"The American Geophysical Union plans to announce that 700 researchers have agreed to speak out on the issue. Other scientists plan a pushback against congressional conservatives who have vowed to kill regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.”

A new article in the LA Times says that the American Geophysical Union (AGU) is enlisting the help of 700 scientists to fight back against a new congress that is viewed as a bunch of backwoods global warming deniers who are standing in the way of greenhouse gas regulations and laws required to same humanity from itself.

Scientific truth, after all, must prevail. And these scientists apparently believe they have been endowed with the truth of what has caused recent warming.

The message just hasn’t gotten across.

We skeptics are not smart enough to understand the science. We and the citizens of America, and the representatives we have just elected to go to Washington, just need to listen to them and let them tell us how we should be allowed to live.

OK, so, let me see if I understand this.

After 20 years, billions of dollars in scientific research and advertising campaigns, cooperation from the public schools, TV specials and concerts by a gaggle of entertainers, end-of-the-world movies, our ‘best’ politicians, heads of state, presidents, the United Nations, and complicity by most of the news media, it has been decided that the American public is not getting the message on global warming!?

Are they serious!?

Americans - hell, most of humanity - have already heard the 20 different ways we will all die miserable deaths from our emissions of that life giving - er, I mean poisonous - gas, carbon dioxide, that we are adding to the atmosphere every day.

So, NOW it no more mister nice guy? Give me a break.

Finally Time for a REAL Debate?

Actually, this announcement is a good thing. There has been a persistent refusal on the part of the elitist, group-think, left-leaning class of climate scientists to even debate the global warming issue in public. Maybe they have considered it beneath themselves to debate those of us who are clearly wrong on the global warming issue.

A complaint many of us skeptics have had for years is that those who constitute the “scientific consensus” (whatever that means) will not engage in public debates on global warming. Al Gore won’t even answer questions from the press.

This is why you will mostly hear only politicians and U.N. bureaucrats give pronouncements on the science. They are already adept at weaving a good story with carefully selected facts and figures.

Why has the global warming message been presented mostly by politicians and bureaucrats up until now? Probably because it is too dangerous to put their scientists out there.

Scientists might admit to something counterproductive - like uncertainty - which would jeopardize what the politicians have been trying to accomplish for decades - control over energy, which is necessary for everything that humans do.

Scientists Ready to Enter the Lion’s Den

The LA Times articles goes on to explain how there will be “scientists prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk radio and television shows.”

Gee, how brave of them.

Kind of like when I went up against Henry Waxman? Or Barbara Boxer?

I can sympathize with Republican’s desire to have hearings to investigate how your tax dollars have been spent on this issue. But I will guarantee that if such hearings are held, the news media will make it sound like Galileo is being tried all over again.

As if climate scientists are objective seekers of the truth. I hate to break it to you, but scientists are human. Well...most of us are, anyway.

Most have strong personal, quasi-religious views of the role of humans in the natural world, and this inevitably guides how they interpret measurements of the climate system. Especially the young ones who have been indoctrinated on the subject.

Those few of us who are publishing climate researchers and who are willing to take the risk of speaking out on the biased science on this issue are now late in our careers, and we have seen the climate research field be transformed from one where “climate change” used to necessarily imply natural climate change, to one where nature does not have the power to cause its own change - only mankind does.

I have repeatedly pointed out how virtually all global warming research funds either (1) build the case for humanity as the primary cause of recent warming, or (2) simply assume humans are the cause.

Virtually NO funding has supported research into the possibility that warming might be mostly part of a natural climate cycle. And if you give scientists enough money to find something, they will do their best to find it.

Politicians have orchestrated and guided this effort from the outset, and scientists like to believe they are helping to Save the Earth when they participate in global warming research.

Anthropogenic Global Warming is a Hypothesis, Nothing More

What the big-government funded climate science community has come up with is a plausible hypothesis which is being passed off as a proven explanation.

Science advances primarily by searching for new and better explanations (hypotheses) for how nature works. Unfortunately, this basic task of science has been abandoned when it comes to explaining climate change.

About the only alternative explanation they have mostly ruled out is an increase in the total output of the sun.

The possibility that small changes in ocean circulation have caused clouds to let in more sunlight is just one of many alternative explanations which are being ignored.

Not only have natural, internal climate cycles been ignored as a potential explanation, some researchers have done their best to revise climate history to do away with events such as the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. This is how the ‘hockey stick’ controversy got started.

