Climate alarmists sometimes like to claim skeptical scientists don’t exist, but they do, and one meteorologist had a lot to say on the subject.
In an interview with the MRC’s Business and Media Institute, well-known meteorologist Joe Bastardi dissected and criticized major aspects of the climate change alarmism movement. Drawing on his knowledge of weather and climate history, Bastardi said that “extreme weather” events the media talk about so much are commonplace and the result of normal variability. He also attacked basic arguments about CO2, scientific consensus and alarmist media bias.
Bastardi contended that climate alarmism is “ludicrous” and “not about science.” He didn’t mince words, blasting climate alarmists as living in a “loony world.” He also criticized news media that “simply follow what the majority thinks because they want to be popular” instead of understanding the issue.
After many years working with AccuWeather, Bastardi is now a weather forecaster for Weatherbell Analytics LLC, where he is tasked with making accurate and objective forecasts for private sector clients. He has appeared on many news broadcasts, including Fox News, CBS and ABC.
Bastardi specializes in understanding the history of weather and climate and said he used this understanding to accurately predict both Hurricane Sandy and Hurricane Arthur ahead of official warnings. In contrast, he said alarmists “don’t know what happened yesterday” or “know anything about what happened in the past.”
As Bastardi pointed out, he has to make accurate predictions in order to be paid and has no political motivation.
Bastardi asserted that alarmist scientists cannot actually be objective, because they are given grants explicitly to study global warming. He called upon alarmists to answer just one question. “What would it take for you to change? What do you need to see?” If this question cannot be answered, he argued, then there is nothing empirical behind their arguments that man is causing catastrophic climate change.
Addressing the science, Bastardi noted the entire world only adds 1.8 ppm of CO2 in a year, he called the notion that this miniscule amount causes extreme weather “ludicrous.” Instead, he said alarmists are just “taking every weather event they can find” and connecting it to climate change. He urged people to ask themselves if they believe that amount of carbon dioxide could have the impact that climate alarmists claim it does.
He also criticized the so-called consensus of alarm among climate scientists, saying “it is easy to have consensus when someone will pay you to have one.” Bastardi was very firm in the belief that the climate movement was “not about science” but had become a movement “from people who make profits” off the hysteria.
In his view, the alarmists’ goal was the “restructuring of the way our society works,” and the consequences if their economic recommendations are adopted are “suicide for our way of life.” Furthermore, he pointed out that the United States alone cannot make an impact on global emissions, as it releases only 10 percent of the world’s carbon dioxide. He joked “What are we going to do? Go to war with the rest of the globe [and force them to cut emissions?”
By Robert J. Caprara July 8, 2014 7:15 p.m. THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Confessions of a Computer Modeler
Any model, including those predicting climate doom, can be tweaked to yield a desired result. I should know.
The climate debate is heating up again as business leaders, politicians and academics bombard us with the results of computer models that predict costly and dramatic changes in the years ahead. I can offer some insight into the use of computer models for public-policy debates, and a recommendation for the general public.
After earning a master’s degree in environmental engineering in 1982, I spent most of the next 10 years building large-scale environmental computer models. My first job was as a consultant to the Environmental Protection Agency. I was hired to build a model to assess the impact of its Construction Grants Program, a nationwide effort in the 1970s and 1980s to upgrade sewer-treatment plants.
The computer model was huge - it analyzed every river, sewer treatment plant and drinking-water intake (the places in rivers where municipalities draw their water) in the country. I’ll spare you the details, but the model showed huge gains from the program as water quality improved dramatically. By the late 1980s, however, any gains from upgrading sewer treatments would be offset by the additional pollution load coming from people who moved from on-site septic tanks to public sewers, which dump the waste into rivers. Basically the model said we had hit the point of diminishing returns.
When I presented the results to the EPA official in charge, he said that I should go back and “sharpen my pencil.” I did. I reviewed assumptions, tweaked coefficients and recalibrated data. But when I reran everything the numbers didn’t change much. At our next meeting he told me to run the numbers again.
After three iterations I finally blurted out, “What number are you looking for?” He didn’t miss a beat: He told me that he needed to show $2 billion of benefits to get the program renewed. I finally turned enough knobs to get the answer he wanted, and everyone was happy.
Was the EPA official asking me to lie? I have to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he believed in the value of continuing the program. (Congress ended the grants in 1990.) He certainly didn’t give any indications otherwise. I also assume he understood the inherent inaccuracies of these types of models. There are no exact values for the coefficients in models such as these. There are only ranges of potential values. By moving a bunch of these parameters to one side or the other you can usually get very different results, often (surprise) in line with your initial beliefs.
I realized that my work for the EPA wasn’t that of a scientist, at least in the popular imagination of what a scientist does. It was more like that of a lawyer. My job, as a modeler, was to build the best case for my client’s position. The opposition will build its best case for the counter argument and ultimately the truth should prevail.
If opponents don’t like what I did with the coefficients, then they should challenge them. And during my decade as an environmental consultant, I was often hired to do just that to someone else’s model. But there is no denying that anyone who makes a living building computer models likely does so for the cause of advocacy, not the search for truth.
Surely the scientific community wouldn’t succumb to these pressures like us money-grabbing consultants. Aren’t they laboring for knowledge instead of profit? If you believe that, boy do I have a computer model to sell you.
The academic community competes for grants, tenure and recognition; consultants compete for clients. And you should understand that the lines between academia and consultancy are very blurry as many professors moonlight as consultants, authors, talking heads, etc.
Let’s be clear: I am not saying this is a bad thing. The legal system is adversarial and for the most part functions well. The same is true for science. So here is my advice: Those who are convinced that humans are drastically changing the climate for the worse and those who aren’t should accept and welcome a vibrant, robust back-and-forth. Let each side make its best case and trust that the truth will emerge.
Those who do believe that humans are driving climate change retort that the science is “settled” and those who don’t agree are “deniers” and “flat-earthers.” Even the president mocks anyone who disagrees. But I have been doing this for a long time, and the one thing I have learned is how hard it is to convince people with a computer model. The vast majority of your audience will never, ever understand the math behind it. This does not mean people are dumb. They usually have great BS detectors, and when they see one side of a debate trying to shut down the other side, they will most likely assume it has something to hide, has the weaker argument, or both.
Eventually I got out of the environmental consulting business. In the 1990s I went into a completely different industry, one that was also data intensive and I thought couldn’t be nearly as controversial: health care. But that’s another story.
Mr. Caprara is chief methodologist for PSKW LLC, which provides marketing programs for pharmaceutical firms.
Alan Carlin formerly of the EPA who challenged the EPA Endangerment finding was given a whistleblower award for his challenge to the Endangerment Finding. See his award after Pat Michaels keynote address.
In the story below in Icecap in the News on “Welcome back to the 1950s and soon the 1960s and 1970s and then 1800” I showed how temperatures correlate well with natural cycles.
At Weatherbell, Joe Bastardi and I use data sets in our work to correlate with the many natural cycles as measured in teleconnections. We generally use the reanalysis data sets from NCEP and the climate division data from NOAA.
The most reliable data sets are likely the satellite sets because of very nearly global coverage and the lack of contamination from local heat sources. The average of the two satellite sets (RSS and UAH) shows a step change with the super El Nino and little change post 1998.
But the NOAA temperature land/ocean based data sets keep changing. Ryan reassures us the reanalysis data set, which is based on hourly observations is not adjusted. Climate division data though is a different story. So when we do a composite after June for a set of years, we will get a different result. There are three major surface data centers, NOAA in Asheville, NASA Goddard in New York City, and Hadley in the UK.
But we here I’ll focus on NOAA here. NOAA is the source of the base data that NASA and Hadley use before adding their own adjustments and additional data (NASA Antarctic and extrapolated arctic and Hadley their own ocean data).
The first USHCN 1221 station data set was released in 1990 with a UHI adjustment. It was generally regarded as the world’s best because of the long history for most stations and the stability of the network.
In the 1999 USHCN plot, it showed the 1930s was the warmest decade and 1934 the warmest year (1.1F warmer than the super El Nino of 1997/98). Hansen said so in this plot on the GISS web site of the NOAA data set. The trend peak to peak of the 5 year mean was down.
I praised NOAA NCDC for its efforts to get it right although a decade later we discovered siting in many cases increasingly did not meet standards thank to a move to ASOS with sensors near tarmac, changing technology requiring cabling of the sensors to the weather office often putting the sensors near buildings, driveways, parking lots, air conditioning exhausts or other heat sources. Numerous sites were placed at heat generating waste treatment plants. Even the GAO scolded NOAA for over 40% of their stations not meeting the minimum criteria NOAA itself had in the specifications. The UHI adjustment offset some of these biases.
Most of the original correlation studies I did used this data set. But the inconsistency of warming relative to the global data set (GHCN), which showed much more warming late century put political pressure on NCDC to make the two data sets more consistent. Instead of trying to find the metadata to add UHI adjustments to the GHCN, the changes were made to the US adjustments.
