Political Climate
May 07, 2008
Al Gore Calls Myanmar Cyclone a ‘Consequence’ of Global Warming

By Jeff Poor, Business and Media Institute

Using tragedy to advance an agenda has been a strategy for many global warming activists, and it was just a matter of time before someone found a way to tie the recent Myanmar cyclone to global warming. Former Vice President Al Gore in an interview on NPR’s May 6 “Fresh Air” broadcast did just that. He was interviewed by “Fresh Air” host Terry Gross about the release of his book, “The Assault on Reason,” in paperback.

“And as we’re talking today, Terry, the death count in Myanmar from the cyclone that hit there yesterday has been rising from 15,000 to way on up there to much higher numbers now being speculated,” Gore said. “And last year a catastrophic storm from last fall hit Bangladesh. The year before, the strongest cyclone in more than 50 years hit China - and we’re seeing consequences that scientists have long predicted might be associated with continued global warming.” Gore claimed global warming is forcing ocean temperatures to rise, which is causing storms, including cyclones and hurricanes, to intensify. Read more here.

Icecap Note: Someone needs to let Al know that NOAA’s global 3000 buoys have shown a slight cooling not warming since their deployment in 2003. That temperatures according to satellites (MSU UAH) and the Hadley Center agree with cooling back to at least 2002.
image. See larger image here.

Another inconvenient truth is that major devastating storms have been part of the history of the region even back in the Little Ice Age in 1584 when a major cyclone killed 200,000. After a series of killer cyclones in the globally cold 1960s (1963, 22,000; 1965, 57,000 (3 storms), in 1970, during the peak of the mid 20th century cool period, the famous Bhola cyclone killed 300,000-500,000. Another Bangladesh storm in 1991, killed 150,000. See the top ten killer storms in this story today here.

Finally someone needs to show Al the current sea surface temperature analysis chart for the globe where most of the Pacific and Indian Ocean including the waters near Myanmar are cooler than the long term normal.

See full size image here

May 06, 2008
It’s All Unravelling

Global Warming Politics

“The warmers are getting more and more like those traditional predictors of the end of the world who, when the event fails to happen on the due date, announce an error in their calculations and a new date."[Dr. John Brignell, Emeritus Engineering Professor at the University of Southampton, on Number Watch (May 1)]

Oh dear! The inevitable is happening. The ‘global warming’ trope is unravelling on a daily basis - scientifically, economically, and politically. The wheels are coming off the hysterical bandwagon, and it is not going to be a salutary sight watching the politicians and the media junkies jumping cart and trying to throw mud in everyone’s eyes.

Pathetic Sophistry.  First, climate - as long predicted here - just won’t play ball. We now know that there has been no ‘global warming’ since 1998, a fact unpredicted by the models and despite an above-average rise in ‘greenhouse’ gas emissions. Moreover, new computer models show that the Earth’s temperature may stay roughly the same for at least a further decade through the workings of the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) [for example, among many reports: ‘Next decade “may see no warming“‘, BBC Online Science/Nature News, May 1]. And, even the Solar Cycle 24 sunspots are refusing to flare up.

It is pathetic sophistry to claim, as some are wont, that ‘natural forces’ are having the temerity to “suppress” ‘global warming’. The fundamental point has ever been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors. The very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins just one politically-selected factor is about as bonkers as it gets. How on Earth have folk been conned into believing such hubris? It is so like The Prophecies by Nostradamus - the vagueness and lack of dating make it easy to quote ‘evidence’ selectively after every major dramatic event, and retrospectively claim them as a ‘hit’! Read more here.

May 05, 2008
The Opinionator

Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post

At Wikipedia, one man engineers the debate on global warming, and shapes it to his views. Next to Al Gore, William Connolley may be the world’s most influential person in the global warming debate. He has a PhD in mathematics and worked as a climate modeller, but those accomplishments don’t explain his influence—PhDs are not uncommon and, in any case, he comes from the mid-level ranks in the British Antarctic Survey, the agency for which he worked until recently.

Connolley is not only a big shot on Wikipedia, he’s a big shot at Wikipedia—an administrator with unusual editorial clout. Using that clout, this 40-something scientist of minor relevance gets to tear down scientists of great accomplishment. Because Wikipedia has become the single biggest reference source in the world, and global warming is one of the most sought-after subjects, the ability to control information on Wikipedia by taking down authoritative scientists is no trifling matter.

Connolley and his cohorts don’t just edit pages of scientists actively involved in the global warming debate. Scientists who work in unrelated fields, but who have findings that indirectly bolster a critique of climate change orthodoxy, will also get smeared. So will non-scientists and organizations that he disagrees with. Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia’s 2.5-million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley’s bidding. Read more here.

Page 517 of 624 pages « First  <  515 516 517 518 519 >  Last »