Precision Forecasts
Sep 14, 2017
Despite Harvey and Irma, science has no idea if climate change is causing more (or fewer) storms

By Ross McKitrick

Update: WeatherBELL video on why this season was so active

---------------------

After Hurricane Harvey hit Texas, it didn;t take long for climate alarmists to claim they knew all along it would happen. Politico’s Eric Holthaus declared “We knew this would happen, decades ago.” Naomi Klein stated “these events have long been predicted by climate scientists.” Joe Romm at ThinkProgress wrote, “the fact is that Harvey is exactly the kind of off-the-charts hurricane we can expect to see more often because of climate change.”

According to these and other authors, rising greenhouse gas levels are at least partly to blame for the occurrence and severity of Harvey, and probably for Hurricane Irma as well. But after-the-fact guesswork is not science. If any would-be expert really knew long ago that Harvey was on its way, let him or her prove it by predicting what next year’s hurricane season will bring.

Don’t hold your breath: Even the best meteorologists in the world weren’t able to predict the development and track of Hurricane Harvey until a few days before it hit.

This is why the idea of climate science being “settled” is so ludicrous, at least as regards the connection between global warming and tropical cyclones. A settled theory makes specific predictions that can, in principle, be tested against observed data. A theory that only yields vague, untestable predictions is, at best, a work in progress.

The climate alarmists offer a vague prediction: Hurricanes may or may not happen in any particular year, but when they do, they will be more intense than they would have been if GHG levels were lower. This is a convenient prediction to make because we can never test it. It requires observing the behaviour of imaginary storms in an unobservable world. Good luck collecting the data.

Climate scientists instead use computer models to simulate the alternative world. But the models project hundreds of possible worlds, and predict every conceivable outcome, so whatever happens it is consistent with at least one model run. After Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans in 2005, some climate modelers predicted such storms would be more frequent in a warmer world, while others predicted the opposite, and still others said there was no connection between warming and hurricanes.

image
Enlarged

What ensued was an historically unprecedented 12-year absence of major (category 3 or higher) hurricanes making landfall in the United States, until Harvey, which ties for 14th-most intense hurricane since 1851. The events after 2005 were “consistent with” some projections, but any other events would have been as well.

The long absence of landfalling hurricanes also points to another problem when opinion writers connect GHGs to extreme weather. Science needs to be concerned not only with conspicuous things that happened, but with things that conspicuously didn’t happen. Like the famous dog in the Sherlock Holmes story, the bark that doesn’t happen can be the most important of all.

It is natural to consider a hurricane a disruptive event that demands an explanation. It is much more difficult to imagine nice weather as a disruption to bad weather that somehow never happened.

Suppose a hurricane would have hit Florida in August 2009, but GHG emissions prevented it and the weather was mild instead. The “event,” pleasant weather, came and went unnoticed and nobody felt the need to explain why it happened. It is a mistake to think that only bad events call for an explanation, and only to raise the warming conjecture when bad weather happens. If we are going to tie weather events to GHGs, we have to be consistent about it. We should not assume that any time we have pleasant weather, we were going to have it anyway, but a storm is unusual and proves GHG’s control the climate.

I am grateful to the scientists who work at understanding hurricane and typhoon events, and whose ability to forecast them days in advance has saved countless lives. But when opinion writers tacitly assume all good weather is natural and GHGs only cause bad weather, or claim to be able to predict future storms, but only after they have already occurred, I reserve the right to call their science unsettled.

Ross McKitrick is a professor of economics at the University of Guelph and an adjunct scholar of the Cato Institute.

Aug 30, 2017
Texas Major Hurricane Intensity Not Related to Gulf Water Temperatures

Dr. Roy Spencer

August 29th, 2017

As the Houston flood disaster was unfolding, there is considerable debate about whether Hurricane Harvey was influenced by “global warming”. While such an issue matters little to the people of Houston, it does matter for our future infrastructure planning and energy policy.

Let’s review the two basic reasons why the Houston area is experiencing what now looks like a new record amount of total rainfall, at least for a 2-3 day period over an area of tens of thousands of square miles.

1) A strong tropical cyclone, with access to abundant moisture evaporated off the Gulf of Mexico, and

2) Little movement by the cyclone.

These two factors have conspired to create the current flooding catastrophe in Houston. Now let’s look at them in the context of global warming theory.

1. Are Texas major hurricanes dependent on an unusually warm Gulf?

I examined all of the major hurricane (Cat 3+) strikes in Texas since 1870 and plotted them as red dots on the time series of sea surface temperature variations over the western Gulf of Mexico. As can be seen, major hurricanes don’t really care whether the Gulf is above average or below average in temperature:

image
Enlarged

Red dots indicate years of major hurricane strikes in Texas, plotted on average SST departures from normal by year over the western Gulf of Mexico (25-30N, 90-100W).

Why is that? It’s because hurricanes require a unique set of circumstances to occur, and sufficiently warm SSTs is only one. (I did my Ph.D. dissertation on the structure and energetics of incipient tropical cyclones, and have published a method for monitoring their strength from satellites).

The Gulf of Mexico is warm enough every summer to produce a major hurricane. But you also usually need a pre-existing cyclonic circulation or wave, which almost always can be traced back to the coast of Africa. Also, the reasons why some systems intensify and others don’t are not well understood. This is why the National Hurricane Center admits their predictions of intensity change are not that accurate. Lots of thunderstorm complexes form over warm tropical waters, and we still don’t understand why some of them will spontaneously form a cyclonic circulation.

2. Does global warming cause landfalling hurricanes to stall?

I don’t know of any portion of global warming theory that would explain why Harvey stalled over southeast Texas. Michael Mann’s claim in The Guardian that it’s due to the jet stream being pushed farther north from global warming makes me think he doesn’t actually follow weather like those of us who have actual schooling in meteorology (my degree is a Ph.D. in Meteorology). We didn’t have a warm August in the U.S. pushing the jet stream farther north.

In fact, I dare anyone to look at the August temperature anomalies to date in the U.S. (courtesy of Weatherbell.com) and tell me, exactly what pattern here is due to global warming?

image
Enlarged August 2017 (through Aug. 28) surface temperature anomalies around North America (NCEP CFSv2, courtesy of Weatherbell.com).

The flooding disaster in Houston is the chance occurrence of several factors which can be explained naturally, without having to invoke human-caused climate change. We already know that major landfalling hurricanes in the U.S. have been less frequent in recent decades. But once one forms, if it stalls near the coast (a rarity), it can be expected to cause a flooding disaster… especially in a flood-prone area like Houston.

NOTE: If you like my writing on this subject, please check out my new e-book, An Inconvenient Deception: How Al Gore Distorts Climate Science and Energy Policy.

Aug 28, 2017
Why Houston Flooding Isn’t a Sign of Climate Change

August 28th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

In the context of climate change, is what we are seeing in Houston a new level of disaster which is becoming more common?

The flood disaster unfolding in Houston is certainly very unusual. But so are other natural weather disasters, which have always occurred and always will occur.

Floods aren’t just due to weather

Major floods are difficult to compare throughout history because the ways in which we alter the landscape. For example, as cities like Houston expand over the years, soil is covered up by roads, parking lots, and buildings, with water rapidly draining off rather than soaking into the soil. The population of Houston is now ten times what it was in the 1920s. The Houston metroplex area has expanded greatly and the water drainage is basically in the direction of downtown Houston.

There have been many flood disasters in the Houston area, even dating to the mid-1800s when the population was very low. In December of 1935 a massive flood occurred in the downtown area as the water level height measured at Buffalo Bayou in Houston topped out at 54.4 feet.

image
Enlarged Downtown Houston flood of 1935.

By way of comparison, as of 6:30 a.m. this (Monday) morning, the water level in the same location is at 38 feet, which is still 16 feet lower than in 1935. I’m sure that will continue to rise.

Icecap note: it reached 39 feet dipped then rose before declining.

image
Enlarged

Are the rainfall totals unprecedented?

Even that question is difficult to answer. The exact same tropical system moving at, say, 15 mph might have produced the same total amount of rain, but it would have been spread over a wide area, maybe many states, with no flooding disaster. This is usually what happens with landfalling hurricanes.

Instead, Harvey stalled after it came ashore and so all of the rain has been concentrated in a relatively small portion of Texas around the Houston area. In both cases, the atmosphere produced the same amount of rain, but where the rain lands is very different. People like those in the Houston area don’t want all of the rain to land on them.

There is no aspect of global warming theory that says rain systems are going to be moving slower, as we are seeing in Texas. This is just the luck of the draw. Sometimes weather systems stall, and that sucks if you are caught under one. The same is true of high pressure areas; when they stall, a drought results.

Even with the system stalling, the greatest multi-day rainfall total as of 9 a.m. this Monday morning is just over 30 inches (Dayton 39.72 inches), with many locations recording over 20 inches. We should recall that Tropical Storm Claudette in 1979 (a much smaller and weaker system than Harvey) produced a 43 inch rainfall total in only 24 hours in Houston.

Was Harvey unprecedented in intensity?

