Brant Boucher, in his letter “Scientific consensus” (The Hill Times, Aug. 6, 2007), seems to naively believe that the climate change science espoused in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IPCC documents represents “scientific consensus.” Nothing could be further than the truth! 

As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters (The Hill Times, May 28, 2007). I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of GHG-induced warming of the earth’s surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed. I would further politely ask Mr. Boucher to do a simple reality check regarding the earth’s temperature change. Since mid-1998, the earth’s mean temperature as a whole has not increased at all, despite billions of tonnes of human-added CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere.

In the Southern Hemisphere, the land-area mean temperature has slowly but surely declined in the last few years. The city of Buenos Aires in Argentina received several centimetres of snowfall in early July, and the last time it snowed in Buenos Aires was in 1918! Most of Australia experienced one of its coldest months of June this year. Several other locations in the Southern Hemisphere have experienced lower temperatures in the last few years. Further, the SSTs (sea surface temperatures) over world oceans are slowly declining since mid-1998, according to a recent world-wide analysis of ocean surface temperatures.

It is important to first develop an improved understanding of the earth’s temperature trends and changes before committing millions (billions!) of dollars to reduce greenhouse gases (GHGs). Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth’s temperature trends and associated climate change.  Read more here.

Update on CNN reaction to Marciano’s comments: Excerpt: CNN Anchor Kiran Chetry summed up the network sense of the debate at the end. “Just don’t say anything for a couple more days.”

CNN reported on Thursday that a British judge has called Al Gore’s Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth unfit for schools “because it is politically biased and contains scientific inaccuracies and sentimental mush.” British schools may now have to preface any showing of the film with a warning.

CNN meteorologist Rob Marciano responded to this story by applauding and saying,"Finally, finally,” before commenting sarcastically that “the Oscars, they give out awards for fictional films as well.” Marciano said he objected in particular to the film’s claim that global warming causes stronger hurricanes, noting that the current hurricane season has only been average.

Although the number of named storms this season has not been unusual, USA Today pointed out last month that “the first two hurricanes in the Atlantic this season reached the highest Category 5 level, the first time that’s happened since record-keeping began in 1851.” In addition, three storms this year shattered records for speed of intensification, leading concerned weather bloggers to suggest that the possible effects of global warming on hurricanes demand far more intensive study.

He’re’s a twist; while the north pole ice dwindles to record lows, the south pole ice reaches the maximum extent ever recorded. A fellow who likes variable star research and AAVSO calling himself Tamino (not his real name - another phantom blogger) who runs a blog called “Open Mind“. He used to be about explaining science, and did a pretty good job, but now has succumbed to the dark side of discourse and posted an opinion “…that it’s time to stop even listening to denialists, let alone arguing with them.” and then further says “…it is the republican party in the U.S. that is the problem.“.

Then right after that post, he puts up a graph of Northern Hemisphere Sea ice showing its drop with the challenge “Explain this“. It’s just too funny to announce he’s not going to discuss the matter further, then puts up a challenge on record northern hemisphere sea ice minimum, then the next day we get a new maximum ice record in the southern hemisphere. Perhaps the dichotomy was just too much for him. A hint for those in need of pressure valves - it’s all about cycles.

Americans willing to look at the manmade global warming debate with any degree of impartiality and honesty are well aware that those spreading the hysteria have made a lot of money doing so, and stand to gain much more if governments mandate carbon dioxide emissions reductions.

In fact, just two months ago, ABC News.com estimated soon-to-be-Nobel Laureate Al Gore’s net worth at $100 million, which isn’t bad considering that he was supposedly worth about $1 million when he watched George W. Bush get sworn in as president in January 2001.

Talk about your get-rich-quick schemes, how’d you like to increase your net worth 10,000 percent in less than seven years?  Fortunately for the world’s foremost warm-monger - a term I’d love to see become part of the parlance concerning what, in the long run, will likely be viewed as the greatest con ever perpetrated on the American people - his current wealth represents a mere pittance of what it will be if governments around the world are scared into all of his preposterous recommendations.

Al Gore’s campaign against global warming is shifting into high gear. Reporters and commentators follow his every move and bombard the public with notice of his activities and opinions. But while the mainstream media promote his ideas about the state of planet Earth, they are mostly silent about the dramatic impact his economic proposals would have on America. And journalists routinely ignore evidence that he may personally benefit from his programs. Would the romance fizzle if Gore’s followers realized how much their man stands to gain?

Of course it would, Deborah. That’s why media have largely been mute on this matter. See more here.

Previously, Pete posted a link to a video interview with George Taylor, of Oregon State University and the Oregon State Climatologist. Here is his reply to an attack article criticizing his view that man and carbon dioxide emissions are not to blame for global warming. The vicious nature of the personal attacks on global warming skeptics is typical.

