Not only did President Obama assert the morning of the latest Paris massacre that “ISIS is contained.” Along with Democrat presidential candidate Bernie Sanders and other global warming alarmists, he continues to insist that climate change is the gravest threat facing mankind, nature and our planet. This article underscores how false those assertions are.
Fossil fuels actually contribute very little to climate change, which is driven by powerful natural forces over which we have no control. Cold weather kills twenty times more people than hot weather. And Middle Eastern refugees streaming into Europe could face bone-rattling, lethal cold weather, if another Siberian Express roars in from the Arctic. THAT is what Paris climate conferees should address - not how to abolish hydrocarbon use, further hogtie economies, keep 1.3 billion people forever impoverished, and redistribute the world’s wealth.
Thank you for posting our article, quoting from it, and forwarding it to your friends and colleagues. Please credit Joe D’Aleo, Allan MacRae and Madhav Khandekar for their contributions to it.
Terrorism and a cold winter refugee crisis
A brutal cold spell could kill refugees. Paris COP21 delegates need to discuss this climate issue.
Paul Driessen, Joe D’Aleo, Allan MacRae and Madhav Khandekar
Even after the latest Paris massacres - and previous radical Islamist atrocities in the USA, France, Britain, Canada, Spain, India, Iraq, Syria, Nigeria and elsewhere - politicians absurdly say hypothetical manmade global warming is the greatest threat facing humanity. In reality, fossil fuel contributions to climate change pose few dangers to people or planet, and winters kill 20 times more people than hot weather.
After being assured snowy winters would soon be something only read about in history books, Europe was shaken by five brutally cold winters this past decade. Thousands died, because they were homeless, lived in drafty homes with poor heating systems, or could not afford adequate fuel.
It could happen again, with even worse consequences. “Millions of desperate people are on the march,” Walter Russell Mead recently wrote in the Wall Street Journal. “Sunni refugees driven out by the barbarity of the Assad regime in Syria, Christians and Yazidis fleeing the pornographic violence of Islamic State, millions more of all faiths and no faith fleeing poverty and oppression without end.”
Where are they heading? Mostly not into neighboring Arab countries, most of which have yanked their welcome mats. Instead, if they’re not staying in Turkey, they’re going north to Europe - into the path the extremely cold “Siberian Express” has increasingly taken. Germany alone could face the challenge of feeding and sheltering 800,000 to 1,000,000 freezing refugees this winter.
If a blast of frigid Siberian air should hit, temperatures in parts of eastern and northern Europe and the western Former Soviet Union could become 70 degrees F (39C) colder than cold spells in much of the Middle East. During the coldest Siberian outbreaks, it gets as lethally cold as -40F (-40C).
Northern and eastern Europeans are largely acclimated to such cold. However, for refugees from regions where winters average 20 to 30 degrees warmer, makeshift houses or tents will make their sojourn a bone-chilling experience. Europe’s exorbitant energy costs, resulting from its obeisance to climate chaos credos, could make this an even worse humanitarian crisis.
However, to listen to the UN, many world leaders, environmental NGOs, scientists from the climate alarm industry, and their sycophant media - especially on the eve of their Paris 2015 global warming summit - threats from cold weather are not supposed to happen. Just 15 years ago, the German paper Spiegel proclaimed, “Good-bye winter: In Germany bitter cold winters are now a thing of the past.” That same year, a British Climate Research Unit scientist said “children aren’t going to know what snow is.”
The media dutifully repeated similar claims each year, until unbelievably cold, snowy winters began hitting in 2008/09. In December 2010, England had its second-coldest December since 1659, amid the Little Ice Age. For five years, 2008-2013, snow paralyzed travel in England and northern and western Europe. Not surprisingly, the same media then blamed manmade global warming for the harsh winters.
In reality, natural Atlantic Ocean cycles lasting around 60 years control winter temperatures in Europe and Eastern North America. When the North Atlantic warms, “blocking high pressure systems” largely prevent warm Atlantic air from reaching Europe.
There is also a strong correlation between the sun’s geomagnetic activity and these blocking-induced cold winters in Europe. The five brutally cold winters ending in 2012/13 had the lowest level of solar geomagnetic activity in the entire record, dating back some 90 years.
When the North Atlantic is warm and the sun’s geomagnetic patterns are weak, these blocking patterns keep warmer Atlantic air out of Europe. Frigid air from off deep snows in Siberia can then more easily invade from the east, bringing sub-zero cold and heavy snows. That’s what happened from 2008 to 2013.
The ocean and solar factors eased in 2013, and the last two years have seen more Atlantic air and milder winters. However both solar and ocean patterns are starting to return to the situation where cold invasions are more likely. That could usher in nasty surprises for the Middle Eastern refugees.
Even this year’s early winter October cold brought news stories about Syrian children becoming sick amid exposure to colder weather than they were used to. In Austria, adults and children alike were already complaining about the weather and wishing they could go home.
In fact, cold weather kills 20 times more people than hot weather, according to a Lancet medical journal study that analyzed 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 countries. It should be required reading for the 40,000-plus bureaucrats, politicians, activists and promoters who will soon descend on Paris, to enjoy five-star hotels and restaurants while blathering endlessly about dire threats of global warming.
They should ponder the fact that the Lancet study reflects normal societies in peaceful countries. Even there, many more people die each year during the four winter months than in the eight non-winter months. Indeed, there even the United States experiences some 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths per year.
In the United Kingdom, the winter death rate is about twice as high as in the USA: excess winter deaths range up to 50,000 per year - due to the UK’s poorer home insulation and heating systems, and much higher energy costs caused by its climate and renewable energy policies.
The refugees’ excess winter death toll could well be even greater, due to the high cost of European energy and the migrants’ extreme poverty, poor nutrition, inadequate clothing and blankets, preexisting diseases, and makeshift housing: tents, trailers and other dwellings that have little or no insulation or central heat.
Systematic misinformation about the dangers of fossil fuels and hot versus cold weather has helped make this crisis much worse than needs be. Climate alarmists will thus bear the blame for thousands of avoidable deaths among refugees this winter, especially if the Siberian Express invades once again.
The Paris climate conferees need to focus on humanity’s real and immediate dangers: this rapidly growing refugee crisis, abysmal EU economies and job losses and the billions worldwide who still lack the adequate, reliable, affordable energy required to end their crushing poverty, malnutrition, disease and early death, by ensuring clean water, proper sanitation, modern hospitals, lights, refrigerators and plentiful food. The climate conferees must address the following much more pressing questions.
How is climate change more important than safeguarding refugees who are already suffering from cold weather? Should conferees be focused on hypothetical future manmade climate chaos, while EU nations squabble over who will take how many refugees and potential terrorists, amid a possible winter crisis? What contingency plans do they have for another bout of frigid weather possibly invading the continent?
When a million refugees are freezing in squalid conditions with inadequate shelter, food, heat, clothing and medical care, and 1.3 billion people still do not have electricity - why would the world commit to spending billions on alleged future global warming catastrophes? As Bjorn Lomborg puts it, why would the world also want to give up nearly $1 trillion in GDP every year for the rest of this century, to avert a total hypothetical (computer modeled) temperature rise of just 0.306 degrees C (0.558 F) by 2100?
Where will the money come from to combat growing war and terrorism, aid the millions displaced by these horrors, rebuild devastated cities, put millions of people back to work, and bring electricity and better lives to billions of others - if we continue this obsession over global warming? Do humans really play a big enough roll in climate change to justify these incomprehensible price tags? Where is the actual evidence? Not computer models or press releases - the actual evidence?
It would be an unconscionable crime against humanity, if the nations gathering in Paris implement policies to protect our planet’s energy-deprived masses from hypothetical manmade climate disasters decades from now, by perpetuating poverty and disease that kill millions more people tomorrow.
These are the real reasons climate change is a critical moral issue. We need to we recognize that, and stop playing games with people’s lives. We must acknowledge that horrific computer model scenarios do not reflect planetary reality - and must not guide energy policy.
Joe D’Aleo is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and American Meteorological Society Fellow and co-founder of The Weather Channel. Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow. Climate experts Allan MacRae and Madhav Khandekar contributed to this article.
NOTE: This is the fourth monthly update with our new Version 6.0 dataset. Differences versus the old Version 5.6 dataset are discussed here.