In this case, we didn’t have just a tropical storm like Claudette, but a major hurricane, which covered a much larger area with heavy rain. Roger Pielke Jr. has pointed out that the U.S. has had only four Category 4 (or stronger) hurricane strikes since 1970, but in about the same number of years preceding 1970 there were 14 strikes. So we can’t say that we are experiencing more intense hurricanes in recent decades.

Going back even earlier, a Category 4 hurricane struck Galveston in 1900, killing between 6,000 and 12,000 people. That was the greatest natural disaster in U.S. history.

And don’t forget, we just went through an unprecedented length of time - almost 12 years - without a major hurricane (Cat 3 or stronger) making landfall in the U.S.

So what makes this event unprecedented?

The National Weather Service has termed the event unfolding in the Houston area as unprecedented. I’m not sure why. I suspect in terms of damage and number of people affected, that will be the case. But the primary reason won’t be because this was an unprecedented meteorological event.

If we are talking about the 100 years or so that we have rainfall records, then it might be that southeast Texas hasn’t seen this much total rain fall over a fairly wide area. At this point it doesn’t look like any rain gage locations will break the record for total 24 hour rainfall in Texas, or possibly even for storm total rainfall, but to have so large an area having over 20 inches is very unusual.

They will break records for their individual gage locations, but that’s the kind of record that is routinely broken somewhere anyway, like record high and low temperatures.

In any case, I’d be surprised if such a meteorological event didn’t happen in centuries past in this area, before we were measuring them.

And don’t pay attention to claims of 500 year flood events, which most hydrologists dislike because we don’t have enough measurements over time to determine such things, especially when they also depend on our altering of the landscape over time.

Bill Read, a former director of the National Hurricane Center was asked by a CNN news anchor whether he thought that Harvey was made worse because of global warming. Read’s response was basically, No.

“Unprecedented” doesn’t necessarily mean it represents a new normal. It can just be a rare combination of events. In 2005 the U.S. was struck by many strong hurricanes, and the NHC even ran out of names to give all of the tropical storms. Then we went almost 12 years without a major (Cat 3 or stronger) hurricane strike.

Weird stuff happens.

I remember many years ago in one of the NWS annual summaries of lightning deaths there was a golfer who was struck by lightning. While an ambulance transported the man to the hospital, the ambulance was stuck by lightning and it finished the poor fellow off.

There is coastal lake sediment evidence of catastrophic hurricanes which struck the Florida panhandle over 1,000 years ago, events which became less frequent in the most recent 1,000 years.

Weather disasters happen, with or without the help of humans.

Sep 24, 2017
New York Times and Arctic Ice

The New York Times did a story on arctic ice this past week.

See in this video how Tony Heller responds to this story

See in this Icecap story how the changes are cyclical as Tony shows with data and news accounts including the New York Times.

We showed how the water from the Atlantic and Pacific enter the arctic underneath the floating ice. When the Atlantic and Pacific are in their warm modes, this leads to thinning ice and reduced summer coverage.

image
Enlarged

The UAF IARC showed how warm water in the Atlantic warms the arctic and reduces ice.

image
Enlarged

We showed how the Atlantic and Pacific combined warmth and coolness corresponds with arctic temperatures.

image
Enlarged

In the record-setting (since satellite monitoring began in 1979) summer melt season of 2007, NSIDC scientists noted the importance of both oceans in the arctic ice.

“One prominent researcher, Igor Polyakov at the University of Fairbanks, Alaska, points out that pulses of unusually warm water have been entering the Arctic Ocean from the Atlantic, which several years later are seen in the ocean north of Siberia. These pulses of water are helping to heat the upper Arctic Ocean, contributing to summer ice melt and helping to reduce winter ice growth.

Another scientist, Koji Shimada of the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology, reports evidence of changes in ocean circulation in the Pacific side of the Arctic Ocean. Through a complex interaction with declining sea ice, warm water entering the Arctic Ocean through Bering Strait in summer is being shunted from the Alaskan coast into the Arctic Ocean, where it fosters further ice loss.

Many questions still remain to be answered, but these changes in ocean circulation may be important keys for understanding the observed loss of Arctic sea ice.”

Dr. Willie Soon shows a much better correlation of solar TSI and arctic temperatures than CO2.

image
Enlarged

Sep 18, 2017
Don’t believe the hurricane hype machine

By Michael Sununu, Union Leader

LET US SET hyperbole aside. Climate change is NOT making hurricanes stronger or more frequent.

Statements to the contrary by climate scientists like Michael Mann and Tom Peterson are not based on objective analysis of historical data. Most of the claims by the alarmists are based on hypothetical model projections, an ill-informed understanding of weather, and a desire to ignore the historical precedents which indicate the current environment is no different than the past.

Alarmists claim flooding caused by Harvey was the worst ever. In fact, those areas of coastal Texas have seen similar flooding in the past. In 1978, tropical storm Amelia dumped 48 inches of rain on Texas, and the following year, Claudette inundated the state with 54 inches, with one location in Alvin, Texas, receiving 43 inches in a 24-hour period (a record).

These two storms occurred during the late 1970s’ cooler climate. In 1954, Hurricane Alice dropped huge amounts of rain in the Rio Grande Valley. In 1935, Harris County saw its worst floods, with waters reaching the second and third stories in Houston. Harvey was not unprecedented.

The forces behind these huge rain totals are local weather patterns that stall storm systems over the state. WeatherBell’s chief forecaster, Joe Bastardi, pointed out that a major trough extended south and trapped Harvey just onshore. This allowed the storm to suck up warm moisture from the Gulf and continue to drop it in the same area over several days. Thirty- to forty-inch rain totals are not a common occurrence, but they do occur every decade or so in Texas.

The second claim is that the U.S. is seeing stronger hurricanes than in the past, because climate change is raising hurricane intensity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Looking at the historical records, Roger Pielke Jr. has noted that in the 44-year period between 1926 and 1969, fourteen Category 4 or 5 hurricanes made landfall in the United States. Over the next 47 years, between 1970 and 2017, just four hit the United States, and that includes Harvey this year. We are seeing fewer major hurricanes hit the U.S., not more.

Others have noted that Irma was a very intense hurricane reaching very low pressures, and this is true. Irma reached as low as 914mb and wind speeds of 185 mph. Hurricane Wilma in 2005 holds the record with the lowest pressure in the Atlantic basin at 882mb. When you look at historical storms, Wilma was comparable to the Great 1935 Labor Day hurricane that made landfall with pressure at 892mb, the only storm to make landfall below 900mb. Since there were no Hurricane Hunter aircraft in that era, it is quite possible that the 1935 storm had pressures even lower than Wilma.

There is evidence that the Great Hurricane of 1780, which destroyed much of the eastern Caribbean, may have had windspeeds in excess of 200 mph. It destroyed every house and fort on Barbados, stripped the bark off trees, and killed over 22,000 people in the region.

Clearly, Mother Nature has always been very capable of generating storms far more intense than what we have seen recently.

Climate alarmists don’t want to talk about the uncomfortable fact we just went through an historic 12-year period without a major hurricane (Category 3 or higher) making landfall in the United States. We were blessed for more than a decade without a devastating hurricane wreaking havoc on our shores, so having two hurricanes making landfall this year, while unfortunate, should not be unexpected.

image
Enlarged

image
Enlarged

What is disappointing, unnecessary, and counterproductive is the attempt to somehow link carbon dioxide emissions to hurricane activity. Both the IPCC and NOAA have made clear statements that there is no scientific evidence that links CO2 levels with extreme weather, including tropical systems. Any linkage is purely hypothetical, and is more likely a political rather than a scientific determination.

In the real world, fossil fuels are what make our communities resilient. They provide us the concrete to reinforce our homes, the fuel to help move us away from danger, the materials to preserve and rebuild our infrastructure, and the electricity to bring back our communities when the storm passes. They power the rescue boats and aircraft, help deliver the food and water to stricken communities, and power the chainsaws that allow us to clear the debris.

Carbon dioxide is not powering these storms, but it does make our lives better both before they hit, and after they leave disaster in their wake.

Michael Sununu is a consultant with Sununu Enterprises LLC and lives in Newfields.

Sep 17, 2017
Finally, some commonsense western fire policies

New DOI and DOA policy to cut overgrown, diseased, dead and burned trees is long overdue

Paul Driessen

President Trump promised to bring fresh ideas and policies to Washington. Now Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue are doing exactly that in a critically important area: forest management and conflagration prevention. Their actions are informed, courageous and long overdue.

Westerners are delighted, and I’ve advocated such reforms since my days on Capitol Hill in the 1980s.

As of September 12, amid this typically long, hot, dry summer out West, 62 major forest fires are burning in nine states, the National Interagency Fire Center reports. The Interior Department and Ag Department’s Forest Service have already spent over $2 billion fighting them. That’s about what they spent in all of 2015, previously the most costly wildfire season ever, and this season has another month or more to go. The states themselves have spent hundreds of millions more battling these conflagrations.

