‘Twas the week before Christmas, when all through the news,
There were reports of record cold, so many were confused.
Told global warming is why we should care,
And that the point of no return would soon be here.
The children were bombarded with tales of dread,
While visions of climate disasters were stuck in each little head.
And mamma in her Prius, and I on my bike,
To save the planet, got rid of the cars that we like.
When suddenly in the data there arose such a clatter,
The earth was not warming, what could be the matter?
The warming stopped, as quick as a flash,
Leaving proponents in sack-cloth, bathing in ash.
For far too common was new-fallen snow,
More than forecasted, temperatures 0 or below.
And, what to my wondering eye there appears,
But an uptick in sea ice, and even more polar bears.
With a little old driver, called the PDO,
I knew in a moment it had to be so.
Howling like beagles fearing the shame,
AGW pushers called skeptics many a name!
"Now, Denier! now, madman! now neanderthal, you’re lying!
You’re an idiot! you’re stupid, know nothing, we’re frying!
To the top of the chart! breaking through the temperature wall!
The warmings out of control, it’s frying us all!”
As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly,
This is the worst drought ever, global warming is why.
So up to the IPCC the climate pushers flew,
With a gravy train of grants, and politics too.
Make economies pay, we need no proof,
Just keep saying temperatures are going through the roof.
With the media complicit, my head was turning around,
To see the global temperature level off and then come down.
The warming had stopped, in their mouth was their foot,
Exposing the scam, and making off with the loot.
Readjusting temperatures, from many years back,
Peddling disinformation to the media pack.
At conferences they would drink and make merry!
While the deceit grew in a way, that made it quite scary!
For the tide it had turned, there was cold that would show,
You can’t say it’s warmer, if there’s too much snow.
The cold that was showing led to chattering of teeth,
As the cycle came full circle, not unlike a wreath.
The face of global warming had become a subject smelly,
Their position as “solid,” as a bowlful of jelly!
Hockey sticks broken, sea ice on the increase,
I laughed when I heard their excuses not cease.
Events we all knew were something ahead,
Were twisted into worst ever, something to dread.
How dare mother nature destroy AGW’s life’s work,
These deniers are as nasty as a Miley Cyrus Twerk.
But the data is there and everyone knows,
The temperatures leveled off while CO2 rose!
So when in the wire, you hear the cold wind whistle,
The AGW agenda is ready for dismissal.
So let me exclaim, as this fades out of sight,
“Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night!”
Joe Bastardi is chief forecaster at WeatherBELL Analytics, a meteorological consulting firm.
Icecap Note: By the way, the liars at NOAA NCDC proclaimed November to be the warmest ever for the globe with an anomaly of+1.40F. It was not the case in the NASA data set which had it at roughly half that at +0.72F nor in the satellite data bases which had it near +0.4F. It seems every agency of the Obama administration is loose with the facts. Do you believe unemployment is below 7% (oK if you stop counting people who can’t find a job you might get that) or inflation is zero (because they don’t count volatile food and energy which is the lions share of the costs for the low and middle class). NCDC has a version 3.2.2 of its global data set, each version is warmer than the prior, accomplished with additional post 1990 warming and especially cooling prior to the 1950s. In private industry this is known as creative accounting and often ends up with people in jail. In government, they get to keep their jobs and are likely to see increased funding. As Steve Goddard notes here, there are no physical mechanisms to explain the changes. A UHI adjustment would be the opposite.
UPDATE: A team of scientists and lawyers have filed an AMICUS BRIEF to the SCOTUS after presenting compelling evidence, arguing that in conclusion:
The “triggering” determination at issue here is at the core of EPA’s current program to restrict hydrocarbon based energy and make it more expensive and less available. The Endangerment Finding and subsequent triggering determination came about when Congress failed to pass President Obama’s proposed “cap and trade” legislation during his first term. As described by the President during his 2008 campaign, that legislation was specifically intended to reduce carbon emissions by forcing a massive increase in the price of energy: “Under my plan ... electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket.” Erica Martinson, Uttered in 2008, Still Haunting Obama in 2012, Politico (Apr. 5, 2012, 11:37 PM), http://www.politico.com/news/stories/ 0412/74892.html.
