course, Al Gore, already being a politician, never noticed the erosion. What is needed is a new start for climate study. It is important to be aware of potential changes in the climate. Protecting the property values of condo owners along Miami Beach or in Malibu doesn't really matter, but agricultural production, and its impact on the rest of us, most assuredly does. We need to establish an international body whose sole job is the collection and dissemination of untainted climate data from around the planet. That should be their sole job. No study of the data, no analysis or predictions, no angling for grants, or tenure. Just accumulate and tabulate the data for distribution. The data should be provided, at a nominal fee to cover costs, to anyone who wants to see it. I mean, it just tells us all how hot it is! Is there any reason for it to be Top Secret? Let scientists do the analysis, but if the raw, unchanged, un-massaged data was available to any and all scientists, then science would begin to work again as it has historically. It would again be disputation and debate, with all sides using the same facts and evidence.

Climategate Minority Report
From a Marine buddy of 45 years: This is some report. It also has links to the actual minority report (83 pages PDF, hard to read without printing out; I read only the first 15 pages and random samples of the rest), a sampling of the CRU emails, an article saying IPCC got the science wrong, and an assessment that EPA's "Endangerment" finding is likewise based on flawed science. (I linked through Frankly, I would have preferred to link directly to the report, but it is so difficult to read--even in full-screen mode--that it just isn't practical. Also, that would lose the links.) This is actually worse for the AGW advocates than I expected. –Ron P.

The Multi-Billion Dollar Global Warming Fraud
Suggested subtitle: How Al Gore joined the ranks of the super-rich. Excerpt: As the massive global warming fraud implodes, the one aspect of it that has not been explored in depth is the equally massive waste of billions of dollars spent by the United States and nations around the world, we were told, to avoid global warming. Whole industries such as automobile manufacture had demands and limits put on them. Some states required utilities to buy “carbon credits” to offset their use of “fossil fuels.” The list of things attributed to global warming expanded to the point of total absurdity.The codification of the fraud into law began with the Kyoto Protocol, an element of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change whose purpose was to fight a global warming that we now know was not happening. The data to support the fraud came out of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that specialized in distorting climate data in every way possible to emphasize a normal warming cycle and then to minimize any indication of a new cooling cycle dating to around 1998 or earlier.

Time to Turn Up the Heat on the Warmists
Excerpt: At one time some would call them "deniers." The more generous called them "skeptics." But now, increasingly, it appears that they can be called something else: sane. Yes, the climate has certainly changed. Even in the mainstream media, the less liberal organs are waking up. There is now a never-ending barrage of articles on the climate scam, with The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post firing some recent salvos. And these inconvenient truths are just adding to a case against the Climateers that has become dizzying. Really, those issuing Chicken Little warnings had a tough sell from the get-go. We're told that our world has seen at least five major ice ages, but, then again, I've also heard four. It has experienced numerous minor ones, although I'm not sure anyone knows precisely how many. In fact, we hear that the pattern is to have 100,000-year glacial periods followed by 12,000-year interglacials, with1500-year cycles of warming and cooling embedded within them. We're told that during part of the Cryogenian Period -- otherwise known as "Snowball Earth" -- the world was completely blanketed with snow and ice and that during another period, glaciers were almost or completely gone. Furthermore, we're informed that during the latter there was still, believe it or not, dry land and creatures to tread upon it.

Blinded by Science
Excerpt: Science, many scientists say, has been restored to her rightful throne because progressives have regained power. Progressives, say progressives, emulate the cool detachment of scientific discourse. So hear now the calm, collected voice of a scientist lavishly honored by progressives, Rajendra Pachauri. He is chairman of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared the 2007 version of the increasingly weird Nobel Peace Prize. Denouncing persons skeptical about the shrill certitudes of those who say global warming poses an imminent threat to the planet, he says: "They are the same people who deny the link between smoking and cancer. They are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder -- and I hope they put it on their faces every day." Do not judge him as harshly as he speaks of others. Nothing prepared him for the unnerving horror of encountering disagreement. Global warming alarmists, long cosseted by echoing media, manifest an interesting incongruity -- hysteria and name calling accompanying serene assertions about the "settled science" of climate change. Were it settled, we would be spared the hyperbole that amounts to Ring Lardner's "Shut up, he explained." The global warming industry, like Alexander in the famous children's story, is having a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day. Actually, a bad three months, which began Nov. 19 with the publication of e-mails indicating attempts by scientists to massage data and suppress dissent in order to strengthen "evidence" of global warming. But there already supposedly was a broad, deep and unassailable consensus. Strange. Next came the failure of The World's Last -- We Really, Really Mean It -- Chance, aka the Copenhagen climate change summit. It was a nullity, and since then things have been getting worse for those trying to stampede the world into a spasm of prophylactic statism.

The Winter of Global Warming
Excerpt: The alarmists also have taken to scolding skeptics who have pointed to this year's record snowfalls as dimwits who do not know the difference between weather and climate. This is choice -- after all the years during which the global-warming believers pointed to every warm season, low-snowfall report and storm as proof that the "tipping point" was near. They've done this to themselves. In announcing that all scientists supported the IPCC, they claimed a mantle of scientific infallibility. Their actions and attitudes did not reflect the sort of behavior you would expect from people who truly believe that the planet is in peril. The high-profile global-warming partisans focused on ridiculing nonbelievers, rather than persuading them. They hopped onto private planes to be seen at confabs, where nothing real got done. Biggies like Gore would refuse to debate -- even as they argued that Mother Earth's condition was near critical. The worst part is that these loudmouths have drowned out the voices of scientists -- including those who believe global warming is largely caused by man -- who have been ready to engage in the complexities of climate science. In their hubris, they decided that they, and only they, would save the planet. But their egos got in the way.