They removed the UHI adjustment, replacing it with algorithms to find previously undocumented inhomogeneities (station moves), and a change to the time of observation adjustment and a new final step with homogenization (blending of data stations). 2 versions later the data set shows the changes made to the annual values in degrees F. The warming increased 0.8F from 1930 to 1990 simply due to adjustments. There was with the adjustments, cooling of the 1920s to 1950s and warming post the 1960s.
UHI mainly affects minimum temperatures. Maximum temperatures are a better indicator of the true trends. Even bias corrected maxima shows the recent peak no higher than the 1930s.
The minima (and in the end the mean) clearly shows the recent warmth which is consistent with UHI.
The global set meanwhile has undergone changes too since V1. V3 and V1 are plotted here. The reasons include changing station sets and application of the same kinds of adjustments.
The difference is even more remarkable than the US (1.2F or so). In other words most of the apparent warming in the data set since the late 1800s is in the adjustments. This is the CHANGE made to the global mean temperature NOT the global mean temperature.
The Latest Change - US state data.
Locally we used the NCDC USHCN Climate at a Glance in talks. I gave one such invited talk in Maine to a local group a few years ago.
Here was the Maine plot of annual temperatures the last time I downloaded it. It showed no trend since 1895. The warmest year was 1913 with a bookend spike a century later in 2010. Both followed high latitude volcanism, in 1913 following 1912 Novarupta in Alaska and 2010 following series of eruptions in Alaska and Iceland. These high latitude volcanoes produce more high latitude blocking (Oman 2004). This is especially true with very low solar geomagnetic years. These blocks mean a maritime flow into southeast Canada and Maine making the winters and springs less snowy and cold.
This spring, NCDC announced a new version of the US data set replacing the USHCN used at Climate at a Glance with a new GHCN based Climate DIvision alternative. Maine suddenly has a 0.23/decade warming trend and 1913 was 5F colder and not even close to 2010.
We can still access in places the original raw data. The raw rural data for Farmington Maine, near one of the big ski areas is very instructive and shows a nice sine wave in sync with the 60-70 year PDO/AMO cycles and more like USHCN v1 and TMAX. The station was discontinued after 2006. I’ll let you speculate why.
Concord, NH is an urban area, but the airport is a well-known cold spot compared to Manchester, which is often the warmest station in the state. The sensors must be well placed.
I had to do a winter plot of Concord temperatures since 1868/69 and found little change over the entire period of record - again this is raw archived data downloaded from the PWM web site.
The record highs and lows are also not adjusted and look more like USHCN v1 with 23 record highs in the 1930s and 38 before 1960 and more record cold than highs since the 1940s.
The number of 90F temperatures at all USHCN station (raw, unadjusted) shows a similar downtrend.
Keep these in mind when you hear NOAA give a ranking of a month or year or hear the speeches why POTUS through the EPA is taking strong action.
I had a surreal experience last week, being interrogated by a Greenpeace activist, on topics ranging from climate change to funding, an anti-Greenpeace protest… and something he really did not want to discuss: the lethal impacts of his organization’s policies on billions of impoverished, malnourished and diseased people around the world.
As I have noted many times previously, 2.5 billion people still do not have electricity or get it only sporadically, and so must burn wood and dung for heating and cooking. That results in widespread lung diseases that kill two to four million people every year. No electricity also means no refrigeration, safe water or decent hospitals, which means virulent intestinal diseases kill another two million annually.
Greenpeace and its fellow eco-imperialists are directly responsible for much of this misery and death. Their anti-technology, anti-people campaigns insist that the far-fetched and illusory risks of using modern marvels of electricity, insecticides biotechnology are worse than the life-threatening dangers those technologies would reduce or prevent.
Greenpeace activist confirms every negative story you’ve ever read about this activist group
It was a surreal experience. As the Heartland Institute’s hugely successful Ninth International Conference on Climate Change ended, I agreed to let Greenpeace activist Connor Gibson interview me.
I’d just given a presentation on Big Green’s lethal agenda, describing how “dangerous manmade climate change” is just one of many mantras invoked by the Deep Ecology movement to advance an agenda that is anti-energy, anti-people, and opposed to modern economies, technologies and civilizations. As readers of my book and articles know, this unaccountable movement inflicts lethal consequences on millions of people every year - the result of malaria, malnutrition, lung and intestinal diseases, and other afflictions of rampant poverty imposed or perpetuated by unelected and unaccountable eco-imperialists.
“I read your book,” he told me, and attended some of the talks by globally renowned experts on climate, weather, species extinction, human health and other topics. If so, he obviously hadn’t listened, or had simply chosen to ignore every fact and explanation presented, as not in accord with his ideologies. That would certainly include the keynote address by Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore, explaining how he left the organization over its increasingly bizarre, irrational and inhumane attitudes and actions.
Gibson’s “interview” quickly became a prosecutorial interrogation, marked by ignorance or denial of basic facts and repeated interruptions to contest my observations. He insisted that hurricanes are more frequent and devastating than ever before (though not one Category 3 or higher ‘cane has made US landfall in eight-plus years, breaking a century-long record, as a panel discussion I had chaired that day made clear); wildfires are worsening (though their number and acres burned are down significantly, and could be driven lower via more intelligent forest management and fire suppression policies); and rising seas will soon drown coastal communities (hardly likely at the current rate of seven inches per century).
He likewise denied the 18-year pause in global warming, even though the IPCC and other alarmists have finally admitted it is real. My references to conference participants and the exhaustive NIPCC report were met with claims that it had not been peer-reviewed. Perhaps not by the closed circle of well-funded IPCC scientists, bureaucrats and activists who rubberstamp one another’s work, while refusing to share data and methodologies, allow outside experts to review their work products, attend Heartland conferences, or debate NIPCC scientists in any forum. (Alarmists know their data, claims, conclusions and economy-killing demands cannot withstand scrutiny.) However, the NIPCC reports and the studies they laboriously analyze and summarize were fully peer-reviewed by numerous scientists.
(Alarmists say twenty years of warming proves Earth is at a “tipping point’ for runaway climate chaos, requiring the end of fossil fuels. They say the subsequent 18 years of no warming, and even a slight cooling, is irrelevant and meaningless. Whom do you believe, they ask? Us alarmists and our computer models, or a bunch of “fringe” scientists who cite actual temperature and other evidence?)
After twenty minutes, Gibson got to his real issue: money. Where does CFACT get its funding? The Koch brothers and ExxonMobil? That would be nice, to compliment the cash that Exxon gives to radical green groups. But no, they don’t support us. My mention of Chesapeake Energy’s $26 million to the Sierra Club, to fund anti-coal campaigns, did force him to admit this is a problem for Big Green’s social responsibility mantra. But when I noted Tom Steyer’s billions from hedge fund investments in coal mines and power plants, Gibson insisted that this money was second-hand and thus pure, whereas Koch money was earned directly (via producing energy and creating jobs) and thus was tainted by “self-interest.”
That “ethical” distinction without a difference would also apply, I suppose, to the tens of millions of dollars that Greenpeace and the Greenpeace Fund have received from fat-cat liberal foundations that are heavily invested in fossil fuel and other corporate securities.
Gibson also brought up his organization’s attempted 2003 anti-chemicals rally in New Jersey’s Liberty Park. The event turned into a resounding protest against Greenpeace, when scores of black and Hispanic demonstrators from the Congress of Racial Equality completely flummoxed the Rainbow Warriors with stilt walkers, bongo drums and chants of “Hey hey Greenpeace, what do you say? How many children did you kill today?” He dropped his inquisition when I pointed out that I’m a life-member of CORE.
Indeed, what Gibson really did not want to discuss were the destructive, even lethal effects of Greenpeace policies and campaigns. Some 2.5 billion people still do not have electricity or get it only sporadically, and so must burn wood and dung for heating and cooking, which results in widespread lung diseases that kill two to four million people every year. No electricity also means no refrigeration, safe water or decent hospitals, which means virulent intestinal diseases kill another two million annually.
Worldwide, some two billion people still live in malaria-infested areas, 500 million get the disease every year, and nearly a million die. A primary reason is their inability to acquire insecticides to kill mosquitoes and DDT to keep the flying killers out of homes. Another billion people face malnutrition and Vitamin A deficiency that causes blindness and death in children. In fact, eight million children have died from Vitamin A deficiency since Golden Rice was invented and made available at no charge to poor farmers.
But the Rainbow Warriors and other callous eco-imperialists wage well-funded campaigns against Golden Rice, insecticides and DDT, and coal-fired, gas-fueled, hydroelectric and nuclear power generation, perpetuating poverty, malnutrition, disease, misery and death. To them, a planet free from the wildly conjectural and exaggerated dangers of these technologies is far more important than the billions of lives improved and millions of lives saved by them. It is a vicious war on dark-skinned women and children, who die in the greatest numbers from malaria, lung infections, malnutrition and severe diarrhea.
Greenpeace actions are akin to denying chemotherapy to cancer patients or antibiotics to pneumonia sufferers. Their anti-technology campaigns are eco-manslaughter and should no longer be tolerated.