Millions of acres of forest have disappeared in smoke and flames - 1.1 million in Montana alone. All told, acreage larger than New Jersey has burned already. However, even this hides the real tragedies.

The infernos exterminate wildlife habitats, roast eagle and spotted owl fledglings alive in their nests, immolate wildlife that can’t run fast enough, leave surviving animals to starve for lack of food, and incinerate organic matter and nearly every living creature in the thin soils. They turn trout streams into fish boils, minus the veggies and seasonings. Future downpours and rapid snowmelts bring widespread soil erosion into streambeds. Many areas will not grow trees or recover their biodiversity for decades.

Most horrifically, the conflagrations threaten homes and entire communities. They kill fire fighters and families that cannot get away quickly enough, or get trapped by sudden walls of flames.

In 2012, two huge fires near Fort Collins and Colorado Springs, Colorado burned 610 homes, leaving little more than ashes, chimneys and memories. Tens of thousands of people had to be evacuated through smoke and ash that turned daytime into choking night skies. Four people died. A 1994 fire near Glenwood Springs, CO burned 14 young firefighters to death.

These are not “natural” fires of environmentalist lore, or “ordinary” fires like those that occur in state and privately owned and managed forests. Endless layers of laws, regulations, judicial decrees and guidelines for Interior and Forest Service lands have meant that most western forests have been managed like our 109 million acres of designated wilderness: they are hardly managed at all.

Environmentalists abhor timber cutting on federal lands, especially if trees might feed profit-making sawmills. They would rather see trees burn, than let someone cut them. They constantly file lawsuits to block any cutting, and too many judges are all too happy to support their radical ideas and policies.

Thus, even selective cutting to thin dense stands of timber, or remove trees killed by beetles or fires, is rarely permitted. Even fire fighting and suppression are often allowed only if a fire was clearly caused by arson, careless campers or other human action - but not if lightning ignited it. Then it’s allowed to burn, until a raging inferno is roaring over a ridge toward a rural or suburban community.

The result is easy to predict. Thousands of thin trees grow on acreage that should support just a few hundred full-sized mature trees. Tens of billions of these scrawny trees mix with 6.3 billion dead trees that the Forest Service says still stand in eleven western states. Vast forests are little more than big trees amid closely bunched matchsticks and underbrush, drying out in hot, dry western summers and droughts - waiting for lightning bolts, sparks, untended campfires or arsonists to start super-heated conflagrations.

Flames in average fires along managed forest floors might reach several feet in height and temperatures of 1,472 F (800 C), says Wildfire Today. But under extreme conditions of high winds and western tinderboxes, temperatures can exceed 2,192 F (1,200 C), flame heights can reach 165 feet (50 meters) or more, and fires can generate a critter-roasting 100,000 kilowatts per meter of fire front. Wood will burst into flame at 572 F. Aluminum melts at 1,220 degrees, silver at 1,762 and gold at 1,948 F!

Most of this heat goes upward, but super-high temperatures incinerate soil organisms and organic matter in thin western soils that afterward can support only stunted, spindly trees for decades.

These fires also emit prodigious quantities of carbon dioxide, fine particulates and other pollutants - including mercury, which is absorbed by tree roots from rocks and soils that contain this metal, and then lofted into the sky when the trees burn.

Rabid greens ignore these hard realities - and divert discussions back to their favorite ideological talking points. The problem isn’t too many trees, they insist. It’s global warming and climate change. That’s why western states are having droughts, long fire seasons, and high winds that send flames past fire breaks.

Global warming, global cooling and climate change have been part of the Earth and human experience from time immemorial. Natural climate fluctuations brought the multi-decade Anasazi drought, the Dust Bowl and other dry spells to our western states. To suggest that this summer’s heat and drought are somehow due to mankind’s fossil fuel use and related emissions is deliberately delusional nonsense.

Neither these activists nor anyone in Al Gore’s climate chaos consortium can demonstrate or calibrate a human connection to droughts or fires. Rants, rhetoric and CO2-driven computer models do not suffice. And even if manmade (plant-fertilizing) carbon dioxide does play a role amid the powerful natural forces that have always controlled climate and weather, reducing US fossil fuel use would have zero effect.

China, India, Indonesia and Vietnam alone are building 590 new coal-fired power plants right now, on top of the hundreds they have constructed over the past decade. Overall, more than 1,600 new coal generators are planned or under construction in 62 countries. People in developing countries are also driving far more vehicles and making great strides in improving their health and living standards. They will not stop.

Western conflagrations jump fire breaks because these ferocious fires are fueled by the unprecedented increase in combustibles that radical green policies have created. These monstrous fires generate their own high winds and even mini tornados that carry burning branches high into the air, to be deposited hundreds of feet away, where they ignite new fires. It has nothing to do with climate change.

Remove some of that fuel - and fires won get so big, hot, powerful and destructive. We should also do what a few environmentalist groups have called for: manage more areas around buildings and homes - clearing away brush that federal agencies and these same groups have long demanded be left in place.

Finally, we should be using more of the readily available modern technologies like FireIce from GelTech Solutions. They can suppress and extinguish fires, and protect homes, much better than water alone.

The last bogus eco-activist claim is that “fire isn’t destruction; it’s renewal. It creates stronger, more diverse ecosystems.” That may be true in managed forests, timber stands in less tinder-dry states, and forests that have undergone repeated, non-devastating fires. For all the reason presented above, it is not true for government owned and mismanaged forests in our western states.

Over 50 million acres (equal to Minnesota) are at risk of catastrophic wildfires. Right now, we are spending billions of dollars we don’t have, should not have to spend fighting all these monstrous killer blazes, and should have available to improve forests and parks and fund other vital programs.

These forests could and should create jobs and generate revenues in states where far too many lands, timber, oil and minerals have been placed off limits - primarily by urban politicians, judges and radical activists who seem determined to drive people off these western lands, turn them into playgrounds for the wealthy, and roll back other Americans’ living standards and well-being. Cleaning out dead, diseased, burned, overgrown trees would bring countless benefits. It would make our forests healthy again.

Above all, the new Interior-Agriculture approach would demonstrate that Rural Lives Matter.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (http://www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death and other books on the environment.

----------

Chris Mooney, WAPO’s alarmist Science editor asked for a comment about my being considered for the Science Advisory Board of Pruit’s EPA. 

When I was working on a doctoral traineeship grant at NYU in Air Resources in the 1970s, we had real air and water pollution issues. We as a nation with the EPA in the early days did a commendable job cleaning up up our air and water with reasonable clean up measure on energy plants and automobiles. We have more than met our goal in reducing levels of criteria pollutants below the reasonable standards set years ago. Carbon pollution (particulates) are a problem in China and India but we in the U.S. have reduced particulate levels 50% the last few decades and are now well below the aggressive standards we set.  We rarely see air pollution advisories today, something very common decades ago.

This hyper focus on controlling CO2 in recent decades is immoral - harmful to our nation, its’ people and their future.  CO2 is a beneficial trace gas (0.04% by volume). It is a plant fertilizer that has helped us increase crop yields 3 to 5 fold. The Endangerment Finding being used by the EPA (and courts) to regulate CO2 emissions has been invalidated by real world data and needs to be scrapped and redone using good data and science and not failed models. Scientists and econometricians I worked with have done sold research reports that show natural factors are responsible for all the cyclical changes and claims about changes and extremes are not supportable. 

Europe, Australia and the green agenda states here including California and the northeast RGGI states which pushed the green agenda, are paying the price with electricity costs 2 to up to 6 times higher than we pay in most other states. This affects the poor and middle class the most (a hidden tax) and drives out industry which costs jobs (Spain reach 27.5% unemployment before they stopped subsides and lost 4 real jobs for every temporary green job created). More than 25% of Britons, many of them pensioners, are in what is called energy poverty, having to choose between heating and eating. In Europe and Australia bad policies have led to power blackouts or brownouts and a rush to build coal plants to make up for the intermittent and unreliable wind and solar output.

There is still a need for environmental protection. We need to refocus the EPA on ensuring there is no more Animas River or Flint water events. We need to help deal with the issues of mold and water pollution in areas where heavy flooding like we saw with Harvey and Irma occur. There is work to be done i waste management and ensuring ground water is safe, We need to work with other government departments to develop more sane forest management that reduces wildfire risks with their smoke pollution and reasonable spring and summer streamflow water runoff usage policies to benefit agriculture and the cities that need clean water.

Note I had alluded to the need to deal with the forestry and water supply issues. Reporters don’t like when you send a response in writing as that allows them to paraphrase your response in a way that aligns with their message. He quickly called to throw other questions about me. i will report how it goes. A similar thing happened last week with an Environmental newsletter trying to bash those candidate scientists that could affect their green agenda with some out of context and false quotes. Even the Washington Examiner a usually fair and balanced source of information had an article with several inaccuracies. The author on Linkedin pointed to Richard Branson and Arianna Huffington as influential interests which explains a lot. Friends the fake science reporters are everywhere.

Sep 23, 2017
Irma illusions - and realities

If human emissions made Irma worse, did they also bring the 12-year lull in Cat 3-5 hurricanes?