The Twilight of the Global Warming Vampire
Excerpt: If the junk science of Global Warming aka Climate Change were a monster, it would be Dracula. Global Warming is difficult to kill. It is a seductive term that can make the wildest dreams of any Socialist come true. There is no tax or power grab that could not be mandated by the invisible threat of Global Warming. Until a few months ago, western society resembled a beautiful woman with her neck bare and ready to be sucked dry by the Global Warming vampire.

The AGW Smoking Gun
Excerpt: A key component of the scientific argument for anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has been disproven. The results are hiding in plain sight in peer-reviewed journals. Politicians and scientists still cling to the same hypothesis: Increased emission of CO2 into the atmosphere (by humans) is causing the Earth to warm at such a rate that it threatens our survival. The reality of our global temperatures, the failure of these catastrophic predictions to materialize, and the IPCC scandals all continue to cast serious doubt on that hypothesis. The only rebuttal given by AGW proponents is that the scandals of the IPCC don't negate the science (i.e., unscrupulous behavior by a few don't negate the rock-solid science), so it seems that the only way to disprove the AGW hypothesis is to address problems with the science. Climate science is very complex, and AGW proponents dismiss the scientific arguments unless the data are contained in journal papers that are "peer-reviewed." Three peer-reviewed journal contain data contradicting the AGW hypothesis. But before the journal papers are reviewed, here is a little background on the science.

Evidence of Climate Fraud Grows, Media Coverage Doesn't
Excerpt: Newsbusters' Noel Sheppard lets the mainstream media have it for completely ignoring this weekend’s game-changing revelations from Climategate conspirator Phil Jones while jumping all over the ejection of director Kevin Smith from a Southwest Airlines plane for being too fat. For those who may have taken the three-day weekend off from the blogosphere (and Fox News) -- the BBC released a Q&A and corresponding interview with the embattled erstwhile CRU chief on Friday. In each, the discredited Climategate conspirator revealed a number of surprising insights into his true climate beliefs, the most shocking of which was that 20th-century global warming may not have been unprecedented. As I pointed out in Sunday’s article, Climategate's Phil Jones Confesses to Climate Fraud, as the entire anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory is predicated on correlation with rising CO2 levels, this first-such confession from an IPCC senior scientist is nothing short of earth-shattering.

ClimateGater Jones' Stunning Global Warming Revelations Ignored
Excerpt: The absolutely stunning global warming revelations this weekend by the man in the middle of the ClimateGate scandal have gone almost completely ignored by America's press. As NewsBusters reported Saturday, Phil Jones, the head of the British Climatic Research Unit at the heart of ClimateGate, told the BBC: the recent warming trend that began in 1975 is not at all different than two other planetary warming phases since 1850; there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, and; it is possible the Medieval Warm Period was indeed a global phenomenon thereby making the temperatures seen in the latter part of the 20th century by no means unprecedented. Jones also admitted that he and his fellow scientists manipulated figures to hide a decline in crucial tree-ring data thereby questioning the validity of the entire global warming theory. Despite the seriousness of these revelations, much as what happened when the ClimateGate scandal first broke, with the exception of Fox News -- and a lone report by CNN -- America's media have almost totally boycotted this amazing story:

Older: Global Warming on Mars, Pluto, Triton and Jupiter
The aliens are apparently Republicans, ignoring Al Gore and not driving hybrids. I blame George Bush.

Older: Sun Blamed for Warming of Earth and Other Worlds
But Earth Warming is still our fault. Excerpt: Earth is heating up lately, but so are Mars, Pluto and other worlds in our solar system, leading some scientists to speculate that a change in the sun’s activity is the common thread linking all these baking events.

Climategate 2.0 - The NASA Files:
Excerpt: The emails show the hypocrisy, dishonesty, and suspect data management and integrity of NASA, wildly spinning in defense of their enterprise. The emails show NASA making off with enormous sums of taxpayer funding doing precisely what they claim only a “skeptic” would do. The emails show NASA attempting to scrub their website of their own documents, and indeed they quietly pulled down numerous press releases grounded in the proven-wrong data. The emails show NASA claiming that their own temperature errors (which they have been caught making and in uncorrected form aggressively promoting) are merely trivial, after years of hysterically trumpeting much smaller warming anomalies.

