Our planet has been slowly warming since last emerging from the “Little Ice Age” of the 17th century, known as the Maunder Minimum.  Before that came the “Medieval Warm Period”, in which temperatures were about the same as they are today.  Both of these climate phenomena are known to have occurred in the Northern Hemisphere, but several hundred years prior to the present, the majority of the Southern Hemisphere was primarily populated by indigenous peoples, where science and scientific observation was limited to non-existent.  Thus we can not say that these periods were necessarily “global”. However, “Global Warming” in recent historical times has been an undisputable fact, and no one can reasonably deny that. But we’re hearing far too often that the “science” is “settled”, and that it is mankind’s contribution to the natural CO2 in the atmosphere has been the principal cause of an increasing “Greenhouse Effect”, which is the root “cause” of global warming.  We’re also hearing that “all the world’s scientists now agree on this settled science”, and it is now time to quickly and most radically alter our culture, and prevent a looming global catastrophe.  And last, but not least, we’re seeing a sort of mass hysteria sweeping our culture which is really quite disturbing.  Historians ponder how the entire nation of Germany could possibly have goose-stepped into place in such a short time, and we have similar unrest.  Have we become a nation of overnight loonies?

Sorry folks, but we’re not exactly buying into the Global Hysteria just yet. We know a great deal about atmospheric physics, and from the onset, many of the claims were just plain fishy.  The extreme haste with which seemingly the entire world immediately accepted the idea of Anthropogenic ( man-made ) Global Warming made us more than a little bit suspicious that no one had really taken a close look at the science.  We also knew that the catch-all activity today known as “Climate Science” was in its infancy, and that atmospheric modeling did not and still does not exist which can predict changes in the weather or climate more than about a day or two in advance.

So the endless stream of dire predictions of what was going to happen years or decades from now if we did not drastically reduce our CO2 production by virtually shutting down the economies of the world appeared to be more the product of radical political and environmental activism rather than science.  Thus, we embarked on a personal quest for more information, armed with a strong academic background in postgraduate physics and a good understanding of the advanced mathematics necessary in such a pursuit.  This fundamental knowledge of the core principles of matter and its many exceptionally complex interactions allowed us to research and understand the foundations of many other sciences.  In short, we read complex scientific articles in many other scientific disciplines with relative ease and good understanding - like most folks read comic books. As our own knowledge of “climate science” grew, so grew our doubts over the “settled science”.  What we found was the science was far from “settled”.. in fact it was barely underway.  Read the full analysis here.

The Kansas Legislature has wisely written a proposed tax on carbon dioxide emissions out of this year’s energy legislation. That’s the good news: As originally written by the Committee on Utilities, the Sunflower Energy bill’s CO2 tax would have been a first, and a very bad precedent. The bad news is that the original bill will be copied and wind up before other legislatures that are more likely to pass it, like those of California and Oregon.

A CO2 tax will largely be levied on utilities that exceed modest limits on their carbon dioxide effluent, so consumers won’t “see” it—except in their electric bills. They’ll send in their monthly checks, quite unaware that the new tax revenues are likely to be shoved into a slush fund for solar energy, windmills, biodiesel, ethanol and other green gadgetry boondoggles.

Never mind that even the New York Times now acknowledges that biofuels add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than the equivalent amount of conventional fuels, or that the diversion of a third of the U.S. corn crop to ethanol production has driven world food prices up so much that we are now witnessing riots, including a major one in Jakarta last month.  Let’s just consider the merits of this legislation vis-a-vis some pretty well-known (if poorly publicized) global warming science.

Further, we’ll cheat a bit and stipulate that the bill results in a 10% net reduction of carbon dioxide emissions, and that global warming fever sweeps the nation, resulting in similar legislation passing in every other state. Based upon a widely accepted formula originated at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, if the entire United States adopted the original Kansas legislation, it would prevent a total of 0.11 degrees F of global warming per century. Read that again, because it’s not a typo: Eleven one-hundredths of a degree in 100 years. Read more here.

Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and author of Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.

Global warming sceptics are pointing to recent record cold temperatures in parts of North America and Asia and the return of Arctic Sea ice to suggest fears about climate change may be overblown. According to the US National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), the average temperature of the global land surface in January 2008 was below the 20th century mean (-0.02F/-0.01C) for the first time since 1982. Although some areas of the Northern Hemisphere experienced record cold, other areas experienced recorded above average temperatures. Temperatures were also colder than average across large swathes of central Asia, the Middle East, the western US, western Alaska and southeastern China. The NCDC reported that the cold conditions were associated with “the largest January snow cover extent on record for the Eurasian continent and for the Northern Hemisphere”. In some parts of China and central Asia, snow fell for the first time in living memory, the NCDC noted.