The Version 6.0 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for July, 2015 is +0.18 deg. C, down considerably from the June, 2015 value of +0.33 deg. C (click for full size version):
The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 20 Julys in ranking order shows it was the 9th warmest. NOAA’s intentionally corrupted data showed the global temperatures are the warmest ever for any month.
Strong July cooling occurred in the Southern Hemisphere extratropics, with a weak drop in the Northern Hemisphere extratropics. The tropics continue to warm with El Nino conditions there.
The global image for July, 2015 is now available here.
Also see the composite of the global monthly data that goes into the operational dynamical models for short to medium and longer range. This is before NCDC adds the adjustments to get the results demanded for selling the global warming scam to the continue the indoctrination of the ignorati and provide the substitute communion for the members of in the church of climate scientology we see haunting the MSM and internet evangelizing on the message of man made climate change. It shows just an anomaly globally of +0.15C for the 1981-2010 base period falling in the middle of the pack the last decade. As predicted, NOAA and NASA barbecued their July temperatures? AMS continues to publish NOAA’s corrupt State of the Climate Report, which many meteorologists say goes right in the trash can when the mailman delivers it.
Despite the ‘urgency; of Paris climate talks, a U.N. global poll rates climate change dead last
By Anthony Watts and Ryan Maue
Update: Climate Scientists Rip Apart EPA’s Global Warming Rule “Well the one thing you don’t hear President [Barack] Obama mention is how much his proposed emissions reductions will reduce global warming,” wrote Dr. Judith Curry, a climatologist at Georgia Tech. “It has been estimated that the U.S. [climate plan] of 28% emissions reduction by 2025 will prevent 0.03 [degrees Celsius] in warming by 2100.” “And these estimates assume that climate model projections are correct,” Curry wrote, “if the climate models are over-sensitive to CO2, the amount of warming prevented will be even smaller.”
Despite the ‘urgency’ of Paris climate talks, a U.N. sponsored global poll rates climate change dead last
From the United Nations “MY World” initiative, which has recorded the opinions for All Countries & Country Groups with votes of 7,679,273 at the time of this writing. They describe it as:
MY World is a United Nations global survey for citizens. Working with partners, we aim to capture people’s voices, priorities and views, so world leaders can be informed as they begin the process of defining the next set of global goals to end poverty.
The data collected so far is telling, at least about opinions surrounding global warming aka climate change. It is dead last in the list of concerns queried:
It too shows “action taken on climate change” as dead last among all age groups, gender, and education, but there are three curious columns on the right where it doesn’t come in last, but comes in low. These are the countries where people live that have medium to very high “HDI” which stands for Human Development Index.
Note that in these countries (medium to dark blue), people already have the things in place that come in lower than the climate change, so they tend to take them for granted. Countries that have a high HDI have reliable energy, Internet access, political freedoms, and social programs, so it is no wonder these sorts of things come in as lower concerns in medium to high HDI countries. These countries also tend to have a population that has people economically free enough to worry about things like climate change, whereas in some countries, you can’t get electricity or get on the Internet to read the latest doom and gloom being spewed by MSM outlets like the Guardian.
Earth is facing the prospect of a ‘mini ice age’ this century, with our sun’s activity projected to fall 60 percent in the 2030s, British astrophysicists say, based on the results of new research that they claim allows exact predictions of solar cycles.
Our planet is just 15 years from a new ‘mini ice age’ that could cause extremely cold winters characterized by the freezing of normally ice-free rivers as well as by year-round snow fields in areas that have never witnessed such climate conditions before, a group of astrophysicists claim.
The scientists could draw such a conclusion based on a new model of the sun’s activity that reportedly enables the researchers to make “extremely accurate predictions” of changes in solar activity.
Although, the fact that the sun’s activity varies within a 10-12 year long cycles was first discovered almost two centuries ago, in 1843, all the previously existing explanatory models failed to fully explain the fluctuations with each cycle as well as between the cycles.
Until now, the astrophysicists thought that the variations of the solar activity depended on the dynamo caused by convecting fluid deep inside the sun.
The latest study conducted by a research team from Northumbria University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, and led by Professor Valentina Zharkova demonstrated that the variations in the Sun’s activity are caused by two dynamo processes - one deep in the convection zone of the sun and one near its surface.
The research team analyzed three solar activity cycles that cover the period from 1976 to 2008 studying magnetic field activity of the sun during this time by using a technique called principal component analysis of the magnetic field observations from the Wilcox Solar Observatory in California.
The scientists discovered magnetic waves in two different layers of the Solar interior that “fluctuate between the northern and southern hemispheres of the Sun.”
“We found magnetic wave components appearing in pairs, originating in two different layers in the Sun’s interior. They both have a frequency of approximately 11 years, although this frequency is slightly different, and they are offset in time,” said Professor Zharkova.
Later, they also compared their findings concerning the intensity of the Sun’s activity with each year’s data on the average number of sunspots - a strong indicator of solar activity.
As a result, the team managed to create a very accurate model of predicting the solar activity fluctuations.
“Combining both waves together and comparing to real data for the current solar cycle, we found that our predictions showed an accuracy of 97 percent,” said Zharkova.
The study findings were presented at the National Astronomy Meeting in Llandudno on July 9 and published in the Royal Astronomical Society papers.
The model demonstrates that solar activity will fall by 60 percent by 2030 as the magnetic waves inside the Sun will become increasingly more desynchronized during the next two cycles, especially during cycle 26, which covers the decade between 2030 and 2040.
“In cycle 26, the two waves exactly mirror each other - peaking at the same time but in opposite hemispheres of the Sun. Their interaction will be disruptive, or they will nearly cancel each other,” Professor Zharkova said.
“Effectively, when the waves are approximately in phase, they can show strong interaction, or resonance, and we have strong solar activity. When they are out of phase, we have solar minimums. When there is full phase separation, we have the conditions last seen during the Maunder minimum, 370 years ago,” she added.
The Maunder minimum is a name of a period between 1645 and 1715 characterized by prolonged low solar activity as well as by extremely cold winters in Europe and North America as it also correlates with a climatic period between 1550 and 1850 called the ‘Little Ice Age.’
Unnoticed by most citizens, last week the United States Senate introduced the “Secret Science Reform Act of 2015.” The act is aimed at the Environmental Protection Agency’s practice of refusing to disclose data from scientific studies that support new pollution regulations. The act indirectly questions the EPA assertion that Americans are dying today from small particle air pollution.
Past EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson testified before Congress in 2011, stating, “Particulate matter causes premature death. It doesn’t make you sick. It’s directly causal to dying sooner than you should.” Particulate matter refers to PM2.5, classified by the EPA as particles smaller than 2.5 microns in diameter, much smaller than the eye can see. Particle pollution is a mixture of dust, nitrates and sulfates, metals, pollen, and organic chemicals.
The EPA claims that any level of small particles can cause premature death. The agency warns that death may be short-term, occurring within a few hours of inhalation, or may be caused by long-term inhalation of PM2.5 over several years. EPA policy advisor Amanda Brown asserted that between 130,000 and 320,000 Americans died prematurely in 2005 due to small particle pollution, an incredible 6 to 15 percent of total US deaths.
EPA claims that particle pollution triggers heart failure, respiratory failure, or other causes of death. For example, suppose a senior citizen dies a few days before his 67th birth day and a coroner determines heart failure to be the cause of death. According to the EPA, the death may have been “premature” and caused by small particle air pollution.
The EPA uses “prevention” of premature deaths from small particles to justify tighter pollution regulations. The EPA’s proposed Clean Power Plan, which will force closure of coal-fired power plants across the nation, is an example. The EPA claims that implementation of the CPP will prevent up to 6,600 premature deaths and $93 billion in climate and public health benefits. But the monetized climate benefits are essentially zero. Almost all of the $93 billion comes from an EPA calculation on savings from avoidance of premature death from small particles.
Today, our nation’s air is remarkably clean, especially when compared to 50 years ago. Incidents of serious air pollution are rare. According to the EPA, the concentration of six major air pollutants, lead, nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and particulates, are down more than a combined 70 percent since 1980. PM2.5 particle pollution is typically below the EPA national standard of 15 micrograms per cubic meter of air.