Warming's uncertain science
Excerpt: The Climategate scandal is a textbook case of professional malfeasance that should give Congress reason to pause before agreeing to a binding international agreement that would hamstring the world economy in order to prevent the climate from changing. Climategate was a series of leaked e-mails last year from the Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia, arguably the world's most prominent research center promoting the idea that humans are causing catastrophic global warming. To say the least, these e-mails show scientists behaving badly. The scientists whose e-mails were disclosed attempted to suppress or alter inconvenient data, destroyed raw data so that others are unable to analyze it, used tricks to change reported outcomes, conspired to avoid legally required disclosure of taxpayer-funded data, and attempted to suppress dissent by undermining the peer review process. To make matters even worse, Climategate researchers threatened to seek the firing of editors at scientific journals that published findings that raised doubts about the urgency of the climate crisis. While the e-mails do not disprove that humans are causing potentially catastrophic global warming, the importance of this particular data set and the critical role this cabal of scientists has played in shaping public perception of global warming cannot be understated

Exodus From Climate Change Bandwagon Begins en Masse
Excerpt: BP America, Conoco Phillips, and Caterpillar (among others) have announced their intentions to quit the Climate Action Partnership, a group whose mission is to “call on the federal government to enact legislation requiring significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.”

Redemption: Climate Change Was A Lie
A sensible environmental program. Excerpt: What must be done now is to award the email hacker with the next Nobel Peace Prize, revoke Al Gore’s, confiscate all the profits that have been made from furthering the lies and misdirections of the climate alarmists (including Michael Moore of course), shut down the UN’s Climate wing, and immediately dismantle and disrupt the EPA and the last 20 years of restrictions and regulations and blockades of access to American energy resources. Oh yeah-let’s burn the Cap & Trade bill and shutter the whole economy-destroying Ethanol nonsense while we’re at it. Why you ask? Because it has finally come out that there has been no global warming since 1995 (it was much worse during Medieval times you see) and the now-shamed Professor at the heart of the original IPCC email scandal has finally been uncovered as a fraud. I can actually understand now why he once considered suicide…he knew this day of reckoning was coming. The problem with saying “the science is settled” is that, sooner or later, someone else that truly believes in the never-ending pursuit of “science” is going to un-settle it with either new revelations or new discoveries. Unfortunately for Al Gore, we have come upon a newer, even more inconvenient truth; they lied.

Series of missteps by climate scientists threatens climate-change agenda
Not to worry. Algore will still make millions off of “climate change” this year, allowing him to keep his carbon-hog lifestyle. Excerpt: With its 2007 report declaring that the "warming of the climate system is unequivocal," the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won a Nobel Prize -- and a new degree of public trust in the controversial science of global warming. But recent revelations about flaws in that seminal report, ranging from typos in key dates to sloppy sourcing, are undermining confidence not only in the panel's work but also in projections about climate change. Scientists who have pointed out problems in the report say the panel's methods and mistakes -- including admitting Saturday that it had overstated how much of the Netherlands was below sea level -- give doubters an opening. It wasn't the first one. There is still a scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change. But in the past year, a cache of stolen e-mails, revealing that prominent climate scientists sought to prevent the publication of works by their detractors, has sullied their image as impartial academics. The errors in the U.N. report -- a document intended to be the last nail in the coffin of climate doubt -- are a serious problem that could end up forcing environmentalists to focus more on the old question of proving that climate change is a threat, instead of the new question of how to stop it.

World may not be warming, say scientists
But, I thought the scientific consensus was the debate was over? Deniers will be persecuted! Excerpt: The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC. The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years. These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site. Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and Alabama.

There Has Been No Global Warming Since 1995
Great “science.” And if there has been no global warming since 1995, how did it cause Hurricane Katrina, as Algore said? Excerpt: The academic at the center of the "Climategate" affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble "keeping track" of the information. Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers: Professor Jones told the BBC this weekend there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organizational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is "not as good as it should be." The data is crucial to the famous "hockey stick graph" used by climate change advocates to support the theory. 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.

Climate Gotterdammerung
Excerpt: Dissenters who pointed out these and other flaws in the IPCC consensus were demonized as deniers and ignored by the media, but they are now vindicated. (The American media are still averting their gaze, though the British press — even the left-wing Guardian and the Independent — is turning on the climate campaigners with deserved vengeance.) The IPCC is mumbling about non-specific reforms and changes in the process shaping its next massive climate report, due out in three or four years. The IPCC should emulate a typical feature of American government commissions and include a minority report from dissenters or scientists with a different emphasis. But the next IPCC report may not matter much: With the collapse of the Kyoto-Copenhagen process and the likely rejection of cap-and-trade in Congress, climate mania may have run its course.

Climategate: Plausibility and the blogosphere
Excerpt: Mr. Ravetz is an environmental consultant and professor of philosophy of science best known for his books challenging the assumptions of scientific objectivity, discussing the science wars and post-normal science.—We can begin to see what went seriously wrong when we examine what the leading practitioners of this ‘evangelical science’ of global warming (thanks to Angela Wilkinson) took to be the plain and urgent truth in their case. This was not merely that there are signs of exceptional disturbance in the ecosphere due to human influence, nor even that the climate might well be changing more rapidly now than for a very long time. Rather, they propounded, as a proven fact, Anthropogenic Carbon-based Global Warming. There is little room for uncertainty in this thesis; it effectively needs hockey-stick behaviour in all indicators of global temperature, so that it is all due to industrialisation. Its iconic image is the steadily rising graph of CO2 concentrations over the past fifty years at the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii (with the implicit assumption that CO2 had always previously been at or below that starting level). Since CO2 has long been known to be a greenhouse gas, with scientific theories quantifying its effects, the scientific case for this dangerous trend could seem to be overwhelmingly simple, direct, and conclusive. Even now, the catalogue of unscientific practices revealed in the mainstream media is very small in comparison to what is available on the blogosphere. Details of shoddy science and dirty tricks abound. By the end, the committed inner core were confessing to each other that global temperatures were falling, but it was far too late to change course. The final stage of corruption, cover-up, had taken hold. For the core scientists and the leaders of the scientific communities, as well as for nearly all the liberal media, ‘the debate was over’. Denying Climate Change received the same stigma as denying the Holocaust. Even the trenchant criticisms of the most egregious errors in the IPCC reports were kept ‘confidential’. And then came the e-mails.

