The new study claims to show “human-generated greenhouse gas emissions have helped reverse a 2,000-year trend of cooling in the Arctic, prompting warmer average temperatures in the past decade that now rank higher than at any time since 1 B.C.,” according to a September 3, 2009 article by the Washington Post’s Juliet Eilperin. The study will appear in the September 3, 2009 online version of the journal Science. The lead author was Northern Arizona University professor Darrell S. Kaufman.

The Washington Post also saw fit to gave prominent play to the environmental group World Wildlife Fund’s new dire Arctic study claiming a scary global warming caused “transformation” of the Arctic. The Post article on the new Arctic “Hockey Stick” completely glossed over years of contrary data and instead mostly gave the authors a scrutiny free ride. (Eilperin also misspelled the name of one scientist she quoted.)

MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot, “This looks like this week’s “Hockey Stick” including many of Mann’s collaborators.” [Editor’s Note: Mann’s has attempted multiple “Hockey Stick” inventions and his newest creation is the Hurricane “Hockey Stick”.]

Ice Mann enlarged here.

Climate data analyst Steve McIntyre who publishes Climate Audit and is known for his research discrediting Mann’s original “Hockey Stick” temperature graph, weighed in on the new Arctic study. “Amusingly, the [Arctic study’s lead author] Kaufman Team perpetuates Mann’s upside down use of the Tiljander proxy,” McIntyre wrote on September 3, 2009. “You can readily see that this closely matches the Mann version,” McIntyre noted. “The most cursory examination [of the study] shows the usual problem of seemingly biased picking of proxies without any attempt to reconcile proxy conflicts,” McIntryre wrote. See also this post showing the cherry picking selection of the proxys with the most hockey stick appearance and other statistical chichanery.

New Peer-Reviewed Study Shows Arctic COOLING Over last 1500 years! - Feb 5, 2008 - Published in Climate Dynamics on 30 January 2008. Excerpt: New Arctic Study published in Climate Dynamics, and the work was conducted by Hakan Grudd of Stockholm University’s Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology - Published online: 30 January 2008 - Excerpt: “The late-twentieth century is not exceptionally warm in the new Tornetrask record: On decadal-to-century timescales, periods around AD 750, 1000, 1400, and 1750 were all equally warm, or warmer.”

Danish Meteorological Institute records show: No Arctic Warming Since 1958! - ‘Arctic was warmer in the 1940s than now’ - May 13, 2009.

U.S. Government Arctic Study: ‘Current rate of human-influenced Arctic warming is comparable to peak natural rates documented by reconstructions of past climates’ - January 16, 2009

January 2008 study in the peer-reviewed journal Science found North Atlantic warming tied to natural variability. Excerpt: A Duke University-led analysis of available records shows that while the North Atlantic Ocean’s surface waters warmed in the 50 years between 1950 and 2000, the change was not uniform. In fact, the sub-polar regions cooled at the same time that subtropical and tropical waters warmed. This striking pattern can be explained largely by the influence of a natural and cyclical wind circulation pattern called the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), wrote authors of a study published Thursday, January 3 in Science Express, the online edition of the journal Science. [...] “It is premature to conclusively attribute these regional patterns of heat gain to greenhouse warming,” they wrote.

A November 2007 peer-reviewed study conducted by a team of NASA and university experts found cyclical changes in ocean currents impacting the Arctic. Excerpt: “Our study confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming,” said James Morison of the University of Washington’s Polar Science Center Applied Physics Laboratory in Seattle, according to a November 13, 2007 NASA release.

A 2005 peer-reviewed study in Geophysical Research Letters by astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, solar irradiance appears to be the key to Arctic temperatures. The study found Arctic temperatures follow the pattern of increasing or decreasing energy received from the sun. Excerpt: Solar forcing explains well over 75% of the variance for the decadally-smoothed Arctic annual-mean or spring SATs (surface air temperatures).

According to a 2003 study by Arctic scientist Igor Polyakov, the warmest period in the Arctic during the 20th Century was the late 1930s through early 1940s. Excerpt: Our results suggest that the decadal AO (Arctic Oscillation) and multidecadal LFO (low-frequency oscillation) drive large amplitude natural variability in the Arctic making detection of possible long-term trends induced by greenhouse gas warming most difficult.