Fifteen micrograms per cubic meter is not very much. Dr. James Enstrom, retired researcher from the UCLA School of Public Health, points out that a person breathing in 15 micrograms of small particles per cubic meter would inhale only about one teaspoon of these microscopic particles over an 80-year lifespan. The EPA’s assertion that this small amount of particles causes premature death is not credible.
How does the EPA conclude that thousands of Americans die each year from particle pollution? No coroner ever attributes a cause of death to particle pollution. Instead, the EPA relies on epidemiological observational studies that associate particle pollution with death.
Epidemiological studies analyze statistical associations between exposure to an agent and appearance of disease in a population. An example is the Doll and Hill study in the 1950s that found that cigarette smoking caused lung cancer in a population of 41,000 British medical doctors. EPA has concluded that associations found in epidemiological studies show that inhalation of small particles cause premature death.
But the association between death and particle pollution found by studies that EPA relies on is shaky at best. Relative risk (RR) is the ratio of incidence of disease in an exposed population to a control population. The size of the relative risk is a measure of the chance that an association is causal.
The Harvard Six Cities study of 1993 and the American Cancer Society study of 1995, two studies that form the basis of EPA small particle science, found an increase in relative risk of less than 20 percent (RR=1.2). An increase in death rates of less than 20 percent (RR=1.2) is almost statistically indistinguishable from zero. In contrast, the Doll and Hill study on cigarettes and lung cancer found smokers had 10 times the rate of lung cancer and non-smokers, a relative risk of RR=10. The weak association (small relative risk) between death and particle pollution that the EPA judges to be causal could be due to other factors in the measured populations or even random chance.
But what stinks to high heaven is that data from the Harvard Six Cities and American Cancer Society studies have never been released. Other scientists are not able to replicate and verify the results of these studies. In effect, the EPA is asking all to “trust us” on the science of death from particle pollution. The Secret Science Reform Act proposes to force the EPA to disclose data from studies that support the need for EPA regulations.
Further, EPA is often the funding agency for epidemiological studies that are then used to justify new air pollution regulations. EPA supports such studies either directly or indirectly through grants to organizations such as the American Lung Association and the American Cancer Society. For example, over the last decade the EPA has provided more than $20 million in grants to the American Lung Association, a group that supports EPA efforts for more stringent air pollution regulations (payback was the ads they ran unsupported by the data).
The result is a massive, costly, and growing burden on American citizens in the name of clean air. NERA Economic Consulting estimates that the Clean Power Plan will cost US citizens some $400 billion in compliance costs over the next 15 years. But the savings from “prevention of premature deaths” from particle pollution are likely imaginary.
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
Prominent Scientists Declare Climate Claims Ahead of UN Summit ‘Irrational’ - ‘Based On Nonsense’
MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen: ‘Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial.’ - ‘When someone says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period.’
Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer: ‘Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. We are being led down a false path. To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?’
Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore: ‘We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science.’
Note: CFACT’s new skeptical documentary, Climate Hustle, is set to rock the UN climate summit with red carpet world premiere in Paris.
From Left to Right: Dr. Will Happer, Dr. Richard Lindzen & Dr. Patrick Moore
AUSTIN, Texas - A team of prominent scientists gathered in Texas today at a climate summit to declare that fears of man-made global warming were “irrational” and “based on nonsense” that “had nothing to do with science.” They warned that “we are being led down a false path” by the upcoming UN climate summit in Paris.
The scientists appeared at a climate summit sponsored by the Texas Public Policy Foundation. The summit in Austin was titled: “At the Crossroads: Energy & Climate Policy Summit.”
Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, an emeritus Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at MIT, derided what he termed climate “catastrophism.” “Demonization of CO2 is irrational at best and even modest warming is mostly beneficial,” Lindzen said.
Lindzen cautioned: “The most important thing to keep in mind is - when you ask ‘is it warming, is it cooling’, etc. - is that we are talking about something tiny (temperature changes) and that is the crucial point.” Lindzen also challenged the oft-repeated UN IPCC claim that most of warming over past 50 years was due to mankind. “People get excited over this. Is this statement alarming? No,” Lindzen stated.
“We are speaking of small changes 0.25 Celcius would be about 51% of the recent warming and that strongly suggests a low and inconsequential climate sensitivity - meaning no problem at all,” Lindzen explained. “I urge you when looking at a graph, check the scales! The uncertainty here is tenths of a degree,” he noted. “When someone points to this and says this is the warmest temperature on record. What are they talking about? It’s just nonsense. This is a very tiny change period. And they are arguing over hundredths of a degree when it is uncertain in tenths of a degree,” Lindzen said.
Lindzen also featured 2006 quotes from Scientist Dr. Miike Hulme, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia, and Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research, admitting that claims of a climate catastrophe were not the ‘language of science.’
“The discourse of catastrophe is a campaigning device,” Hulme wrote to the BBC in 2006. “The language of catastrophe is not the language of science. To state that climate change will be ‘catastrophic’ hides a cascade of value-laden assumptions which do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science,” Hulme wrote. “Is any amount of climate change catastrophic? Catastrophic for whom, for where, and by when? What index is being used to measure the catastrophe?” Hulme continued.
Lindzen singled out Secretary of State John Kerry for his ‘ignorance’ on science. “John Kerry stands alone,” Lindzen said. “Kerry expresses his ignorance of what science is,” he added. Lindzen also criticized EPA Chief Gina McCarthy’s education: “I don’t want to be snobbish, but U Mass Boston is not a very good school,” he said to laughter.
Lindzen concluded his talk by saying: “Learn how to identify claims that have no alarming implications and feel free to say ‘So what?’”
Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who has authored over 200 peer-reviewed papers, called policies to reduce CO2 “based on nonsense.” “Policies to slow CO2 emissions are really based on nonsense. They are all based on computer models that do not work. We are being led down a false path. “Our breath is not that different from a power plant,” he continued. “To call carbon dioxide a pollutant is really Orwellian. You are calling something a pollutant that we all produce. Where does that lead us eventually?” he asked.
“Coal, formed from ancient CO2, is a benefit to the world. Coal is CO2 from ancient atmospheres. We are simply returning CO2 to the atmosphere from which it came when you burn coal. And it’s a good thing since it is at very low levels in the atmosphere. We are in a CO2 famine. It is very, very low,” Happer explained. Happer continued: “CO2 will be beneficial and crop yields will increase.” “More CO2 will be a very significant benefit to agriculture,” he added. Happer then showed a picture of polluted air in China with the caption: “Real pollution in Shanghai.” “If you can see it, it’s not CO2,” Happer said. “If plants could vote, they would vote for coal,” Happer declared.
Happer also rebutted the alleged 97% consensus. “97% of scientists have often been wrong on many things,” he said.
Ecologist and Greenpeace founding member Dr. Patrick Moore discussed the benefits of rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. “Let’s celebrate CO2!” Moore declared.
“We know for absolute certain that carbon dioxide is the stuff of life, the foundation for life on earth,” Moore said. “We are dealing with pure political propaganda that has nothing to do with science,” he continued. “The deserts are greening from rising CO2,” he added.
“CO2 has provided the basis of life for at least 3.5 billion years,” Moore said.
Famed Nobel laureate in physics Richard Feynman once described science as “the belief in the ignorance of experts.” The very first scientific society, The Royal Society, adopted the motto: “Take nobody’s word for it.” Questioning is the stock-in-trade of scientists; it is the way we discover new things and the way we keep science honest. Without the ability to question conclusions, science degenerates into politics and pseudo-religion.
Yet fanatical proponents of the prevailing climate paradigm, like historian Naomi Oreskes, argue that such questioning is equivalent to the tobacco companies questioning the link between smoking and lung cancer. That is pure political nonsense, because the arbiter in science is always robust data, not opinion. And we scientists relish the opportunity to point out again the very sturdy statistical links between smoking and lung cancer.
The problem with climate science is that the robust data that should backup the alarming conclusions of the establishment are not there. In fact the robust data show no link between man-made CO2 and global temperature. To be sure, propagandists are forever promoting natural climate variations as “proof.” But these are merely proof that our climate continues to cycle in response to natural forces, as it always has. The Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm Periods were all warmer than the Modern Warm Period and had nothing to do with our ancestors pulling their chariots with Hummers. This simple logic puts those scientists who earn their living from climate hysteria on the defensive.
