Apr 10

The April 10, 2012 dead-tree edition of The Oregonian lead with a big dose of global warming realism.

This is what I was greeted with when I trotted out to fetch my dead-tree edition of The Oregonian this morning:  “Global warming without warming” – above the fold!  I’d seen the on-line version of this story last night with its own headline – “Global warming ‘hiatus’ in recent years helps spur skepticism” – but to see it lead the dead-tree edition was even more satisfying.

To his credit, reporter Scott Learn points out some facts that Joe Romm would characterize as “long-debunked denier talking points”.  And yet, The Oregonian is nobody’s idea of a global warming denier :

For people who want more action on global warming, an inconvenient truth has arisen over the last decade: Annual average temperatures stayed relatively flat globally — and dropped in the United States and Oregon — despite mankind’s growing release of greenhouse gases.

The hiatus in temperature increases may be contributing to higher public skepticism about warming, particularly in the United States.

Computer climate models didn’t predict the hiatus, notes Portland meteorologist Chuck Wiese….

Climatologists, and climate models, are overestimating the impact of greenhouse gases on warming relative to natural climate cycles, they say, and aren’t being held accountable when warming projections don’t pan out.

“They just keep moving the goalposts to where you can never get a satisfactory answer,” Wiese says.

Kudos to The Oregonian for having the guts to report the truth, rather than just regurgitating the blathering coming from “the consensus”.

64 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Apr 16

The Cobourg Skeptic declares:

…the battle of climate change has been won as far as I am concerned.   Let’s look at the facts:

  • It is unlikely that the U.S. will now implement any drastic program to manage CO2 – at least not for a decade or two.  Canada will follow the U.S. “leadership” for economic reasons. Likewise, the biggest polluters, China and India are also unlikely to do anything drastic.  If countries like Australia do anything, they’ll be shooting themselves in the foot and have no effect on anything.
  • The climate is not warming at a drastically alarming rate – if at all.   There may be noticeable warming due to the action of man in a 100 years or so – but that’s plenty of time to adapt.
  • Climate may well be affected by the action of man but not nearly as badly as the alarmists would have us believe
  • All the attention means that people are now sensitized to the need to preserve our environment – that’s good.  Stopping carbon emissions mostly targets fossil fuels which means they will get preserved – that’s good too.  Programs to stop other CO2 emissions are not significant.
  • The focus on science and its benefits has been a good side effect.

However, given all this, there is no more I want to contribute on this subject so this blog will go off-line later this year (2010).  Meanwhile, this will be the last post.

Indeed, since March 21, 2010 the blog has been on ice.

My take:

I’m hopeful, but I think a declaration of victory is a bit premature.  But, it’s his blog, he can do whatever he pleases.

To use a tennis analogy (i.e. game, set, match), the skeptics have won many “games”, and indeed won the first “set” with the release of the Climategate e-mails, and won a second set with the plethora of “_____gates” that followed, but “match” will be determined on another day.

7 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Mar 20

A guest post by John O’Sullivan

Recently, I’ve been reading up on “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds” a highly-regarded history of popular folly by Scottish journalist Charles Mackay, first published in 1841. His work can teach us a timely lesson in the current global warming controversy.

MacKay warns us of the pitfalls of group think using many notable historical examples when people,

“fix their minds upon one object, and go mad in its pursuit; that millions of people become simultaneously impressed with one delusion, and run after it, till their attention is caught by some new folly more captivating than the first.”

The wise Scot goes on to cite many notable examples but one case struck me as I remembered it from my school days from the not so merry England of the 18th century. A total of 462 members of the House of Commons and 112 Peers signed up to the South Sea Company that persuaded vast swathes of the general public to also get sucked into one of the greatest financial scandals in history, the “South Sea Bubble“.

Even King George I and two of his mistresses, the Countess of Darlington and the Duchess of Kendal,got taken in and lost a fortune while countless citizens went bankrupt in the ill-founded venture. Thus we see how the “great and the good” can unwittingly lead us all into disaster.

Now welcome to the transmogrified world of our modern “bubble” where the “great and the good” have again apparently been undone by a group-think calamity over climate change in which our perceptions have starkly changed almost overnight. From being fearful of so called man made warming it seems the real danger is from cooling. It turns out that since January 2007, the world has cooled so rapidly that ALL the global warming over the past three decades has disappeared!

