By Roger Pielke Jr.

Daniel Greenberg, the widely respected journalist and author who focuses on science policy and politics, was invited by Nature to review my book, The Climate Fix. Little did he know that review would bring him up close and personal with the activist wing of the climate science community.  After writing a positive review of my book, Greenberg found himself under attack by Michael Mann, Paul Ehrlich and Stefan Rahmstorf on the pages on Nature.

What followed was an email exchange that provides some insight into the mindset of the activist wing of the climate science community.  Greenberg shared this exchange with me with the following message, published here with his permission:

Roger, Re my stirring experience of jousting with Mann, Ehrlich, and Rahmstorf: What a scurrilous bunch. My sympathy to you and anyone else who has to deal with them. They’re gravediggers of science. Nature will soon publish my riposte and, I think, a disclaimer of any ties to me by the Marshall Institute. Below, my further exchanges with the low-life trio.

Best regards, Dan

Here is Greenberg’s email to Michael Mann that concludes the exchange, reproduced with his permisison:

Dear Professors Mann, Ehrlich, and Rahmstorf,

Your correspondence concerning my review of Roger Pielke’s book “Climate Fix” has provided me with a deeper understanding of the widespread public skepticism toward climate science. In your hands, apple pie and motherhood would come under public suspicion. Have you considered taking a remedial reading course? Can you comprehend the difference between a book reviewer’s own beliefs and the reviewer’s presentation of the beliefs expressed by the author of the book under review? Apparently not. Furthermore, your insinuation of an undisclosed relationship between me and a conservative think tank is preposterous. In 2006, I participated in a panel discussion sponsored by the Marshall Institute---as I have done with numerous other organizations, including the Brookings Institution, RAND, AAAS, and various academic societies and universities. Common practice for journalists. Nor did I, as you allege, write a report, or anything, for the Marshall Institute. The panel’s words were transcribed and published by the Institute. I wrote nothing for them. You guys are the devil’s gift to the Tea Party and other climate-change wackos.

Sincerely, Dan Greenberg

If Michael Mann thinks that he has been treated unfairly by my decision not to publish his side of the exchange, I will be happy to post up his emails with his permission.  Somehow I doubt that he will be as forthcoming as Greenberg.  The repeated character assassination and behind-the-scenes attacks of a small segment of the climate science community gives the entire field a black eye, and it continues unabated. Greenberg is right, these guys could make apple pie and motherhood come under public suspicion.

Read more here.

By Jennifer Marohasy

On Thursday the New South Wales Government officially declared the nine-year drought ended.  The very next day the CSIRO released a report warning that the ‘current drought’ appears to be at least partly linked to ‘climate change’.

The CSIRO report entitled ‘Climate variability and change in south-eastern Australia’ is an initiative of the South Eastern Australian Climate Initiative, SEACI, lead by CSIRO with input from the Bureau of Meteorology and the Murray-Darling Basin Authority.

The report forecasts a future decline in rainfall and works from the assumption there is already long term decline.

The first diagram, Figure 1, however, only shows historical rainfall data for the period 1997 to 2009 excluding the last very wet ten months.  The first graph, Figure 2, shows inflows, not rainfall, across the Murray Darling Basin without explaining that many variables impact inflows that have nothing to do with rainfall including changes in land management, salt interception and drainage schemes etcetera. 

A scientific report of this kind might have begun with a discussion of the complete historical rainfall record and avoided confusing inflows with actual rainfall.

The report’s forecast of a drier future could come to pass, but the track record of Australian climate scientists for predicting rainfall even one season ahead is dismal.  The Bureau incorrectly forecast below average rainfall for spring this year for the upper Murray catchments just before the region was flooded.  Last year the forecast for a hot and dry summer resulted in drought breaking rains across the upper Murray Darling Basin.

Rainfall - the most significant climate variable - is spectacularly changeable and non-robust from one climate model to the next.

Professor Gareth Paltridge in his book ‘The Climate Caper’ (Connor Court, 2009, pg 21) makes reference to an Australian National University study of the various simulations of rainfall as produced by the IPCC models.  The simulations of average Australian rainfall apparently range from less than 200mm per year to greater than 1000mm per year.  The actual measured value is 450mm.  Considering the forecasts for the late 21st Century, apparently more than half the models predict an increase in rainfall over Australia, and the rest predict a decrease.  The most extreme decrease is from the CSIRO IPCC model which suggests that average rainfall over Australia 100 years from now will be 100mm per year less.

At the global scale, according to AGW theory, an increase in carbon dioxide should lead to an increase in water vapour concentrations and therefore more cloud.  But there is some empirical evidence to suggest that water vapour feedback is in fact negative, not positive.

In summary, there is no reason to suggest that the new SEACI forecast for a decline in rainfall across south eastern Australia will be any more accurate that previous CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology seasonal and long range forecasts that have proven unreliable.  Furthermore it is of concern that the report purportedly about south eastern Australia, released in October 2010, makes continual reference to the ‘ongoing drought’ and ‘current drought’ when south eastern Australia is no longer in drought.

Icecap note: here is the rainfall year-to-date (through October 24, 2010) for Australia (source NOAA CDC)

Enlarged here.

Enlarged here.

See post here.