Report: Arctic ‘ice level in the 1920’s, 30’s and early 40’s was at a similar low level’ of today - September 10th, 2008. For many, many more Arctic studies, go to: Climate Depot’s Arctic Fact Sheet - Get the latest peer-reviewed studies and analysis - July 30, 2009

The Post article on the new Arctic study also reported: “The [new Arctic] paper in Science sheds light on several key scientific questions, including how the earth’s orbital pattern around the sun affects our climate, and the extent to which current computer climate models mirror real-world conditions. Some climate skeptics have argued that the fact that the earth wobbles in its axis of rotation has helped determine recent warming, rather than human activities. But the new study shows this wobble—which affects how much sunlight the earth receives in the middle of the summer—actually accounts for a long-term cooling trend in the Arctic, which has only been reversed in the past half-century.”

But geologist Dr. Don J. Easterbrook, Emeritus Professor at Western Washington University, who has authored eight books and 150 journal publications, disputed the findings of new Arctic report. “The glacial record (both advance and retreat history and the isotope data in Greenland ice cores) contrast sharply with the temperature curves shown in this paper,” Easterbrook told Climate Depot. “There is no way that the well documented, short-term climate changes can be orbitally driven because of the vastly longer time scales for orbital changes. Among the big surprises (and most significant) results of the ice core data is that the abrupt, short-term climate changes cannot be possibly be explained by orbital changes,” Easterbrook added.

Singer agreed, noting, “the Abstract tries to relate 20th century temperature changes to insolation changes and claims these are ‘orbitally’ driven. This is highly unlikely: the temperature changes on a time scale of decades; orbital changes are much slower, and generally measured in millennia. I prefer [Harvard University Astrophysicist] Dr. Willie Soon’s analysis of Arctic temperature changes.”

Eilperin then goes on to claim that that the “documentation of the Medieval Warm Period is primarily about Europe, and natural records indicate average Arctic temperatures during that time were not as high. There was a brief period in the early fifth century that came close to, but was not quite as warm, as the Arctic’s most recent summer temperatures.”

How sad, that Eliperin’s refused to do basic research before making such a whopper of a claim. The latest research clearly reveals that the Medieval Warm Period (used to be referred to as the Medieval Climate Optimum) has been verified and was in fact global, not just confined to the Northern Hemisphere. The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change reported in 2009 that the “Medieval Warm Period was: (1) global in extent, (2) at least as warm as, but likely even warmer than, the Current Warm Period, and (3) of a duration significantly longer than that of the Current Warm Period to date.”

In addition, The Science and Public Policy Institute reported in May 2009: “More than 700 scientists from 400 institutions in 40 countries have contributed peer-reviewed papers providing evidence that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was real, global, and warmer than the present. And the numbers grow larger daily.”

After promoting the eco-group World Wildlife Fund’s new climate study, the Washington Post also digs up a scientist with a woeful reputation, Robert Corell, and chooses not to identify his employment with the partisan Heinz Foundation, vice-chaired by Teresa Heinz Kerry, wife of Senator John Kerry (who recently claimed: Global Warming Is The Next 9/11) Eilperin felt compelled to state that Fred Singer was a “skeptic” but the reporter felt no obligation to label any other scientists she cited in the article. Reporter Eilperin wrote: “Robert Correll, who chairs the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, said the paper in Science will likely ‘in the long haul become a seminal piece in the scientific literature” because it allows other climate researchers “to set their work in a long time scale.’” First off, Eilperin misspelled Corell’s name as “Correll.” Second, Eilperin could not find the space in her article to note Corell’s affiliation with former Vice President Al Gore or his role in the left-wing Heinz Center or the fact that Corell, has been under fire for dubious climate claims. In addition, Corell has been linked to an “affiliate” of a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm that provides “expert testimony” in trials and he was reportedly sponsored by the left-leaning Packard Foundation. Read much more here.

This week saw the next step in the phasing out of traditional tungsten filament lightbulbs; manufacturers and importers are no longer supplying 100 watt or any pearl bulbs in EU Member States. By 2012, manufacture or import of all such bulbs will be banned, and consumers will instead need to rely on the low-energy compact fluorescent lamp (CFL). And this is not just another example of Europe leading the pack on environmental issues. A number of other countries, including the USA, are set on the same course.

It is undeniable that CFLs use considerably less energy and that many of their original disadvantages have been overcome. These days, you do not have to spend 10 pounds on an object much larger than a standard bulb and then wait five minutes for it to give a decent light. Modern bulbs are quite compact, available in a range of shapes and sizes, and produce a high output very quickly.