If you can get rid of all evidence for natural climate change in Earth’s history, you can make it look like no climate changes happened until humans (and cows) came on the scene.

Bring It On

I look forward to the opportunity to debate a scientist from the other side who actually knows what they are talking about. I’ve gone one-on-one with some speakers who so mangled the consensus explanation of global warming that I had to use up half my speaking time cleaning up the mess they made.

Those few I have debated in a public forum who know what they are talking about are actually much more reserved in their judgment on the subject than those who the pop culture presents to us.

But for those newbie’s who want to enter the fray, I have a couple of pieces of advice on preparation.

First, we skeptics already know your arguments...it would do you well to study up a little on ours.

And second, those of us who have been at this a long time actually knew Galileo. Galileo was a good friend of ours. And you are no Galileo.

Is there any aspect of the Democrats’ actions that didn’t take them down on Tuesday? Obamacare took down the Democrats, spending took down the Democrats, the economy took down the Democrats...and now Politico adds the climate agenda:

Democrats who voted for the controversial House climate bill were slaughtered at the ballot box, including Rep. Rick Boucher, the 14-term Virginian who helped broker some of the key deals instrumental to its June 2009 passage. In the Senate, several reliable green advocates also went down to opponents who derided tough new environmental policies.

Come January, Obama will be working with a Congress that will have little appetite for the types of sweeping energy reform he sought over the last two years. With the House in Republican hands, some of the climate issue’s most vocal advocates have been dislodged from their powerful perches, including Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman.

There’s no hiding the House Democrats’ bloodbath, with more than two dozen members who voted for the Pelosi-led climate bill losing their seats, and more likely to fall as the final tallies come in. The outcome sends a strong signal to moderate lawmakers as they consider any risky votes in future Congress’ on energy and environmental issues.

Turns out the scientific consensus on global warming produced a forensic consensus that it caused a political mass murder of Democrats. Read more here.
--------------

What the Green Movement Got Wrong

A group of environmentalists across the world believe that, in order to save the planet, humanity must embrace the very science and technology they once so stridently opposed.

In this film, these life-long diehard greens advocate radical solutions to climate change, which include GM crops and nuclear energy. They argue that by clinging to an ideology formed more than 40 years ago, the traditional green lobby has failed in its aims and is ultimately harming its own environmental cause.

As author and environmentalist Mark Lynas says, ‘Being an environmentalist was part of my identity and most of my friends were environmentalists. We were involved in the whole movement together. It took me years to actually begin to question those core, cherished beliefs. It was so challenging it was almost like going over to the dark side. It was a like a horrible dark secret you couldn’t share with anyone.’

Directly following this programme, there will be a live studio debate chaired by Krishnan Guru-Murthy to discuss the issues raised.

Krishnan Guru-Murthy chairs a studio debate to discuss the issues raised in the documentary, What the Green Movement Got Wrong.

The film’s leading protagonists, former anti-GM activist and author Mark Lynas and Stewart Brand, a pioneer of the original green lobby, face critics from today’s green movement in front of an informed studio audience.

Leading policy makers, commentators, scientists, entrepreneurs and economists debate the impact the green movement has had on global climate change and whether embracing the very science and technology the greens once so stridently opposed, such as GM crops and nuclear energy, would be more successful in reducing the risks to the planet from global warming.

See more here.

In court documents filed last night, the Competitive Enterprise Institute argues that NASA has gone out of its way to avoid turning over records that show the agency reverse-engineered temperature data to better make the case that the planet is becoming warmer.

CEI, which is being represented by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher’s Andrew Tulumello, argues in a pleading filed in Washington federal court that NASA’s request for summary judgment in the Freedom of Information Act suit against the agency should be denied because e-mails and other evidence turned over by NASA suggest that there are additional records that are being withheld.

“Rather than deal forthrightly with a FOIA request on these issues, NASA has engaged in obstruction and delay,” Tulumello writes in the court filing, which was filed late last night in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

CEI argues in the Nov. 3 motion that NASA has additional e-mails and documents on separate servers that relate to changes made to temperature data, but has failed to turn them over. CEI also argues that Dr. James Hansen, the director of NASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies, and Dr. Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist and climate modeler at Goddard, used third-party Web sites and e-mail addresses to avoid having those records appear on NASA’s servers.

“The e-mails among the NASA scientists working on this project reflect a conscious choice to keep the final explanation off of NASA’s servers,” Tulumello writes.