I get most of my information from peer-reviewed journals, including Journal of Climate, Journal of Geophysical Research, and Climate Research. The articles I write (including, for example, the Arctic article) are based on journal articles and contain full bibliographies. Admittedly, I seldom give“both sides” of the argument, because the “other side” (the one that suggests that human activities exert a dominant role in the climate system) is well-represented in journals and the media. My goal is to be a voice saying “wait, maybe there’s another side to this. Take a look at THIS data and see what you think. Then let’s talk about it.” Unfortunately, this issue has become such a divisive and angry one that ad hominem attacks have replaced dialogue.

Read full blog here.

It is widely alleged that the science of global warming is “settled”. This implies that all the major scientific aspects of climate change are well understood and uncontroversial, and that scientists are now just mopping up unimportant details. The allegation is profoundly untrue: for example the US alone is said to be spending more than $4 billion annually on climate research, which is a lot to pay for detailing; and great uncertainty and argument surround many of the principles of climate change, and especially the magnitude of any human causation for warming. Worse still, not only is the science not “settled”, but its discussion in the public domain is contaminated by many fallacies, which leads directly to the great public confusion that is observed.

This paper explains the eight most common fallacies that underpin public discussion of the hypothesis that dangerous global warming is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. At its most basic, if scientists cannot be sure that temperatures are today rising, nor establish that the gentle late 20th century warming was caused by CO2 emissions, then it is nonsense to propose that expensive controls are needed on human carbon dioxide emissions. Even more alarming still is the self-sustaining nature of the IPCC and its alarmist claims. The IPCC reports determine the direction of climate research and its funding, which ultimately leads to the number of scientific papers which take a particular line, and the dominance of that line of thinking is expressed in the subsequent IPCC report. The process is one of strong positive feedback for alarmist science advice. Advice which now permeates bureaucracies and governments throughout the world, and which is driving swingeingly expensive, unnecessary and ineffective national and international carbon policies.

The Center for Biological Diversity contends that staghorn coral and elkhorn coral are “the first, and to date only, species listed under the Endangered Species Act due to threats from global warming.” Kieran Suckling, the policy director of the Center, “We think this victory on coral critical habitat actually moves the entire Endangered Species Act onto a firm legal foundation for challenging global-warming pollution.”

The Center for Science & Public Policy has published a report taking a closer look at the scientific evidence, which reveals that the impact of global warming on the overall health of coral species is likely to be positive--towards increased species diversity and richness and habitat expansion--and there is evidence that these changes are already underway.

The hope that this endangered species designation will somehow become a tool for global warming legislation is grossly misplaced. Global warming will likely be a benefit to elkhorn and staghorn corals, especially along the Florida coast where increasing ocean temperatures should encourage coral reef development further and further northward.  For more go here.

Luxuriant thickets of staghorn coral (Acropora cervicornis) recently found off Ft Lauderdale, FL. This is approximately 50 km north of the previous known extant range of Caribbean acroporids. (from Precht and Aronson, 2004)

The political battle over climate change has clearly taken a dramatic turn for the worse this month, for it now seems media are actually competing to see which outlet can present the most hysterical report concerning imminent planetary doom at the hands of manmade global warming.

After ABC News published a disgraceful photo essay featuring computer generated pictures of drowned American cities at its website last Friday, followed by NBC News reporting Monday that Greenland’s ice sheets are melting so quickly that it “could ignite worldwide disaster,” the Associated Press on Saturday cautioned that “In about a century, some of the places that make America what it is may be slowly erased.” Seems almost like they’re playing a game of “Can You Top This” doesn’t it?

Richard S. Courtney e-mailed me the following concerning this abomination with permission to reprint: “Rarely have I read such a collection of unsubstantiated and scare-mongering twaddle. Global sea level has been rising for the 10,000 years since the last ice age, and no significant change to the rate of sea level rise has been observed recently. Real studies and model studies of sea level change deny the untrue assertions in the article.” (Icecap note: he goes on to provide 5 such studies). Simply, there is no reason to suppose that sea level rise will be more of a problem in this century than it was in the last century or each of the previous ten centuries.

It appears that Borenstein may have misquoted one of his sources for this piece, or, at the very least, quoted him out of context. Toward the end of the article, Borenstein wrote: “Even John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a scientist often quoted by global warming skeptics, said he figures the seas will rise at least 16 inches by the end of the century. But he tells people to prepare for a rise of about three feet just in case.” According to Christy, he was speaking to Borenstein about sea level rises during hurricanes. But that’s NOT what Borenstein reported. Read more here.