But they are not the same as filament bulbs or the increasingly common alternative of halogen lighting. And they are not universally popular. For many applications, they are excellent, especially if lights are to be left on for a long time. However, their disadvantages - well documented elsewhere - include requiring more energy to make, containing mercury (an end-of-life disposal problem which also makes clearing up a broken one more hazardous), their inability to be used with dimmer switches, the different quality of their light and their size making them too large for many existing fittings.

The drawbacks and lack of universal enthusiasm are perhaps not surprising. CFLs are, after all, just a different incarnation of the familiar fluorescent tube lighting: low energy and fine for some purposes, but not good for general domestic use. As well as the different spectrum of light they emit, some people are troubled by their inherent rapid flickering. In a free market, people make their own choices, and if lower electricity bills and longer bulb life are not enough to make them change, there must be some good reasons to stop them.

Although energy savings per bulb may be very significant, the direct impact on household and national energy use are more difficult to fathom. For a start, if people use low-energy bulbs, they are often more inclined to leave them on for longer. The same thing happens for other energy efficiency measures. Also, it will take a very long time to phase out use of filament bulbs once they are no longer available. It is clear that many people are stocking up, and their supply could last many years. So, the phasing in of actual CFL use in homes will be a long process.

EU statistics show that lighting accounts for just under 3% of domestic energy consumption (about 10% of electricity use, but remember that much of the energy used is for heating, and supplied by gas or oil). Looking at overall energy consumption, including transport and industry, domestic lighting represents 0.76% of the total used in the 27 Member States.

But this is not the whole picture. A study by VITO consultants showed the following breakdown of lamp use in European homes in 2007:

>54% incandescent (down from 85% in 1995 and still decreasing)

>18% low-voltage halogen (and increasing)

>5% mains-voltage halogen (and growing)

>8% linear fluorescent

>15% CFL

So, if we assume that all remaining filament bulbs are replaced by CFL at some point in the future (unlikely, as use of halogen bulbs is likely to increase), that these bulbs are used to the same extent as those they replace and that the energy reduction per bulb is 80%, the total reduction in EU energy use would be 0.54 x 0.8 x 0.76% = 0.33%. This figure is almost certainly an overestimate, particularly as the inefficiency of conventional bulbs generates heat which supplements other forms of heating in winter. Which begs the question: is it really worth it?

Politicians are forcing a change to a particular technology which is fine for some applications but not universally liked, and which has disadvantages. In the meantime, very efficient and flexible lamps are becoming available using light-emitting diode (LED) technology. Already, they are widely used in torches and for car brake lights. As their cost comes down, LEDs will probably become a preferred option for domestic lighting as well. A similar amount of energy would be saved and consumers would be happier. The problem is that legislators are unable to tackle the big issues of energy use effectively, so go for the soft target of a high profile domestic use of energy. Like the furor over supermarket plastic bags, this is gesture politics.

Read more on the incandescent, CFL and LEDs here.

The UK could be rationing electricity within 8 years because demand for power is forecast to outstrip supply. The British government committed the nation to its Low Carbon Transition Plan in July, an idea that hopes wind and solar can produce enough electricity to power the entire country.  Renewable energy is a green dream that will turn into a nightmare for families facing sudden power cuts or scheduled brown-outs.

In the 21st century, the idea that a nation cannot provide enough power for its people and industries should be unthinkable. There is no coal shortage, no oil shortage and no Uranium shortage. The only shortage is plants that convert these fuels into power. But why?

Greens have played a key role in dePowering the UK, Greenpeace scofflaws at Kingsnorth illustrate the radical scaremongering that made the idea of building new generating capacity a political nightmare.  Eco-radicals are proud of their drive to deprive people of affordable energy, witness the Sierra Club in the USA and how they brag about the 100 power stations they ‘prevented’.

The perfect storm of a spineless political class and a somnolent public faced with aggressive green lobby groups has brought the UK to a point where it is a country without an energy future.  No one listens to voices of reason, preferring to pretend that renewable energy can fill the gap and ignoring that ‘green’ alternatives require the industrialization of the open countryside:

“...the land area occupied by wind farms would be nearly 10 percent of the country, or roughly the size of Wales. The area occupied by desert solar power stations - in the case of Britain, they would have to be connected by long-distance power lines - would be five times the size of London. The 50 nuclear power stations required would occupy a more modest 50 square kilometers.