NASA, which is being represented by Julie Straus, a trial attorney in the Justice Department’s Civil Division, requested summary judgment in the case on Sept. 20, arguing that CEI already has access to the data it is trying to obtain and that CEI’s FOIA requests don’t seek computer programs and data files. NASA contends that CEI’s FOIA requests only sought “records, documents, and international communications” related to the alleged changes to temperature data.

“[T]he Agency had no obligation under the FOIA to search Dr. Schmidt’s email correspondence, nor to release to Plaintiff any of Dr. Schmidt’s emails. Even so, on December 29, 2009, and July 9, 2010, the Agency, in its discretion, did release to Plaintiff copies of those emails of Dr. Schmidt’s that pertain to the subject matter sought by Plaintiff’s request,” Straus wrote in the motion for summary judgment.

CEI filed suit against NASA in May, alleging that in 2007 and 2008, it submitted, but has not yet received adequate responses to, FOIA requests seeking NASA documents related to changes made to NASA’s temperature data in response to questions raised by statistician Steven McIntyre. McIntyre runs Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data.

CEI argues that McIntyre discovered errors in NASA’s data that resulted in an overstatement of the amount that temperatures have risen in the United States since 2000. Those allegedly erroneous data, CEI says, have been used by Goddard to make claims in the media that temperatures in the United States have risen dramatically during the past 10 years. Among those claims was that 1998 was the “hottest” year on record.

CEI alleges that, once the errors were pointed out in August 2007, NASA made a series of changes to the data and then “sought to reverse-engineer the temperature data so that 1998 could again be deemed the warmest year on record.”

NASA’s delays in responding to the FOIA requests prompted Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) and Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) to call for an investigation by the agency’s inspector general on Dec. 3, 2009. The inspector general’s investigation determined that the delays were caused by “inadequate direction given...as to what documents were requested and a due date for a response,” “inadequate communication,” and “inadequate staffing at the Goddard FOIA office.”

As pointed out in CEI’s court filings, Hansen is also known as an environmental activist. In September, Hansen was one of 100 people arrested in front of the White House while engaging in a protest against mountaintop removal mining.

Tulumello said in an interview, “There is very powerful evidence that NASA disregarded the FOIA requests because what the record reflects raises very significant questions about the changes made to the data.”

NASA has two weeks to respond to CEI’s opposition to the motion for summary judgment. If summary judgment is denied by Judge Richard Roberts, the case would proceed to discovery.

Straus declined to comment.

Both 1988 and 2010 were hot summers where a strong La Nina developed following a moderately strong El Nino winter. 2010 was the fourth warmest for the United States and 1988 the sixth hottest (out of 116 years in the United States climate record).

1988 had a major drought that led to over $40 billion in crop losses. USDA reported corn yields dropped 36% from the prior year and soybeans dropped 22%. 2010 soybean yields were the highest on record. Corn was down 3% from last year’s record crop.

The summer heat was unusual - more records were set for elevated minimums than record highs. For example in Detroit, it was a record hot summer. No record highs were set. Nighttime temperatures were elevated by high moisture (dewpoints). When you look at record summer highs by decade in Detroit you see the 1930s clearly dominates. The 1980s come in second.

Enlarged here.

New York reached 100F on two days in early July.

They were daily records. The summer was record warm but those were the only daily records set. How does that compare historically?

Enlarged here.

In New York City, 100 degree days were common from the 1930s to the 1950s (the warmest decade). 1990s showed another spike. Again no upward trend is evident.

In sharp contrast June/July in 2009 were the 3rd coldest such period since records began over 130 years ago. How quickly we forget.

For the 50 states, the monthly (all 12 months) heat and cold records show this same pattern with the 1930s dominating the heat records. The 2000s had fewer heat records than any decade since the 1880s. The NOAA/NCAR/IPCC claims that heat waves in the United States and world are rapidly increasing is patently false.

Enlarged here.

But let’s get back to the difference in crops. A number of factors may have played a role.

ANTECEDENT CONDITIONS

During the mid to late spring, soil moisture deficits were extensive and expanding in the growing areas in 1988. Since drought begets drought, conditions deteriorated further as summer heat set in. In 2010, soil moisture was more than adequate after a snowy winter. That helped feed heavier than normal precipitation in the prime growing areas. Beans thrive in heat (unless extreme) if there is sufficient soil moisture.

