By Anthony DiPalma, New York Times
By the end of this century, 100-year floods could hit New York City every 10 years, Long Island lobsters could disappear and New York apples could be hard to come by if nothing is done to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, according to a report released yesterday by a group of scientists and economists.
“The Northeast can anticipate substantial — and often unwelcome or dangerous — changes during the rest of this century,” concluded the report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, which examined the impact of global warming on the region. “The very character of the Northeast is at stake.”
The report, which covers nine states, is the product of a two-year collaboration between the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group, and a team of several dozen independent scientists and economists. For full story go here.
Icecap Editor’s Note: This radical group looked at three climate models, chose the most extreme and asked scientists to evaluate what could happen if the forecasts were right. In that way, an advocacy group, headquartered in Cambridge, Massachusetts with a name that implies they are a credible scientific organization can make dire predictions that have the ring of having strong scientific support. Their projections are far more extreme than the IPCC. My suggestion is that you go to their site, download their report and use it to start your fire in the fireplace when it is really cold this winter.
Conservative criticism of the Live Earth coverage on Saturday by NBC and its sibling cable networks began rising Tuesday, with many commentators describing it as free political propaganda for Al Gore. In an editorial, Investor’s Business Daily suggested that the Live Earth broadcasts might have represented “the largest in-kind political contribution.” The newspaper also suggested that NBC’s parent, General Electric, might have its own ulterior motives for boosting the Live Earth message on global warming. GE, it said, “stands to make a wad of cash from selling alternative energy products from wind turbines to solar panels to those compact fluorescent bulbs containing mercury. So when Gore prances on stage to demand we stop building coal-fired plants, that’s music to GE’s corporate ears.”
The conservative Media Research Center railed at NBC reporter Ann Curry for asking Gore whether he would run for president, “if you become convinced that without you there will not be the political will in the White House to fight global warming to the level that is required.” On the NewsBusters blog, Lynn Davidson commented, “There should be more questions about Gore-apalooza and the problems involved with a network literally giving a stage to an issue that, despite the shrill desperate claims otherwise, is one which is both political and not settled.” And in the Washington Post, even media columnist Howard Kurtz, who could hardly be pegged as a conservative, asked, “Wasn’t NBC, whose news division covers the debate over climate change, providing a huge platform for advocates on one side of a contentious issue? And isn’t the network helping a prominent Democrat ... raise money? See story here.
By Ian Plimer, in The Age
The airing of The Great Global Warming Swindle and the associated discussion on ABC TV should be a hoot. The ABC has structured the panel to try to get their preferred political position aired. The panel composition will minimise scientific discussion. It contains journalists, political pressure groups and those who will make a quid out of frightening us witless. Three scientists with a more rational view to the doomsday hype were invited to appear on the panel and have now been uninvited as they do not dance to the drumbeat of disaster. There is a VIP section of the audience with loopy-left greens and social commentators.
We have the Bulletin of the Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (BAMOS), which was in such a hurry to publish a critique of The Great Global Warming Swindle that it contains schoolboy howlers and a lack of logic intertwined with politics. What makes it even more amusing is that BAMOS did not criticise Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. If this Hollywood fiction film claims to be supported by science, then why did it perpetuate a well-documented scientific fraud?
There is no panel discussion when the ABC TV religiously promotes the popular political view on global warming. Why is there a panel for an alternative view?
Science is married to evidence, scepticism and dissent. This evidence is from experiment, measurement, observation and calculation. Scientists hotly debate the methods of acquisition of evidence. Once the evidence is validated, a scientific theory is offered as an explanation. This theory must be in accord with all previous validated data and can be changed with new data. Science has no consensus, science is anarchistic as it submits to no authority, and the latest scientific view is only transitory. Science is apolitical, and when it has submitted to political pressure in the past, it has been at great human cost. Noise, political pressure or numbers of converts does not validate a scientific concept. When the president of the Royal Society says the science on human-induced global warming is settled, one is reminded of a previous president who said it was impossible for heavier-than-air machines to fly! Since the beginning of time, climate has always changed. It has warmed and cooled faster than any contemporary change. Nothing happening at present is unusual.