The cold facts are confirmed by a plot of actual global average temperatures from the best available source, weather satellite data that shows there has been NO net global warming since the satellites were first launched in 1979. Thus the argument that carbon dioxide emitted by western society that was thought to warm the atmosphere is doing no such thing. See larger image here.

Today’s bubble burst when the Climategate revelations exposed a government-funded clique of scientists as utter polemicists, sophists and necromancers. Leaked emails  from this scandal show scientists puzzled by highly-compelling temperature data proving the world is more likely to now be cooling rather than warming contrary to scientific expectations. Rather than make this finding public it was hushed up – until now. We are thus confronted by confusion in a backdrop of the worst economic recession for 60 years and where tax a weary public have grown thoroughly sick of being nagged by nanny governments to cut our carbon footprint.

The facts expose the pointlessness of expending any more hot air over what an increasing number of commentators are calling a non-problem since Britain’s most eminent government climate scientist, Professor Phil Jones admitted the planet has seen no statistically significant warming for over 15 years! Just as in the days of King George I, we see the hubris of “experts” and politicians leaving behind them a profligate money trail exposing their gullibility to the dangers and the myth of consensus- it was all just a climate chimera.

Independent analysis of real world data are now urging us to re-think once more the threat of cooling as we are in the midst of a cooling period to match the one we saw from 1940-75, as reported in Readers’ Digest (March 1977) “What’s Happening To Our Climate?” and when scientists in Newsweek, April 28 1975 (p 64) warned us of “The Cooling World“.

But far more weight should be given to the CIA report that proved government concern over global cooling in the 1970’s and the impact on world politics.

Amongst the host of references is Hubert Lamb – the first Director of CRU- Lamb writes in his many books of the climatic downturns which started sometime around 1960. So this brings us back neatly to the words of Charles Mackay and the example of the “South Sea Bubble” scandal that taught us:

“Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.”

Let there be no doubt, the next new paradigm may well be that the warming blip from 1975-1995 that global warmists get so hot about may be seen to be an anomaly in the global cooling that can be said to have affected the planet since the Medieval Warm Period ended in the 1300’s.

This is a most credible hypothesis being that we are due to return to an ice age anyway.

But the biggest paradigm shift now taking place is the abandonment of the hypothesis that CO2 was a significant driver of planetary warming. The facts prove that  the Earth’s temperature record shows global cooling from ~1940 to ~1979 and this coupled with recent sharp cooling proves that overall, there has been no net warming since ~1940, in spite of an ~800% increase in human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2). Thus the correlation between temperature rises and CO2 is bust so that the recent warming trend was probably entirely natural. Therefore, the CO2 bubble has now popped!

John O’Sullivan is a legal advocate and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Visit his website. He offers his commentary for free and is not funded by any third party. Any opinions he expresses are his own and do not necessarily represent those of the site owner.

15 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Mar 15

A guest post by John O’Sullivan:

In this article we will prove there is no consensus among climate scientists about man made global warming. Also, we shall see that it is the highly politicised UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that is the root source of the spurious claims of impending climate ‘catastrophe.’

The IPCC uses the word ‘catastrophe’ more than 300 times in its 2007 Fourth Report before concluding that we have roughly a 50/50 chance of avoding catastrophic runaway climate change. But only if we substantially reduce our carbon dioxide emissions to prevent global temperatures rising by 2˚C.

However, since the Climategate scandal first leaked into the blogosphere in November 2009 we have found, almost on a weekly basis, revelations to support the case that man made global warming alarmism (AGW) is just that: alarmist.

Reeling from the embarrassment of debunked lies over melting glaciers, African crop failures, melting polar ice caps and with no ‘statistically significant’ global warming for 15 years, climate catastrophe fear spreaders have now taken a bunker mentality clinging to their mantra that there still is some ‘consensus’ of scientific opinion backing their nightmare message. Perhaps the most repeated fallacies are:

(1.)  ‘most climate scientists’ agree that mankind is ‘catastrophically’ impacting the climate and;

(2.)   that ‘no international body of scientists disagrees with this opinion.’