Errors in reports prompt calls for reform
Scientists insist on drastic changes in U.N.'s method
Excerpt: A steady drip of unsettling errors is exposing what scientists are calling "the weaker link" in the Nobel Peace Prize-winning series of international reports on global warming. The flaws - and the erosion they've caused in public confidence - have some scientists calling for drastic changes in how future United Nations climate reports are done. A push for reform being published in Thursday's issue of a prestigious scientific journal comes on top of a growing clamor for the resignation of the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The work of the climate change panel, or IPCC, is often portrayed as one massive tome. But it really is four separate reports on different aspects of global warming written months apart by distinct groups of scientists.

Global Warming – Is There Anything It Can’t Do?
Excerpt: Tomorrow, NBC (which is owned by General Electric) will begin broadcasting the 2010 Winter Olympics from Vancouver, Canada. Only two events are scheduled for the opening day (alpine skiing and ski jumping), but even those events will be difficult to pull off. Why? There is no snow in Vancouver. And International Olympic Committee President Jacques Rogge knows exactly what is to blame: global warming. Rogge tells AFP: “Global warming of course is a worry, it is a worry for the entire world.” Considering that NBC/GE has already received billions in TARP bailout cash from the Obama administration and is actively lobbying for a global warming energy tax bill so that it can receive billions more in government green-energy subsidies on top of the millions it already receives, we are sure to hear lots from NBC announcers about how the lack of snow in Vancouver is just another reason Washington needs to act now to stop global warming. But back in Washington, the global warming scare-monger crowd is singing a slightly different tune. Facing record snowfalls, Time is reporting: “Snowstorm: East Coast Blizzard Tied to Climate Change.” But do not confuse this headline with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s column from two years ago claiming that global warming was causing “anemic winters” in the Washington region. No snow, too much snow. It does not matter to the enviroleft crowd. For them, global warming always is to blame.

Croat scientist warns ice age could start in five years
Scroll down. Excerpt: A leading scientist has revealed that Europe could be just five years away from the start of a new Ice Age. While climate change campaigners say global warming is the planet's biggest danger, renowned physicist Vladimir Paar says most of central Europe will soon be covered in ice. The freeze will be so complete that people will be able to walk from England to Ireland or across the North Sea from Scotland to northern Europe.

Climate-change legislation buried under record snowfall in capital
Record snowfall has buried Washington — and along with it, buried the chances of passing global warming legislation this year.

The Great Unraveling
Excerpt: Professional global warming alarmists better think about looking for new jobs. It looks like they're in for a long, cold winter — and a frigid spring and summer as well. Those who've been spreading global-warming fears must be waking up each morning and asking themselves: What's going to happen today? A new revelation about the corruption of climate science has become almost a daily event.

ClimateGate update
Good summary.

Wheels fall off global-warming hysteria
From Canada. Excerpt: I can't recall the wheels coming off the bus of any expert-driven hysteria as fast or as completely as they are now coming off the global-warming scare. I suppose they must have came off faster from Y2K. At 12:00:01 AM on Jan. 1, 2000, when airliners didn't fall from the sky and power plants didn't shut down spontaneously or computers didn't freeze up all over the world, the air came out of the Y2K scare instantly. Billions had been spent on preventing that disaster-that-never-was up until midnight on the final day of 1999, then almost not a penny afterwards. That is faster than the wheels are coming off the climate-change bus. But AGW -- anthropogenic global warming -- is a very close second. News of the manipulations, distortions and frauds perpetrated to advance and preserve the environmentalists' cause celebre are so numerous and coming so fast, it's hard to keep up.

India abandons IPCC, sets up own panel
Love the quote. Excerpt: The Indian government has moved to establish its own body to address and monitor science surrounding climate change, saying it "cannot rely" on the official United Nation panel. The move is a severe blow to the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) following the revelation parts of its 3000 page 2007 report on climate science was not subjected to peer review. A primary claim of the report was the Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035, but the claim was not repeated in any peer-reviewed studies and rebuffed by scientists. India's environment minister Jairam Ramesh announced that the Indian government will establish a separate National Institute of Himalayan Glaciology to monitor climate change in the region. "There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism," Ramesh said. "I am for climate science."