Read more here. Ian Plimer is emeritus professor of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne and professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide.
By Ned Rozell, sitnews.us
Until this spring, pilot Paul Claus would land a Supercub on a gravel bar in Icy Bay to give people an up-close look at a calving glacier. This year he can’t land there because a glacier has rumbled over the gravel bar. The main glaciers in Icy Bay crept forward up to one-third of a mile sometime between August 2006 and June 2007.
“At least three glaciers in the same bay have advanced in one year,” said Chris Larsen, a scientist at the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska Fairbanks, studying the ever-changing landscape of the area. “To have them advance right now is kind of weird.”
Icy Bay, located just west of Malaspina Glacier on Alaska’s dynamic southern coast, is like a smaller version of Glacier Bay. Like Glacier Bay, Icy Bay didn’t exist when captain George Vancouver sailed past in the late 1700s. Vancouver’s ship artist painted a portrait of an ice wall where the mouth of the bay is currently.
The scientists don’t know whether the advance of the Icy Bay glaciers is the beginning of a long-term push, or a blip before the next retreat. For now, they’ve advised their colleagues flying over the glaciers to take lots of photos this summer to see if the glaciers continue to push deeper into Icy Bay.
See full story here.
Note: The Pacific Decadal Oscillation shows signs of having changed back to the cold mode which would explain the return to frigid and snowy weather this past winter in Alaska south to British Columbia where Whistler Mountain set a new record with 40% above normal snowfall.
By James Lewis, Americanthinker.com
The American scientific establishment is starting to take baby steps away from taking sides in the politics of global warming. It’s sad to have to read science articles for political spin, like some announcement by the Kremlin. But climate change has now become so politicized that SCIENCE magazine reflects at least as much politics as honest science. You have to read it for spin.
SCIENCE magazine is the flagship journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, which is the professional advocacy group for scientists in the United States. SCIENCE is both the profession’s political journal (telling readers how to get government grants, for example), and it also has original findings. So it has an openly political side, as well as a real science side.
The last issue of SCIENCE is waffling like mad on the global warming fad, warning its readers that it may not be so settled a question. Under the headline “Another Global Warming Icon Comes Under Attack,” SCIENCE writer Richard Kerr writes:
“...a group of mainstream atmospheric scientists is disputing a rising icon of global warming, and researchers are giving some ground.” ...
“Robert Charlson of the University of Washington, Seattle, (is) one of three authors of a commentary published online last week in Nature Reports: Climate Change. ... he and his co-authors argue that the simulation by 14 different climate models of the warming in the 20th century is not the reassuring success IPCC claims it to be.”
And there is more here.
By Sanjaya Jena, BBC News
The international environmental group, Greenpeace, is facing allegations that it disseminated wrong information about a port project in eastern India. The Greenpeace report dubbed Dhamra Port in the state of Orissa as an “ecological blunder”. It recommended that the Tata conglomerate, which has major share in the project, should abandon it.
However, the university which prepared information used by Greenpeace, alleges the group has “doctored” its document. “Greenpeace has placed on its website a report under the title Biodiversity Assessment of Dhamra Port and Surrounding Areas, Orissa,” said the vice chancellor of North Orissa University, Sudarsan Nanda. “The cover page of the report says that the report has been prepared by North Orissa University. “I would like to clarify that no report under the above mentioned title has been prepared by the North Orissa University.” Mr Nanda pointed out that the university did prepare a report about biodiversity at the Dhamra Estuary on the Orissa coast, but the contents of the Greenpeace report were significantly different. “A comparison of the Greenpeace report as it appears on their website and the report of North Orissa University reveals that Greenpeace India doctored the authentic report of the university by way of changing the title and contents for motives best known to them,” Mr Nanda said.
