Some aspects of AGW have a history lost (often intentionally) in the mists of time. But Rupert Wyndham (from Camborne, Cornwall, U.K.) has just drawn my attention to one of the true historic origins of the semantic switcheroo between “global warming” and “climate change”. And - yes, again - it’s the U.K. Met Office and their scientific cohorts that were to the fore.  Here it is a brief extract from Working Paper No. 58 of the Tyndall Centre (The Social Simulation of the Public Perception of Weather Events and their Effect upon the Development of Belief in Anthropogenic Climate Change – Dennis Bray & Simon Shackley, Sept. 2004.

- Only the perception of positive anomalies will be registered as an indication of change, if the issue is framed as global warming.

- Both positive and negative temperature anomalies will be registered in experience as an indication of change, if the issue is framed as ‘climate change’. (Hence cold weather can be blamed on CO2.)

- We propose that in those countries where climate change has become the predominant popular term for the phenomenon, unseasonably cold temperatures, for example, are also interpreted to reflect climate change/global warming.

What this extract from a British working paper highlights yet again is the cynical and shameless propaganda campaign that is being run by the very government agencies that purport to be scientific centres of excellence and providers of disinterested advice in the public interest.

A man paddling and pulling his kayak from Brisbane to Adelaide to promote the need for action on climate change says he is disappointed with the sceptical nature of outback Australians. Steve Posselt, who is pulling his kayak along the Darling River road due to a lack of water, says that many rural people do not believe in climate change.

He says he did not expect so many people to doubt what the majority of climate scientists agree on. “I’ve been astounded by the actual lack of belief on this trip,” he said. “Many people want to argue the issue about whether there is such a thing as global warming. “You can talk to blokes in the pub and they say yep winters aren’t what they used to be, they’re a lot shorter.  “And you say, ‘well do you believe in climate change? No, mate its just a cycle’.”

Two papers, Wang et al., Urban heat islands in China (GRL 1990) and Jones et al., Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land (Nature 1990) seem to be based on fabricated data such as data from China that were claimed to come from the same stations even though the location of most stations was changing many times by as much as dozens of miles (which is, of course, a huge problem for any analysis of the urbanization effects).

The paper by Jones et al. (1990) is important because it is used by IPCC AR4 to resolve an apparent contradiction: the paper argues that the urbanization effects are 10 times smaller than needed to explain the observed 20th century warming trend. Douglas Keenan has used some observations of Steve McIntyre (climateaudit.org) and himself and filed a formal complaint of research fraud regarding this work.

Motl goes on to reference the two reports by Douglas Keenan of Informath, a UK organization: “Wei-Chyung Wang Fabricated Some Scientific Claims” and ”The IPCC and Research Fraud, The Implications”.

Two papers, Wang et al., Urban heat islands in China (GRL 1990) and Jones et al., Assessment of urbanization effects in time series of surface air temperature over land (Nature 1990) seem to be based on fabricated data such as data from China that were claimed to come from the same stations even though the location of most stations was changing many times by as much as dozens of miles (which is, of course, a huge problem for any analysis of the urbanization effects).

The paper by Jones et al. (1990) is important because it is used by IPCC AR4 to resolve an apparent contradiction: the paper argues that the urbanization effects are 10 times smaller than needed to explain the observed 20th century warming trend. Douglas Keenan has used some observations of Steve McIntyre (climateaudit.org) and himself and filed a formal complaint of research fraud regarding this work.

Motl goes on to reference the two reports by Douglas Keenan of Informath, a UK organization: “Wei-Chyung Wang Fabricated Some Scientific Claims” and ”The IPCC and Research Fraud, The Implications”.

Newsweek equates global warming skeptics with Holocaust deniers and accuses reputable scientists of being paid to create confusion in the face of consensus. Galileo is once again on trial. Even the supporters of global warming hype found the title of Newsweek’s Aug. 13 attack on skeptics, “The Truth About Denial,” offensive. The use of the word “denier” is deliberate, an attempt to paint as either crazy or corrupt what Al Gore has proclaimed as Truth. Reputable scientists have been accused by a major news magazine of being paid to lie.

“Let’s be blunt,” said Roger Pielke Jr. of the University of Colorado’s Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. “This allusion is an affront to those who suffered and died in the Holocaust. This allusion has no place in the discourse on climate change. I say this as someone fully convinced of a significant human role in the behavior of the climate system.”