Obama's climate change police
You, there! You are breathing out CO2 a dangerous gas! Excerpt: The Copenhagen climate talks went nowhere. The Senate's attempt to pass a global warming bill appears stuck. But that's doesn't mean greenhouse gas laws aren't coming. The Environmental Protection Agency, spurred by a Supreme Court ruling, is racing to fill the void. As early as March, the EPA is planning to cap greenhouse gases from things like power plants and large factories, essentially doing what Senate Democrats want, without a messy vote. Some say it's a great idea. It could put a serious dent in greenhouse gas emissions and go a long way to cleaning up the environment. Others say it could jeopardize investment in industry and hurt job creation. A tight spot The EPA didn't really ask for this new power, and most lawmakers pushing to restrict greenhouse gases, in Congress and the administration, would prefer Congress to pass a new global warming law. But EPA is being forced to act thanks to a challenge from the state of Massachusetts and others back in 2007. Massachusetts said global warming was eroding its coastline, and pushed the EPA to regulate greenhouse gases from vehicles.

Old and New Environmental Myths
Excerpt: It's fascinating to observe the path of many contentious environmental problems. They attract national attention, the future is seen as foreboding, and then, years later, they have been solved, ameliorated, or forgotten. Acid rain and fluorocarbons exemplify this path. Regulations may solve the projected problems, and we sometimes find that the alleged problem is less consequential than initially supposed. Here's an example. Twenty years ago the National Center for Policy Analysis commissioned Lynn Scarlett of the Reason Foundation to write a policy report, "A Consumer's Guide to Environmental Myths and Realities." It began with the observation that Americans are besieged with admonitions and advice on being good environmentalists. The focus was on what to buy and how to act. The study demonstrated that much of this counsel was flawed and driven by special interest. Yet, even today, this well researched and crafted 40-page study is worth reading for several reasons. First, it demonstrates pervasive and substantial progress; nine of the ten concerns that preoccupied Greens two decades ago have eroded if not fully evaporated. When did you last hear "America is running out of landfill space" listed as an environmental problem? Twenty years ago it was myth #1.

The Death of Global Warming?
Facts are chiels that wi’na ding, as they say in Scotland. But there are still millions of dollars to be made from this scam by Al Gore and company. Excerpt: As Jacob Laksin noted, a surprising blog post appeared on Monday that proclaimed “The Death of Global Warming,” in which the author wrote: “After years in which global warming activists had lectured everyone about the overwhelming nature of the scientific evidence, it turned out that the most prestigious agencies in the global warming movement were breaking laws, hiding data, and making inflated, bogus claims resting on, in some cases, no scientific basis at all.” What makes that statement rather remarkable was not the fact that it was said, for we’ve heard many similar declarations over the last few months, it’s who said it. The author was not anyone from the Heartland Institute, or Junk Science, or Climate Audit, or any other of the long-time skeptics. The author was foreign policy expert Walter Russell Mead, posting at The American Interest Online. Mead may be fairly described as a Jacksonian Democrat: a fellow of strong convictions, but those opinions are not so strongly held as to dismiss the collective wisdom of middle-America out of hand. As his post makes clear, he was previously on board with alarmist global-warming theories. Indeed he sits on the board of the Acra Foundation, an organization that funds eco-groups like the Tides Foundation, the Earth Island Institute and the National Resources Defense Council.

Top climate change adviser calls for honesty from scientists in global warming debate
Excerpt: Scientists should be more honest and open about the uncertainty of predicting the rate of climate change, the Government's chief scientific adviser said. In astonishing intervention into the climate change debate, Professor John Beddington condemned scientists who refuse to publish the data forming the basis of their reports said they should be less hostile to sceptics. Professor Beddington was speaking in the wake of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) admission that it had made a mistake by claiming that Himalayan glaciers could melt away by 2035. That followed the 'Climategate' row over whether researchers at East Anglia University manipulated evidence to support a theory of man-made global warming.

Global Warming: The Other Side
Good collections of videos.

World misled over Himalayan glacier meltdown
Gee, more junk science from the –science-is-settled crowd. What a shock. Excerpt: A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it. Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035. In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report. It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi. Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.

Climategate Junk Scientist Michael Mann Awarded Half a Million in Stimulus Cash
Who says crime doesn’t pay? Excerpt: Dr. Mann was implicated in the global warming email conspiracy. It was reported on several websites that classified emails and files prove that the junk scientists behind the global warming movement knowingly perpetrated a fraud on the global community. Mann’s name came up in several of the emails. The posted material, which includes e-mails allegedly sent by the CRU’s director Phil Jones to fellow climate researchers, including Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University in University Park. Mann is under investigation at Penn State over this controversy. Now we find out that this same dangerous junk scientist is receiving a half million dollars in Stimulus cash.

Climate change: the true price of the warmists' folly is becoming clear
Excerpt: Impeccable was the timing of that announcement that directors of the Met
Office were last year given pay rises of up to 33 per cent, putting its £200,000-a-year chief executive into a higher pay bracket than the Prime Minister. As Britain shivered through Arctic cold and its heaviest snowfalls for decades, our global-warming-obsessed Government machine was caught out in all directions. For a start, we saw Met Office spokesmen trying to explain why it had got its seasonal forecasts hopelessly wrong for three cold winters and three cool summers in a row. The current cold snap, we were told with the aid of the BBC - itself facing an inquiry into its relentless obsession with "global warming" - was just a "regional" phenomenon, due to "natural" factors. No attempt was made to explain why the same freezing weather is affecting much of the northern hemisphere (with 1,200 places in the US alone last week reporting record snow and low temperatures). And this is the body on which, through its Hadley Centre for Climate Change and the discredited Climatic Research Unit, the world's politicians rely for weather forecasting 100 years ahead. Then, as councils across Britain ran out of salt for frozen roads, we had the Transport Minister, Lord Adonis, admitting that we entered this cold spell with only six days' supply of grit. No mention of the fact that the Highways Agency and councils had been advised that there was no need for them to stockpile any more - let alone that many councils now have more "climate change officials" than gritters.