Knowing that the robust data is running solidly against them, they are looking elsewhere for a way to win the argument. Climate modelers who have been predicting far more warming than has been observed are particularly on the defensive, because their failures are well documented. To try to salvage something, they have asked President Barack Obama to invoke the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) act to prosecute as mobsters their fellow scientists who dare to disagree with them. When 20 scientists, led by Professor Jagadish Shukla of George Mason University (and GMI Climate Propogandist, Ed Maibach, demanded such action, hurricane expert Peter Webster told atmospheric sciences Professor Judith Curry of Georgia Tech that these scientists had “signed the death warrant for science.” And Lamar Smith, R-Texas, began a congressional inquiry to question such a brazen attack on science and those who practice it. No one imagined how this drama would unfold. It soon became apparent that Shukla had diverted a portion of his $63 million in government contract funds to his family. It seems he was not content with just a lucrative salary.
This scandal is unfolding as the United Nations is about to convene another climate conference in Paris later this month. To make matters worse, well-known French TV meteorologist Philippe Verdier was abruptly removed from French government television for writing a book charging that we “:are hostage to a planetary scandal over climate change - a war machine whose aim is to keep us in fear.”
Will these latest scandals overshadow the Paris conference, as the “Climategate” scandal hung heavily over the Copenhagen conference? My sense is that the participants are now very well-practiced at weathering the perpetual setbacks swirling around them. Total denial has worked for them in the past. Why not now?
What will slow them down is the enormity of what they demand: enormous payments to developing nations and enormous curtailment of industrial activity in the developed world, further shifting it to those developing nations. None of this legitimately addresses any concerns about carbon dioxide, however misguided. It only shifts carbon emissions from one location to another, giving corrupt politicians and bureaucrats a chance to claim success before people realize that they have been duped again by the pervasive propaganda.
One can only hope that Paris will finally mark the unraveling of the vast and greedy climate cartel. The world must move on to far more pressing - and real - problems.
Gordon J. Fulks lives in Corbett and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org. He holds a doctorate in physics from the University of Chicago’s Laboratory for Astrophysics and Space Research.
Oct 13, 2015
More lies and chicanery. Buying university and corporate support for leftist ideology
Global Cooling: Is an Ice Age Coming? The real truth. Politicians, government agencies under their thumb, the greens, corporations and universities all benefiting from the fraud are misleading the public with the help of the all too compliant media. See here how a climate ignorant and incompetent politician continues to make stupid statements that make the news.
See first how Corporations are whores for the government like the universities accepting huge funding if they support the warming fraud.
The White House business climate
Firms that take the president’s global warming pledge stand to profit
By Meteorologist Anthony Sadar, Washington Times
The American Business Act on Climate Pledge continues to attract new customers. Last week the White House announced new commitments to its mantra that may become just another solemn affirmation required of businesses before they are handed lucrative federal government contracts at the expense of “we the people.”
The voluntary pledge, accessible at the White House’s press office website, is mercifully short. A company must support the upcoming November-December climate change agreement in Paris for a low-carbon, sustainable future. From there the business must submit to the conclusion that “multiple benefits [will result] with regard to sustainable economic growth, public health, resilience to natural disasters, and the health of the global environment.” Apparently, there is no downside to joining the fight against inexpensive, poverty-alleviating fossil fuels that have yet to be shown to be the true enemy of the global ecosphere.
Predictably, companies formed to usurp fossil fuel’s place in the energy market, have signed on (Abengoa Bioenergy and Pacific Ethanol, for example). In addition, corporate giants like American Express, Apple, AT&T, General Mills, General Motors, IBM, Pepsi, Coca Cola, and McDonald’s have pledged their support.
Each business provides details on their substantial commitments to operate more efficiently and cause less harm to the environment. There is no doubt about the benefits to the biosphere that these common-sense actions will yield, so the question is this: Why not do the right thing for the right reason? Increased recycling, energy efficiency activities, raw material substitutions, reduced water consumption and the like are what all businesses should be doing anyway to be better stewards of the environment and more conscientious business entities. But simply doing the right thing in this case seems to have a more sinister side when politics steps in.
The White House has apparently generated a list of companies and organizations that will eventually be deemed friendly to the environment and worthy of the government’s largesse and praise, while those not so listed will be shamed into signing, or be called enemies of the earth or simply greedy corporations.
It seems that by signing the pledge, American businesses are tacitly supporting the White House’s leftist ideology that relies on a supposed connection between low-cost fuels and catastrophic global warming to impose new burdens on the American people.
The White House puts its faith in climate prophesies that corroborate its own foregone, convenient conclusions and uses its bully pulpit to force others to convert or die - that is, be smeared and shunned.
The failure of computer models to predict climate change accurately over nearly two decades now shows that sufficient knowledge is definitely lacking to require a reworking of the world economy based on wind mills, solar collectors and biomass, rather than oil, natural gas and coal.
Americans seem to know the relative unimportance of man-made climate change as concerns about such change languish at the bottom of lists of issues that really trouble the citizenry - lists with the economy and terrorism at the top.
Yet, the White House will put the full faith and credit of its citizens on the line at the Paris climate confab to promote drastic economic changes that will do little, if anything, to combat the profound dominance of natural climate change. What is more likely to happen is that large global enterprises and governments interested in wealth redistribution will profit immensely, while the poor will be left, once again, to freeze (or swelter) in the dark.
Meanwhile, big businesses will benefit by pledging their allegiance to the White House, but will the republic, for which it should stand, benefit?
Anthony J. Sadar is a certified consulting meteorologist and author of “In Global Warming We Trust” (Telescope Books, 2012).
Now I can finally relax, take a deep breath, and breathe easier. The Environmental Protection Agency, an aggressive arm of the nanny government, has just issued new air quality standards that mandate that the new ‘safe” level of ozone in the air we breathe shall be lowered from the current 75 parts per billion to 70 ppb. I feel better already, perhaps.
I also feel better for all the theoretical lives that will be saved, according to EPA sponsored studies such as this one. However, my joy is tempered by the realization that those are not real lives saved, rather, they are “estimated deaths saved,” as in “We applied health impact assessment methodology to estimate numbers of deaths and other adverse health outcomes that would have been avoided during 2005, 2006, and 2007 if the current (or lower) NAAQS ozone standards had been met. Estimated reductions in ozone concentrations were interpolated according to geographic area and year, and concentration response functions were obtained or derived from the epidemiological literature.”
Thus, the fewer ozone deaths will be taking place in a computer-generated fantasy world, where epidemiological data-torturing takes place by bits and bytes, not in the hospital admission records for real-life patients. The referenced paper concludes: “We estimated that annual numbers of avoided ozone-related premature deaths would have ranged from 1,410 to 2,480 at 75 ppb to 2,450 to 4,130 at 70 ppb, and 5,210 to 7,990 at 60 ppb. Acute respiratory symptoms would have been reduced by 3 million cases and school-loss days by 1 million cases annually if the current 75 ppb standard had been attained. Substantially greater health benefits would have resulted if the CASAC - recommended range of standards (70 to 60 ppb) had been met.”
Such papers are used to justify the EPA’s claims that “[s]tudies indicate that exposure to ozone at levels below 75 ppb—the level of the current standard - can pose serious threats to public health, harm the respiratory system, cause or aggravate asthma and other lung diseases, and is linked to premature death from respiratory and cardiovascular causes.” Lowering of atmospheric ozone concentration is presented as a win for health and associated increased energy costs: “EPA estimates that the benefits of meeting the proposed standards will significantly outweigh the costs. If the standards are finalized, every dollar we invest to meet them will return up to three dollars in health benefits. These large health benefits will be gained from avoiding asthma attacks, heart attacks, missed school days and premature deaths, among other health effects valued at $6.4 to $13 billion annually in 2025 for a standard of 70 ppb, and $19 to $38 billion annually in 2025 for a standard of 65 ppb. Annual costs are estimated at $3.9 billion in 2025 for a standard of 70 ppb, and $15 billion for a standard at 65 ppb.”