Adding CO2 to the stationary source PSD permitting program seeks to accomplish the same result through forcing the massive closure of coal based power plants (a process already well under way) and hindering and delaying the construction and operation of power sources that use the cheapest forms of energy, which are hydrocarbon based energy. And EPA seeks to achieve that result without new legislation, and instead as a supposed interpretation of over 35-year-old legislation never previously thought to cover this subject matter.
Meanwhile the United States is on the cusp of an energy revolution of hydrocarbons from unconventional oil and natural gas sources that is having the effect of rapidly increasing the supply and decreasing the price of carbon-based energy. See, e.g., America’s New Energy Future: The Unconventional Oil and Gas Revolution and the U.S. Economy, Volumes I, II, and III, IHS (September 2013). IHS sees the energy revolution as adding millions of jobs and hundreds of billions of dollars annually to the U.S. economy, all based on burning hydrocarbon fuels and emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. EPA looks upon this prospect with horror, and the stationary source PSD permitting program coupled with EPA’s plans for CO2 emissions standards is precisely the means it sees available to stop it before it can get too far.
Arbitrarily raising the price of energy is the same thing as purposely impoverishing the American people. It is shocking that our government would intentionally pursue such a goal, particularly without any scientific basis whatsoever to do so, as discussed in Point IV above. It is equally shocking that the executive branch, without supporting legislation, would decide that accomplishing its energy/climate goals, not endorsed by Congress or the general public, is so sacrosanct that it must take a completely inapplicable law and twist it into a pretzel in the desperate but ultimately futile effort to find a basis to raise the price and limit the availability of energy for the American people. And meanwhile CO2 is a worldwide phenomenon, and other countries like China and India have no plans meaningfully to curtail their rapidly increasing emissions. Unilateral CO2 emission control by the United States promises to damage the economy of the United States without any benefits.
In fact, increasing CO2 in the atmosphere facilitates achieving the goal of raising the poor out of poverty through increasing food production. CO2 is the primary “food” utilized by the vast majority of plants to produce the organic matter out of which they construct their tissues, which subsequently become the ultimate source of food for nearly all animals and humans. Consequently, the more CO2 there is in the air, the better plants grow, as has been demonstrated in literally thousands of laboratory and field experiments. See Craig Idso & S. Fred Singer, Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Chapter 7 (Chicago, IL 2009). And the better plants grow, the more food there is available to sustain the entire biosphere.
At least since the International Conference on Rising Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Plant Productivity of 1983, it has been known that a doubling of the air’s CO2 concentration would likely lead to a 50% increase in photosynthesis and a doubling of water use efficiency in many types of plants, as well as significant increases in biological nitrogen fixation in almost all biological systems, and an increase in the ability of plants to adapt to a variety of environmental stresses.
Availability of potable water for irrigation is a key constraint on food production in the United States and many other countries; yet studies conducted on hundreds of different plant species demonstrate the very real and measurable growth- enhancing, water-saving, and stress-alleviating advantages that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations bestow upon Earth’s plants. See Craig Idso & S. Fred Singer, Climate Change Reconsidered: 2009 Report of the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), Ch. 7 (2009); Craig Idso & Sherwood Idso, The Many Benefits of Atmospheric CO2 Enrichment (2011).
All these benefits largely flow to those who otherwise struggle to afford an adequate supply of food, in other words, the poor. The bottom line here is that rising atmospheric CO2 levels yield very significant net benefits to society. In making its Endangerment Finding, EPA did not even consider these benefits. That total dereliction of duty calls into question the reasonableness of its entire effort to restrict CO2 under the CAA, and ultimately the reasonableness of the so-called “triggering” rule at issue on this petition. This is particularly true given that each of EPA’s three lines of evidence for its Endangerment finding is demonstrably invalid.