In online debates I routinely challenge alarmist proponents to show me proof of these claims. On the issue of (1.) regarding that ‘scientific majority’ for AGW, I am often referred to two surveys as ‘proof.’ The first is by Oreskes [2004] and the second by Kendall Zimmerman [2008].

Oreskes reviewed 928 abstracts from peer-reviewed research papers and determined that more than 75% either explicitly or implicitly accept that Earth’s climate is being affected by human activities. Thus the alarmist ‘majority’ claim was born. Very interesting, you may think. But let’s dig a little deeper with the able assistance of Dr. Benny Peiser, a world-renowned expert on ‘neo-catastrophism.’

After a thorough analysis of the study by Oreskes it turns out these claims are nothing other than a fraud. Dr. Peiser uncovered from the 928 abstracts that:

“just over a dozen explicitly endorse the “consensus,” while the vast majority of abstracts does not mention anthropogenic global warming.”

But what is even more shocking is that digging deeper using the respected ISI Web of Science database inputting the keywords “climate change” there were over 12,000 relevant science papers that Oreskes totally ignored.

Apart from Peiser’s [2005] debunking of Oreskes, another eminent climate researcher [Pielke 2005] also was prompt to expose Oreskes for cynically twisting the full diversity of scientific opinion.

Thus we can fairly conclude that the Oreskes paper is a cherry-picking exercise to enhance climate alarmist propaganda. Nonetheless, the warming lobby fought back and eventually came up with Kendall Zimmerman [2008] that sought to vindicate Oreskes by surveying 10,257 American Earth scientists using a database built from Keane and Martinez [2007].

But, interestingly, only 30.7% of scientists replied to Kendall Zimmerman and in their findings the study was forced to concede that only ‘5%’ of the 30% were actually ‘climate scientists.’ Ultimately, Kendall Zimmerman found a mere 75 pro-warmist climate scientists – yes, you read that right – 75 climate scientists from the 10,000 first approached gave support to the man made global warming thesis.

Pertinently, a question that now struck me as relevant is how many climate scientists actually are there?

On this particular issue, for the sake of time, I’ll give the benefit of the doubt to the alarmists. If we look to that popular but flawed online resource, Wikipedia, they manage to scrape together the names only 61. Surely that can’t be right. But then, nothing much written about climate is ever reliable on Wikipedia.

But if we turn to an esteemed alarmist blog, ‘Rabett Run’ that tells us:

“the answer in the US is 13,746. However, there is no international register of climatologists so it’s very hard to provide a specific number… but if we look at foreign members we get a total of 19,340”

So, according to numbers put together by AGW advocates, the best face the doomsaying fraternity can put on this is the explicit support of a mere 75 climate scientists from almost 20,000 worldwide. I have to say, as a non-scientist, that this strikes me as the most damning statistic I have found in all the recent revelations about climate change fraud.

But then it’s worth turning the spotlight on exactly what this so called ‘elite’ of alarmist climatologists actually tell us about the specific risks of climate change. For simplicity, we shall take the pronouncements of the IPCC as our starting point.

In the IPCC’s 2007 Report the word ‘catastrophe’ or its conjugated derivatives appears no less than 338 times. Yet that apocalyptic word is conspicuous by its absence from the studies of Oreskes and Kendall Zimmerman. One can only wonder how miniscule would have been the response from the climate science community if the issue were about whether mankind’s impact on climate was potentially ‘catastrophic’ rather than merely ‘significant.’

Anyone adept in legal turns of phrase understands all too well that ‘significant’ is an amorphous and overly broad descriptor, a term knocked into a climate cocked hat when stood toe to toe with a full-blown ‘catastrophic’ calamity, a term so beloved by the IPCC. In fact, Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary tells us just how powerful the word ‘catastrophe’ really is:

“a momentous tragic event ranging from extreme misfortune to utter overthrow or ruin: a violent and sudden change in a feature of the earth.”

Thus we have established there exists no proof of consensus among scientists of even ‘significant’ human climate impact let alone that ‘catastrophic’ kind. So let’s now turn our attentions to point (2.) that ‘no international body of scientists disagrees with this opinion,’ although the statement now wields the rhetorical impact of a deflating balloon.