Professor Sushil Kumar Dutta, who conducted the assessment study as principal investigator, said the environmental impact of Dhamra Port was not included within the scope of the study. “It was just an inventory study. However, to my surprise Greenpeace India has drawn its own conclusion on the impact of the Dhamra Port on the biodiversity of Dhamra estuary,” Mr Dutta said. The university has now threatened to seek legal action against Greenpeace. Greenpeace has strongly reacted to the tampering accusations.
So you think I’m defying the scientific facts on climate change? Well, think again, says Martin Durkin
I could not have upset the soft-left, soft-green middle classes more if I had crept in their kitchens and snuck genetically modified tomatoes in their paninis. Why did I make the film The Great Global Warming Swindle? The head of science programs at Britain’s Channel 4, Hamish Mykura (who has a PhD in environmental science), asked me to. He suspected the global warming alarm was not based on solid science. So did his predecessor, Sara Ramsden, who was also eager to make a film in this area. I was an experienced science documentary producer used to handling complex subjects.
So what was our conclusion, after months of research that involved talking to hundreds of scientists and wading through mountains of science papers? It’s all codswallop. The notion of man-made global warming started life as a wild, eccentric theory and, despite throwing billions of dollars at it, scientists have failed to stand it up. Man-made global warming is unmitigated nonsense.
The basic facts are as follows. There is nothing unusual about the present climate. The Earth has been far, far warmer than today and far, far colder. Our present interglacial (the mild bit between ice ages) is not nearly as warm as previous interglacials. Nor are we in a particularly warm part of the interglacial.
The recent warming, such as it is, represents a mild, welcome recovery from an exceptionally cold period in Earth’s recent climate history, known to climatologists as the Little Ice Age. How mild is the recent warming? During the past 150 years global temperature has increased by a little more than 0.5C. But most of this rise occurred before 1940, when carbon dioxide emissions were relatively insignificant. After 1940, during the post-war economic boom, when human emissions of CO2 took off, the temperature fell, causing (you may remember) in the mid-1970s a consensus among scientists that we were about to enter another ice age.
As Lowell Ponte warned in 1976: “This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.” Cripes. After that temperatures rose again (though not as steeply or as much as before) and peaked in 1998. Since then they have declined slightly.
Why do we suppose that CO2 is responsible for any of this? CO2 occupies a tiny proportion of the gases in the atmosphere. It is only a secondary greenhouse gas - water vapour is the main one - and greenhouse gases themselves form only one small part of the Earth’s climate system.
Read whole story here.
Analysis of IPCC expert reviewers responses to 4th assessment WG1 report shows they were far from the claimed unanimity. A total of 309 reviewers submitted a total of 11,542 comments on the IPCC AR4 chapters and Summary for Policymakers. 4.699 comments were rejected.
For the SOR of chapter 9, titled “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”, more than 55% of reviewers’ comments were rejected, as were 30% of comments for the SOR of chapter 6 ("Paleoclimate", i.e. historical climate) and almost 28% comments for the SOR of chapter 3 ("Observations: Surface and Atmospheric Climate Change")
One sample of IPCC expert reviewer: “Having read all 11 chapters of the [IPCC] draft Report, I had intended to provide review comments on them all. However, I became so angry at the need to point out the above elementary principles that I abandoned the review at this point: the draft should be withdrawn and replaced by another that displays an adequate level of scientific competence.”
Chapter 9 dealt with the attribution of climate change and was key to the claim of a 90% to 95% probability that humans were responsible for warming and yet just 62 reviewers made comments, more than half of which (33) made three comments or fewer for the 84-page chapter.
We’ve been led to believe that the review was an extensive process undertaken by diligent experts from virtually every country and that if those experts were not unanimous then they were very close to it. It is very disappointing to discover that despite the crucial nature of the report the reality is very different.
Read more of the summary on the comments here.