“For the contiguous United States, the average temperature was 30.5F (-0.83C) for January, which was 0.3F (0.2C) below the 20th century mean and the 49th coolest January on record, based on preliminary data”. Much of North America was also hit by the heaviest snowfall since the 1960s. Meanwhile, the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre found the January 2008 Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent, while below the 1979-2000 mean, was greater than the previous four years. And the January 2008 Southern Hemisphere sea ice extent was significantly above the 1979-2000 mean, ranking as the largest sea ice extent in January over the 30-year historical period. Read more here.

General Motors Corp Vice Chairman Bob Lutz has defended remarks he made dismissing global warming as a “total crock of s---,” saying his views had no bearing on GM’s commitment to build environmentally friendly vehicles. Lutz, GM’s outspoken product development chief, has been under fire from Internet bloggers since last month when he was quoted as making the remark to reporters in Texas.In a posting on his GM blog on Thursday, Lutz said those “spewing virtual vitriol” at him for minimizing the threat of climate change were “missing the big picture.”

“What they should be doing in earnest is forming opinions, not about me but about GM and what this company is doing that is ... hugely beneficial to the causes they so enthusiastically claim to support,” he said in a posting titled, “Talk About a Crock.” GM, the largest U.S. automaker by sales and market share, has been trying to change its image after taking years of heat for relying too much on sales of large sport-utility vehicles like the Hummer and not moving faster on fuel-saving hybrid technology. “My thoughts on what has or hasn’t been the cause of climate change have nothing to do with the decisions I make to advance the cause of General Motors,” he wrote.

Lutz said GM was continuing development of the battery-powered, plug-in Chevy Volt and other alternatives to traditional internal combustion engines. GM is racing against Toyota Motor Corp to be first to market a plug-in hybrid car that can be recharged at a standard electric outlet. Lutz has previously said GM made a mistake by allowing Toyota to seize “the mantle of green respectability and technology leadership” with its market-leading Prius hybrid. A 40-year auto industry veteran who joined GM earlier in the decade with a mandate to shake up its vehicle line-up, Lutz is no stranger to controversy.  Read more here.

While applauding skepticism in general but seeking scientific opinion on global warming, a recent letter to the editor declares skepticism and exception when the stakes are high. Supposedly, man is the culprit for global warming, the risks are profound and man only can save us from a catastrophe. Consider the following: approximately 400 scientist from 23 different countries have offered their names in opposition of man made global warming.

The climate of the earth is so complex to prohibit humans to craft computer models that can factor in all variables. Dr. Roy Spencer, an acclaimed research scientist, states that carbon dioxide is a relatively small part of the earth’s natural greenhouse effect. A certain amount of sunlight is absorbed at the surface of the earth, weather processes happen which create the greenhouse effect. Most of the greenhouse effect is from evaporated water that turns into clouds and of course water vapor, a strong greenhouse gas.

Follow the money. Grants and donations are a large factor in scientists supporting global warming.Dr. Spencer believes man-made global warming is not a science because scientific truth is not determined by a vote. Yet, because of consensus, persuasive apocalyptic descriptions of global warming persist strongly aided by the media which thrive on bad news. It is apparent that skeptics have scientific truth on their side. Read more here.

Every climate scientist in the world has known beyond any doubt, for at least several years now, that late 20th century warming was driven almost entirely by the very high levels of solar activity between 1940 and 2000 (details follow). They also know the corollary: that when solar activity drops into a down phase, the earth will get cold, possibly even precipitating the next ice age (due any century now). Not only is this the real and impending threat, but solar activity has been low for several years now, and sharp global cooling is already being detected. At the same time, the current lull between 11 year solar cycles is unusually quiet and long, reminiscent of earlier downturns in solar activity that led to dramatic global cooling. It seems certain at this point that we are in for at least a substantial dip in global temperature. In addition to the weak sun and the already falling temperatures, this winter’s record snow cover is reflecting an unusual amount of solar radiation back into space, and we are also in the middle of a major La Nina event (where cold pacific waters rise to the surface).

If global cooling is known to be the real and impending danger, why is it that even with the onset of cooling, most climatologists are raising hysterical alarms about global warming? Because they are not actually concerned about global temperature at all. They are environmental religionists who believe that human economic growth is gobbling up the natural world. Blaming late 20th century warming on fossil fuel burning was just an opportunity for these religionists to try to impose restrictions on economic activity, and in that way “save the planet” from human encroachment. Global warming alarmism never did have anything to do with climatology. If only the sun had stayed aboil for one more solar cycle, the religionists would have succeeded. When the inevitable cooling did come, it would still pull the curtain off of their global warming hoax, but by then it would be too late. Economic restrictions would already be fixed in place, under UN bodies that the religionists control.