Here is where we begin to uncover the true extent of international politicisation of science. Again, let’s be consistent and again turn briefly to that organ of climate doom mongering, Wikipedia. Wikipedia can muster only 32 national science academies that have made a public statement on this matter. Stand this number alongside the fact there are currently 192 United Nations (UN) member states, each of which is a member of the United Nations General Assembly then we see that 159 nations, a vast majority, presumably don’t even rate the UN’s global warming issue serious enough to formally express a view.

But we are here now so let’s take a look at how powerful and compelling are those statements from the most earnest of climate doomsaying international academies. The European Academy of Sciences and Arts (EASA) says humans are “likely” to have some responsibility for climate change. No mention that of any impending catastrophic kind of warming. The Royal Society of New Zealand simply acknowledges mankind is impacting the climate and it may “become more costly” to adapt to change.

Meanwhile, the International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences (ICAET) assert that global warming since the mid-20th century is “very likely” due to humans. While the Network of African Science Academies goes so far as to blame humans as the “main source” of climate change. Then there’s the American Association for the Advancement of Science, they tells us that global climate change caused by human activities is “occurring.”

Not once do these 32 international academies endorse the IPCC’s use of the word ‘catastrophe’ in any of the descriptions of the likely future outcomes. But if you want to gauge how pervasive the unsubstantiated climate catastrophe claims have become look for it on Google.

I surfed and got 1,430,000 results for ‘catastrophic climate change’ (0.34 seconds). So scare mongering is clearly alive and well outside the science laboratories of climatologists. Perhaps there are many other interested parties beyond that small clique in the scientific community looking to board the climate gravy train?

But more worrying to me and to many taxpayers is that we are seeing that Anglophone world leaders remain unrelenting but are ever more shrill in their please to voters to hand them a mandate for ever more swinging and harsh green taxation policies. The trusty British scientific establishment have circled the wagons to help in this endeavour. Dr Richard Betts, Head of Climate Impacts at the Met Office Hadley Centre leads the fight back trumpeting the warning of computer climate models that ‘catastrophe’ faces us in a mere 50 years.

Betts, like others on that sinking ship, clutch at a handful of scientific papers that have been the core of the alarmist movement. For the past decade junk scientists have been regularly citing the same 13 “core” or “foundation” research papers, from this specialised area of research defined by its co-citation cluster analysis. Yes, again it’s astonishing to note how small the sample numbers really are when you put climate science under the microscope. As proven by Thomson Reuters from its Essential Science Indicators (Research Fronts 2004-09), there are merely a hub of 13 papers that are thereafter cited by a further 534 important climate research papers – that’s the bedrock of this whole scam.

So what we are uncovering is again very much the same of what we found when debunking Oreskes [2004] and Kendall Zimmerman [2008]. We now have signposted for us a route map to unpick the credibility of the whole rambunctious climate circus.

Ironically, it’s all thanks to the concerted endeavours of a few Internet bloggers. What we are witnessing is a shrewd but tenuous worldwide thread of amateur climate sceptics usurping a far more egregious and monumentally funded professional minority in the greatest scientific debate of modern times. The true ‘catastrophe’ is that how could such a great green juggernaut of international economic policy advocates wielding a research budget estimated to exceed $50 billion be derailed by a bunch of retirees operating on a shoestring budget. Thus is the power of the Internet – it has finally come of age. The blogosphere has at last taken over the mantle of probing investigative journalism that was once the domain of the world’s mainstream media, an irascible crowd exposed as being very much in bed with the disparate interests of the green lobby.

The truth is now out there and although the total demise of the IPCC is yet to be happen, its chief snake oil peddlers are tottering badly. As I write, the American press, like the three ‘wise’ monkeys, is being roundly ridiculed for pretending to see, hear or speak no evil on the matter.

So far impatient sceptics have witnessed few climate conspirators falling on their swords, with the biggest to date being Yvo De Boer, the UN’s climate chief. But more will soon follow as sustaining this outrageous international Ponzi scheme becomes ever more absurd in the face of mounting lawsuits. As the unstoppable collapse continues many more heads are sure to roll, many more casualties in the unpredicted ‘catastrophe’ of the earthquake that shook the climate house of cards.