ClimateGate continues: ‘Follow the money, not the temperature’
Excerpt: What has also almost entirely escaped attention, however, is how Dr Pachauri has established an astonishing worldwide portfolio of business interests with bodies which have been investing billions of dollars in organisations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations. These outfits include banks, oil and energy companies and investment funds heavily involved in ‘carbon trading’ and ‘sustainable technologies’, which together make up the fastest-growing commodity market in the world, estimated soon to be worth trillions of dollars a year.

Hide the Decline
Warming Humor.

30 Years of Global Cooling Are Coming, Leading Scientist Says
how come the great computer models they talk about didn’t predict this? Excerpt: From Miami to Maine, Savannah to Seattle, America is caught in an icy grip that one of the U.N.'s top global warming proponents says could mark the beginning of a mini ice age. Oranges are freezing and millions of tropical fish are dying in Florida, and it could be just the beginning of a decades-long deep freeze, says Professor Mojib Latif, one of the world's leading climate modelers. Latif thinks the cold snap Americans have been suffering through is only the beginning. He says we're in for 30 years of cooler temperatures -- a mini ice age, he calls it, basing his theory on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the world's oceans. Latif, a professor at the Leibniz Institute at Germany's Kiel University and an author of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report, believes the lengthy cold weather is merely a pause -- a 30-years-long blip -- in the larger cycle of global warming, which postulates that temperatures will rise rapidly over the coming years.

It's Freezing: Must Be Global Warming
Excerpt: When Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf coast, "warmist" gnomes were thick on the ground, inviting us to conclude that Katrina's deadly force resulted from global warming and that the world was entering an era of fierce storms, fires, and floods -- a green apocalypse. Al Gore mentioned Katrina in "An Inconvenient Truth," asking, "How in God's name could that happen here? There had been warnings that hurricanes would get stronger. There were warnings that this hurricane ... would cause the kind of damage that it ultimately did cause. And one question that we, as a people, need to decide is how we react when we hear warnings from the leading scientists in the world." Those scientists (whether they are "leading" or not is a subjective matter) supplied their own panicky conclusions. A study published in the "Proceedings of the National Academy of Scientists" concluded that "Global warming caused by humans is largely responsible for heating hurricane-forming regions of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, probably increasing the intensity of the storms." The Boston Globe quoted lead scientist Ben Santer of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, "Natural variability doesn't cut it for the observed ocean temperatures. The study suggests we are responsible." Just by the way, the 2009 hurricane season was unusually mild.

Copenhagen's Dodged Bullet
Al Gore said the other week that climate change is "a principle in physics. It's like gravity. It exists." Sarah Palin agreed that "climate change is like gravity," but added a better conclusion: Each is "a naturally occurring phenomenon that existed long before, and will exist long after, any governmental attempts to affect it." Over time climates do change. As author Howard Bloom wrote in The Wall Street Journal last month, in the past two million years there have been 60 ice ages, and in the 120,000 years since the development of modern man, "we've lived through 20 sudden global warmings," and of course this was before--long before--"smokestacks and tail pipes."

Nopenhagen: The Truth is Missing From the Climate Debate
Trying to sort out the truth from the clamor.


  1. Excellent summary. For those with more than a passing interest in this subject, I recommend as a dedicated climate change site. The readers tend to be more technically involved in the subject, most posters should be addressed as "Professor" or "Doctor." Trolls beware.
    Ron Pittenger

  2. Let’s not forget to give credit where credit is due. Before climategate it seems only a few were carrying the water-

    Limbaugh, Heston/Crichton audio clips from 2008 and earlier linked HERE.

    The 11 Most-Respected Global Warming Skeptics as of 2009 (including Lord Christopher Monckton) linked HERE.

    I never though that I would say something like this, but, “thank God for those email hackers”.

  3. I especially like your changes to fix America. As a 20 year self employed veteran of the income tax preparation business, (retired thankfully), my opinion is that the "flat tax" the "fair tax" and all other known forms of the income tax should be totally abolished and substituted with a sales tax. The income tax in all forms is nothing but a vehicle for buying votes and social engineering. I know there would be a lot of bellyaching about those not paying their "fair share", but there are several ways around that. Don't tax food for instance. Of course nothing in the world will help if government doesn't quit throwing money around like it's free. Oh, I forgot, to them it is free!!!!

  4. As a former skeptic myself, it's unfortunate that I must point out that you've provided an excellent summary of the propaganda, half-truths and outright lies manufactured to confuse people on this topic. The goal is to delay public understanding and response, just as the tobacco industry successfully did on nicotine addiction and lung cancer.

    You seem to understand that there's value in referring to only peer-reviewed scientific papers published in the leading scientific journals, where the scientist's colleagues risk their own reputations and careers to verify that the conclusions drawn from the research are consistent with logic and science (as opposed to an article in a magazine or newspaper, which are often factually deficient and propose non sequitor conclusions). Yet the one time you refer to peer review, you say that a scientist who published peer reviewed papers on the sun's effect on gasses testified before Congress that the resulting warming would be good for mankind. Unfortunately that testimony makes projections in the fields of biology, climate, agriculture and meteorology, all way outside of his field of his own actual field of expertise (physics), and none of his imaginative personal opinions on how a warmer planet might benefit mankind have been subject to any sort of peer review by experts from the relevant scientific fields.