Read this opinion by Alec Rawls, Stanford Economist and on the board for the Stanford Review here.

Yesterday’s picture in the Mail of a cascade of icicles in the Yorkshire Dales was a reminder of how cold Britain can be - something many of us have forgotten in this unusually mild winter. But it really is remarkable how little attention has been paid to the extraordinary weather events which in recent weeks have been affecting other parts of the world. Across much of the northern hemisphere, from Greece and Iran to China and Japan, they have been suffering their worst snowfalls for decades. In country after country, these abnormal snowfalls have provoked a crisis.

In China - the only example to have attracted major coverage in Britain - the worst snow for 50 years triggered an unprecedented state of emergency. Large parts of the country have been paralysed, as rail and road transport ground to a standstill.  More than 25,000 miles of power lines collapsed under a weight of snow and ice they were never designed to cope with. Snow has devastated thousands of square miles of farmland, threatening severe food shortages. The total cost of the disaster to the Chinese economy may be more than 10 billion pounds.

In Afghanistan, freezing weather and the worst snow for 30 years have killed more than 900 people. In neighbouring Tajikistan, according to aid agencies, the coldest winter for 50 years, along with soaring food prices and a massive energy crisis, threatens a “humanitarian catastrophe”. Across much of the northern hemisphere, from Greece and Iran to China and Japan, they have been suffering their worst snowfalls for decades. In Greece and Turkey, where temperatures dropped as low as minus 31 degrees Celsius, hundreds of villages have been cut off by blizzards and drifting snow. In Iran, following heavy snowfalls last month, its eastern desert regions - normally still hot at this time of year - have seen their first snow in living memory. In Saudi Arabia last month, people were amazed by the first snow most had ever seen. On the Pacific coast of Japan last week, heavy falls of snow injured more than 50. Meanwhile in the U.S., similarly abnormal snowfalls have hit more than a dozen states. In light of such similar news from so many places round the world, it may not seem surprising that U.S. satellite data for January shows the extent of snow cover in the northern hemisphere as reaching its highest level since 1966, 42 years ago - and that temperatures were lower than their average for the whole of the 20th century.

We may, they suggest, be seeing the start of a period when temperatures reverse their generally upward trend over the past 30 years, as we did in those decades before 1978 known to climate scientists as “the Little Cooling”. The truth is that it is still much too early to draw any long-term conclusions from 2008’s great freeze. But it is one of the most startling developments to have emerged in the world’s weather patterns for a long time - not least in that it was so unexpected. At least it raises important questions over how our global climate is evolving which the scientists will have to try to explain. To the millions of people whose lives have been seriously disrupted by this year’s freeze, the concept of global warming must seem awfully remote. Read more here.

The debate over the state of climate science and what it tells us about past and future climate has been going on for twenty years. It is not close to resolution, in spite of assertions to the contrary. What is often referred to as a “consensus” is anything but. In many cases, this consensus represents the “expert judgment” of a handful of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) authors, which other researchers can and do disagree with. For many, especially those engaged in advocacy, the claim of consensus is a device used to advance their agenda. Although humanity has been interested in climate since prehistoric times, climate science is, in fact, a relatively new field. It is only since the 1970s, when models were developed to connect atmospheric and oceanic climate processes, that scientists have had the tools to study climate as a system. Also, it is only since the 1970s that satellites have been available to provide global climate data. While the 1970s may seem like a long time ago, it is too short a period to provide a comprehensive understanding of the climate system, which includes processes, such as the 60-80 year North Atlantic Oscillation, that occur over many decades. It can also take many years to detect and correct errors in the climate data base, such as the recently announced correction of NASA’s surface temperature data for the U.S., and previous announcements of corrections to global satellite temperature data.

Concerns about either the potential impacts of climate change or the economic impact of ill-conceived policies result in some scientists entering the policy debate. Others, unfortunately, have entered the debate to advance political or economic agendas, gain funding for research, or enhance their personal reputations. To the extent that the debate is carried out in the public policy arena or media, the rigors of the scientific process are short-circuited. This state of affairs creates misunderstandings and confusion over what we know about the climate system, past climate changes and their causes, human impacts on the climate system and how human activities may affect future climate. Policy needs are better served by clarity and accuracy. The purpose of this document is to address a set of fundamental questions about climate change by summarizing the best available scientific information. The information provided is not intended to rebut claims about human impacts on climate or the potential for adverse impacts later this century. It is intended to separate fact from speculation and to demonstrate that, while concerns are legitimate, there is not a robust scientific basis for drawing definitive and objective conclusions about the extent of human influence on future climate. Read full report here and in the Icecap Climate Library.