Paul Driessen

Hurricanes Harvey and Irma brought out the best in us. Millions of Americans are giving money, toil and sweat to help victims rebuild. Unfortunately, the storms also highlighted some people’s baser instincts.

Some advanced ideological commitments to campaigns to “keep fossil fuels in the ground,” raise energy costs and reduce living standards. Others hyped Harvey’s record rainfalls, claiming carbon dioxide emissions made the Gulf of Mexico warmer and its air more moisture-laden. A few were just obnoxious.

These storms are a product of “this administration’s climate denial, racism and callousness,"350.org activist Jenny Marienau fumed. “How many once-in-a-lifetime storms will it take, until everyone admits manmade climate change is real?!” Daily Show comedian Trevor Noah fulminated.

Perhaps these newly minted “experts” received mail-order degrees in climatology or meteorology - or recently stayed at a Holiday Inn Express. They should at least take a few minutes to review hurricane and climate history, and talk to real climatologists and meteorologists, before launching tirades.

My geology, ecology and other studies taught me that climate change has been “real” throughout history. I’ve learned to be humble, respectful and vigilant in the face of nature’s power; to recognize that climate shifts can range from beneficial or benign to harmful or unbelievably destructive; and to understand that the sun and other powerful natural forces totally dwarf whatever meager powers humans might muster to alter or control Earth’s climate and weather.

Harvey marked the end of a record 12-year absence of Category 4-5 hurricanes hitting the US mainland. The previous 8-year record was set 1860-1869. NOAA’s Hurricane Research Division counts ten Category 4-5 monsters 1920-1969 (50 years) hitting the USA, but only three 1970-2016 (46 years). This year has brought two more, and the hurricane season isn’t over yet.

If Harvey and Irma were caused or intensified by human greenhouse gas emissions, shouldn’t those gases be credited for the 12-year lull and half-century decline in Cat 4-5 landfalling storms? For Irma’s changed intensity and route as it reached Florida and headed north? Certainly not.

If fossil fuels caused Harvey’s rainfall, were previous deluges like Hurricane Easy (45 inches in Florida, 1950), Tropical Cyclone Amelia (48 inches in Texas, 1978) and Tropical Storm Claudette (a record 43 inches in 24 hours on Alvin, Texas, 1979) the result of lower fossil fuel use back then? Highly unlikely.

Indeed, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) concludes that neither the frequency of North Atlantic tropical storms and hurricanes, nor their energy level, has displayed any trend since 1950. Despite slightly warmer ocean waters in some regions, global Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) levels in recent years have been at their lowest levels since the late 1970s.

When the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is in its cyclical positive phase, the tropics, west coast of North America and our Earth overall get warmer; cooling occurs during the PDO’s negative phase. The Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) also cycles between warm and cool phases, affecting regional and planetary temperatures, as well as hurricane formation, strength and duration.

Any link between hurricanes and human carbon dioxide/greenhouse gas emissions is nebulous, tenuous and very poorly understood at this time. Asserted links to recent hurricanes are ideological illusions.

Hurricane Irma remained symmetrical and grew in size and intensity into the massive Category 5 hurricane seen in satellite photos, because it remained over warm water for a week as it crossed the Atlantic and Caribbean - and was not pulled apart by mid-altitude wind sheer - weather experts explained. Its encounter with Cuba’s coastal lands and mountains finally reduced its wind speeds and disrupted its symmetry.

Over Florida, strong north-to-south winds high in the atmosphere clipped the top off the hurricane. That further disturbed Irma’s shape and intensity, and steered the storm westward as it traveled north up the Citrus State. As is usually the case with storms moving north over Florida and parallel to its west coast, Irma’s front wall began to pull in both drier air and upwelling water. The bigger the storm the more it does this, WeatherBELL Analytics chief forecaster Joe Bastardi explained.

All these factor combined to slow whirling winds in the storm’s eyewall still more. It began wobbling on its axis, and Irma gradually became a disorganized tropical storm after it pounded Fort Meyers.

As to Hurricane Harvey, consulting meteorologist Joe D’Aleo notes that “hurricanes entering Texas are almost always very wet and often stall or meander.” This year, a large cool trough trapped Harvey and kept it from moving inland, enabling the Gulf of Mexico to feed it trillions of gallons of water for days, said Bastardi. It was “an unusual confluence of events,” said Weather Channel founder John Coleman, “but it was certainly not unprecedented.”

If there was a “human factor” in Harvey and Irma, climate alarmists need to explain exactly where it was, how big it was and what role it played. They must present hard evidence to show that fossil fuels and carbon dioxide emissions played a significant role amid, and compared to, the hundreds of natural forces involved in these storms. Their loud rhetoric only highlights their failure and inability to do so.

In fact, the Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico are warm enough every summer to produce major hurricanes, says climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer. But you also need other conditions, whose origins and mechanisms are still unknown: pre-existing cyclonic circulation off the African coast, upper atmospheric calm, sea surface temperatures that change on a cyclical basis in various regions, to name just a few.

The combination of all these factors - plus weather fronts and land masses along the way - determines whether a hurricane arises, how strong it gets, how long it lasts, and what track it follows.

Damage from hurricanes has certainly increased over the years. But that is because far more people now live and work in far more expensive communities along America’s Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Since 1920, Greater Houston has grown from 138,000 people to 5.7 million; Miami from 43,000 to 6.1 million; Tampa from 50,000 to 3 million.

Meanwhile, death tolls have declined - at least in countries where fossil fuels, highways and modern technologies enable us to construct stronger buildings, track storms, warn, evacuate and rescue people, and bring in water, food, clothing, and materials to rebuild power lines and buildings in stricken areas.

Over 6,000 people perished in the 1900 Category 4 Galveston Hurricane, 2,500 in the 1928 Okeechobee, Florida Category 4 hurricane and storm surge. More than 1,800 died in Katrina (Category 3), due largely to corrupt and incompetent local and state governments.

Thanks to better preparation, warning and evacuation, overall tragic deaths were kept to 82 from Harvey and 93 from Irma. Incredibly, despite the vicious 185-mph winds that reduced most of Anguilla and Barbuda to rubble, Irma killed only one person on those Caribbean islands.

Even in recent years, cyclones and hurricanes have brought far more death and destruction to poor nations where modern energy and technology are still limited or nonexistent: 400,000 dead in Bangladesh in 1970, 138,000 in Myanmar in 2008, and 19,000 from Hurricane Mitch in Central America in 1998.

It may be fashionable to focus on alleged “social costs of carbon” and asserted fossil fuel contributions to extreme weather events. But it is essential that we never forget the enormous benefits these fuels bring.

Our Earth is a complex, wondrous, resilient planet. But it can unleash incredible fury. Wealthy, technologically advanced nations fueled by oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear power are far better able to avoid, survive and recover from those disasters. We must count our blessings, but always be prepared.

Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org), and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power - Black death and other books on the environment.

Sep 15, 2017
Canada now investigates ‘climate denial’

By Lorrie Goldstein, Toronto Sun

It’s like something out of George Orwell’s 1984.

Canada’s Competition Bureau, an arm’s length agency funded by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government to the tune of almost $50 million annually, investigated three organizations accused of denying mainstream climate science for over a year, following a complaint from an environmental group.

The bureau discontinued its 14-month probe in June, citing “available evidence, the assessment of the facts in this case, and to ensure the effective allocation of limited resources”, according to Josephine A.L. Palumbo, Deputy Commissioner of Competition, Deceptive Marketing Practices Directorate.

But it will re-open its investigation should it receive relevant new information from the public.

The complaint was filed by Ecojustice on behalf of six “prominent” Canadians, including former Ontario NDP leader and UN ambassador Stephen Lewis.

It accused three groups, Friends of Science, the International Climate Science Coalition, and the Heartland Institute of making false and misleading claims about climate change, including that the sun is the main driver of climate change, not carbon dioxide, and that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

When it launched its complaint in December, 2015, Ecojustice told the National Observer it would press the Commissioner of Competition to refer the matter to the Attorney-General of Canada for “criminal charges against the denier groups”.

In response to the Competition Bureau discontinuing its probe, Calgary-based Friends of Science said on its blog that: “The Competition Bureau is a very important enforcement agency. We regret that any of their time had to be wasted on this matter. We are not a commercial entity, we do not have federal lobbyists, we are not tax-subsidized as environmental charities are, we do not represent any industry. We only present the professional insights and expertise of our core team and represent the views of our individual members (not corporations). The typical process for Competition Bureau inquiries is confidential; Ecojustice appeared to use this call for inquiry to grandstand.”

In May, 2015, Advertising Standards Canada, a voluntary industry group that does not enforce its decisions other than through public suasion ruled, following 96 public complaints, that two Friends of Science billboards in Montreal stating: “The Sun is the Main Driver of Climate Change. Not You. Not CO2” contained, “categorical and unequivocal claims .... (that) could not be supported by the preponderance of current evidence on the matters in dispute ... (and) omitted relevant information, namely that a number of factors have led to climate change, of which the sun is just one.”