    In contrast to those untested, out-of-expertise opinions you reference, the IPCC report was based on science produced through the peer-reviewed papers published by thousands of scientists. I encourage people to read the Physical Science Basis portion of the latest 2007 IPCC report for themselves here:
    Chapters in that portion of the IPCC report each contain references to dozens of peer-reviewed papers, such as this chapter on Understanding and Attributing Climate Change:
    Details on expert discussions covering individual aspects of global warming (such as climate change impact studies, and best practice guidance for discussing attribution to mankind) are available here:

    To simplify the topic for the public, the Union of Concerned Scientists, formed at one of the nation's most prestigious engineering and scientific institutions M.I.T. in 1969, has a crystal clear explanation of the weight of the science behind global warming, the motivations and funding of the so-called "skeptics", and even the ridiculous and shamelessly dishonest claims of scientists doctoring data in "ClimateGate":

    Global Warming Science
    Global Warming Contrarians
    Debunking Misinformation About Stolen Climate Emails in the "Climategate" Manufactured Controversy

  5. Any skeptic could easily disprove my observation that there are zero (0) valid peer-reviewed papers casting doubt on global warming, or on mankind's role accelerating the current warming, by providing a link to one paper printed in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, if such science existed. But you can't. They don't exist. Not even one. While the IPCC report is not perfect (the scientists' concerns were diluted and softened by governmental review), as I've shown the hundreds of valid scientific papers that it is based on are well documented.
    All major scientific organizations in the world support the core conclusions (most have explicitly stated this, often multiple times, as in the case of the American Geophysical Union (representing 50,000 scientists who perform relevant earth science research), which issued statements in 2003 and 2008:
    As yet another example, the professional organization for physicists, the American Institute of Physics, summarizes the 100+ year history of our development of scientific knowledge on global warming here:
    The Discovery of Global Warming

    Unfortunately your belief system on this subject is based on lies that you've been spoon-fed. Go ahead, please try to prove me wrong by showing valid skeptical science (scientific papers, not some blog). In over 3 years the subject has been discussed on Yahoo Answers, no one has presented any evidence of skeptical science. It only exists in the minds of the public, thanks to fossil fuel industry funding and the tobacco lobbyists who now have a new issue to get paid to make a lot of noise denying.

    To "follow the money" as you suggest, look up each of the prominent skeptics on and see how they profit handsomely from global warming denial. For example, here's the entry on paid consultant Richard Lindzen:

    As a conservative it pains me to observe that this is the approach and legacy of the current conservative movement, what it stands for at the moment: anti-intellectualism, shameless propaganda and willful lies. They have chosen to go down the path of appealing to the 42% of Americans who don't know that it takes one year for the earth to travel around the sun. Those people are easily led, and very easily misled. You appear to be thoughtful and intelligent enough to break from those ranks, if you choose to do so.

    The bottom line... don't follow the deceitful organizations willfully dumbing down America. As a country we can do, and be, far better than that.

    P.S. - As a Marine, I assume you're open to rational discussion (not too fearful to accept posting of my 2 comments).

  6. This is simply the first such study I came across today. There’s a new paper by Paulo Cesar Soares in the International Journal of Geosciences and it is full and open access. See link to the PDF at [link is at the end of the article--RGP]. Basically, it says the link between CO2 and warming may be an illusion. Excerpt follows:

    International Journal of Geosciences, 2010, 1, 102-112 doi:10.4236/ijg.2010.13014 Published Online November 2010 ( Copyright © 2010 SciRes. IJG

    Warming Power of CO2 and H2O: Correlations with Temperature Changes

    Paulo Cesar Soares

    Earth Sciences, Federal University of Parana (UFPR), Curitiba, Brazil


    Received July 29, 2010; revised September 13, 2010; accepted September 30, 2010


    The dramatic and threatening environmental changes announced for the next decades are the result of models whose main drive factor of climatic changes is the increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Although taken as a premise, the hypothesis does not have verifiable consistence.
    [Reading the whole paper is recommended--RGP]

    Here's another example of a peer-reviewed study casting doubt on current climate models. It is also open-access, available only as a PDF. Ron P.

    On the recovery from the Little Ice Age


    Syun-Ichi Akasofu


    A number of published papers and openly available data on sea level changes, glacier retreat, freezing/break-up dates of rivers, sea ice retreat, tree-ring observations, ice cores and changes of the cosmic-ray intensity, from the year 1000 to the present, are studied to examine how the Earth has recovered from the Little Ice Age (LIA). We learn that the recovery from the LIA has proceeded continuously, roughly in a linear manner, from 1800-1850 to the present. The rate of the recovery in terms of temperature is about 0.5°C/100 years and thus it has important implications for understanding the present global warming. It is suggested on the basis of a much longer period covering that the Earth is still in the process of recovery from the LIA; there is no sign to indicate the end of the recovery before 1900. Cosmic-ray intensity data show that solar activity was related to both the LIA and its recovery. The multi-decadal oscillation of a period of 50 to 60 years was superposed on the linear change; it peaked in 1940 and 2000, causing the halting of warming temporarily after 2000. These changes are natural changes, and in order to determine the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect, there is an urgent need to identify them correctly and accurately and remove them.