If EPA succeeds in limiting the availability of hydrocarbon based energy and raising its price, it is not the rich who will be priced out of purchasing the energy they need. It is the poor. Cheap carbon-based energy from stationary sources means that relatively low income people in this country can afford, for example, to heat, cool and light their homes, cook meals, use the internet, talk on cell phones, buy products like automobiles made of inexpensive steel and other metals. If the lowest cost energy available is unwisely restricted, all Americans will suffer greatly, but the poorest the first and the most.
Indeed to the extent that this Administration can significantly influence other countries’ energy/ climate policy, it is primarily the poor who would stand to be harmed by decreased availability of affordable food resulting from restriction of the amount of CO2 that would otherwise be in the atmosphere. In seeking to regulate CO2 from stationary sources under the CAA, and in opposing the petitions, EPA would enlist this Court in its campaign that results in such impoverishment. It would be very sad if this Court by its decision went along with this campaign.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals should be reversed. In addition EPA’s Endangerment Finding should be vacated.
Jeff Jacoby, Boston Globe
BACK IN 2006, around the time Al Gore’s global-warming documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” was released, I started a file labeled “What Climate Consensus?” Gore was insisting that “the debate among the scientists is over,” and only an ignoramus or a lackey for the fossil-fuel industry could doubt that human beings were headed for a climate catastrophe of their own making. But it didn’t take much sleuthing to discover that there was plenty of debate among scientists about the causes and consequences of global warming. Many experts were skeptical about the hyperbole of alarmists like Gore, and as I came across examples, I added them to my file.
The thicker that file grew, the more shrilly intolerant the alarmists became.
Over and over the True Believers insist that their view is not just widely accepted in the scientific community, but virtually unanimous apart from some crackpots. Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has likened doubters to members of a Flat Earth Society. CBS news reporter Scott Pelley, asked why his “60 Minutes” broadcasts on global warming didn’t acknowledge the views of skeptics, reached for an even more wounding comparison: “If I do an interview with Elie Wiesel, am I required as a journalist to find a Holocaust denier?”
It seems to make no difference that those challenging the doomsday narrative include some of the world’s most distinguished scientists, or that numerous experts in climatology and related earth sciences have repeatedly gone public with their critiques. To climate ideologues, they’re invisible. “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous,” President Obama tweeted in May.
Really? That’s not what the American Meteorological Society learned from a recent survey of its professional members. Only a bare majority, 52 percent, said that climate change is largely being driven by human activity. Scientists with a “liberal political orientation” were much more likely to regard global warming as human-caused and harmful, the survey’s authors found - in fact, as a predictor of respondents’ views on global warming, ideology outweighed greater expertise. “This would be strong evidence against the idea that expert scientists’ views on politically controversial topics can be completely objective,” the authors observe.
In that light, consider the findings of a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change. Of 117 global warming predictions generated by climate-model simulations, all but three “significantly” overestimated the actual amount of warming that occurred during the past 20 years. The models typically forecast that global surface temperature would rise by more than twice as much as it did.
Why would so many scientists have relied on models that turned out to be so wrong? The authors propose several plausible explanations - volcanic eruptions? solar irradiation? - but their bottom line is that climate science still has a long way to go: “Ultimately the causes of this inconsistency will only be understood after . . . waiting to see how global temperature responds over the coming decades.”
That understanding won’t be advanced one millimeter by ideologues who thunder that the “science is settled.” Perhaps all those climate models wouldn’t have been programmed to overpredict global warming if the pressure to conform to the alarmists’ view weren’t so pervasive.
In a classic 1955 lecture on “The Value of Science,” the celebrated physicist (and future Nobel laureate) Richard Feynman warned that science would be hobbled if it tried to stifle its doubters and skeptics. “If we want to solve a problem that we have never solved before, we must leave the door to the unknown ajar ... [D]oubt is not to be feared but welcomed and discussed.”