As someone who has written extensively on climate change for a decade, my view is that all of this is madness. We are entering into dangerous territory, a fundamental attack on free speech.

If we’re going to use agencies of the federal government to investigate and even prosecute “climate deniers”, for making “false and misleading claims” then let’s damn well do the same for “climate alarmists”, who do the same thing all the time.

I read and hear politicians making “false and misleading claims” about climate change almost daily, particularly with regard to what federal and provincial carbon pricing schemes will actually accomplish, as opposed to what our governments are claiming they will accomplish.

But the way to decide these issues is through public debate, not running to an agency of the federal government to shut up people we disagree with, particularly a government that itself makes false and misleading claims about man-made climate change all the time.

Aug 28, 2017
Why Revoking the EPA GHG Endangerment Finding Is the Most Urgent Climate Action Needed

Alan Carlin, August 17, 2017

Last week I explained in general terms why the basic methodology used by the UN to justify its climate alarmism is hopeless for the purpose and proves nothing other than how gullible the Climate-industrial Complex (CIC) thinks the world is. This week Fox News has published an analysis showing how the Draft National Climate Assessment Report publicized by the New York Times as a great “scoop” last week really has long been available on the Web. The analysis explains how the Assessment’s main “contribution” is that the authors are being bolder in hyping their personal opinions as to how much of the “global warming” is attributable to human activity (they claim 100%, which is farcical given the huge emissions of carbon dioxide from natural sources) even though they do not cite any new basis for going beyond the more cautious but unsupportable alarmist conclusions of the most recent UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report in 2013.

The Fox analysis speculates that the CIC is planning to use the Congressional “due date” (August 18) for the Report to hype the alleged perfidy of the Trump Administration in not agreeing with this most recent extension of all the previous outrages attempting to justify the unjustifiable in terms of climate alarmism. That this is even under discussion is a result of the decision of the Trump Administration not to directly confront the bad science employed by the CIC and exemplified by the Draft Assessment Report. Rather, the EPA Administrator’s current position is that he does not know what contribution humans make to climate change. This appears to be a political rather than a scientific conclusion since I suspect that he knows better.

It is long past time for the Trump Administration to directly confront the climate “science” exemplified by this Draft Report for what it is: bad science. Stalling further or waiting for a “red/blue” confrontation will not make the ultimate debate any more palatable politically. The climate alarmists have too much invested in their scientific scam to ever admit that their “science” is what Richard Feynman characterized as “cargo cult science,” regardless of how much EPA invests in either time or effort in “red/blue” debates. The most likely result of red/blue debates would be to decrease the likelihood that sufficient time will remain during the Trump Administration to revoke the GHG Endangerment Finding (EF), the legal underpinning for most EPA attempts to impose the climate alarmism ideology.

The Extreme Importance of Revoking the GHG Endangerment Finding

Revoking the EF is the only way to bring the climate alarmism scam to the untimely end it so richly deserves in the US and hopefully indirectly elsewhere. Until that happens the CIC will continue to pursue its bad science through reports such as the National Climate Assessment with the recommended disastrous policies that would seriously damage the environment, impoverish the less wealthy, and bring economic disaster for our Nation by raising the prices and decreasing the availability and reliability of fossil fuel energy which is so central to our way of life and economy. If a genuine debate is desired, it would best be undertaken as part of a reconsideration of the GHG Endangerment Finding where the outcome would have some practical and important consequences. Each day that this reconsideration is postponed increases the risks that EPA will be forced by court decisions to impose unjustified carbon dioxide emission reduction regulations based on implementing the EF.

Sep 06, 2017
UN flat out lies about climate change impacts - again

FICTION:

UN chief says natural disasters have quadrupled since 1970

image

UNITED NATIONS: Secretary-General Antonio Guterres says the number of natural disasters has nearly quadrupled since 1970 and the United States has experienced the most disasters since 1995 followed by China and India.

The UN chief told reporters Tuesday that in recent days the world has seen the “dramatic aggravation” of climate change with “unprecedented events” caused by flooding from Texas to Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Sierra Leone.

He said that last year 24.2 million people were displaced by sudden disasters - “three times as many as by conflict and violence.” Guterres said before the current floods, preliminary reports said 2,087 people died this year from natural disasters. He said scientists say “extreme weather is precisely what their models predict will be the new normal of a warming world.”

------------

FACT

Extreme Weather Expert: ‘World is presently in an era of unusually low weather disasters’

Dr. Roger Pielke Jr.

image

Professor Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado Boulder: “The world is presently in an era of unusually low weather disasters. This holds for the weather phenomena that have historically caused the most damage: tropical cyclones, floods, tornadoes and drought. Given how weather events have become politicized in debates over climate change, some find this hard to believe...The US has seen a decrease of about 20% in both hurricane frequency and intensity at landfall since 1900...Data on floods, drought and tornadoes are similar in that they show little to no indication of becoming more severe or frequent...Thus, it is fair to conclude that the costs of disasters worldwide is depressed because, as the global economy has grown, disaster costs have not grown at the same rate. Thus, disaster costs as a proportion of GDP have decreased. One important reason for this is a lack of increase in the weather events that cause disasters, most notably, tropical cyclones worldwide and especially hurricanes in the United States.”

Aug 01, 2017
Australia Weather Bureau Caught Tampering With Climate Numbers

Chris White

Australian scientists at the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) ordered a review of temperature recording instruments after the government agency was caught tampering with temperature logs in several locations.

Agency officials admit that the problem with instruments recording low temperatures likely happened in several locations throughout Australia, but they refuse to admit to manipulating temperature readings. The BOM located missing logs in Goulburn and the Snow Mountains, both of which are in New South Wales.

Meteorologist Lance Pidgeon watched the 13 degrees Fahrenheit Goulburn recording from July 2 disappear from the bureau’s website. The temperature readings fluctuated briefly and then disappeared from the government’s website.

“The temperature dropped to minus 10 (13 degrees Fahrenheit), stayed there for some time and then it changed to minus 10.4 (14 degrees Fahrenheit) and then it disappeared,” Pidgeon said, adding that he notified scientist Jennifer Marohasy about the problem, who then brought the readings to the attention of the bureau.

The bureau would later restore the original 13 degrees Fahrenheit reading after a brief question and answer session with Marohasy.

“The bureau’s quality control system, designed to filter out spurious low or high values was set at minus 10 minimum for Goulburn which is why the record automatically adjusted,” a bureau spokeswoman told reporters Monday. BOM added that there are limits placed on how low temperatures could go in some very cold areas of the country.

Bureaus Chief Executive Andrew Johnson told Australian Environment Minister Josh Frydenberg that the failure to record the low temperatures at Goulburn in early July was due to faulty equipment. A similar failure wiped out a reading of 13 degrees Fahrenheit at Thredbo Top on July 16, even though temperatures at that station have been recorded as low as 5.54 degrees Fahrenheit.

Failure to observe the low temperatures had “been interpreted by a member of the community in such a way as to imply the bureau sought to manipulate the data record,” Johnson said, according to The Australian. “I categorically reject this implication.”

Marohasy, for her part, told reporters that Johnson’s claims are nearly impossible to believe given that there are screen shots that show the very low temperatures before being “quality assured” out. It could take several weeks before the equipment is eventually tested, reviewed and ready for service, Johnson said.

“I have taken steps to ensure that the hardware at this location is replaced immediately,” he added. “To ensure that I have full assurance on these matters, I have actioned an internal review of our AWS network and associated data quality control processes for temperature observations.”

BOM has been put under the microscope before for similar manipulations. The agency was accused in 2014 of tampering with the country’s temperature record to make it appear as if temperatures had warmed over the decades, according to reports in August 2014.

Marohasey claimed at the time that BOM’s adjusted temperature records are “propaganda” and not science. She analyzed raw temperature data from places across Australia, compared them to BOM data, and found the agency’s data created an artificial warming trend.

Marohasey said BOM adjustments changed Aussie temperature records from a slight cooling trend to one of “dramatic warming” over the past century.

---------

You may recall in the U.S., NOAA disallowed a state all-time record low in 2009 for little reason.

PUBLIC INFORMATION STATEMENT
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE CHICAGO IL
432 PM CST FRI JAN 16 2009

REGARDING ROCHELLE’S LOW TEMPERATURE THIS MORNING…

THE AUTOMATED WEATHER OBSERVING SYSTEM (AWOS) AT THE ROCHELLE AIRPORT RECORDED A TEMPERATURE OF -36F AT 745 AM THIS MORNING. WHILE THE THERMOMETER ON THE AWOS WAS RE-CALIBRATED YESTERDAY AND MAY INDEED BE ACCURATE...AWOS OBSERVATIONS ARE NOT QUALITY CONTROLLED OR CALIBRATED BY THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE AND ARE ALSO NOT DESIGNED FOR CLIMATE PURPOSES.