John O’Sullivan is a legal advocate and writer who for several years has litigated in government corruption and conspiracy cases in both the US and Britain. Visit his website. He offers his services free to the site and is not a site employee. Any opinions he expresses are his own and do not necessarily represent those of the site owner.

10 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Mar 10

Paul Ehrlich has a well-earned reputation for predicting imminent doom from a variety of perceived man-made causes. It seems he’s now predicting doom for he and his fellow warmists:

The integrity of climate research has taken a very public battering in recent months. Scientists must now emphasize the science, while acknowledging that they are in a street fight.

Climate scientists are on the defensive, knocked off balance by a re-energized community of global-warming deniers who, by dominating the media agenda, are sowing doubts about the fundamental science. Most researchers find themselves completely out of their league in this kind of battle because it’s only superficially about the science. The real goal is to stoke the angry fires of talk radio, cable news, the blogosphere and the like, all of which feed off of contrarian story lines and seldom make the time to assess facts and weigh evidence. Civility, honesty, fact and perspective are irrelevant.

Worse, the onslaught seems to be working: some polls in the United States and abroad suggest that it is eroding public confidence in climate science at a time when the fundamental understanding of the climate system, although far from complete, is stronger than ever. Ecologist Paul Ehrlich at Stanford University in California says that his climate colleagues are at a loss about how to counter the attacks. “Everyone is scared shitless, but they don’t know what to do,” he says.

Hat tip: Marc Morano at Climate Depot

4 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Mar 03

Pajamas Media’s PJTV has a new 26 minute video interview with Lord Christopher Monckton. Al Gore was discussed, of course, and specifically mentioned was Al Gore’s “doubling down” on man-made climate change via his blizzard of lies op-ed he wrote for the compliant New York Times. However, in my opinion the “doubling down” analogy is a weak one. Doubling down is a strategy that is used in blackjack, and is done when playing from a positon of strength rather than weakness, e.g. when a player is dealt a ten or an eleven, or when the dealer is showing a very weak hand to your own nine:

Double Down: double your initial bet following the initial two-card deal, but you can hit one card only. A good bet if the player is in a strong situation.

On the other hand, “going all in” is a more apt analogy for the collapsing global warming movement.  “Going all in” is a poker term, and is a strategy that is generally employed out of weakness or desperation:

This is often the act of desperation, when a player is close to being eliminated from the game.

It has become apparent to anyone who is paying attention, i.e. global temperatures decreasing for a decade, Climategate, Amazongate, et. al., that the hand of cards that Al Gore and the rest of the alarmists are holding is not a strong one.  Therefore, when Al Gore penned his NY Times op-ed, “We Can’t Wish Away Climate Change“, he was certainly employing the more desperate “going all in” poker strategy, rather than “doubling down” on a strong hand as is done in blackjack.

7 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
Feb 02

Al Gore and the rest of the environmentalists have scared our children, and now they are starting to point fingers:

Dear Dr. Donohue — My daughter complains that I flatulate more often than most individuals. Furthermore, she claims that the gas an individual passes contributes to global warming. I don’t know if I am physically able to keep my gas to myself to go green. Is my daughter really right?

Is your daughter for real? No human can stop the production of intestinal gas. Every human passes gas, including your daughter. People do so from 10 to 20 times a day.Colon bacteria are responsible for gas production.

The major gases in colon-produced gas are nitrogen, carbon dioxide, methane and hydrogen. Traces of sulfur-containing gases are responsible for its unpleasant odor.

Greenhouse gases — the gases that blanket the earth and warm it— include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen and fluorocarbons. Most of the carbon dioxide that contributes to greenhouse effect comes from the use of fossil fuels — gas, oil, gasoline and coal. The majority of methane gas that adds to the greenhouse effect is derived from livestock, coal mining, drilling for oil and from garbage landfills.

Carbon dioxide is the byproduct of many industrial processes. If your daughter is truly worried over your contribution to the greenhouse effect, she should realize that her breathing contributes a significant amount of carbon dioxide to it. She blows out carbon dioxide with each exhalation. Humans contribute more than 30 billion tons of carbon dioxide to the yearly production of this greenhouse gas. No one suggests we stop breathing.

Hat tip: Dave Barry

4 people like this post.

Possibly Related Posts:


Share
Tagged with:
preload preload preload