As a physician, I am intrigued, if not put off, by the EPA concept of “premature deaths.” How am I to know that that unfortunate patient, who has just died, died prematurely? If asked, he would undoubtedly claim that he had died before his time, no matter the actual cause. All deaths are “premature” when viewed subjectively. The answer lies within the all-knowing, EPA-sponsored computers, as in “health assessment methodology” that claim the ability to define who died before their time.
When independent epidemiological researchers examine real-world patients, real-world hospital admissions, and real-world medical records, the EPA health claims are not validated. In smoggy central California, such a study reported: “Average ground-level ozone (O3) and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) measurements were not correlated with 19,327 patient admissions for asthma at the University of California-Davis Medical Center (UCDMC) during 2010-2012.” Another study concluded: “Overwhelming epidemiologic evidence now indicates that there is no relationship in California between PM and total mortality [also known as ‘premature deaths.’]” Yet another study: “[T]he empirical evidence is that current levels of air quality, ozone and PM2.5, are not causally related to acute deaths for California. An empirical and logical case can be made air quality is not causally related to acute deaths for the rest of the United States.”
Surely smoggy air must be unhealthy. It must be, because it looks so bad. The poster child for such smoggy air is Shanghai, China, where newspaper pictures depict a yellow haze obscuring the visibility of buildings. However, the average lifespan there is 82.5 years, bettering the reported lifespan in any major U.S. city.
Surely pristine nature would be the place to avoid smoggy air. Millions visit the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, in spite of the off-putting name. When it is nature, it is smoky; when man-made, it is smog. Yet the basic chemical process is the same. Native conifers emit organic compounds known as terpenes, which interact with sunlight to produce...smog. Few park visitors are reported being victims of “premature death” secondary to breathing polluted air.
One final reason not to expect the EPA’s claims of ozone reduction and resultant saving of premature deaths of asthma victims to materialize is that the root cause of asthma is not completely known. It may be hereditary, and it may be secondary to environmental factors, or some combination thereof. A variety of factors can trigger an asthma attack in a susceptible individual. It maybe exercise, cold air, or indoor antigens. The Wall Street Journal October 1, 2015 article “Asthma Linked to Missing Bacteria” reported an association with the type of intestinal bacterial flora. A puzzling observation is that even as the EPA air quality standards have achieved a 63-percent reduction in major air pollutants between 1980 and 2014, asthma rates have continued to rise in the U.S. Between 1980 and 2010, asthma incidence in the population is reported to have gone from 3.1 percent to 8.4 percent.
The EPA computers have spoken, and theoretical “premature deaths” will be averted. In the real world, energy prices will likely increase and impact the least advantaged the hardest as they struggle to pay for the air-conditioning and heating by which modern technology protects us from the reality of nature’s health impacts.
Charles G. Battig, M.S., M.D., Piedmont Chapter president, VA-Scientists and Engineers for Energy and Environment (VA-SEEE). His website is http://www.climateis.com. ICECAP was pleased to sponsor Dr Battig’s attendeance at the early ICCC conferences that we co-sponsored. Dr. Battig has presented at recent conferences and writes frequently on the topic.
Veteran journalist Gunter Ederer* writes a piece reporting that massive alterations have been found in the NASA GISS temperature data series, citing a comprehensive analysis conducted by a leading German scientist. These results are now available to the public.
Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert. Source: University of Paderborn
Ederer reports not long ago retired geologist and data computation expert Professor Dr. Friedrich Karl Ewert began looking at the data behind the global warming claims, and especially the datasets of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS).
Ewert painstakingly examined and tabulated the reams of archived data from 1153 stations that go back to 1881 - which NASA has publicly available - data that the UN IPCC uses to base its conclusion that man is heating the Earth’s atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels. According to Ederer, what Professor Ewert found is “unbelievable”:
From the publicly available data, Ewert made an unbelievable discovery: Between the years 2010 and 2012 the data measured since 1881 were altered so that they showed a significant warming, especially after 1950. [...] A comparison of the data from 2010 with the data of 2012 shows that NASA-GISS had altered its own datasets so that especially after WWII a clear warming appears - although it never existed.”
Ederer writes that Ewert particularly found alterations at stations in the Arctic. Professor Ewert randomly selected 120 stations from all over the world and compared the 2010 archived data to the 2012 data and found that they had been tampered to produce warming.
The old data showed regular cycles of warming and cooling over the period, even as atmospheric CO2 concentration rose from 0.03% to 0.04%. According to the original NASA datasets, Ederer writes, the mean global temperature cooled from 13.8C in 1881 to 12.9C in 1895. Then it rose to 14.3C by 1905 and fell back under 12.9C by 1920, rose to 13.9C by 1930, fell to 13 by 1975 before rising to 14C by 2000. By 2010 the temperature fell back to 13.2C.
But then came the “massive” altering of data, which also altered the entire overall trend for the period. According to journalist Ederer, Ewert uncovered 10 different methods NASA used to alter the data. The 6 most often used methods were:
* Reducing the annual mean in the early phase.
* Reducing the high values in the first warming phase.
* Increasing individual values during the second warming phase.
* Suppression of the second cooling phase starting in 1995.
* Shortening the early decades of the datasets.
* With the long-term datasets, even the first century was shortened.
The methods were employed for stations such as Darwin, Australia and Palma de Mallorca, for example, where cooling trends were suddenly transformed into warming.
Ewert then discovered that NASA having altered the datasets once in March 2012 was not enough. Alterations were made again in August 2012, and yet again in December 2012. For Palma de Majorca: “Now because of the new datasets it has gotten even warmer. Now they show a warming of +0.01202C per year.”
Using earlier NASA data, globe is in fact cooling
The veteran German journalist Ederer writes that the media reports of ongoing global warming are in fact not based on reality at all, but rather on “the constantly altered temperatures of the earlier decades.” Ederer adds:
Thus the issue of man-made global warming has taken on a whole new meaning: Yes, it is always man-made if the data are adjusted to fit the theory. The meticulous work by Ewert has predecessors, and fits a series of scandals and contradictions that are simply being ignored by the political supporters of man-made climate change.”
Ederer also brings up the analysis by American meteorologists Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts who examined 6000 NASA measurement stations and found an abundance of measurement irregularities stemming in large part from serious siting issues. According to Ederer the findings by Professor Ewert are in close agreement with those of Watts and D’Aleo.
Ederer writes of the overall findings by Professor Ewert:
Using the NASA data from 2010 the surface temperature globally from 1940 until today has fallen by 1.110C, and since 2000 it has fallen 0.4223C (...). The cooling has hit every continent except for Australia, which warmed by 0.6339C since 2000. The figures for Europe: From 1940 to 2010, using the data from 2010, there was a cooling of 0.5465C and a cooling of 0.3739C since 2000.”
Ederer summarizes that in view of the magnitude of the scandal, one would think that there would be in investigation. Yet he does not believe this will be the case because the global warming has turned into a trillion-dollar industry and that that too much is tied to it.
All datasets are available to the public at any time. The studies by Prof. Ewert may be requested by e-mail: email@example.com.
*Gunter Ederer is a former journalist for ARD and ZDF German Television and has won numerous awards internationally.
For those who claim there’s no money in global warming, a new report by the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) shows the private sector and governments spent $391 billion in 2014 on “low-carbon and climate-resilient growth.”
Governments mostly in Western Europe, East Asia and the U.S. spent $148 billion backing green energy and leveraging $243 billion in private sector funding, according to a report by CPI. The group says some $13.5 trillion in green energy schemes is needed for countries to comply with pledges to cut carbon dioxide emissions.
“There is more money than ever before being invested in low carbon and climate resilient action,” CPI’s Barbara Buchner told Climate Change News. “At the same time, more needs to happen.”
CPI says $16.5 trillion in spending is needed to meet the United Nations’ goal of limiting future warming to 2 degrees Celsius by 2100. The report underscores just how much money there is in the “global warming” industry, which contrasts claims made by activists that there’s only money in promoting fossil fuels.
“If countries get their domestic policy frameworks right, that really can trigger a big change in making money flow,” Buchner said.
“The first step to addressing the climate crisis is to stop funding the problem,” said 350.org executive director May Boeve. “Ending fossil fuel subsidies and other dirty finance is the clearest way that G20 countries can help build momentum for the climate talks in Paris. As hundreds of institutions continue to join the fossil fuel divestment movement it’s time for governments to follow suit and stop funding climate destruction.”