Personally, I cannot imagine life without modern technologies. I can’t imagine living in electricity-free, disease-ridden, malnourished, polluted poor nation squalor. As my grandmother used to tell me, “The only good thing about the good old days is that they’re gone.”
But of course, Gibson has an air-conditioned malaria-free home, fine food, access to affordable, reliable electricity and transportation, a refrigerator, video camera and cell phone. He would never give them up, nor would I ask him to. However, some of my African friends would gladly let him “enjoy” a few months in a state-of-the-art, mosquito-infested hut, rely solely on a bed net, drink parasite-infested water, breathe polluted smoke from cooking fires, and walk miles to a clinic when he gets malaria, TB or dysentery - hoping the nurse has some non-fake medicines to treat him. I’d gladly help make the arrangements.
Financially motivated innovators, entrepreneurs and companies have worked wonders to improve and save the lives of billions. Yes, there have been accidents, some of which have killed hundreds of people or thousands of animals. However, the real killers are governments and anti-technology nonprofit activist corporations. Their death tolls are in the million, via wars and through misguided or intentional policies that institute or perpetuate starvation and disease from denial of food and life-saving technologies.
Gibson is a bright guy. Perhaps one day he will understand all of this, hopefully before the death toll rises much higher. To that end, he and his alarmist colleagues would profit mightily from reading my Eco-Imperialism book and new report Three Faces of Sustainability; the new book About Face: Why the world needs more carbon dioxide; and several recent studies: Climate Change Reconsidered: Physical Science; CCR: Biological Impacts, and Climate Catastrophe: A superstorm for global warming research.
Countless jobs, living standards and lives hang in the balance. The eco-imperialist crimes against humanity must end.
Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (http://www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power Black death. See Icecap Amazon Book Store
Polar Vortex summer version prelude to brutal winter and potential major energy issues
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM
Last winter was a brutally cold one for the nation’s midsection. For Chicago, the period from December through March was the coldest in the entire record back to 1872. It was the third snowiest winter behind only the 1978/79 and 1977/78 winters. In Detroit, it ended up the snowiest ever on record back to 1880. It now has been cooling in the US (including all 9 climate zones) for 20 winters (2.26F)!
The warm pool of water in the North Pacific (the same driver for last winter) and the warm tropical Pacific waters moving west to the central Pacific is a classic scenario for a very cold winter in the central and eastern US. The warm water off the west coast usually leads to a cooler, wetter summer in the central as we forecast.
The combination of that warm pool, an El Nino Modoki (what we call that central Pacific biased El Nino), and the other natural climate drivers we look at, suggest this next winter will be like last one but with the cold biased further east. This has scary potential consequences because of the regulations imposed by the EPA this year.
Last winter, residents of many parts of the north paid as much for electricity as in all of 2012. Some power plants came within two days of running out of oil in New England. During the winter of 2014, coal was the only fuel with the ability to meet demand increases for electricity, providing 92 percent of incremental electricity in January/February, 2014 versus the same months in 2013.
With the projected closure of 60 gigawatts (GW) of coal plant capacity, virtually the entire U.S. is rapidly reaching the brink of significantly higher prices for electricity and being unable to meet either the summer or winter peak demand for power. Unless immediate steps are taken to halt coal plant closures. (Institute for Energy Research Study)
In a major cold outbreak, the grid may fail and large areas may be in the dark during extreme cold. The 1989 blackout from a failure of the Canadian grid may be a preview of our situation for which politicians will likely blame power companies instead of their own bad policy/regulations.
This is a student in India studying in a blackout. Will this be the US next winters and in our future thanks to the EPA?
Long blackouts may mean your pipes freeze. If they burst, it can cost thousands to repair. Even without blackouts, energy bills will continue to rise higher, perhaps much higher than 2013/14. High energy costs increase the cost of transportation impacting commuters and the cost of all goods and services (see Gallup), putting an enormous strain on those on fixed incomes, the poor and middle class. High costs of fuel and food will affect school budgets, restaurants, businesses and retailers, which may mean more part time labor and staff cutbacks, putting more families in financial distress. Yes, one little pen and an EPA run amuck can have far reaching effects.
The irony it is a real threat in the forseeable future, not one envisioned by failing climate models, 100 years away.
See all the talks here , including Monday night by Joe Bastardi and Hon Dana Rohrabacher and Wednesday noon by Lord Monckton.
More to follow. Been here in Las Vegas the last three days. Over 600 attendees!
Some very fair media and some unfriendly media - CNN. I will have much more to say but trying to catch up. It was a working trip for Joe Bastardi and I as we had to keep all out regular Weatherbell.com forecasts out on schedule while participating
Four Reasons Why 400 ppm CO2 Is Not A Problem
The Sky Fell last month, but almost nobody noticed.
The sky fell on Hawaii last month, all because carbon dioxide levels peeped above the much-hyped 400 ppm hurdle. Chicken Littles all over the world squawked into their friendly media megaphones about numerous imminent global warming disasters. One warned: “the fate of the world hangs in the balance.” (Similar alarms were rung when the 350 ppm level was passed).
But nobody else noticed anything scary.
Four pieces of well-established evidence say that 400 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is not a concern.
Firstly, there has been no increase in global temperatures since 1998 despite 16 years of rising carbon dioxide levels and heavy usage of carbon fuels. Clearly, CO2 is not the main driver of global temperatures.
Secondly, the ice core records show clearly, with no exceptions, that all recent ice ages have commenced when the atmosphere contained relatively high levels of carbon dioxide. The temperature fell first, and then carbon dioxide levels fell. This proves that high carbon dioxide levels do not guarantee a warm globe, but could suggest that they may be a harbinger of a coming ice age. Ice will cause far more damage to the biosphere than the even the worst warming forecast.
Thirdly, current levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide are not extreme or unusual. Carbon dioxide reached 2,000 ppm in the luxuriant era of the dinosaurs, and ten times current levels (4,000 ppm) when the great Devonian coral reefs were flourishing. There is no tipping point into runaway global warming, or we would have tipped eons ago.
Finally, current carbon dioxide levels are just above starvation levels for plants. All vegetation would grow stronger, faster, and be more drought resistant and heat resistant if carbon dioxide levels trebled to 1,200 ppm. Such levels are no threat to humans, US submarines operate at up to 8,000 ppm for cruises of 90 days. Topping 400 ppm should be a cause for celebration, it shows that Earth is emerging from the cold hungry years of the ice ages.
Climate Cassandras have blown false trumpets once again.
From ABC: Legislation to scrap the carbon tax has passed the Federal Parliament in a major win for the Abbott Government. After a lengthy debate, the Senate voted to get rid of the price on carbon, with 39 senators voting for and 32 voting against. This was the Government’s third attempt to scrap the tax since the election. the first two were rejected by the Senate.
Should you trust NOAA claims about May and June records?
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM
Last month was the hottest June since record keeping began in 1880, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said Monday. It marked the third month in a row that global temperature reached a record high. According to the NOAA data, April and May were also global record-breakers. The combined average temperature over global land and ocean surfaces for June 2014 was record high for the month at 16.22 degrees Celsius, or 0.72 degree Celsius above the 20th century average of 15.5 degrees Celsius,’ the NOAA said in its monthly climate report. “This surpasses the previous record, set in 2010, by 0.03 degrees Celsius.”
Nine of the ten hottest Junes on record have all occurred during the 21st century, including each of the past five years, the U.S. agency said.
However as we have shown here, the warming is all in the questionable adjustments made to the data, with a major cooling of the past and allowance for UHI contamination in recent decades. The all time record highs and days over 90F tell us we have been in a cyclical pattern with 1930s as the warmest decade.
NOAA and NASA (which uses data gathered by NOAA climate center in Asheville) has been commissioned to participate in special climate assessments to support the idealogical and political agenda of the government. From Fiscal Year (FY) 1993 to FY 2013 total US expenditures on climate change amounted to more than $165 Billion. More than $35 Billion is identified as climate science. The White House reported that in FY 2013 the US spent $22.5 Billion on climate change. About $2 Billion went to US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). The principal function of the USGCRP is to provide to Congress a National Climate Assessment (NCA). The latest report uses global climate models, which are not validated, therefor speculative, to speculate about regional influences from global warming. (SEPP)
The National Climate Data Center and NASA climate group also control the data that is used to verify these models which is like putting the fox in charge of the hen house. At the very least, their decisions and adjustments may be because they really believe in their models and work to find the warming they show - a form of confirmation bias.
Please note: This is not an indictment of all of NOAA where NWS forecasters do a yeoman’s job providing forecasts and warnings for public safety.
NCEP gathers real time data that is used to run the models. When we take the initial analyses that go into the models and compute monthly anomalies, we get very small departures from normal for the 1981 to 2010 base period on a monthly or year to date basis.
The satellite data from RSS and UAH only available since 1979 also shows no warming for over a decade (two in the RSS data). It needs no adjustments that NOAA claims are required for station and ocean data.
This government manipulation of data may be simply a follow up to the successful manipulation of other government data that has largely escaped heavy public scrutiny.