THEREFORE...THE STATE CLIMATOLOGIST DOES NOT CONSIDER THIS TEMPERATURE AN OFFICIAL MEASUREMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT AN ALL TIME RECORD LOW FOR THE STATE WAS REACHED. FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING RECORD TEMPERATURES FOR THE STATE...ONLY ASOS AND COOPERATIVE OBSERVER OBSERVATIONS WILL BE USED SINCE BOTH OF THESE OBSERVATIONS ARE QUALITY CONTROLLED BY THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE.

Please note ASOS was a tri-agency project with the leading agency the FAA. They had a low priority for temperatures. Indeed the ASOS spec has a RSME of +/- 1.8F for accuracy.

image
Enlarged

A similar attempt was made to disallow the -50F reading in Maine that winter, but pressure from the TV mets in Maine forced the NWS to accept as a new state record.

Jul 19, 2017
New report on global warming debunks government temp data

By Rick Moran

A new paper analyzing government temperature data says the Global Average Surface Temperature (GAST) data published by NASA and NOAA are “not a valid representation of reality.” In fact, the three respected scientists who published the paper hint strongly that the data may have been fudged.

Here are the the money grafs from the paper:

In this research report, the most important surface data adjustment issues are identified and past changes in the previously reported historical data are quantified. It was found that each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history. And, it was nearly always accomplished by systematically removing the previously existing cyclical temperature pattern. This was true for all three entities providing GAST data measurement, NOAA, NASA and Hadley CRU.

As a result, this research sought to validate the current estimates of GAST using the best available relevant data. This included the best documented and understood data sets from the U.S. and elsewhere as well as global data from satellites that provide far more extensive global coverage and are not contaminated by bad siting and urbanization impacts. Satellite data integrity also benefits from having cross checks with Balloon data.

The conclusive findings of this research are that the three GAST data sets are not a valid representation of reality. In fact, the magnitude of their historical data adjustments, that removed their cyclical temperature patterns, are totally inconsistent with published and credible U.S. and other temperature data. Thus, it is impossible to conclude from the three published GAST data sets that recent years have been the warmest ever - despite current claims of record setting warming.

Finally, since GAST data set validity is a necessary condition for EPA’s GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding, it too is invalidated by these research findings. (Full Abstract Report)

Using the government’s own data. the researchers showed that government agencies were able to “prove” that the Earth is warming simply by leaving out vital information.

While the notion that some “adjustments” to historical data might need to be made is not challenged, logically it would be expected that such historical temperature data adjustments would sometimes raise these temperatures, and sometimes lower them. This situation would mean that the impact of such adjustments on the temperature trend line slope is uncertain. However, each new version of GAST has nearly always exhibited a steeper warming linear trend over its entire history.

The scientists are not arguing that adjustments to temperature data are not necessary.  Over the 160 years or so of recorded temps, the weather stations where the data is gathered sometimes move, or a city grows up around them, or there is a change in sea levels where the temps are recorded.  All of these factors and more would make the data useless without “adjustments.”

The professors argue - and skeptics have been saying this for years - that it is just too convenient for these “adjustments” to almost always show an increase in temperature over the unadjusted data.  This is statistically impossible and leads to the inescapable conclusion that the books are being cooked.

What makes this paper a little different from other skeptical scientific literature on global warming is the lineup of respected scientists and experts who agree with its conclusions.  Here are a few of them with their credentials:

Dr. Alan Carlin, Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.; Author, Environmentalism Gone Mad, Stairway Press, 2015; Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA; BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.

Dr. Harold H. Doiron, Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.; Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant; B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana - Lafayette; M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston.

Dr. Theodore R. Eck, Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University; M.A, Economics, University of Michigan; Fulbright Professor of International Economics; Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela; Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group.

Dr. Richard A. Keen, Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado; Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado; M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado; B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University.

Dr. Anthony R. Lupo, IPCC Expert Reviewer; Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri; Ph.D.,; Atmospheric Science, Purdue University; M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University

This paper won’t dissuade the global warming hysterics.  But in those places where the truth actually matters, it will stimulate debate and discussion.  That’s what science should be all about.

Aug 27, 2017
Spencer fact-checks Al Gore’s latest climate-disaster-porn movie An Inconvenient Sequel

By James Delingpole

Spoiler alert: Gore’s scaremongering ‘facts’ are all inconveniently untrue.

Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, begins his book An Inconvenient Deception kindly, by noting that he much prefers the new movie to its 2006 Oscar-winning prequel An Inconvenient Truth.

It was much less of a PowerPoint presentation and more of a human interest story. It follows Gore over the years as he tries to convince fellow politicians, foreign heads of state, and the public that the climate crisis is real. While some have considered Gore’s role in the movie to be too self-indulgent, I thought it showed some humanity in someone many people over the years have considered too “stiff”.

But there the praise ends. When Spencer saw the movie, he was one of only three viewers in a 750-seat theater - and one of these people walked out half way through. This local reaction is borne out by the movie’s dismal reception at the box office. No one is going to see Al Gore’s terrible new movie. And - scientifically speaking, at least - they’re really not missing much.

Here are some of Al Gore’s dubious claims rebutted.

Greenland Melting

Gore is shown visiting cryospheric expert Konrad Steffen. “Surface melting is shown with dramatic aerial video. Rivers of meltwater form and plunge down into huge holes in the ice sheet called “moulins"."

But: “What isn’t mentioned is that this happens every summer, naturally.”

In fact this is a good example of Gore’s favorite cheat: show dramatic footage of a natural event - eg ice melting rapidly - and then leave the viewer to infer that this is another disastrous and unprecedented consequence of man-made climate change. It spares him the risk of telling flat out lies which might get fact-checked later. The viewer’s imagination does all Gore’s dirty work…

Meanwhile, in the real world, remember, Greenland recently recorded its coldest temperature ever measured in July for the Northern Hemisphere.

Flooding in Miami

Gore wants you to believe that this is caused by climate change. After all, in his previous movie he predicted sea level rises of 20 feet.

Sadly in the real world sea level has continued to rise at the same rate as for the last 150 years - about an inch per decade (Icecap note: more like 4 inches/century if you use stations where the land is not rising or sinking). Miami has always been beset by tidal flooding - so called “king tides”. But the other big problem is that its land has been sinking at a rate of around an inch per decade (3mm a year). Neither this, nor the sea level rise, has anything to do with climate change.

Storm Damage

Gore claims storms are getting more powerful.

Not true:

Roger Pielke, Jr. has done a lot of research in this area. As population increases, there are simply more things to break when a storm comes through. There have been no observed long-term increases in storm intensity from a meteorological point of view over the period of interest, that is, since the Industrial Revolution began. And even if there was an increase, there would be no way to attribute those changes to human activities.

Flooding of the 9/11 Memorial from Hurricane Sandy

Gore claims he predicted this in An Inconvenient Truth. No he didn’t: He only mentioned general sea level rise from melting of the Greenland ice sheet, not large surges from exceptional storms like Sandy, which have always been a risk for coastal residents. This is a clear case where Gore is deceiving you.

In fact the rate of sea level rise has not increased in New York: Sea level at Battery Park at the southern tip of Manhattan has been monitored since the 1850s, and has been rising naturally since that time at an average rate of 1.1 inch per decade, with no sign of acceleration.

Earthrise: The Big Blue Marble

Gore repeatedly invokes this famous image of the earth from space - one of the most viewed photos in the world - taken by Apollo astronaut and geologist Harrison (Jack) Schmitt on the Apollo 17 mission to the moon on December 7, 1972.

Here’s the irony:

Jack Schmitt, who I know and have worked with, is (like me) a skeptic of the supposed dangers of CO2 emissions and of the claim that climate change is entirely human-caused. He has been active in the fight to correct the record on climate change and the supposed dangers of carbon dioxide.

Solar Power, Solar City, and Elon Musk

Renewables salesman Gore is big on the idea that solar will save the world from fossil-fuel-induced warming. But there’s a fundamental problem with solar (and wind): It takes huge fields of solar collectors to collect much electricity from sunlight, clouds greatly reduce it, and 365 days a year it goes away at night. Fossil fuels are highly concentrated forms of energy, while solar and wind are relatively weak and diffuse. They are also expensive and only appear competitive if you ignore the vast taxpayer subsidies propping them up.

So, the claim that solar is in any way cheaper than fossil fuels is simply not true. Maybe someday it will be, but not any time soon. Without the government forcing citizens to pay more for solar through subsidies, the solar industry would have very little to sell other than for remote specialty applications where electricity is needed and there are no power lines to provide it.

The current success of Elon Musk, Tesla, Solar City, and solar energy installations in general is due to government subsidies. These are your tax dollars that the solar industry has convinced government to give to the solar energy effort. Investors, in turn, also cash in on the subsidies - while they last. The claim by Gore and others that the solar industry is employing vast numbers of people is not what you want if the product they provide is too expensive, or not in demand. As an extreme example of why the number of workers isn’t a good measure of economic value, we could put 100% of our labor force to work digging holes in the ground and filling them up again, but what would that do for our prosperity?

Verdict: Al Gore’s movie is an epic fail.

But we could kind of have predicted that, couldn’t we?