For years, activists have claimed governments across the world spend hundreds of billions of dollars subsidizing fossil fuels every year - a recent report says governments spent $452 billion on fossil fuels this year.
Environmentalists hope that highlighting the scale of fossil fuels subsidies will build support for using that money to fund green energy and other global warming programs. Even United Nations officials have jumped on the bandwagon by pushing for ending fossil fuel subsidies and funding green programs.
“The first step to addressing the climate crisis is to stop funding the problem,” May Boeve, head of the activist group 350.org, said of fossil fuel subsidies. “Ending fossil fuel subsidies and other dirty finance is the clearest way that G20 countries can help build momentum for the climate talks in Paris.”
Even if it’s true fossil fuels get $452 billion in subsidies a year, activists are hesitant to point out to the growing size of the global warming industry. Funding for global warming programs rose 18 percent in 2014, while fossil fuel subsidies have fallen 42 percent since 2012.
Activist groups have also been raking in more cash than groups skeptical of global warming as the issue gains more prominence in national policy debates.
Global warming skepticism only raised “$46 million annually across 91 conservative think tanks,” according to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s Andrew Follett. “That’s almost 6 times less than Greenpeace’s 2011 budget of $260 million, and Greenpeace is only one of many environmental groups.
Nov 12, 2015
Keystone: Obama’s Disdain for Working People is Evident,’ He’s ‘A Pompous, Pandering Job Killer’
(CNSNews.com) In reaction to President Barack Obama’s decision to not allow the Keystone XL pipeline to be built, Terry O’Sullivan, the president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LiUNA!), said Obama had “once again” thrown “hard-working, blue-collar workers under the bus” while “doing little or nothing to make a real difference in global climate change.”
“His actions are shameful,” said O’Sullivan in a press release. “The president may be celebrated by environmental extremists, but with this act, President Obama has also solidified a legacy as a pompous, pandering job killer.”
Last week, President Obama announced his decision to kill the pipeline proposal because Secretary of State John Kerry and the State Department had informed him that Keystone XL “would not serve the national interest of the United States.”
Obama also stressed the necessity for America to “transition” to a “clean energy economy,” and added, “America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change. And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership. And that’s the biggest risk we face—not acting.”
LiUNA’s President Terry O’Suillivan said, “President Obama today [Nov. 6] demonstrated that he cares more about kowtowing to green-collar elitists than he does about creating desperately needed, family-supporting, blue-collar jobs. After a seven-year circus of cowardly delay, the President’s decision to kill the Keystone XL Pipeline is just one more indication of an utter disdain and disregard for salt-of-the-earth, middle-class working Americans.”
“We are dismayed and disgusted that the president has once again thrown the members of LIUNA, and other hard-working, blue-collar workers under the bus of his vaunted ‘legacy,’ while doing little or nothing to make a real difference in global climate change,” said O’Sullivan. “His actions are shameful.”
O’Sullivan also criticized Obama’s remarks about Keystone XL that the construction jobs it would create are “temporary, and added, “Ironically, the very temporary nature of the president’s own job seems to be fueling a legacy of doing permanent harm to middle- and working class families.”
“From this decision on the Keystone XL, to the attack on quality healthcare through the so-called ‘Cadillac Tax,’ to his efforts to ship good jobs overseas through the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Barack Obama’s disdain for working people is evident,” said LiUNA’s O’Sullivan.
“The President may be celebrated by environmental extremists, but with this act, President Obama has also solidified a legacy as a pompous, pandering job killer,” said O’Sullivan.
The Keystone XL pipeline would have run from Canada down through the Midwest United States to refineries in Texas and Illinois, and to a distribution center in Oklahoma.
According to the American Petroleum Institute, construction of the Keystone XL pipeline “could support 42,000 jobs and put $2 billion in workers’ pockets.”
LiUNA, the Laborers’ International Union of North America, was founded in 1903 and currently has 557,999 members. It is affiliated with the AFL-CIO. Terry O’Sullivan has been president of LiUNA since 2000.
See Patrick Moore, co counder of Greeenpeace address the GPWF on the misguided demonization of CO2.
Are political considerations superseding scientific ones at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration?
When confronted with an obviously broken weather station that was reading way too hot, they replaced the faulty sensors but refused to adjust the bad readings it had already taken. And when dealing with “the pause” in global surface temperatures that is in its 19th year, the agency threw away satellite-sensed sea-surface temperatures, substituting questionable data that showed no pause.
The latest kerfuffle is local, not global, but happens to involve probably the most politically important weather station in the nation, the one at Washington’s Reagan National Airport.
I’ll take credit for this one. I casually noticed that the monthly average temperatures at National were departing from their 1981-2010 averages a couple of degrees relative to those at Dulles in the warm direction.
Temperatures at National are almost always higher than those at Dulles, 19 miles away. That’s because of the well-known urban warming effect, as well as an elevation difference of 300 feet. But the weather systems that determine monthly average temperature are, in general, far too large for there to be any significant difference in the departure from average at two stations as close together as Reagan and Dulles. Monthly data from recent decades bear this out until, all at once, in January 2014 and every month thereafter, the departure from average at National was greater than that at Dulles.
The average monthly difference for January 2014 through July 2015 is 2.1 degrees Fahrenheit, which is huge when talking about things like record temperatures. For example, National’s all-time record last May was only 0.2 degrees above the previous record.
Earlier this month, I sent my findings to Jason Samenow, a terrific forecaster who runs the Washington Post’s weather blog, Capital Weather Gang. He and his crew verified what I found and wrote up their version, giving due credit and adding other evidence that something was very wrong at National. And, in remarkably quick action for a government agency, the National Weather Service swapped out the sensor within a week and found that the old one was reading 1.7 degrees too high. Close enough to 2.1, the observed difference.
But the National Weather Service told the Capital Weather Gang that there will be no corrections, despite the fact that the disparity suddenly began 19 months ago and varied little once it began. It said correcting for the error wouldn’t be “scientifically defensible.” Therefore, people can and will cite the May record as evidence for dreaded global warming with impunity. Only a few weather nerds will know the truth. Over a third of this year’s 37 90-degree-plus days, which gives us a remote chance of breaking the all time record, should also be eliminated, putting this summer rightly back into normal territory.
It is really politically unwise not to do a simple adjustment on these obviously-too-hot data. With all of the claims that federal science is being biased in service of the president’’s global-warming agenda, the agency should bend over backwards to expunge erroneous record-high readings.
In July, by contrast, NOAA had no problem adjusting the global temperature history. In that case, the method they used guaranteed that a growing warming trend would substitute for “the pause.” They reported in Science that they had replaced the pause (which shows up in every analysis of satellite and weather balloon data) with a significant warming trend.
Normative science says a trend is “statistically significant” if there’s less than a 5 percent probability that it would happen by chance. NOAA claimed significance at the 10 percent level, something no graduate student could ever get away with. There were several other major problems with the paper. As Judy Curry, a noted climate scientist at Georgia Tech, wrote, “color me ‘unconvinced.’”
Unfortunately, following this with the kerfuffle over the Reagan temperature records is only going to “convince” even more people that our government is blowing hot air on global warming.
Patrick Michaels is director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute.
The biggest component of this fraud is making up data. Almost half of all reported US temperature data is now fake. They fill in missing rural data with urban data to create the appearance of non-existent US warming.
For years, climate scientists have been debating the “hiatus” in global warming, pushing dozens of explanations for why global temperatures had not risen significantly in the last decade or so in the surface record and for the last two decades in the satellite record. but the debate was cut short in June when the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration published a study claiming the “hiatus” never existed.
“Newly corrected and updated global surface temperature data from NOAA’s [National Centers for Environmental Information] do not support the notion of a global warming ‘hiatus,’” wrote NOAA scientists in their study.
The study was highly criticized for inflating the temperature record since the late 1990s to show vastly more global warming than was shown in older data. The warming “hiatus” was eliminated and the warming trend over the period was more than doubled.
“There’s been so much criticism of NOAA’s alteration of the sea surface temperature that we are really just going to have to use the University of East Anglia data,” Pat Michaels, a climate scientist with the libertarian Cato Institute, told The Daily Caller News Foundation.
“I don’t think that’s going to stand the test of time,” Michaels said of NOAA’s recent adjustments.