Science isn’t settled by majority vote, and invoking “consensus” to shut off debate is authoritarian and anti-scientific. There are always inconvenient truths to challenge what the majority thinks it knows. Ninety-seven percent of experts may be impressed with the emperor’s new clothes. That’s no reason to silence those who insist the emperor is naked.
CNSNews.com) The number of Americans who think “dealing with global climate change” should be a top U.S. foreign policy goal continues to fall in a poll that has tracked the issue since the 1990s, and five years under an administration more inclined to make it an issue does not appear to have stemmed the slide.
The latest Pew Research Center poll surveying Americans’ foreign policy goals also found a significant partisan difference when it comes to the importance of prioritizing climate change.
Out of 11 foreign policy goals featured in the poll released Wednesday, climate change ranks fourth from the bottom, with 37 percent of respondents saying it should be a top priority. That has dropped slowly but steadily from 50 percent in 1997, to 44 in 2001, 43 in 2005 and 40 in 2009.
Of the other goals, “protecting U.S. from terrorist attacks” and “protecting U.S. jobs” get the most support, at 83 and 81 percent respectively, while “promoting democracy in other nations” gets the least, at 18 percent.
Unlike the climate change goal’s downward movement, most of the others have risen and fallen in importance at various times over the years of polling, although “reducing dependence on imported energy” has dropped since 2005 (from 67 to 61 percent) and “promoting democracy in other nations,” after climbing from 1997 to 2001 (from 22 to 29 percent), has dropped steadily ever since.
The other goals featured are “preventing the spread of weapons of mass destruction” (73 percent in 2013) “combating international drug trafficking” (57 percent), “reducing illegal immigration” (48 percent), “strengthening the United Nations” (37 percent), “promoting and defending human rights in other countries” (33 percent) and “helping improve living standards in developing nations” (23 percent).
Pew also tracked the differences between Republicans’ and Democrats’ views on the 11 foreign policy goals, and found that the widest gap - a difference of 41 points applies to climate change: Fifty-seven percent of Democrats, and only 16 percent of Republicans, believe it should be a U.S. foreign policy priority.
The next biggest partisan gaps relate to strengthening the U.N. (50 percent Democrats vs. 25 percent Republicans) and illegal immigration (62 percent Republicans vs. 38 percent Democrats).
An earlier Pew poll found that Republicans associated with the tea party account for most of the skepticism about global warming: Just 25 percent of tea party Republicans agreed there was “solid evidence the earth is warming” compared to 61 percent of non-tea party Republicans. Eighty-four percent of Democrats shared that belief.
But even among the non-tea party Republican respondents in that survey, only 32 percent said human activity was to blame, while 24 percent attributed warming to “natural patterns.”
Overall, fewer than half of the respondents of all political persuasions (44 percent) believed human activity is to blame.
The continuing downward trend in prioritizing climate change in foreign policy comes despite the fact that President Obama has, in the words of Secretary of State John Kerry, placed the issue “back on the front burner where it belongs.”
Attributing climate change to human activity is a view strongly held by senior administration officials. Kerry himself, who as a senator was an outspoken advocate, has prioritized the issue of human-induced global warming as America’s top diplomat. He recently declared himself “amazed” that some Americans do not recognize the urgency of climate change “for life itself on the planet as we know it.”
His predecessor at the State Department, Hillary Clinton, said in May 2011, “there is no doubt, except among those who are into denying the facts before their eyes, that climate change is occurring, and it is contributed to by human actions at every level.”
In its most recent report, released last September, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that global warming is “unequivocal” and that it is “extremely likely” that human activity has been the main cause.
That was stronger language than appeared in the IPCC’s previous report, in 2007, which asserted that global warming was “very likely” man-made.
A year ago, a peer-reviewed journal published the results of a survey of more than 1,000 professional engineers’ and geoscientists’ views on climate change, and found that only 36 percent fitted into a group that “express[ed] the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause.”
“They are the only group to see the scientific debate as mostly settled and the IPCC modeling to be accurate,” the survey found.