Over the last 12 months, the CPI has increased 2.1%. Real inflation, using the reporting methodologies in place before 1980, hit an annual rate of 9.6 percent in February, according to the Shadow Government Statistics newsletter. The BLS U6 measure, the total unemployed, plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force, plus total employed part time for economic reasons, as a percent of the civilian labor force plus all persons marginally attached to the labor force is 12.1%.
CPI is used to adjust social security benefits and military pay and to a large degree as one factor in industry wages. if you are feeling you are falling behind, it is because the real costs of goods and services have risen more than any income or benefits you receive. That is why the GDP actually fell early this year - between the high cost of energy and food, the discretionary income for spending retail and in restaurants fell.
Unemployment fell to 6.1% according to the government but the real unemployment is much higher. Inflation, using the reporting methodologies in place before 1980, hit an annual rate of 9.6 percent in February, according to the Shadow Government Statistics newsletter. Using the employment-population ratio, the percentage of working age Americans that actually have a job has been below 59 percent for more than four years in a row. That means that more than 41 percent of all working age Americans do not have a job.
The sad news is if NOAA keeps providing the government with tainted data to justify its EPA assault on our country’s only reliable energy sources, inflation will skyrocket and unemployment will follow.
Jul 18, 2014
EPA ban on wood stoves is freezing out rural America
It seems that even wood isn’t green or renewable enough anymore. The EPA has recently banned the production and sale of 80% of America’s current wood-burning stoves, the oldest heating method known to mankind and mainstay of rural homes and many of our nation’s poorest residents. The agency’s stringent one-size-fits-all rules apply equally to heavily air-polluted cities and far cleaner plus typically colder off-grid wilderness areas such as large regions of Alaska and the American West.
While the EPA’s most recent regulations aren’t altogether new, their impacts will nonetheless be severe. Whereas restrictions had previously banned wood-burning stoves that didn’t limit fine airborne particulate emissions to 15 micrograms per cubic meter (μg/m3) of air, the change will impose a maximum 12 μg/m3 limit. To put this amount in context, the EPA estimates that secondhand tobacco smoke in a closed car can expose a person to 3,000-4,000 μg/m3 of particulates.
Most wood stoves that warm cabin and home residents from coast to coast cannot meet that standard. Older stoves that don’t cannot be traded in for updated types, but instead must be rendered inoperable, destroyed, or recycled as scrap metal.
The impacts of the EPA ruling will affect many families. According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011 survey statistics, 2.4 million American housing units (12% of all homes) burned wood as their primary heating fuel, compared with 7% that depended upon fuel oil.
Local governments in some states have gone even further than the EPA, banning not only the sale of noncompliant stoves, but even their use as fireplaces. As a result, owners face fines for infractions. Puget Sound, Washington, is one such location. Montreal, Canada, proposes to eliminate all fireplaces within its city limits.
Only weeks after the EPA enacted its new stove rules, attorneys general of seven states sued the agency to crack down on wood-burning water heaters as well. The lawsuit was filed by Connecticut, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Vermont, all predominantly Democrat states. Claiming that the new EPA regulations didn’t go far enough to decrease particle pollution levels, the plaintiffs cited agency estimates that outdoor wood boilers will produce more than 20% of wood-burning emissions by 2017. A related suit was filed by the environmental group EarthJustice.
Did EPA require a motivational incentive to tighten its restrictions? Sure, about as much as Br’er Rabbit needed to persuade Br’er Fox to throw him into the briar patch. This is but another example of EPA and other government agencies working with activist environmental groups to sue and settle on claims that afford leverage to enact new regulations which they lack statutory authority to otherwise accomplish.
“Sue and Settle” practices, sometimes referred to as “friendly lawsuits,” are cozy deals through which far-left radical environmental groups file lawsuits against federal agencies wherein court-ordered “consent decrees” are issued based upon a prearranged settlement agreement they collaboratively craft together in advance behind closed doors. Then, rather than allowing the entire process to play out, the agency being sued settles the lawsuit by agreeing to move forward with the requested action both they and the litigants want.
And who pays for this litigation? All too often we taxpayers are put on the hook for legal fees of both colluding parties. According to a 2011 GAO report, this amounted to millions of dollars awarded to environmental organizations for EPA litigations between 1995 and 2010. Three “Big Green” groups received 41% of this payback, with Earthjustice accounting for 30% ($4,655,425). Two other organizations with histories of lobbying for regulations EPA wants while also receiving agency fundIng are the American Lung Association (ALA) and the Sierra Club.
In addition, the Department of Justice forked over at least $43 million of our money defending the EPA in court between 1998 and 2010. This didn’t include money spent by the EPA for its legal costs in connection with those ripoffs, because the EPA doesn’t keep track of its attorneys’ time on a case-by-case basis.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has concluded that Sue and Settle rulemaking is responsible for many of EPA’s “most controversial, economically significant regulations that have plagued the business community for the past few years.” Included are regulations on power plants, refineries, mining operations, cement plants, chemical manufacturers, and a host of other industries. Such consent decree-based rulemaking enables EPA to argue to Congress: “The court made us do it.”
Directing special attention to these congressional end run practices, Louisiana Senator David Vitter, top Republican on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, has launched an investigation. Last year he asked his Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell to join with AG’s of 13 other states who filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) seeking all correspondence between EPA and a list of 80 environmental, labor union, and public interest organizations that have been party to litigation since the start of the Obama Administration.
Other concerned and impacted parties have little influence over such court procedures and decisions. While the environmental group is given a seat at the table, outsiders who are most impacted are excluded, with no opportunity to object to the settlements. No public notice about the settlement is released until the agreement is filed in court...after the damage has been done.
In a letter to Caldwell, Senator Vitter wrote: “The collusion between federal bureaucrats and the organizations entering consent agreements under a shroud of secrecy represents the antithesis of a transparent government, and your participation in the FOIA request will help Louisianans understand the process by which these settlements were reached.”
Fewer citizens would challenge the EPA’s regulatory determinations were it not for its lack of accountability and transparency in accomplishing through a renegade pattern of actions what they cannot achieve through democratic legislative processes.
A recent example sets unachievable CO2 emission limits for new power plants. As I reported in my January 14 column, a group within the EPA’s own Science Advisory Board (SAB) determined that the studies upon which that regulation was based had never been responsibly peer reviewed, and that there was no evidence that those limits can be accomplished using available technology.
Compared with huge consequences of the EPA’s regulatory war on coal, the fuel source that provides more than 40% of America’s electricity, a clamp-down AKforeston humble residential wood-burning stoves and future water heaters may seem to many people as a merely a trifling or inconsequential matter. That is, unless it happens to significantly affect your personal life.
As a Washington Times editorial emphasized, the ban is of great concern to many families in cold remote off-grid locations. It noted, for example, that “Alaska’s 663,000 square miles is mostly forestland, offering residents and abundant source of affordable firewood. When county officials floated a plan to regulate the burning of wood, residents were understandably inflamed.”
Quoting Representative Tammie Wilson speaking to the Associated Press, the Times reported: “Everyone wants clean air. We just want to make sure that we can also heat our homes.” Wilson continued: “Rather than fret over the EPA’s computer-model-based warning about the dangers of inhaling soot from wood smoke, residents have more pressing concerns on their minds as the immediate risk of freezing when the mercury plunges.”
And speaking of theoretical computer model-based warnings, where’s that global warming when we really need it?
Jay Lehr, Ph.D., science director for the Heartland Institute, and one of the nation’s most respected and widely cited experts on air and water quality, climate change, and biotechnology, broke ground in revealing his comprehensive plan to reform the EPA in his remarks as a Keynote breakfast speaker at Heartland’s recent International Conference on Climate Change held in Las Vegas from July 7- 9. Jay Lehr, Ph.D. introduced a legislative plan to replace the United States Environmental Protection Agency with a Committee of the Whole of the State Environmental Protection Agencies, utilizing a phased five-year transition period. See the detailed plan here.
Voters strongly believe the debate about global warming is not over yet and reject the decision by some news organizations to ban comments from those who deny that global warming is a problem.
Only 20% of Likely U.S. Voters believe the scientific debate about global warming is over, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Sixty-three percent (63%) disagree and say the debate about global warming is not over. Seventeen percent (17%) are not sure. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters think there is still significant disagreement within the scientific community over global warming, while 35% believe scientists generally agree on the subject.
The BBC has announced a new policy banning comments from those who deny global warming, a policy already practiced by the Los Angeles Times and several other media organizations. But 60% of voters oppose the decision by some news organizations to ban global warming skeptics. Only 19% favor such a ban, while slightly more (21%) are undecided.
But then 42% believe the media already makes global warming appear to be worse than it really is. Twenty percent (20%) say the media makes global warming appear better than it really is, while 22% say they present an accurate picture. Sixteen percent (16%) are not sure.
Still, this is an improvement from February 2009 when 54% thought the media makes global warming appear worse than it is. Unchanged, however, are the 21% who say the media presents an accurate picture.
The survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on July 7-8, 2014 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
Consistent with earlier polling is the finding that 60% of voters consider global warming a serious problem, with 37% who describe it as a Very Serious one. Thirty-five percent (35%) disagree and don’t believe global warming is that serious a problem, with 14% who say it is Not At All Serious.
But even among those voters who consider global warming a Very Serious problem, 57% say the debate is not yet over. These voters by a 49% to 34% margin also oppose the decision by some news organizations to ban global warming skeptics.
The older the voter, generally speaking, the more likely they are to believe that the debate about global warming is not over.
Most voters across all demographic categories say the debate is not over. Most also oppose the decision by some media outlets to ban global warming critics.
Men and those over 40 are more skeptical of the media’s coverage of global warming than women and younger voters are.
Sixty-four percent (64%) of Republicans and a plurality (45%) of voters not affiliated with either major political party believe the media makes global warming appear to be worse than it really is. Just 22% of Democrats agree. But Democrats also believe much more strongly than the others that global warming is a serious problem.
Twenty-seven percent (27%) of voters in President Obama’s party think the scientific debate about global warming is over, a view shared by only 12% of GOP voters and 16% of unaffiliateds.
Sixty-seven percent (67%) of all voters say they have been following recent news reports about global warming at least somewhat closely, with 33% who are following Very Closely.
Because congressional Republicans oppose most of the initiatives he has proposed, the president has signaled that he is prepared to take whatever actions he can alone to deal with a problem he attributes largely to certain human activities. However, just 30% of voters think the president should take action alone if necessary to deal with global warming. Twice as many (59%) say the federal government should only do what the president and Congress jointly agree on.
While most voters have expressed concern about global warming for years, only 41% are willing to pay more in taxes or in utility costs to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming. That includes 23% who are willing to pay no more than $100 extra a year.
Meanwhile the NRDC tells skeptics to give it up here. The NYT told how the most heavily funded econazi group in the NRDC and they not surprisingly claim they provided the blueprint for the deadly Obama Climate Action Plan.
Since its founding in 1970, the Natural Resources Defense Council has not sought the public profile of activist organizations like Greenpeace, but it has piled up a string of substantial legal and policy victories.
Its annual budget of about $120 million is far higher than that of most environmental groups, in part because of board members like Mr. DiCaprio and Mr. Redford, who are the attractions at lavish fund-raising galas for studio heads and Silicon Valley magnates. In a typical event in 2011, guests at the Malibu home of Ron Meyer, now the vice chairman of NBCUniversal, sipped Champagne and watched surfers paddle out to form a peace sign in the Pacific Ocean. The event raised $2.6 million.
The council’s fund-raising office in New York has also found big donors in the business world, including at Google and Goldman Sachs.
Sorry NRDC America we will continue to fight your activism and lies and the EPA which announced onerous plans to heavily fine you (say $70k) garnish your wages without court approval for anything you may do YOUR property that an EPA appointed bureaucrat finds is not acceptable to him/her. This might include putting in a pond on your land, perhaps removing a stand of trees, etc.
Newsbusters reports the liberal media is unwilling to make the George Soros/NRDC connection.
The liberal media love to hate the Koch Brothers but are far less enthusiastic about connecting George Soros’ billions to liberal policies.
On July 6, Coral Davenport of The New York Times revealed that the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new regulations on power plant emissions were largely inspired by the work of environmental activists at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The broadcast networks have not mentioned the NRDC connection to the new regulations, and even the Times ignored that liberal mega-donor Soros has bankrolled the NRDC.
The Times called the EPA regulations “a remarkable victory for the National Resources Defense Council” for developing the “novel” framework that the EPA would adopt, but they also failed to mention the more than $1.7 million in Soros-funding the group received since 2004 ($1,771,893).
On June 1, the EPA unveiled drastic limits on carbon emissions, mandating steep emission cuts within 16 years. While emission limits weren’t a new idea, the EPA plan “sets different limits for each state and allows states the flexibility to meet the standards by picking from a menu of policy options,” according to Davenport.
Davenport traced this innovation back to a specific 110-page proposal, written by two lawyers, David Doniger and David Hawkins, and energy policy expert, Daniel Lashof. All three individuals work with the NRDC, though Lashof only advises the organization since he joined left-wing billionaire donor Tom Steyer’s Next Gen Climate America in March. In February, Steyer pledged $100 million to pressure politicians on climate issues.
Few media outlets covered the Times’ revelations about NRDC’s involvement. None of the broadcast news programs brought it up. In fact, ABC, CBS and NBC news programs have ignored the EPA regulations since June 2.
Print media was not much better. While the Daily Mail (UK) reported on Davenport’s findings, few other news outlets joined in. The Hill and the National Journal both published brief pieces on EPA official’s response denying that the NRDC had any remarkable influence. None of that coverage brought up Soros’ donations to the NRDC.
Of course, both the networks and print media have been incredibly biased while pushing the EPA’s regulations. While discussing the plan, which CBS called “groundbreaking,” on June 2, 85 percent of the coverage completely ignored the economic impact. Additionally, an examination of major U.S. newspapers found that 90 percent of their editorial pages supported or ignored the EPA’s scheme.
The 2013 report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that “global warming is unequivocal and human influence has been the dominant cause since the mid-20th century.” During his State of the Union speech in January, President Obama declared “the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact.” As a physician-scientist who has carried out basic research for more than 50 years, I agree that we should not pollute the planet unnecessarily; however, I find the above statements far beyond the truth.
Estimates of numbers of scientists who “believe” in global warming range between 40 percent and more than 99 percent. Those in disagreement have been called “skeptics,” “deniers,” and “nonbelievers.” However, “believing” and “denying” are terms used in “consensus science,” not terms in “basic science.”
What’s the difference? Basic science is defined as knowledge about, or study of, the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observations. A theory (hypothesis) is tested by performing experiments and interpreting results either to prove or disprove the hypothesis in a way to minimize uncertainty. It’s best if those doing the experiments are “blinded”, i.e. samples are coded so that those doing the experiments are not biased toward any expected outcome. These experiments must also be repeated by other groups to confirm the original findings. Only after data have been properly collected, vetted and thoroughly corroborated, do we have a conclusion - with the least amount of uncertainty needed to establish a scientific fact.
In contrast, consensus science is what the majority in a particular field of study agree upon might be true. The consensus may or may not turn out to be confirmed by further research. For example, 15 years ago simulation models predicted that all Arctic ice would disappear by September 2013. In fact, Arctic ice thickness doubled between summer of 2012 and summer of 2013. Other forecasts 15 years ago included substantial melting of Antarctic ice, warming of global temperatures, and rising sea levels. Although carbon dioxide levels have risen during the past 15 years, the Antarctic ice shelf has become thicker, there’s been no increase in global temperatures and (if anything) global sea levels have slightly decreased. Thus, these simulation models included much uncertainty and, to date, all have been proven to be invalid.
There are many instances in which “established science” has been overturned by further experiments. In other words, science is never completely irrefutable.
For example, mad cow disease and the human equivalent, Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, were degenerative brain diseases of unknown cause. After 10 years of experiments, neurologist Stanley Prusiner reported in 1982 that these diseases were caused by a virus-like protein which he named “prion” (derived from “protein” and “infectious"). Almost every scientist laughed, because viruses had been well known to always be made of DNA or RNA. Prusiner persisted, however, because he was convinced the consensus was wrong. He proved to be correct and was awarded the 1997 Nobel Prize for medicine or physiology for his novel discovery. Prions are now realized to affect tissues other than brain and, in fact, are found even in lower organisms such as yeast.
For decades, peptic ulcer was believed to be caused by mental stress and excess stomach acid. Following many years of experiments, physicians Barry Marshall and Robin Warren reported in 1985 that peptic ulcer was caused by Heliobacter pylori. This finding forever changed the field of ulcer research: Instead of treating ulcers with antacid medications and/or surgery, antibiotics could now kill the bacteria and cure the disease! Marshall and Warren were awarded the 2005 Nobel Prize for medicine or physiology for this breakthrough.
It is a fact that Earth’s climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years. Indeed, fossil records in the Americas over the past 16,000 years have confirmed countless serious droughts lasting many decades, sometimes hundreds of years. Climate is measured in centuries; today’s global warming “scientists” are talking about weather (measured in months or years). Is it reasonable, when U.S. debt is increasing at a rate of $3.7 billion each day, for any taxpayer money to be spent on consensus science speculation?
Daniel Nebert, MD, is professor emeritus at the Cincinnati College of Medicine and Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. He lives in Wilsonville.
Hurricane Arthur (as viewed from the International Space Station) slammed the Outer Banks of NC and then brushed New England, contributed to the rains, well needed though untimely on the 4th.
Early this spring, we (weatherbell.com) predicted on this page and on our site that there would be more threats than normal to the east coast and New England this season despite the fact there would be overall less activity in the deep tropics and fewer storms that made their way from Africa (called Cape Verde storms). This was because of cooler than normal tropical water, dusty, dry air blowing off the Sahara into the high atmosphere, and increased vertical wind shear because of a developing El Nino. This shear is in the form of anomalous westerly winds at high levels that come east from the warm eastern Pacific and blow the tops off of thunderstorms that are trying to organize in waves moving west in the subtropical Atlantic.