LOW SOLAR, HIGH PERSISTENCE

When sun is quiet, the patterns tend to persist. That has been the case the last few years. The patterns in both the warm and cold seasons has tended to persist. This aggravates the seasonal anomalies and can allow extremes to build. We have seen that in many locations worldwide the last few years.

That is why this summer, the east and south central had the warmest summer on record in some locations with few or no record daily highs. It helps explain why some other locations like California had the coldest or second coldest summer on record. It explains the Russian heat wave and drought in some of the same areas that had one of the coldest (or the coldest) and snowiest winter on record. And why areas downstream (Pakistan) had record floods as the downstream trough from the heat ridge amplified the summer monsoon rain band over Pakistan and parts of India (map from New Scientist).

Enlarged here.

CARBON DIOXIDE, THE GAS OF LIFE

Another factor not discussed is CO2. CO2 is a plant fertilizer. Even the UN has shown crop yields increase as CO2 increases.

Enlarged here.

CO2 enriched crops are more vigorous and more drought resistant. They shade the ground and keep down solar induced ground evaporation down. This reduces water needs. NASA found that crop yields had increased 30% in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 50 years with an increase of 10% in arable land. Some of this is better hybrids, better fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides but CO2 is playing a key role.

This is one of the CO2 benefits they won’t talk about. We do have real issues in the world with water pollution, air pollution, toxins in the environment, insects and disease. Instead of focusing our attention on these real problems the world led by the corrupt UN and government, corporate and university profiteers is wasting resources dealing with a beneficial gas.

That is why when a panel of eight leading economists in the Copenhagen Consensus project, including five Nobel laureates organized by Bjorn Lomborg prioritized a list of 30 efforts that made economic sense (best cost benefit ratios) for the world to pursue, global warming R&D and mitigation ranked 29th and 30th.

See PDF here.

Enlarged here.

The NASA A-Train satellite constellation symposium I attended last week in New Orleans was in some sense a celebration of the wide variety of global satellite observations we are now collecting from Earth orbit. This really is the Golden Age in satellite data collection of the global climate system. While a few A-Train satellites are still to be launched, other older satellite assets in the A-Train are now operating well past their planned lifetimes. There are no plans to replace many of these one-of-a-kind instruments, so much of what we will learn in the coming years will have to come from the analysis of previously collected data.

Unfortunately - at least in my opinion - the existence of this superb national resource depended upon convincing congress almost 2 decades ago that manmade global warming was a clear and present danger to the world.

Manmade Global Warming as the Justification

Since I believe the majority of what we now view as “climate change” is just part of a natural cycle in the climate system, I argued from the outset that NASA should be also selling “Mission to Planet Earth” as a way to better prepare ourselves for natural climate change - something that history tells us has indeed occurred, and we can be assured will occur again.

But behind the scenes there was a strong push for policy changes that even most of the scientists involved supported - ultimately culminating in the governmental control over how much and the kinds of energy sources humanity would be allowed to use in the future. Cap and Trade, as well as potential regulation of carbon dioxide emissions by the EPA, are the fruits of the labor of politicians, governmental representatives, bureaucrats, the United Nations, and activist scientists who have used global warming as an excuse to accomplish policy goals that would have never been accomplished on their own merits.

Of course, most who speak out on this issue continue to point to the supposed “scientific consensus” on global warming as the justification, but those of us who knew the players also knew of these other motives. I am often asked, “So, are you saying there is a conspiracy here?” No, because the ultimate goals were not a secret. Just a bunch of elitists carrying out plans that the politicians supported - with continuing promises of congressional funding for research that those politicians knew would support Job #1 of government - to stay needed by the people. Many of the scientists involved are just along for a ride on the gravy train. Even I ride that train.

The elitism clearly shows through in the behavior of those who speak out publically on the need for humanity to change its Earth-destroying ways: Al Gore, James Cameron, Harrison Ford, Julia Roberts, RFK, Jr. These people apparently believe they are God’s gift to humanity. How else can we explain that they do not see the hypocrisy the rest of the nation sees in their behavior?

Unfortunately, I saw this attitude on a smaller scale at the New Orleans meeting. There are many new, young scientists now joining the ranks. They are being mentored by the older scientists who helped spread the alarm concerning manmade global warming. And they will be rewarded for playing the game. Or will they?