The rest of the respondents, with slight variations, expressed varying degrees of skepticism about the causes of climate change, the extent of risk it poses, and the accuracy of IPCC modeling.
The believers, members of the Church of Climate Scientology of course tend not to pay any attention actual data but believe their idealogue leaders, the models and their all too compliant leftist media. You can usually pick them out at the beach.
The school lunch program is a resounding success here in Albemarle County, Virginia. School kids are awash in food; no child is left behind in the new standards-of-lunch excesses.
As reported in Charlottesville on December 5, 2013:
“Albemarle County Public Schools is conserving energy and teaching students green lessons while doing so. At its annual conference in Williamsburg, the Virginia School Boards Association honored Albemarle with the top environmental prize in the “Green Schools Challenge,” which encourages divisions to implement practices and policies to reduce their carbon footprints.”
“Nowhere are the efficiencies more apparent than at Henley Middle School’s Renewable Energy Resource Center, which features solar photovoltaic panels, a solar thermal system that heats water, and a wind turbine. The Center, which was funded in large part by a grant from the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy, has produced 120,000 kilowatt hours of electricity and prevented 88 tons of carbon dioxide emissions since 2012.”
The article concludes with:
“In addition to harnessing the wind and sun, Crozet and Meriwether Lewis elementary schools, and Jack Jouett and Sutherland middle schools have developed composting programs. These schools kept more than 126 tons of food from landfills and reduced their carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 900 metric tons.”
The standards of environmentalism see success through a different set of creeds than do ordinary folks. What was the taxpayer cost for the Henley Middle School Renewable Energy Resource Center? A savings of 120,000 kilowatt hours of electricity over two years represents an approximate saving of $6,000 per year. The human body produces approximately 2.3 pounds (1.0 kg) of carbon dioxide per day per person just in its basic biological metabolic processes. Over 365 days, the averaged production of carbon dioxide by these bodily processes adds up to about 840 pounds, or 0.4 ton per person. The 88 tons of carbon dioxide prevented over two years by this project is therefore the approximate amount of carbon dioxide generated by 110 adults breathing over the two years.
Wow, that is a science lesson; was that what the students were taught? What were the students told would be the impact on the climate, or of any other environmental system, of their saving these 88 tons of carbon dioxide? The impact on global temperature would be unmeasurable..a grain of sand on the world of beaches.
Were they told that carbon dioxide is absolutely necessary to plant physiology and our survival? Their carbon dioxide saving deprived some plants of this atmospheric plant food.
The children are being indoctrinated in a scientifically meaningless ritual of minding their tiny carbon footprints. It does establish the State as the source of authority at a young age. Rather than the sensible question as to why schools were generating 126 tons of food waste and at what taxpayer cost, school kids are being taught “green lessons.” Waste-not, want-not is replaced with composting programs and environmentally meaningless carbon footprint reductions. (See Virginia Tech Report)
Carbon dioxide reduction bragging rights become the reward. They are now praised for seeing their food waste become high-priced compost, rather than seeking solutions to reduce the initial food becoming waste.
This all brings to mind the recent movie hit The Hunger Games and its sequels. The recent Hunger Games: Catching Fire is a box-office hit with audiences young and old. The story’s theme dramatizes an inspirational saga of individual courage in the face of centralized authoritarianism, and cult-media exploitation of a subjugated populous. Why do the movies and the original books of the trilogy find such an enthusiastic audience with the youth? The central theme of the story must resonate with the youthful quest for adventure, and an idealistic yearning for a super-hero to follow.
The youth of today are awash in multi-media driven news and news masquerading as entertainment. They can recognize the hypocrisy in the real world around them which abounds in movie-personality worship, sport-event analogues of the ancient Roman Coliseum arena, and central-government propaganda masquerading as fact. At their youthful age they can already sense the underlying shallowness in a life dominated by these substitutes for inner virtue, self-sacrifice, and un-politicized learning. A victorious warrior comes forth and challenges the system, and survives...that image is part of our cultural heritage spanning Homer’s Odyssey, David and Goliath, Washington at Valley Forge, our “Greatest Generation” of WWll, and many others.