The ocean from the Bahamas north off the east coast where the Gulf Stream carries warmth Poleward, is warmer than normal and is north of the unfavorable dry Saharan air and wind shear.
We forecast that old fronts or disorganized waves from the east would get their act together often closer to the mainland like Arthur did. Hurricane Carol, one of the worst New England storms organized over the Bahamas and slammed Long island and eastern New England in short order in 1954.
Arthur developed last week just off the southeast coast and feeding off the Gulf Stream, developed into a Category 2 hurricane crossing the Outer Banks of North Carolina before brushing New England in a weakened state. It brought some needed rains but is a potential omen of storms to follow.
The oceans and sun are the primary drivers to the climate regimes we find ourselves in when it comes to hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts and floods, heat and cold, and snowstorms. In terms of the ocean, the current combination of a cool Pacific and warm Atlantic Multidecadal modes is most like the 1950s. That was a period of drought in the southern Plains like the past few years, and a decade where 6 hurricanes created havoc on the Atlantic Coast. We had Carol, Edna, and Hazel in 1954, Connie and Diane in 1955 and Donna in 1960.
The ocean cycles average about 60 years and 60 years ago was the hurricane era of the middle 1950s.
A lesson from the 1950s is that you can have multiple landfalling storms in a season, even ones with a normal number of Atlantic named systems. As the Atlantic cooled, the flurry of landfalling storms ended in 1960 with Donna. The Atlantic warmed again in 1995 and the Pacific cooled after 1998. Floyd developed in 1999, Isabel made landfall in the Mid Atlantic in 2003, Irene hit New York and western New England in 2011 and Sandy, New Jersey and New York City in 2012. Arthur made a close pass this week and there may be more.
The Atlantic will cool within the next 5 years in its 60-year cycle and then both oceans will be cold. We can rest easier in the east in the summer and fall. Our winter temperatures will accelerate down though.
The 1960s and 1970s had the oceans go into their cold phase and the sun turn relatively quiet and the globe cooled. A series of volcanoes in the 1960s also contributed by creating an aerosol layer high up that reduced sunlight. There was also a concern about what was called “the human volcano”, man-made particulates that were also blocking sunlight. This is no longer an issue in the US with scrubbers on our coal plants and cleaner, more efficient cars, but a real one in China and India.
Some leading scientists and the government then warned of the possibility of a return to the little ice age conditions we experienced from the 1600s to early 1800s. The CIA in a 1974 report said “There is a growing consensus among leading climatologists that the world in undergoing a cooling trend… already causing major economic problems throughout the world.” Sound familar? See thisLeonard Nimoy video from 1978. “Climate experts believe the next ice age is on its way.”
Though Wikipedia will list reasons why this fear then never really happened, you can see evidence here that it did.
These factors cooled the globe then, but then from 1979 to 1998 when the sun rebounded and the oceans cycled back warm, the globe warmed again. Man has the arrogance to think we control the planet’s climate. We do play a role with urbanization, deforestation and locally where pollution is an issue but these effects are small and localized relative to the main, powerful natural forcings. See how US temperature cycles match to these cycles in the sun and ocean and not well with CO2, which has risen this whole period.
The solar has begun its downwards spiral after 1995, accelerating after 2000 and the oceans have begun cooling. Global warming has ceased for 12 to 20 years (depending on the data and region). As the Atlantic cools and all these three factors synchronize, look for temperatures to accelerate down. Throw in a major volcano (which can cool the earth a half degree) and we will have to cue Mr. Spock again.
We will cool like we did in the 1960s and 1970s, and, as we will explain in the next story, then potentially like the early 1800s. This will have major negative, even dangerous impacts on our region especially given the unwise and ultimately very costly energy policies of the EPA and state elected officials. Increasing energy prices also cause the cost of all goods and services to rise, increasing the stress further on those on fixed income and the poor and middle class. Dr. Frank Clemente of Penn State University explains the risk here in this IEA report.
My talk at the Heartland was on the cold and snow on the increase (around minute 17)
I do a local column in the Weeklies in southern New Hampshire addressing weather and climate issues. here was my latest column posted Friday, June 20, 2014.
I started weather forecasting in the 1970s for CBS in New York City for local radio, TV and the network show Energy and then as a college professor at Lyndon State College in Vermont where I taught weather and climate analysis and forecasting, and with my students started telephone, radio and ski area forecasting.
We had tools that were very primitive relative to today. Weather forecasters then depended on pattern recognition and empirical rules developed over the years. We looked globally and at all levels of the atmosphere. Computer models were in their infancy extending out with surface forecasts just 2 days. There were no 7 or even 5 day forecasts on television. The third day was considered an outlook.
I left the college in 1980 to join John Coleman in Chicago where we produced Good Morning America weather and plan for the Weather Channel (TWC), which we started with the helps of many of my former students in 1982. The early 80s saw a technology revolution to computerized weather data and graphics and real time local radars. TWC started right at that transition and pioneered new ways of doing both forecasting and TV weather.
The science greatly advanced the next two decades with the explosion of satellite delivery of information and graphics and then the internet and availability of data and global computer modeling going out to 16 days into the future in detail. These models are now run multiple times a day and multiple times in every run (called ensembles) to give forecasters an idea of the range of possibilities and degree of confidence in their outlooks. Model skill has increased in the first 7 to 8 days enough so now the TV meteorologists routinely do a 7-day forecast.
Even though the tools have improved, the best forecasters are the ones like my students and the old timers that understand the basics and can better determine which computers to believe and why and how to interpret what it means for the local area. In my company, Weatherbell.com, we cover the whole world for our clients, extending the challenge. We have to worry about unusual cold and snow in southern Brazil, frigid air in Europe, a slow monsoon onset in India, a heat wave in China, not enough rain in West Africa as well as a snowstorm in New England.
To do so, we at Weatherbell.com developed our own statistical models that combine factors like El Nino and La Nina, the longer term states of the oceans (Multidecadal Oscillations in the Pacific and Atlantic), all the solar variables that affect our weather, the winds in the tropical and temperatures in the polar high atmospheres, the magnitude and location of any volcanism, and patterns of soil moisture and snow cover patterns.
Sometimes like this past winter, other strong localized anomalies show up that override all other factors. A very warm water pool that developed after the super La Nina of 2010/11 in the Pacific northwest of Hawaii grew as it drifted to the Gulf of Alaska last summer and fall. After record Alaska snow and cold in the prior two winters, this warm pool deflected the jet stream north into Alaska making last winter warmer there. The jet stream then turned south into Canada and the central United States forming the ‘polar vortex’, driving arctic and at times Siberian air south in a steady stream from November into the spring.
In the end we have found, the warm and cold pools in the ocean really drive the dominant weather regimes, where it will be cold or warm, and where storms track and thus where it will be wet or dry, and in winter, snows will tend to fall. And we see strong evidence that the sun drives these ocean patterns.
This extreme cold scenario like this past winter happened in the 1976-79, 1916-1918 periods in both cases, a few years after strong La Ninas and quiet sun periods like this past winter.
Seeing that evolution, Weatherbell told our clients last summer that a very cold winter was coming despite the official government climate center forecast of a warm winter.
Indeed 2013/14 brought the coldest December to March ever in Chicago since records began in 1872. It was the 3rd snowiest there, snowiest ever in Detroit and other spots, and second snowiest in Philadelphia. The amount of ice on the Great Lakes set an all time record, well above normal in every week, peaking at 92% coverage in March and not disappearing entirely until June 10.
That ocean warm pool will persist at least into next winter and the El Nino that is coming on will settle near the dateline (called a Modoki El Nino) as it did in 2002/03, 2009/10.
These two factors argue for the cold last year over the central to shift further east - over us. The El Nino southern storm track will have California and Texas farmers dancing in the rain. You can expect another snowy winter on the east coast where we already have had 12 major impact snowstorms this decade just 4 years in, beating out the old record of 10 in the 1960s and the 2000s.
Climate forecasters whose business success depends on getting it right will tell you these same natural factors that determine our seasonal weather patterns can also explain all the past climate cycles and extremes very nicely.
Update: Today UAH reported: Compared to seasonal norms, the coldest place in Earth’s atmosphere in June was over the Ross Ice Shelf, where Antarctic winter temperatures were as much as 5.37 C (about 9.67 degrees Fahrenheit) colder than seasonal norms.
The sea ice coverage around Antarctica over the weekend marked a record high, with the ice surrounding the continent measuring at 2.112 million square kilometers, according to an environmentalist and author who says the ice there has actually been increasing since 1979 despite continued warnings of global warming.
The new record was posted for the first time by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s online record, The Cryosphere Today, early Sunday morning and continues to grow an an alarming rate.
It’s not apparent if the record actually occurred on Friday or Saturday, says Harold Ambler on his blog, Talking About the Weather.