But what Michaels and others say is more problematic is the growing divergence between NOAA’s new temperature data versus satellite data and records from the UK Met Office. NOAA’s data shows significantly more warming than Met Office or satellite records.
“It’s a major problem because outside of the north polar region, the upper troposphere is supposed to warm faster than the surface,” Michaels said.
“Pretty much every projection made by our climate models for sensible weather is simply not at all trustworthy,” Michaels said.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is apparently operating under the control of President Obama’s leftist ideology. There is little doubt about this as the president’s hand-picked Environmental Protection Agency administrator, Gina McCarthy, has basically told professional audiences that she is doing the bidding of her boss. What may surprise folks is that this is not inappropriate with respect to how the EPA was initially established by President Richard Nixon. Relative to the advancement of the country’s economic, environmental and public health, and the well-being of objective scientific practice itself, an ideology-driven EPA is quite inappropriate.
In his new book “Environmentalism Gone Mad: How a Sierra Club Activist and Senior EPA Analyst Discovered a Radical Green Energy Fantasy,” Alan Carlin explains that the EPA “reports directly to the president and thus has no independence from the executive branch like some regulatory agencies. This means that if an administration wants to use its power to determine regulations, it can impose exactly what it wishes to do subject only to the Congressional Review Act and Congress’ powers of appropriations, both of which have proved ineffective so far in preventing Obama from doing what he wants with regard to EPA.”
Mr. Carlin was at the EPA almost from its inception in 1970. He came from research work at the RAND Corp. in Santa Monica, Ca., to work with the EPA in Washington, D.C. from 1971 to 2010. In early 2009, after submitting serious negative comments on the EPA’s draft technical support document for the endangerment finding on the adverse effects of increasing levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases, Mr. Carlin had been maligned by the EPA powers-that-be for challenging the Obama administration’s poor economics and science represented in these findings. Yet, as an EPA senior analyst with an undergraduate degree in physics from Caltech bolstered by a doctorate in economics from MIT, Mr. Carlin surely knows his stuff.
He asserts that even if EPA’s current effort to control carbon-dioxide emissions are successful, “it will not change the climate or extreme weather in any measurable way even though Obama has proclaimed it will. It will simply increase the rates paid for less reliable energy, with lower-income Americans bearing most of the burden along with the slow recovery of the U.S. economy.”
Throughout his lengthy personal recounting in “Environmentalism Gone Mad” of the rise and fall of EPA adherence to science over politics, Mr. Carlin engages the reader with essential details. These include not only an insider’s perspective on the operation of the EPA but also numerous, specific and sensible short-term and long-term recommendations on how to “get out of this mess” - a mess largely brought about by the current administration’s adherence to radical leftist environmentalism. The need to consider reasonable costs versus benefits in air quality rules, as exemplified in the recent Supreme Court decision in Michigan v. Environmental Protection Agency, is a move encouraged by Mr. Carlin.
Good economics and science require a broad perspective, yet when politics and financial control dominate the mix of viewpoints, the climate changes, and usually in an ominous way. Mr. Carlin expresses it in one of his long-term reform recommendations to reduce incentives for EPA managers to follow the administration: “Besides the normal bureaucratic controls, the pay of all EPA executives and senior analysts [is] directly determined by Congress and the president. This is unlikely to lead to independent action or thought by these crucial civil service employees. Yet independent analysis is desperately needed if EPA is to reflect good science and economics rather than science determined by their political masters.”
Without a doubt, “Environmentalism Gone Mad” is an important book that provides well-informed personal insight into the convoluted world of calamitous climate science promoted by what Mr. Carlin calls the “climate-industrial complex” or “CIC.” The CIC includes the science elites, mainstream media, environmental groups, leftist politicians and bureaucratic administrators, “green” energy and fuel producers and promoters, PR myth-makers (like those labeling knowledgeable skeptics as “deniers"), and others who profit financially, professionally and personally from foisting a future climate fantasy on a unwary public.
Mr. Carlin observes: “If governments simply stayed out of energy decisions not involving government-owned resources, urgent national security objectives, or actual proven pollution problems and let the markets decide how to meet energy needs, everyone except the CIC would be much better off, including the environment.”
Ratepayers and all taxpayers would do well to educate themselves on the inefficient, sometimes unscrupulous, and perhaps often counterproductive actions of those obstructing the goal of good, clean and affordable domestic energy. “Environmentalism Gone Mad” is a good first step in this essential education.
Anthony J. Sadar, a certified consulting meteorologist, is the author of “In Global Warming We Trust: A Heretic’s Guide to Climate Science” (Telescope Books, 2012).
Despite El Nino, unusually warm temperatures will give way to a frigid winter
After last year’s winter wallop, is this bizarrely warm weather great or what? Well, enjoy it while it lasts- because it’s about to go away.Icecap Note: it has gone away in a lot of places including the western Mountains and this weekend when snow and cold hits Chicago and the Midwest.
Starting around Nov. 20, it’s going to get a lot colder in much of the U.S., and it will stay that way through the first few weeks of December. After Christmas, the cold weather will back off, but return with a vengeance during mid-January through much of March.
The cold weather snaps are going to take a lot of folks by surprise. So naturally there’s a contrarian investing angle.
The setup here is that many people have been lulled into complacency by the warm weather itself, and the misperception that this year’s strong El Nino equates to a warm winter. One website ran this headline Monday: “Biggest El Nino in 15 years is turning up the heat.”
An El Nino can heat up winter, but not this year. So here’s the investing angle: When the reality of a colder winter sets in soon, it will bid up shares of United States Natural Gas Fund LP UNG, - 3.90% which invests in futures contracts that track the price of natural gas NGF16, - 4.73% So you could buy UNG now. Natural gas prices are going to move up sharply over the next few weeks, more or less, as investors and traders realize this winter won’t be so warm after all.
A couple of factors add fuel to the fire, so to speak. Once natural gas gets moving, it could advance a lot in a bear market rally because there is such a big short position in the commodity, say analysts at Bear Traps Report.
Another factor here is that investors and traders have capitulated on natural gas. It looks washed out, according to proprietary capitulation measures used by Bear Traps analysts. This, plus the big short position, makes natural gas a good contrarian trade from the long side. Layer on the contrarian call that this winter will be colder than people currently expect, and you could see a big move up soon.
This isn’t a buy-and-hold situation. Natural gas could fall in price around Christmas as the weather warms up. But then the same dynamic will play out as it gets colder again in mid-January through March.
How do I know what the weather will do over the next four months? I don’t. But the scenario above is the call of my favorite weather guy and fellow Penn Stater, Joe Bastardi of Weatherbell Analytics, based in New York City. I’ve consulted Bastardi regularly on weather calls during the past 15 years. He often makes out-of-consensus calls that turn out to be right.
While a change in the weather that will surprise many people is the main factor here, other potential catalysts could bid up natural prices in North America. They include a production decline as energy companies continue to trim capital spending, and the commencement of liquid natural gas exports by Cheniere Energy Inc. LNG, +0.06%
Then there are the more speculative potential catalysts. Natural gas could get a bump in sympathy with any move up in oil as allied forces strike the energy infrastructure producing oil for Islamic State terrorists. I don’t know this will happen, of course, but it’s possible. Conversely, the terrorists could strike energy infrastructure in the Middle East. These are wild cards. But a colder-than-expected winter, and evidence of it soon, should be enough to get natural gas moving up.
A few stock plays
Besides UNG, another way to play a move up in natural gas is to buy energy companies with a lot of exposure to natural gas. Two producers favored by Hodges Capital Management energy analyst Mike Breard are Comstock Resources Inc. CRK, -2.41% and Memorial Resource Development Corp. MRD, -3.68%
Comstock is tiny, so it is riskier. But it owns solid properties and there was some interesting insider buying a few weeks back - two reasons why I own Comstock personally and have suggested it in my stock newsletter, Brush Up on Stocks. Investors have a huge short position in Comstock’s shares, which adds fuel to upside rallies. During rallies in heavily shorted stocks, short sellers can get nervous and cover. That means they have to buy back the stock, which drives prices higher. Comstock has the potential to provide an even wilder ride than most energy companies these days. So be careful with position size if you don’t have the stomach for volatility.