The Times They Are A-Changin’

How is it that government agencies long ago decided to put all their eggs in the manmade global warming basket? Why have the movers and shakers around the world ignored natural climate change - even going so far as to claim it does not exist? The only reason I can think of again goes back to their elitist beliefs and desired policy outcomes. The belief that a better-educated few should be allowed power over the less educated masses. That government knows better than the people do.

This election is widely viewed as a referendum on the proper role of government in people’s lives. There is no question that the founders of our country intended there to be maximum of freedom on the part of individuals and the states, while placing strong limits on the role of the federal government. Just read the Declaration of Independence if you want to see how pi$!ed off the settlers of the original colonies became at the King of England over his intrusion into their personal affairs. And global warming legislation is now quite possibly the best opportunity the governments of the world have to increase the role of government in people’s lives.

The Basic Economics of Individual Freedom

Yet, many Americans believe that government can more equitably distribute the wealth generated by a country. This is a laudable goal on the face of it.
Unfortunately, history has taught us that trying to impose equality of outcomes only serves to make people equally miserable. I like to think that I know something about basic economics. It was the subject of the 6th chapter in my first book - Climate Confusion - which received a nice blurb on the jacket from noted economist Walter Williams.

One of the reasons I am willing to stick my neck out and inform people of the uncertain nature of government-approved global warming science is because the basic economics behind any governmental (or environmental extremist) attempts to restrict personal choice in energy use will end up killing people. In fact, it already has.

The biggest threat to humanity is poverty. Wealthier is healthier. When governments make energy more expensive, or environmental organizations pressure foreign countries to not build hydroelectric dams, poor people die. Those already living on the edge are pushed over the edge. Energy is required for everything we do, and artificially raising the price of energy cannot help but destroy wealth generation.

If these elitists really were interested in the poor, they would be doing everything they could to help individuals take control of their own economic destinies. One billion people in the world still do not have electricity. Worried about population growth? Then encourage the generation of wealth. It is the poor of the world that cause global population growth. The wealthy countries of the world have close to zero population growth.

Of course the main argument against this view is “sustainability”. Can the Earth sustain even more people consuming natural resources? Interesting how those who ask the question have already gotten theirs, and now want to prevent others from doing the same. But I would ask, can the world sustain the poverty-stricken? Poor countries have had most of their trees cut down. Imagine if global society collapsed and billions of people had to make do on their own with what they could scavenge from nature. Now THAT would lead to a pollution problem.

What ensures sustainability is free markets. As natural resources of one type become more scarce, their price goes up, which makes alternatives more attractive. People are incentivized to develop new answers to old technological problems. This is why fossil fuels will never be used up. At some point, they simply will become too expensive to extract. Mass production by factories and corporations should be embraced, rather than derided. It represents the most efficient way of providing goods and services. Waste is minimized because it hurts competitiveness.

But What About Equality?

Equality of outcomes is an illusion. It can never be achieved...unless we totally destroy the people’s motivation to make a better life for themselves. A vibrant economy is what maximizes the tax revenue collected by the government. The two largest periods of growth in tax revenue collected by the government occurred after two major tax-CUTTING initiatives: JFK’s in the early 1960’s, and Reagan’s in the early 1980’s.

If you really want to help the poor, then help the country grow economically. Want to make sure the poor are taken care of? Then encourage businesses to grow, which will lead to more jobs. Economic activity is what is needed, and since the tax revenue the government receives is a “piece of the action”, more action means more money for government programs.

And whether we like it or not, the only way to ensure this growth happens is to give business owners and entrepreneurs some hope that their risk-taking and creativity will pay off for them personally in the future.

Yes, in the process, some people will get rich. A few will get obscenely rich. But this only occurs because so many consumers want the goods and services those rich few can offer them. Call it a necessary evil, if you must. But it is, indeed, necessary. The end result will be more money for the poor, not less.

A New Fight Begins

The basic economics and desire to help the poor that have motivated me to speak out in the last 20 years on global warming policy will be the subject of a national debate regarding the proper role of government in helping its people. The election is only the start. From then on, education about the practical importance of economic freedom will be central to that debate.

There is no question that our country has an unsustainable growth in our yearly budget deficits, and our total national debt is staggering. Everyone agrees this must change. And reducing government expenditures must, of course, be part of the debate. But increasing tax revenue to help support those programs is ALSO part of the solution. And since the only demonstrated (and sustainable)way to accomplish this is to grow the economy, it requires personal economic freedom.

So, what is the primary role of government in all this? In my opinion, it is two-fold: (1) make sure people play fair, and (2) get out of the way.