    [Again, I urge you to read the entire paper--RGP]

    Ron Pittenger, Heretic

  7. Lawrence Solomon: 97% cooked stats
    Excerpt: How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2,500 — that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2,500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position. To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered they were mistaken — those 2,500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently. The upshot? The punditry looked for and found an alternative number to tout: “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post, the U.K.’s Guardian, CNN and other news outlets now claim, along with some two million postings in the blogosphere. This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. (You have to admire the warmers’ persistence and love for statistics. So many ways to lie, so little time to do it in. Ron P.)

  8. If you'd like to educate yourself on the topic, here's a collection of resources and links to scientific papers that the baloney (bloggers, journalists, etc.) you're fond of quoting into perspective:

    Evidence for global warming

    The evidence for global warming is being meticulously accumulated by scientists all over the world. This evidence includes the following independent observations that paint a consistent picture of global warming:

    Our planet is suffering an energy imbalance and is steadily accumulating heat (Hansen 2005, Murphy 2009, von Schuckmann 2009, Trenberth 2009)

    The height of the tropopause is increasing (Santer 2003, press release)

    Jet streams are moving poleward (Archer 2008, Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)

    The tropical belt is widening (Seidel 2007, Fu 2006)

    There is an increasing trend in record hot days versus record cold temperatures with currently twice as many record hot days than record cold temperatures (Meehle 2009, see press release).

    A shift towards earlier seasons (Stine 2009)

    Cooling and contraction of the upper atmosphere consistent with predicted effects of increasing greenhouse gases (Lastovicka 2008)Lake warming (Schneider & Hook 2010)

    Ice Melt

    Arctic permafrost is warming at greater depths (Walsh 2009) and degrading (IPCC AR4, section

    Global sea level rise is accelerating (Church 2006)

    Antarctic ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009), even from East Antarctica which was previously thought to be too stable to lose ice mass (Chen 2009)

    Greenland ice loss is accelerating (Velicogna 2009, van den Broeke et al 2009)

    Glaciers are shrinking globally at an accelerating rate (WGMS 2008)

    Arctic sea-ice loss is accelerating with the loss rate exceeding model forecasts by around a factor of 3 (Stroeve 2007).

    Lake and river ice cover throughout the Northern Hemisphere are freezing later and breaking up earlier (Magnuson 2000, Hodgkins 2005)

    Biological changes

    Animal and plant species are responding to earlier springs. Eg - earlier frog breeding, bird nesting, earlier flowering, earlier migration of birds and butterflies (Parmesan 2003)

    The distribution of tree lines, plants, birds, mammals, insects, fish, reptiles, marine invertebrates are shifting towards the poles (Parmesan 2003)

    Growing season is lengthening (Christidis 2007)
    Earlier emergence of Melbourne butterflies (Kearney 2010)

    Changes to physical and biological systems across the globe are consistent with warming temperatures (Rosenzweig 2008)

    Distribution of plants are shifting to higher elevations (Lenoir 2008)UK Flowers blooming earlier now than any time in last 250 years (Amano 2010)

    Arctic phytoplankton blooming earlier in the year, affecting the food chain (Kahru 2010)

    Earlier emergence of Melbourne butterfly: 1.6 days per decade (Kearney 2010).

    Decline in lizard populations (Sinervo 2010)

    Drop in primary productivity due to unprecedented warming at Lake Tanganyika (Tierney 2010)

    Those are a tiny sampling of the data points you choose to ignore in favor of quoting opinions.

    There's a whole slew of additional papers on attributing the observed change to mankind, but you clearly have a well-developed talent for ignoring facts, so I'll just leave you with the link rather than waste my time presenting you with facts you'll simply ignore anyway.

    The human fingerprint in global warming

  9. The Soares paper was published in a journal that is only on it's third issue... with its first issue printed May 2010, which obviously seemed very fishy... if you can't get propaganda published in a respected journal, simply make one up to make it look legitimate?

    I couldn't find anything in the submission instructions about peer review.

    Then I found this evaluation of Soares' approach:

    "Firstly it expects atmospheric temperatures to change regularly: natural cycles like El Nino transfer heat from the oceans and can change atmospheric temperature by up to 0.4 °C in a year causing the big vertical spread.

    The graph below is based on Meehl et al, 2004 and shows a climate model estimate of how much global warming was expected from greenhouse gases for the past century: always less than 0.02 °C/year - so small that the noise effectively hides the incline if you only look at year to year changes. Fortunately, very simple statistical techniques work around this."

    It's unlikely that a paper such as Soares' would have been published in a reputable journal, claiming deceptively that a signal should be visible in month to month or year to year data containing noise 20X larger in magnitude. I have to conclude that Soares' paper is not only dead wrong, but that the newly-created source may be presented in the appearance of a scientific journal with an intentional effort to deceive.

    That's typical of the "evidence" provided by people who like to portray themselves as "skeptics". If they actually were skeptics, they'd get to the bottom of these sorts of issues themselves, and wouldn't have to have the dramatic failings pointed out to them!