The winter forecast
No, the Russians won’t be sending us cold air via a polar vortex. Other factors are at work here. Weather is highly complex, so this is a vast oversimplification. But at a high level, there’s a lot of warm water in the Pacific Ocean along the west coast of the U.S. and Canada, and also to some degree off the East Coast. This normally leads to colder temperatures in the southern and mid-Atlantic U.S. The warm water “creates a high-pressure ridge in Western Canada, which means cold air can come here. Cold air seeps down through the Northeast,” says Bastardi.
While Thanksgiving through Christmas will be colder, followed by some warming, we’ll get another blast from around mid-January through much of March. “February and March are going to be the big winter months this year,” says Bastardi. February will likely be the worst month.
The country won’t be colder than normal across the board. Here’s the breakdown: The central south, the southeast and mid-Atlantic will experience below-normal temperatures. Bastardi is predicting 30 inches of snow for Washington, D.C., for example. The northeast will have a normal winter (but still colder than people expect). And the Northwest and north central U.S., places like Washington, Oregon and Chicago, will have above-average temperatures.
Averaged all together and weighted by population, this will be a pretty regular winter on the whole. But given that a lot of forecasters are calling for a warmer-than-normal winter, as reality sets in it will likely put a bid under natural gas, in my view.
Even analysts at AccuWeather, who have a warmer forecast than Bastardi for much of the winter, agree that February could be trouble. “February may be a volatile month across the U.S.,” says David Samuhel, a meteorologist at AccuWeather. He predicts below-average temperatures and above-average snow fall for that month.
In short, expect colder weather and a bump in natural gas prices and related stock plays pretty soon. This will be followed by warmer weather from around Christmas through mid-January when prices will back off. And colder weather from mid-January through much of March will push natural gas prices up again.
At the time of publication, Michael Brush owned shares of CRK and he has suggested CRK in his stock newsletter Brush Up on Stocks. Brush is a Manhattan-based financial writer who has covered business for the New York Times and The Economist group, and he attended Columbia Business School in the Knight-Bagehot program.
Brophey’s unsubstantiated and ill-mannered attack on Tom Harris and the group I created in 2007, the International Climate Science Coalition, is a sample of what we will undoubtedly see more of as we approach the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, only days away.
Climate campaigners are doing their best to divert the public from noticing that essentially none of their forecasts are coming true. For example:
* Global warming stopped 18 years ago despite a 10 per cent rise in carbon dioxide (CO2) levels.
* Hurricane activity is at a record low.
* Medium to strong tornadoes have become less frequent.
* Antarctic sea ice cover has been increasing at about 1-2 per cent per decade.
* Polar bear populations have never been so high in the historical record.
Rather than engage in a “most disingenuous and deceitful distortion of established science,” as Brophey charges, Harris and the ICSC are simply pointing out what is happening in the real world, not the flawed climate models held dear by the UN.
And the ICSC is anything but a “denier lobby group.” We explain that climate has changed continually since the origin of the atmosphere billions of years ago and so we need to help people adapt.
Yet, because of pressure from people like Brophey, of the $1 billion a day spent worldwide on climate finance, only seven per cent goes to helping vulnerable people adapt to climate change today. This is immoral, effectively valuing the lives of people yet to be born more than those in need today.
Of course, we must reduce pollution where it is a problem and conserve energy when it is scarce, but the idea that we know the future of climate decades in advance, let alone that we can control it, is pure fantasy.
What is not fantasy is the fact that, because of unjustified concerns about climate, millions of impoverished Africans are prevented from using the one source of energy that is affordable and within their reach - fossil fuels which still provide some 86 per cent of the world’s energy.
TERRY DUNLEAVY, MBE, JP, Founding Chairman and Strategic Adviser, International Climate Science Coalition
I receive loads of mail in response to my weekly nationally syndicated column. Some recent mail has been quite disturbing. Here’s a sample:
“Given your support of freedom on a great many issues, I wish to bring to your attention the following George Mason University staff who have formally called on the president to use RICO statutes to punish organizations and individuals who dispute the ‘consensus’ of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”
The writer goes on to say, “I am appalled that anyone associated with George Mason would so misuse the power of the federal government.” The writer names 20 signatories, six of whom are GMU faculty members.
This letter writer’s problem, like that of many others, is a misperception of George Mason University, where I am an economics professor.
We have a distinguished economics department that can boast of having had two homegrown Nobel Prize winners on our faculty. Plus, we have a worldwide reputation as a free-market economics department.
The university can also boast of a distinguished law school with professors who, in contrast with many other law schools, have respect for the United States Constitution and the rule of law. We can boast of the excellent Law & Economics Center, too.
With this kind of intellectual firepower at George Mason University, most people assume that it is, like its namesake, a libertarian or free-market university. Little could be further from the truth. My university, at which I’ve toiled for 35 years, has a political makeup like that of most other universities - middle of the road to liberal/progressive.
What distinguishes my liberal/progressive colleagues is that they are courteous and civilized, unlike many of those at universities such as the University of Massachusetts and the University of California, Berkeley.
So I investigated this call for the use of RICO, or the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. It turns out that Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., has called for the criminal investigation of people and organizations who are seen as global warming deniers.
The investigation would include lawsuits against the coal and oil industries, certain think tanks and other organizations that question the global warming religion.
By the way, so that Whitehouse and his gang don’t appear silly, they’ve changed their concern from global warming to climate change. That’s stupid in and of itself, for when has the climate not been changing, even before mankind arrived?
It turns out that George Mason University meteorologist Jagadish Shukla is the lead signatory of the letter sent to the president and attorney general asking them to use RICO laws to prosecute “corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change.”
This GMU professor calling for the prosecution of climate skeptics has been recently revealed as a “climate profiteer.” From 2012 to 2014, this leader of the RICO 20 climate scientists paid himself and his wife $1.5 million from government climate grants for part-time work.
The effort to suppress global warming dissidents is not new. Grist Magazine writer David Roberts said: “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards - some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
Professor Richard Parncutt has called for the execution of prominent “GW deniers.” Climate Progress editor Joe Romm called for deniers to be strangled in their beds. James Hansen, who has headed NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has likewise called for trials of global warming deniers.
The global warming agenda is a desperate effort to gain greater control over our lives. Political commentator Henry Louis Mencken (1880-1956) explained, “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.”
GMU’s Ed Maibach was commisioned by the AMS to help find out why broadcasters and forecasters were not buying the warmist position. He did surveys and advised on special indoctrination sessions for the AMS. See the story that suggests this RICO saga originating out of GMU may become the greatest scandal in science here.
See also here how one of the signatories Alan Betts, (who recently won an award from AMS for his alarmist works) doesn’t believe the letter went far enough. What he neglected to mention, he has made millions from NSF and NASA grants the last 30 years. Betts appears to be the typical alarmist hypocrite - he blocked a debate in St Johnsbury with Tom Wysmuller and Dr. Larry Gould and did a one man show. The society had wanted a lively debate. He did the same with me on VPR when I was invited then uninvited at his insistence. He bashed Fred Singer using Wikipedia lies and denied claims the climate models were failing in that radio hour interview. He sees himself as Vermont’s self annointed climate truth sayer.
Last Wednesday, a small EPA-supervised work crew inspecting the Gold King mine accidentally knocked a hole in a waste pit, releasing at least three million gallons of acidic liquid laden with toxic heavy metals. (ABC)
This letter to editor, posted below, and written by Dave Taylor, from Farmington, New Mexico, was published in The Silverton Standard and The Miner local newspaper, authored by a retired geologist, one week before EPA mine spill. The letter detailed verbatim, how EPA officials would foul up the Animas River on purpose in order to secure superfund money. If the Gold King mine was declared a superfund site it would essentially kill future development for the mining industry in the area. The Obama EPA is vehemently opposed to mining and development
The EPA pushed for nearly 25 years, to apply its Superfund program to the Gold King mine. If a leak occurred the EPA would then receive superfund status. That is exactly what happened.
The EPA today admitted they misjudged the pressure in the gold mine before the spill - just as this editorial predicted.
The letter was included in their print edition on July 30, 2015. Link. The spill occurred one week later.
From: Malcolm Roberts [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
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.
BE (Hons) UQ, MB U Chicago, Member Beta Gamma Sigma Honours Society
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,
“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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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)