Ambler is a journalist and author of the book “Don’t Sell Your Coat: Surprising Truths About Climate Change.”
“The previous record anomaly for Southern Hemisphere sea ice area was 1.840 million square kilometers and occurred on December 20, 2007,” said Ambler. Meanwhile, he pointed out, global sea ice area on Sunday was standing at 0.991 million square kilometers above average, a figure he arrived at by adding anomalies for the North and South hemispheres.
While early models predicted the sea ice would decrease because of global warming, other models are showing that the opposite is happening around Antarctica, where sea ice growth is increasing.
“A freshening of the waters surrounding the southernmost continent as well as the strengthening of the winds circling it were both theorized as explanations for the steady growth of Antarctica’s sea ice during the period of satellite measurement,” said Ambler.
However, he pointed out that climatologists have discounted the importance and growth of the Antarctic sea ice.
According to Walt Meier, formerly of the National Snow and Ice Data Center and currently of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, most of the Antarctic sea ice does not survive between years, and it’s less significant to the Earth’s climate than is the ice around the Arctic.
Meanwhile, Ambler said that the growth of the Antarctic sea ice is providing “a public relations problem, at a minimum, for those warning of global warming’s menace.”
During the past 18 months, global sea ice “has seen its most robust 18-month period of the last 13 years, maintaining, on average, a positive anomaly for an 18-month period for the first time since 2001,” he wrote.
In addition, Ambler said, the South Pole’s temperature has been dropping over the past 40 years.
NOTE: Mark Serreze of NSIDC here says the record ice is due to global warming
In an effort to win public support for the EPA’s recently proposed regulations to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions from coal-burning power plants an estimated 30 percent by 2030, the White House has begun a campaign in which it claims the carbon dioxide “pollution” causes children to get asthma.
“The next version of the White House claim will have puppies and kittens in it too,” David W. Kreutzer, Ph.D., a Heritage Institute research fellow in energy economics and climate change, told WND, treating the Obama administration argument with derision.
“Carbon dioxide has nothing to do with any health effects directly.”
Kreutzer explained that when the issue is pressed directly, top Obama administration “get a little bit more honest” and shift their ground to argue that even if carbon dioxide is not a toxic gas, it is still the indirect cause serious health problems such as asthma.
“What the White House is really maintaining is that when we get more carbon dioxide, we get more ozone, and the ozone causes asthma. Or, if more carbon dioxide causes global warming, then spring will last longer and we will have more pollen. Or, by using less coal we will have reduced particulate emissions and the particulate emissions cause asthma.”
Marc Morano, the executive director of Climate Depot, agrees.
“This is pure propaganda,” Morano told WND.
“The White House is trying to demonize carbon dioxide as a pollutant. The idea is to convince people that carbon dioxide somehow causes asthma and puts children in hospitals.”
Morano said Obama “has shifted the debate to children and asthma because he knows the public is not buying global warming.”
Both Kreutzer and Morano insist the EPA already has ample regulations that have been enforced for decades to remove toxic particles from the air to a level the EPA considers safe for health regardless of cost.
“The whole point of this asthma campaign is for the White House to get sick children on TV,” Kreutzer insisted.
“Even if you believed the most dire predictions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the EPA’s proposed regulations would not reduce enough carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to make any measurable impact on the climate.”
Morano contends there is a difference between regulating the amount of carbon dioxide in the air and regulating pollutants.
“We have largely solved classical air pollution over the past few decades,” he noted.
“The coal-burning power plants coming on line today are vastly cleaner than they were a generation ago. But the Obama EPA isn’t regulating pollution with these new rules. They are regulating carbon dioxide, not carbon.”
He pointed out that carbon dioxide, a miniscule trace gas in the atmosphere, is vital to photosynthesis and life on earth. It is a gas everyone exhales, and plants use it for food.
“There is nothing inherently toxic or unhealthy in carbon dioxide,” he said.
Still, Morano cautioned the White House change of emphasis to health themes is “effective propaganda.”
“People say, ‘I don’t know if I buy global warming, but I want to clean up the air,’” he noted.
“As long as the White House can manage to convince the American people that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, identical to smog, soot and toxic air particulates, the shift of the EPA debate from climate change directly to asthma, lung disease and other health care issues will persuade some normally intelligent people, including generally credible news editors on television.”
White House ‘war on asthma’
The evidence is abundant that the Obama administration has shifted into high gear a campaign to convince the public the EPA carbon dioxide regulations are necessary because carbon dioxide “pollution” increases asthma that impacts disproportionately “vulnerable” groups, including children, the elderly, the poor and “communities of color.”
In a June 6 press release the White House argued, “In the past three decades, the percentage of Americans with asthma has more than doubled, and climate change is putting those Americans at greater risk of landing in the hospital.”
The White House press release went on to state that the effects of climate change “impact the most vulnerable Americans - putting the elderly, kids, and people already suffering from burdensome allergies, asthma, and other illnesses at greater risk.”
To make sure the full emotional impact of the asthma argument was appreciated, the White House press release concluded as follows:
The President believes we have a moral obligation to leave our children a planet that’s not irrevocably polluted or damaged. While no single step can reverse the effects of climate change, we must take steady, responsible action to cut carbon pollution, protect our children’s health, and begin to slow the effects of climate change so that we leave behind a cleaner, more stable environment. That’s why the President put forward the Climate Action Plan last year and earlier this week, the Environmental Protection Agency released a vital component of that plan common sense carbon pollution standards for existing power plants.
The press release linked to a seven-page White House-authored paper that repeated the argument, claiming carbon-dioxide emissions cause climate change that in turn causes children to develop asthma.
“We have a moral obligation to leave our children a planet that’s not irrevocably polluted or damaged. The effects of climate change are already being felt across the Nation,” the White House report claimed in the first sentences.
The second paragraph made the causal link argument: “Climate change, caused primarily by carbon pollution, threatens the health and well-being of Americans in many ways, from increasing the risk of asthma attacks and other respiratory illnesses to changing the spread of certain vector-borne diseases.”
Then came a statement designed to touch the reader’s emotions: “Certain people and communities are especially vulnerable to the health effects of climate change, including children, the elderly, those with chronic illnesses, the poor, and some communities of color.”
The White House campaign to blame carbon-dioxide emissions for causing asthma was kicked off in President Obama’s weekly address May 31, delivered at the Children’s National Medical Center in Washington.
“Hi, everybody. I’m here at Children’s National Medical Center in Washington, D.C., visiting with some kids being treated here all the time for asthma and other breathing problems,” the president said. “Often, these illnesses are aggravated by air pollution. pollution from the same sources that release carbon and contribute to climate change. And for the sake of all our kids, we’ve got to do more to reduce it.”
EPA administrator Gina McCarthy, in a press release announced the agency’s “Clean Power Plant.”
“About a month ago, I took a trip to the Cleveland Clinic,” she said. “I met a lot of great people, but one stood out - even if he needed to stand on a chair to do it. Parker Frey is 10 years old. He’s struggled with severe asthma all his life. His mom said despite his challenges, Parker’s a tough, active kid - and a stellar hockey player. But sometimes, she says, the air is too dangerous for him to play outside. In the United States of America, no parent should ever have that worry.
McCarthy proceeded to claim the EPA’s plan to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions from coal-burning power plants would “deliver climate and health benefits up to $90 billion dollars,” while avoiding up to 100,000 asthma attacks and 2,100 heart attacks in the first year alone.
What causes asthma?
Contrary to Obama administration assertions that carbon dioxide causes asthma, the professional health care community appears stumped when asked directly to explain what causes it.
“Asthma is very common, affecting more than 26 million people in the United States, including almost 7 million children. No one knows for sure why some people have asthma and others don’t,” the website of the American College of Allergy, Asthma, & Immunology notes.
“The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.” Daniel J. Boorstin
CNS News Reporting More of Secretary of Flat Earth ..er...State John Kerry’s lies:
Secretary of State John Kerry told an audience in Mexico on Wednesday that temperatures in Europe and in Vietnam were “unprecedented” and broke “every record that’s ever been seen.” However, although it was hot that day, he was off the mark.
Speaking at an environmentally-friendly technology event in Mexico City, Kerry said he had just caught a CNN weather report in his hotel and “saw the temperatures around the world right now.”
“Thirty-four degrees centigrade [Celsius] in Vietnam today, in May. Twenty-nine, thirty, thirty-two, thirty-three in places all around Europe,” he said.
“Unprecedented. Breaks every record that’s ever been seen.” The hottest places in Europe in the heat of the day on Wednesday, according to weatheronline.co.uk included parts of Russia, Germany, central Italy and southern Turkey, all in the 29-32C (84-89F) range.
The highest temperature ever recorded in European Russia was 44C (111.2F) in 2010; in Germany was 40.2C (104.4F) in 1983 and 2003; in Italy was 48.5C (119.3F) in 1999; and in Turkey was 48.8C (119.8F) in 1993.
Kerry again dragged out the multi-falsified “97% of Scientist.” He calls us flat-earthers?