Aug 21, 2017
Al Gore’s hot air can’t change climate science

by Sam Rolley

A little more than a decade after his initial inconvenient truths failed to come to fruition, former Vice President Al Gore released a sequel to the “documentary” largely responsible for creating the cult of global warming. But in spite of Inconvenient Truth 2, “Truth to Power,” the only hot air many Americans sense is that coming from the climate obsessed left.

In fact, the past week offers a couple of alternative views for people who believe denizens of coastal cities ought to all be breathing through snorkels by now.

In a lengthy interview with a Los Angeles news outlet last week, Weather Channel founder John Coleman succinctly explained what the cult of global warming is all about: money and power.

Coleman made the statement as he decried San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer’s Climate Action Plan, an economically unsustainable effort to punish residents and businesses for global warming no one has proven exists or, for that matter, is a product of the progress of man.

“I think he saw money and power, and I don’t know what else he thought of it… I can’t believe he really [felt he] was going to save the city from some terrible fate,’ Coleman said, adding the whole global warming farce “just turns my stomach.”

The 82-year-old Weather Channel founder then offered this assessment of global warming alarmist projections: “San Diego’s not going to go underwater. Period… Not in my lifetime or yours or our kids’ lifetime. When the Earth ends in 4 1/2 billion years, it probably still won’t have flooded.”

He added: “The damn tsunami warning route signs that they put up all over the city [are] about as silly as anything I’ve ever saw in my life. The chance of a significant tsunami hitting Southern California is about as great as a flying saucer landing tonight at Lindbergh Field. It’s just sheer nonsense.”

Coleman is no stranger to battling global warming propaganda. On his personal blog, he’s made a mission of overturning claims made via bad climate science - using his background knowledge of basic weather patterns and mass media manipulation to make some pretty solid points. It’s worth a read.

“I’m just a dumb old skeptic - a denier as they call me - who ought to be jailed or put to death,” he told MyNewsLA. “I understand how they feel. But you know something? I know I’m right. So I don’t care.”

Coleman, of course, isn’t alone.

Another powerful argument against global warming conventional wisdom hit the web this week courtesy of alternative medicine expert Dr. Mark Sircus.

“Every prediction Gore has made has been wrong” he wrote, noting that the only organizations saying otherwise are those approved by the government and promoted by the press.

For Gore acolytes, read that as the power that needs to hear some truth.

Like Coleman, Sircus pointed out the big problem with being a skeptic: Anyone who dares dispute the establishment is quickly cut down and ridiculed.

He wrote: “Trump is just about the only politician in the world with the courage to stand up to all the lies about climate change. I would stop publishing so many essays on climate change if the press would let up on their global warming fraud but when I see their bold face lies an indignation arises in my belly. Even Trump dare not say a word more about climate change because they, the owners of all the mass media, would drown him, which they do anyway every day.”

Throughout the rest of his essay, Sircus noted multiple examples of actual recent climate events that should raise big questions about the theory that the planet is headed for its hottest days.

Based on the evidence he gathered, the doctor said he belies the opposite is true because of a phenomenon which has no relationship to how man behaves on planet earth.

He wrote: “Solar cycles typically last 11 years and during that time, the north and south magnetic poles flip. It looks a lot like a heartbeat when graphed out. We are currently in Cycle 24.

“The solar scientists say that the latest model shows the Sun’s magnetic waves will become offset in Cycle 25, which peaks in 2022. Then, in Cycle 26, solar activity will fall by 60 per cent.”

Bottom line: Either global warming is a terrifying reality that should concern us all to the point of making major lifestyle changes; or it’s an effort in social engineering to encourage the masses to accept more government restriction and regulation without question.

Based on millionaire Gore’s greenhouse gas heavy lifestyle, I’m going with the latter.

Jul 24, 2017
Leading Climate Scientist Says Debating Scientific Theories Would Be ‘Un-American’

By Julie Kelly

You’d think the 97 percent of scientists who supposedly all agree about climate change would eagerly line up to vanquish climate deniers - but apparently not.

Way, way back in April 2017, scientists around the world participated in the ‘March for Science’ as a show of force and unity against an allegedly anti-science Trump administration. Their motto was “science not silence”: many wrote that mantra on pieces of duct tape and stuck it across their mouths.

March for Science organizers claimed that “the best way to ensure science will influence policy is to encourage people to appreciate and engage with science. That can only happen through education, communication, and ties of mutual respect between scientists and their communities - the paths of communication must go both ways.”

But that was so three months ago.

Many scientists are now rejecting an open debate on anthropogenic global warming. EPA administrator Scott Pruitt appears ready to move forward with a “red-team, blue-team” exercise, where two groups of scientists publicly challenge each other’s evidence on manmade climate change. The idea was floated during a Congressional hearing last spring and outlined in a Wall Street Journal op-ed by Steve Koonin, former undersecretary of energy in the Obama administration. Koonin said the public is unaware of the intense debate in climate science and how “consensus statements necessarily conceal judgment calls and debates and so feed the “settled,” “hoax” and “don’t know” memes that plague the political dialogue around climate change.”

It would work this way: A red team of scientists critiques a key climate assessment. The blue team responds. The back-and-forth continues until all the evidence is aired and refuted, followed by public hearings and an action plan based on the findings. It happens entirely out in the open. Koonin said this approach is used in high-consequence situations and “very different and more rigorous than traditional peer review, which is usually confidential and always adjudicated, rather than public and moderated.” (Climate scientist Judith Curry has a good primer on this concept here.)

Pruitt is prepared to pull the trigger on this idea, according to an article in E&E News last week. In an interview with Breitbart News on June 5, Pruitt touted the red-team, blue-team initiative, saying that “the American people need to have that type of honest open discussion, and it’s something we hope to provide as part of our leadership.”

Instead Of Dialoguing, Climate Scientists Preach

Now you would think the scientific establishment would embrace an opportunity to present their case to a wary, if disinterested, public. You would think the 97 percent of scientists who supposedly all agree human activity is causing climate change would eagerly line up to vanquish climate deniers, especially those in the Trump administration. You would think the same folks who fear a science-averse President Trump would be relieved his administration is encouraging a rigorous, forensic inquiry into the most consequential scientific issue of our time that has wide-ranging economic, social, and political ramifications around the world.

You would think.

But instead, many scientists and activists are expressing outrage at this logical suggestion, even advising colleagues not to participate. In a June 21 Washington Post op-ed, three top climate scientists repudiated the red-team concept, offended by the slightest suggestion that climate science needs fixing. Naomi Oreskes, Benjamin Santer, and Kerry Emanuel wrote that “calls for special teams of investigators are not about honest scientific debate. They are dangerous attempts to elevate the status of minority opinions, and to undercut the legitimacy, objectivity and transparency of existing climate science.”

In a July 1 post full of irony, leading climate scientist Ken Caldeira blasts the climate contest: “We don’t want red team/blue team because science doesn’t line up monolithically for or against scientific positions.” What? Never mind the 97 percent consensus claim that’s been shoved down our throats for the past decade. (Caldeira also wrote just a few months ago that “the evidence for human-induced global warming is now so strong that no sensible person can deny a human role in these temperature increases. We can argue about what we should or should not do ... but the argument is over.")

Caldeira then smugly questions why “politicians who have never engaged in any scientific inquiry in their lives believe themselves to be the experts who should tell scientists how to conduct their business?” (Shall we then ask why scientists who have never engaged in any legislative or political endeavor in their lives believe themselves to be the experts who should tell lawmakers how to conduct their business?)

Climate Scientists Fear Losing Power, Nothing Else

Then there is the interminably-petulant and prosaic Michael Mann, who routinely dishes out the “denier” name to anyone who crosses him, and recently compared himself to a Holocaust survivor. Mann told ThinkProgress that the red-team concept is “un-American” and a ruse to “run a pro-fossil fuel industry disinformation campaign aimed at confusing the public and policymakers over what is potentially the greatest threat we face as a civilization.”

Aha! Right there is the key objection to the entire exercise: the risk to their political power. These activists know that climate change long ago stopped being about science. It is a liberal, big-government agenda wrapped up in a green cloak of superiority and virtue. For the past decade, the pro-climate crusaders have ruled policymaking, from international organizations to federal agencies down to your local park district. The Trump administration poses the first threat to their dominance, and instead of being up to the task of defending it - in public, with evidence and not platitudes, facing scientists they have smeared for not being part of the ‘consensus’ - they want to walk away.

That’s why I hope Pruitt proceeds with it. Let the blue team have an empty bench that will show American exactly what they think of ‘science’ - and them.

Julie Kelly is a National Review Online contributor and food policy writer from Orland Park, Illinois. She’s also been published in the Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, Forbes, and The Hill.

Apr 06, 2016
“…climate change is UN hoax to create new world order”

Trump gives hope to derailment of the establishment’s plans (both parties) for a New World Order - which would cede our rights and control over our lives including a redistribution of any wealth to the UN.

Update: see the whole story behind the story in their own words in Global Warming Quotes & Climate Change Quotes: Human-Caused Global Warming Advocates/Supporters by C3 Headlines.

Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: “The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” And, “The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it.”

We start with Mencken’s quotes because they are so well known from the past, but yet still so relevant so many years later. His past insights to those whose lives are addicted to the seeking of power, or control, or fame, or money is still as valid today, as it was 70 years ago. Below are quotes from the powerful; the rich; the religious; the studious; the famous; the fanatics; and, the aspiring, all sharing a common theme of keeping “the populace alarmed” to further their own personal, selfish goals.

The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose their values and desires on others. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.

Once you read the below quotes, come back and re-read the previous paragraph. The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose an ‘Agenda’ based on their elite values and self-importance. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.

See the quotes here.

---------

Australia PM’s adviser: climate change is UN hoax to create new world order

Maurice Newman, chairman of Tony Abbott’s business advisory council, says UN is using debunked climate change science to impose authoritarian rule.

The Australian prime minister’s chief business adviser has accused the United Nations of using debunked climate change science to lead a new world order - provocative claims made to coincide with a visit from the top UN climate negotiator.

Christiana Figueres, who heads the UN framework convention on climate change, touring Australia this week, urged the country to move away from heavily polluting coal production.

Under Tony Abbott’s leadership, Australia has been reluctant to engage in global climate change politics, unsuccessfully attempting to keep the issue off the agenda of the G20 leaders’ summit in Brisbane last year.

Maurice Newman, the chairman of Abbott’s business advisory council and a climate change sceptic with a history of making provocative statements, said the UN was using false models showing sustained temperature increases to end democracy and impose authoritarian rule.

“The real agenda is concentrated political authority,” Newman wrote in an opinion piece published in the Australian newspaper. “Global warming is the hook. It’s about a new world order under the control of the UN....

“It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective.”

Figueres used an address in Melbourne to urge Australia to move away from coal, the country’s second-largest export, as the world grapples with global warming.

“Economic diversification will be a challenge that Australia faces,” she said.

Abbott has described coal as “good for humanity” and the “foundation of prosperity” for the foreseeable future.

Figueres also urged Australia to play a leading role at the climate summit in Paris in December, a call unlikely to be heeded given Abbott’s track record.

At the Brisbane G20 meeting, he warned that the Paris summit would fail if world leaders decided to put cutting carbon emissions ahead of economic growth.

At home, Abbott, who in 2009 said the science behind climate change was “crap”, repealed a tax on carbon pricing and abolished the independent Climate Commission advisory body.

Asked on the Canberra leg of her trip if the politics around renewable energy was as toxic elsewhere in the world, Figueres said: “No. At the global level what we see is increased participation of renewables, increased investment in renewables, increased excitement about renewables.”

Abbott’s office and the UN did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Sep 23, 2015
In regards to the false 97% “consensus”

Derek Alker

Updated: Public and many to most real scientists are unconvinced.

From: Malcolm Roberts [mailto:malcolmr@conscious.com.au]
Sent: Friday, 24 April 2015 12:07 PM
To: UQ VC OFFICE
Cc: John Cook; Ove Hoegh-Guldberg; FORBES VIV; Carter Bob; Plimer Ian; Jennifer Marohasy
Subject: D15/7927: Complaint of serious corruption of science by UQ’s John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg

Dear Professor Hoj:

As an honours engineering graduate from the University of Queensland I am inquiring of you as to the reasons our university supports the work of John Cook who serially misrepresents climate and science? Specifically, why is our university wasting valuable funds to mislead the public through a free course and by producing associated international video material?  Course

Please refer to the lower half of page 4 of Appendix 5, here.

It details John Cook’s fabrication of an unscientific ‘consensus’. Science is not decided by claims of consensus. Resorting to claims of consensus is unscientific and contradicts the scientific process.

Fabricating false claims of scientific consensus is not honest.

Science is decided by empirical scientific evidence. John Cook has repeatedly failed to provide any such evidence that use of hydrocarbon fuels is causing the entirely natural climate variability we experience.

A succinct summary of John Cook’s fabrication of a consensus, and of the corruption of science upon which his claims rely and that is furthered by his claims, and of the empirical scientific evidence he blatantly contradicts, are discussed in pages 6-18 of my report to federal MPs Senator Simon Birmingham and Bob Baldwin. It is available at this link

My seven years of independent investigation have proven that there is no such empirical scientific evidence anywhere in the world. Climate alarm is unfounded and is a purely political construct pushing a political agenda. Please refer to Appendices 2, 6, 6a, 7 and 8 at this link.

John Cook’s core public climate claims are false and blatantly contradict empirical scientific evidence. Please refer to appendix 4 at the same link.

Further, John Cook and / or his employer are receiving funds in return for his deceiving the public, politicians and journalists and I’m wondering if that would make his work a serious offense.

As you likely know, John Cook works closely with the university’s Ove Hoegh-Guldberg who reportedly has many serious conflicts of financial interest surrounding his false climate claims. These are discussed on pages 54-59 of Appendix 9 at this link and briefly on pages 16 and 17 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin MP.

I draw your attention to my formal complain dated Wednesday 10 November 2010 to the university senate about the work of Ove Hoegh-Guldberg misrepresenting climate and science. That was not independently investigated by then Vice Chancellor Paul Greenberg who was subsequently dismissed over another event, reportedly for a breach of ethics. My formal complaint is discussed on pages 57 and 58 of Appendix 9 at this link.

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg’s responses to my request for empirical scientific evidence of human causation of climate variability have repeatedly and always failed to provide such evidence.

This email is openly copied to both Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook and to reputable Australian scientists and academics expert on climate and to Viv Forbes an honours graduate in geology from our university. Viv Forbes understands the key facts on climate and on the corruption of climate science by beneficiaries of unfounded climate alarm perpetrated falsely by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook.

Please stop John Cook’s misrepresentations and restore scientific integrity to our university. I please request a meeting with you to discuss our university’s role in deceiving the public and to discuss restoring scientific integrity. I would be pleased for that meeting to be in the company of John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg if that suits you.

Pages 19-26 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin discuss the serious damage to our nation and to humanity and our natural environment worldwide as a result of unfounded climate alarm spread by our university’s staff. I hope that you will fulfil your responsibility for investigating and ending such corruption. To neglect to do so will mean that you condone such damage and dishonesty. I seek confidence that you will restore the university’s scientific integrity and look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Roberts

BE (Hons) UQ, MB U Chicago, Member Beta Gamma Sigma Honours Society

Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)

------------

The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,

image

“The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.”

Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus According to Breakdown of Cook et al study, say Friends of Science

In response to multiple inquiries from media and global warming advocates, Friends of Science issue this release to expose the statistical manipulation evident from the break down of the Cook et al paper. Friends of Science decry the linking of this flawed study with alleged danger from man-made carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) as there has been no global warming in 16 years despite a rise in CO2 levels; Friends of Science say the sun and oceanic oscillations are the main drivers of climate change, not CO2.

See faulty methodology of Cook study.

The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science. See the list here.

----------------------

See the Galileo Movement here. Visit Then click on the blue text: “9.2.12 Evidence of Political Fraud - Malcolm Roberts”

----------

See Dr. Doug Hoyt’s Greenhouse Scorecard on Warwick Hughes site here.

-----------

From Jack Black’s Climate Change Dictionary

PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.

SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.

DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.

CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce ‘panic for profit.’

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to “Peace” in any meaningful way.

DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see “DENIER,” above.

CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for “DATA” by “DENIERS.’ Also skilled at affecting an aura of “Smartest Person in the Room” to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.

JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge

--------

Speaking of junk science, see Lubos Motl’s excellent point by point counter to the John Cook 104 talking points document attacking the skeptical science here.

NOTE:

See all the talks at the latest ICCC9 Conference in Las Vegas in 2014 here.

Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV.  If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.

----------------------

See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.

-----------------------

See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additional scientific youtubes here.

The left loves to reference desmogblog.com when any skeptic produce an analysis or paper challenging CAGW - see the real story about this looney left green PR firm here.

---------------

1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming Alarm and here a list of 1000 stories suggesting global cooling has begun.

“The above papers support skepticism of “man-made” global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 900-1000 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary.”

The less intelligent alarmists have written a paper allegedly connecting the scientists to Exxon Mobil. Here is the detailed response from some of the featured scientists. Note that though this continues to be a knee jerk reaction by some of the followers, there is no funding of skeptic causes by big oil BUT Exxon has funded Stanford warmists to the tune of $100 million and BP UC Berkeley to $500,000,000. Climategate emails showed CRU/Hadley soliciting oil dollars and receiving $23,000,000 in funding.

See still more annotated here.

--------------

Many more papers are catalogued at Pete’s Place here.

The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under “What’s New” or “A Primer on Global Warming.” Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.

---------------

See the ICECAP Amazon Book store. Icecap benefits with small commission for your purchases via this link.

Go to and become a member of WeatherBell Analytics here.

Website of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) here. It’s latest report (2013) details information from almost 4,000 papers.

Science and Public Policy Institute here.

Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.

RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.

The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool for teachers at all class levels. “Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel” - Socrates (470--399 BC)