Posted by reasonmclucus on blog town hall

The dumbest criticism the Democrats’ media sheep make of Tea Party members is that Tea Partiers don’t accept the global warming nonsense that most Democrats and their media sheep have fallen for. 

Most Tea Party members aren’t climate experts, but they are smart enough to recognize a political con when they see one.  In business cons, police warn that if something sounds too good to be true it probably is.  In political cons, if something sounds too bad to be true it probably is too bad to be true.

Like most con artists, the people attempting to continue Enron’s global warming scam try to oversell their claims.  The global warming scammers are essentially saying that if we don’t stop producing the “evil” gas carbon dioxide God will flood the world like he did in the time of Noah.

Supporters of Enron’s global warming scam falsely claim that carbon dioxide (CO2) possesses some magical power to increase the temperature of the atmosphere by interacting with low energy infrared radiation (IR).

In the 90’s Enron paid scientists and so called environmental groups to claim that an increase in atmospheric CO2 would cause significant temperature changes even though CO2 comprises less than 0.04% of the atmosphere. Enron even wrote the Kyoto Accords for the Clinton administration.

Enron wanted the opportunity to make a fortune by trading what the company called “carbon credits”. Enron had previously made a fortune trading sulfur dioxide credits under a program set up to allow northeastern power plants to continue producing the pollution associated with acid rain. 

People who are unfamiliar with science don’t understand that western science has long been infected with con artists. In the Middle Ages “Alchemists” obtained money from wealthy nobles by claiming to be working on a method of turning a base metal like lead into gold.

Some of the more popular science scams today involve miraculous medical treatments and machines that use little or no energy.

Today’s scientists don’t trust each other to be truthful.  Science journals require “peer review” of articles to discourage writers from publishing phony results that seem to support their theories.  Attorneys in court often question whether a scientist witness has been paid to testify a certain way.

Scientists who have trouble getting money for legitimate research may feel they have no choice but to adjust their research and statements to conform to the desires of the businesses or political organizations that offer them money.

Many of the global warming “scientists” who call themselves “climatologists” lack the qualifications for making such claims.  The only qualifications most of them have are for predicting short term weather.

Understanding the way climate changes over time requires a background in astrophysics and the operation of earth’s complex energy system as well as an understanding of weather patterns.

The Milankovich cycles are the primary factors causing climate.  Changes in the earth’s tilt on its axis determine how temperatures change from one season to another.  Changes in the sun’s output affect short term changes in air temperature. 

Those familiar with thermodynamics know that physicist R.W. Wood disproved the claim that greenhouses and the atmosphere stayed warm by reflecting IR.

Those who support the claim if global warming don’t talk like scientists. 

Real scientists don’t use terms like “settled science” or “consensus” when talking about their theories. “Consensus” is a political term not a scientific term Scientists don’t rely on consensus because the consensus view has been wrong before.  In 1895 the consensus among physicists was that atoms were the smallest particles of matter. The consensus was proved wrong when Sir J.J.Thomson reported his discovery of the electron.

Priests suggest their statements represent matters that are “settled”. Real scientists qualify their claims and look for additional tests to make to see if they have missed something. Scientists who believe they may have an accurate model of the nucleus of atoms are using the Hadron Collider to determine if they might have missed something. 

I learned in high school that when scientists conduct experiments, they should mention conditions that could reduce the accuracy of results. Those who claim global warming ignore the likelihood that the 0.25% change in temperature during the 20th Century might indicates nothing more than the use of different equipment. 

Real scientists use mathematically rigorous methods.  The people who claim global warming rely on the mathematically meaningless term called “average global temperature”. 

Priests use terms similar to “denier” and “contrarian” to describe heretics who question their statements.  Scientists provide.the results of experiments and observations to refute critics.

Contrary to the statements of President Barack Obama and various energy companies, there is no such thing as clean energy.  Large wind generators kill birds and many believe they are visual pollution.  The companies that produce solar cells in China are heavy polluters.  Using solar energy to heat water to produce electricity requires large amounts of water. 

Carbon dioxide is the most essential molecule in the atmosphere.  Plants need it to convert solar energy into the bonds that hold complex carbon molecules together.  Humans and other animals then use those carbon molecules for food.

Animals than return part of the carbon to the atmosphere as CO2 to be used by plants to complete the carbon cycle.  Unfortunately, humans remove large amounts of plant carbon from the cycle by using plant products for items like clothing and paper in which the carbon isn’t returned to the atmosphere.  Some unused portions of food products are put in landfills instead of the carbon being returned to the atmosphere. We actually need to use fossil fuels to replace the carbon that we remove from the carbon cycle. 

I have various posts on this blog exposing flaws in the global warming scam.  I also have a Global Warming, Not Blog that primarily only has global warming type posts. See post here.

------------

Unusual cold hits Korea; CO2 blamed

Cold spell grips country

An unusually cold spell gripped the nation, Tuesday, with the mercury falling by more than 10 degrees Celsius from a day earlier to form ice in mountainous areas and even in Seoul.

It is the first time in seven years that ice has formed in October in Seoul, according to the Korea Meteorological Administration (KMA).
...
Weather experts do not rule out the possibility that the earlier-than-expected cold results from global climate change.

“Climate change used to be criticized for ushering in the unusual heat in summer. But it’ to blame for the unusual cold in winter as well,"a KMA spokesman said. Read more here.