In 1633, Galileo Galilei was put on trial “for holding as true a false doctrine taught by many,” namely that the earth moved around the sun. In Newsweek’s view, Galileo was a “denier” of the accepted “consensus.” You know the type—hacks like Copernicus, who disputed the fact that Earth was the center of the universe, or Columbus, who disputed the international consensus that Earth was flat. 

Deniers all. 

See full story here.

Give Al Gore credit. He chose to base his multi-city “Climate in Crisis” summit in New York City in the month of July. Anyone familiar with the summer climate of the Big Apple knows why it is often referred to as the “Baked Apple.” So this made for a potentially great backdrop as attendees literally sweated it out while being told global warming will be our ruin.

In truth, so much of what Gore has said and written about the subject is demonstrably false. Read this well-done point-by-point debunking of the Gore doctrine here.

Manmade global warming alarmism took a disgraceful turn for the worse this weekend when Newsweek published a lengthy cover-story repeatedly calling skeptics “deniers” that are funded by oil companies and other industries with a vested interest in obfuscating the truth. In fact, the piece several times suggested that publishing articles skeptical of man’s role in climate change is akin to misleading Americans about the dangers of smoking.

Despicably titled “Global-Warming Deniers: A Well-Funded Machine,” the article painted a picture of an evil cabal whose goal is to thwart science at the detriment of the environment and the benefit of their wallets.  Worse still, the piece’s many authors painted every skeptical scientific report they referred to as being part of this cabal while including absolutely no historical temperature data to prove that today’s global temperatures are in any way abnormal.

Maybe most disingenuous, there wasn’t one word given to how much money corporations and entities with a vested interest in advancing the alarmism are spending, or who they are.  See whole story here.

I have often wondered how the media are in such lock step on Global Warming. Well, I wonder no more. Recently, I came across a website for the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ). This website is veritable tool box for any budding reporter assigned to the global warming beat. If you’re an editor at the Palookaville Post, all you have to do is send your cub reporters to this site and they’ll have everything they need to write an article that fits the template and action line perfectly.

In January of this year, the SEJ published what they call Climate change: A guide to the information and disinformation. The guide is neatly organized into twelve chapters. Except for the seventh chapter titled with the freighted descriptive: “Deniers, Dissenters and Skeptics”, the guide is a one sided presentation that resoundingly affirms global warming and puts down anyone with a different point of view. The site is a virtual digest of the global warming industry. If you’re looking for a road map to the special interest groups behind the hysteria, this is the place to go. The journalist members of this association have obviously abandoned all pretense of objectivity.

The mere existence of the Society of Environmental Journalists shows first hand how the media world works, providing the infrastructure to journalists engaged in the practice of global warming advocacy journalism.  Read full story here. 

It has become common practice in climate science for a press release reporting the findings of a new paper to precede the publication in the journal concerned. Thus, the Lockwood and Frohlich paper ‘Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature’ (M. Lockwood and C. Fröhlich Proc. R. Soc.) was announced in the 5th July edition of the journal Nature under the headline ‘No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics.’

Note: It was met with a chorus of support from gklobal warmers in the UK and here in the US. But many others found many flaws in the work (see Icecap blog). Meanwhile Jennifer reported on a letter in the Guardain by Meteorologist Piers Coryn, one of the IPCC AR4 Authors.

Meanwhile, Piers Corbyn of Weather Action, who appeared in The Great Global Warming Swindle, had a letter published in The Guardian:  In desperate attempts to shore up their crumbling doctrine of man-made climate change, Professor Lockwood and Henry Davenport (Letters, July 14) themselves cherry-pick data. Prof Lockwood’s “refutation” of the decisive role of solar activity in driving climate is as valid as claiming a particular year was not warm by simply looking at the winter half of data. The most significant and persistent cycle of variation in the world’s temperature follows the 22-year magnetic cycle of the sun’s activity. So what does he do? He “finds” that for an 11-year stretch around 1987 to 1998 world temperatures rose, while there was a fall in his preferred measures of solar activity. A 22-year cycle and an 11-year cycle will of necessity move in opposite directions half the time.

The problem for global warmers is that there is no evidence that changing CO2 is a net driver for world climate. Feedback processes negate its potential warming effects. Their theory has no power to predict. It is faith, not science.  Read more here.