What will happen in 8 years when the lights start to go out across Britain?  Here’s two predictions that will drive greens nuts, because the unintended consequences of their blinkered knee-jerk activism will result in bad outcomes for the environment:

Unlike the 1970’s, small generators are available and affordable.  Families and small businesses that can afford them will buy their own rather than lose a freezer full of meat or their Internet connection.  Small generators run on gas and are pretty inefficient, inconveniently.

The government of the day will panic and will build new generation capacity as cheaply and quickly as it can, which means new coal powered plants, the very thing that Greenpeace and other eco-naifs wished to avoid.  (A potential problem for green radicals is that any attempts to block urgent new builds will likely be frowned upon by a public that want their lights on, cutting off their essential cover of public support.)

British people are waking up to a major problem that threatens to negatively impact their everyday lives.  Politicians will pay a heavy price for their part in the fiasco, the only question is whether there will be a backlash against the idiot greens that pushed the country to the brink and perhaps over it.

Whatever happens, the situation in Britain is a canary in the coal mine for other countries blindly following the green path. If you live in the USA, Canada, Australia or any other country where carbon has been demonized by eco-hysterics, this could happen to you. Get involved and stop the rot, before your lights go out.

Read more here. H/T Benny Peiser, CCNet

Thomas Jefferson once said that, “Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against error.” And so, with that quote in mind, and the understanding that scientific theories must be falsifiable, the Freedom Society is hosting ‘Climate Week’, a five-day event from the 26th to 30th October at the University of York.

The week will question the politics and ethics of climate change science. Here at the Freedom Society, we do not know if anthropogenic climate change is occurring or not, but in order for us to draw a conclusion - especially as non-scientists - it is vital that the science be liberal, objective and untainted by political pressure.

There have been many examples of ‘scientific consensus’. A useful illustration is the former fear of Global Cooling that gained momentum in the 1960s. The first paragraph of a New York Times article, from 30th January 1961, entitled SCIENTISTS AGREE WORLD IS COLDER; But Climate Experts Meeting Here Fail to Agree on Reasons for Change, read: “After a week of discussions on the causes of climate change, an assembly of specialists from several continents seems to have reached unanimous agreement on only one point: it is getting colder.”

We can claim a consensus of sorts, whether it is regarding global warming or cooling, by simply pointing to an article such as this. But this idea is terribly skewed for several reasons. By appointing a group of scientists to find evidence of something, the patron of this group will always receive reward; just as a different patron who demands his own scientists disprove this conclusion will similarly receive reward. Thus the danger of climate change science is that there is only one patron. This is not how science works; instead, theories should be disproved in order to be proved - only by having free and balanced discussion will we enjoy progress. The failure of such groups as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is that they are heavily politicised.

There are a growing number of cries that the IPCC has negated the traditional scientific method. The climatologist Roger Pielke, despite believing in anthropogenic climate change, has criticised the IPCC for its ill-gotten conclusions and has accused the scientific body of subjectively choosing data to support a selective view of climate change science. Pielke points out the systematic conflict of interest that is present in the IPCC assessment process: “The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the assessment… Assessment Committees should not be an opportunity for members to highlight their own research.”

Furthermore, the House of Lords Economics Committee has recently stated that, “We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations.” The IPCC has not just become a body of political scientists, but scientific politicians as well. These people’s professions have become adulterated with the idealism of environmental morality.

The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York brought to light the “absolute horror stories” about how some scientific journals and political bodies have engaged in the suppression of climate-sceptic scientists trying to publish their work in peer-reviewed journals. This conference included many afflicted current and former IPCC scientists from all over the globe.

The IPCC is not the only culprit, but indeed, virtually all of the governmental and intergovernmental scientific bodies. Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist at NASA, resigned because of the agency’s lack of scientific freedom. Miskolczi said he wanted to publish and discuss his new research that showed “runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations,” but he claims that NASA refused to allow him. He recently said that, “Unfortunately, my working relationship with my NASA supervisors eroded to a level that I am not able to tolerate. My idea of the freedom of science cannot coexist with the recent NASA practice of handling new climate change related scientific results.”

A consensus in one branch of science does not mean a consensus across all branches. For example, a recent survey of 51,000 scientists in Canada from the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysicists found that 68% of them disagreed with the statement that “the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” The survey also stated that only 26% of scientists attributed global warming to “human activity such as burning fossil fuels.”