Another clueless local ‘Wiki’ expert who challenges anything posted questioning CAGW or the energy bind we are entering does a weekly letter to the editor, playing amateur climatologist. This was my response to him in a letter along side my regular bi-weekly column.
Temperature records are a far more complicated issue than you might ever imagine. I have been in the business for over 40 years. We use climate data every day. We have all the old data sets. We used them to correlate with factors like El Nino/La Nina, ocean and solar cycles, volcanism, and man’s effects like urbanization to make seasonal and longer-term forecasts for paying clients.
So we are very sensitive to changes in the data sets. One would think the old data was sacrosanct and remained the same but that is not the case by any means. Back in 1990, NOAA released its first US data set compilation, USHCN (US Historical Climate Network). It had adjustments for a factor, urbanization, that my early mentor and the father of climatology, Helmut Landsberg suggested was essential. We all know cities are warmer than rural areas at night as they tend to hold their heat.
Winds during the day mix the air and the difference becomes small. It was regarded in 1990 as the premium data set for the world. The global data was not adjusted for urban warmth because records about the location of the precise station locations (called metadata) were not available. In the late 1990s, after the super El Nino of 1998, while the global data was showing a century long warming as cities dominated, the US data had a sine wave with warming to 1940 cooling to 1978, warming to 1998 but no long term trend. However, the warming of the 1930s dominated. James Hansen of NASA (which uses NOAA data) said back then “The US has warmed during the last century but the warming hardly exceed natural variability. Indeed, the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year 1934” (1.1F warmer than 1998).
When asked why the US was not warming, a note was made on the NASA site that the US was only 1.6% of the globe and regional variances were not unreasonable. But this inconvenient fact caused the politicians who hold the budgetary purse strings to urge the scientists to make the data sets more consistent. The obvious solution was to remove the US urban adjustment and do some blending (called homogenization), which they did in 2008. The claim was the blending would improve the urban issue, but in fact it did more to contaminate the more accurate rural data. They also, without any explanation cooled off the prior warm peak in the 1930s with every new version (we are now four versions later). 1998 is now 0.13F warmer that 1934.
This past winter as record cold dominated, another quick fix was implemented that resulted in a warming for the US and most states. Maine was an egregious example. The change in Maine’s temperature record from the dataset switch is dramatic. The data as of February showed a slight cooling trend of negative 0.03 degrees per decade since 1895. The new data set shows a substantial 0.23 degrees per decade warming. They cooled off the early 1900s for Maine by over 4F!!!
Fortunately we have the raw data set. It does not have the homogenization and other adjustments but is subject to urbanization warming. And here it shows the cold season from October to March was the coldest since 1911/12 - over a century ago. HCN stands for Historical Climate Network (1221 mostly stable stations with the longer histories).
Note the 60 year cycle that matches the ocean and solar cycles. These natural cycles suggest it is all downhill from here (a story for another day). There is no evidence of the linear warming from increasing CO2, the theory demands.
This next chart is from the nation’s foremost state climatologist (John Christy) and was used in the U.S. Senate and House testimony. The state record highs and lows are not altered because every TV station and forecast company and local NWS has them listed and mayhem would ensue if the record highs and lows were changing every year. The total number of 90F and 100F days has been declining since the 1930s. The all-time state records shows what we believe is the real temperature trends the past 120 years. 23 of the 50 record highs were set in the 1930s and 38 before 1960. There have been more record lows than highs since the 1940s. Our climate has been unusually benign in recent decades despite the hyping of extremes.
A paper published today in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics finds that only about 3.75% [15 ppm] of the CO2 in the lower atmosphere is man-made from the burning of fossil fuels, and thus, the vast remainder of the 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 is from land-use changes and natural sources such as ocean outgassing and plant respiration.
According to the authors,
We find that the average gradients of fossil fuel CO2 in the lower 1200 meters of the atmosphere are close to 15 ppm at a 12 km x 12 km horizontal resolution.
The findings are in stark contrast to alarmist claims that essentially all of the alleged 130 ppm increase in CO2 since pre-industrial times is of man-made origin from the burning of fossil fuels, finding instead that only 15 ppm or ~11.5% of the increase is of fossil fuel origin. The findings cast additional doubt upon the IPCC carbon-cycle Bern Model, previously falsified by the atomic bomb tests.
Furthermore, if use of fossil-fuels has contributed such a small part of total atmospheric CO2 levels, restricting use of fossil fuels will have little effect upon CO2 levels.
Simulating the integrated summertime Δ14CO2 signature from anthropogenic emissions over Western Europe
D. Bozhinova1, M. K. van der Molen1, I. R. van der Velde1, M. C. Krol1,2, S. van der Laan3, H. A. J. Meijer3, and W. Peters1
1Meteorology and Air Quality Group, Wageningen University, the Netherlands
2Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands
3Centre for Isotope Research, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
Abstract. Radiocarbon dioxide (14CO2, reported in Δ14CO2) can be used to determine the fossil fuel CO2 addition to the atmosphere, since fossil fuel CO2 no longer contains any 14C. After the release of CO2 at the source, atmospheric transport causes dilution of strong local signals into the background and detectable gradients of Δ14CO2 only remain in areas with high fossil fuel emissions. This fossil fuel signal can moreover be partially masked by the enriching effect that anthropogenic emissions of 14CO2 from the nuclear industry have on the atmospheric Δ14CO2 signature. In this paper, we investigate the regional gradients in 14CO2 over the European continent and quantify the effect of the emissions from nuclear industry. We simulate the emissions and transport of fossil fuel CO2and nuclear 14CO2 for Western Europe using the Weather Research and Forecast model (WRF-Chem) for a period covering 6 summer months in 2008. We evaluate the expected CO2 gradients and the resulting Δ14CO2 in simulated integrated air samples over this period, as well as in simulated plant samples.
We find that the average gradients of fossil fuel CO2 in the lower 1200 m of the atmosphere are close to 15 ppm at a 12 km x 12 km horizontal resolution. The nuclear influence on Δ14CO2 signatures varies considerably over the domain and for large areas in France and the UK it can range from 20 to more than 500% of the influence of fossil fuel emissions. Our simulations suggest that the resulting gradients in Δ14CO2 are well captured in plant samples, but due to their time-varying uptake of CO2, their signature can be different with over 3% from the atmospheric samples in some regions. We conclude that the framework presented will be well-suited for the interpretation of actual air and plant 14CO2 samples.
Excerpts from the conclusions:
In this work, we demonstrated the ability of our modeling framework to simulate the atmospheric transport of CO2 and consequently the atmospheric 14CO2 signature in integrated air and plant samples in Western Europe. Based on our results we reach the following conclusions.
1. Simulated spatial gradients of 114CO2 are of measurable size and the 6 month average CO2ff [CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels] concentrations in the lower 1 km of the atmosphere across Western Europe are between 1 to 18 ppm.
2. Enrichment by 14CO2 from nuclear sources can partly mask the Suess effect close to nuclear emissions, particularly in large parts of UK and northwestern France.
This is consistent with previous studies (Graven and Gruber, 2011) and we show that in these regions the strength of the nuclear influence can exceed the influence
from fossil fuel emissions.
3. The simulated plant 114CO2 signatures show spatial gradients consistent with the simulated atmospheric gradients. Plant growth variability induces differences
between the simulated plant and the daytime atmospheric mean for the period of growth, of a magnitude that is mostly within the measurement precision of
+/-2%, but can be up to +/-7% in some areas.
4. Integrated 114CO2 samples from areas outside the immediate enrichment area of nuclear emission sources are not sensitive to occasional advection of enriched air due to their long absorption period. However, to properly account for the nuclear enrichment term on smaller time scales, improvements in temporal profiles of nuclear emissions are needed.
5. New 114CO2 sampling strategies should take advantage of different sampling methods, as their combined use will provide a more comprehensive picture of the
atmospheric 114CO2 temporal and spatial distribution.
Earlier this year, global warming was blamed for the ‘irreversible retreat’ of west Antarctic glaciers.
But now scientists claim that warming of the planet is in fact behind a paradoxical growth in South Pole sea ice.
The comments come as Antarctica’s sea ice set a record this week, reaching 815,448 square miles (1,312,000 square km) of ice above its normal range.
Scientists believe the shift is caused by water melting from beneath the Antarctic ice shelves and re-freezing back on the surface.
‘The primary reason for this is the nature of the circulation of the Southern Ocean - water heated in high southern latitudes is carried equatorward, to be replaced by colder waters upwelling from below, which inhibits ice loss,’ Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, told Harold Ambler at Talking About the Weather.
One slight problem with Serreze’s little theory, the ice is growing around pretty much all of the continent, and not just the small area of West Antarctic that he refers to.
Perhaps if he tried to stop blaming everything on global warming, and did some proper science instead, we might actually learn something useful.
Warmist Kevin Drum on selling the global warming hoax: “...anecdotal evidence (mild winters, big hurricanes, wildfires, etc.) is probably our best bet. We should milk it for everything it’s worth” H/T Tom Nelson.
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.
NOTE: 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.
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)