And so most importantly, science is not a numbers game; rather it is the manifestation of debate and the imperative to allow dissent. There are too many examples in the history of scientific thought of a single scientist working against a ‘consensus’ only to have his theories ultimately being accepted. While there is no clear indication either way that this might be the case with climate change science, it becomes only too apparent that there is a desperate need for such free debate, given the drastic choices that Governments are prepared to make. Whether such decisions involve the complete overhaul of our energy sources, or the (ethically questionable) prevention of industrialisation in developing countries, the need to end scientific censorship is vitally important.

The problem with climate science is not actually the science itself, as so often stated by sceptics, but it is the politics and ethics. The University of York Freedom Society’s ‘Climate Week’ will not try to cover the complicated and vast subject of the science itself; instead it will highlight the dangers of academic suppression and weigh the ethical questions involved when dealing with such proscription. Read full essay here. H/T Benny Peiser CCNet.

U.S. Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment & Public Works Committee, today said in a statement that he was not surprised to learn that Senate Democrats were forced once again to delay introduction of their global warming cap-and-trade bill. Throughout hearing after hearing in the EPW Committee this summer, it became apparent that Democrats were a long way off from reaching the votes necessary in the Senate to pass the largest tax increase in American history. Below is the last committee statement before the recess by Senator Inhofe.

Madame Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. This is the last hearing on climate change before the August recess, so I think it’s appropriate to take stock of what we’ve learned.

Madame Chairman, since you assumed the gavel, this committee has held over thirty hearings on climate change. With testimony from numerous experts and officials from all over the country, these hearings explored various issues associated with cap-and-trade-and I’m sure my colleagues learned a great deal from them.

But over the last two years, it was not from these, at times, arcane and abstract policy discussions that we got to the essence of cap-and-trade. No, it was the Democrats who cut right to the chase; it was the Democrats over the last two years who exposed what cap-and-trade really means for the American public.

We learned, for example, from President Obama that under his cap-and-trade plan, “electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket.”

We learned from Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.) that cap-and-trade is “a tax, and a great big one.”

We learned from Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) that “a cap-and-trade system is prone to market manipulation and speculation without any guarantee of meaningful GHG emission reductions. A cap-and-trade has been operating in Europe for three years and is largely a failure.”

We learned from Sen. Dorgan (D-N.D.) that with cap-and-trade “the Wall Street crowd can’t wait to sink their teeth into a new trillion-dollar trading market in which hedge funds and investment banks would trade and speculate on carbon credits and securities. In no time they’ll create derivatives, swaps and more in that new market. In fact, most of the investment banks have already created carbon trading departments. They are ready to go. I’m not.”

We learned from Sen. Cantwell (D-Wash.) that “a cap-and-trade program might allow Wall Street to distort a carbon market for its own profits.”

We learned from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson that unilateral U.S. action to address climate change through cap-and-trade would be futile. She said in response to a question from me that “U.S. action alone will not impact world CO2 levels.”

We learned from Sen. Kerry (D-Mass.) that “there is no way the United States of America acting alone can solve this problem. So we have to have China; we have to have India.”

We learned from Sen. McCaskill (D-Mo.) that if “we go too far with this,” that is, cap-and-trade, then “all we’re going to do is chase more jobs to China and India, where they’ve been putting up coal-fired plants every 10 minutes.”

In sum, after a slew of hearings and three unsuccessful votes on the Senate floor, the Democrats taught us that cap-and-trade is a great big tax that will raise electricity prices on consumers, enrich Wall Street traders, and send jobs to China and India-all without any impact on global temperature.

So off we go into the August recess, secure in the knowledge that cap-and-trade is riddled with flaws, and that Democrats are seriously divided over one of President Obama’s top domestic policy priorities.

And we also know that, according to recent polling, the American public is increasingly unwilling to pay anything to fight global warming.

But all of this does not mean cap-and-trade is dead and gone. It is very much alive, as Democratic leaders, as they did in the House, are eager to distribute pork on unprecedented scales to secure the necessary votes to pass cap-and-trade into law.

So be assured of this: We will markup legislation in this committee, pass it, and then it will be combined with other bills from other committees. And we will have a debate on the Senate floor.

Throughout the debate on cap-and-trade, we will be there to say that:

According to the American Farm Bureau, the vast majority of agriculture groups oppose it;

According to GAO, it will send our jobs to China and India;

According to the National Black Chamber of Commerce, it will destroy over 2 million jobs;

According to EPA and EIA, it will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil;

According to EPA, it will do nothing to reduce global temperature;

And when all is said and done, the American people will reject it and we will defeat it.

Thank you, Madame Chairman.