It is somewhat ironic that District 12 in the “Hunger Games” book is set in the coal-rich region that “was formerly known as Appalachia” where today hunger is no game, and a place not so far away from present-day Albemarle County. Rather than our schools so boastfully wasting food and redeeming themselves by making compost out of it, why not garner some real honor and send it, or its dollar equivalent, to current-day Appalachia?
The fictional country “Panem” of Hunger Games is mirrored by a governmental educational system in which our school children are indoctrinated with “green environmentalism” and a morbid preoccupation with meaningless carbon dioxide emissions. They are taught that in order for them and the environment to survive, they must monitor the carbon footprints of themselves and family, and perhaps that of their neighbors as well. Neither harmful climate change nor global temperature extremes have been factually linked to man-made carbon dioxide, even after Federal Government expenditures of over $100 billion. During their lifetimes, none of these children have experienced increased global temperature, which has remained flat for seventeen years, yet they are being taught mandated ritualistic behavior to solve a non-problem.
It is not surprising to see these innocent participants in the “climate games” cheer on a mythical hero in The Hunger Games. Let a new hero step forward.
Dr. Charles Battig, (online here) is a retired physician and electrical engineer. In the 1960s he served as “principal scientist in bio-medical monitoring systems” at North American Aviation Los Angeles in support of the Apollo Moon Mission. Later he served in the U.S. Public Health Service at NIH, Bethesda MD, in the biomedical engineering branch. Following teaching appointments in anesthesiology at UCLA and Mt. Sinai, NYC, he entered the private practice of anesthesiology until retirement.
“The journals want the papers that make the sexiest claims. And scientists believe that the way you succeed is having splashy papers in Science or Nature - it’s not bad for them if a paper turns out to be wrong, if it’s gotten a lot of attention.” Michael Eisen
Last October, LaTimes had an interesting article in the business section titled Science has lost its way, at a big cost to humanity, subtitle Researchers are rewarded for splashy findings, not for double-checking accuracy. So many scientists looking for cures to diseases have been building on ideas that aren’t even true. Excerpts:
A few years ago, scientists at the Thousand Oaks biotech firm Amgen set out to double-check the results of 53 landmark papers in their fields of cancer research and blood biology. But what they found was startling: Of the 53 landmark papers, only six could be proved valid.
The thing that should scare people is that so many of these important published studies turn out to be wrong when they’re investigated further,” says Michael Eisen, a biologist at UC Berkeley and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.
Eisen says the more important flaw in the publication model is that the drive to land a paper in a top journal - Nature and Science lead the list -encourages researchers to hype their results, especially in the life sciences. Peer review, in which a paper is checked out by eminent scientists before publication, isn’t a safeguard. Eisen says the unpaid reviewers seldom have the time or inclination to examine a study enough to unearth errors or flaws.
Eisen is a pioneer in open-access scientific publishing, which aims to overturn the traditional model in which leading journals pay nothing for papers often based on publicly funded research, then charge enormous subscription fees to universities and researchers to read them.
But concern about what is emerging as a crisis in science extends beyond the open-access movement. It’s reached the National Institutes of Health, which last week launched a project to remake its researchers’ approach to publication. Its new PubMed Commons system allows qualified scientists to post ongoing comments about published papers. The goal is to wean scientists from the idea that a cursory, one-time peer review is enough to validate a research study, and substitute a process of continuing scrutiny, so that poor research can be identified quickly and good research can be picked out of the crowd and find a wider audience.
PubMed Commons is an effort to counteract the “perverse incentives” in scientific research and publishing, says David J. Lipman, director of NIH’s National Center for Biotechnology Information, which is sponsoring the venture.
Earlier this month, Science published a piece by journalist John Bohannon about what happened when he sent a spoof paper with flaws that could have been noticed by a high school chemistry student to 304 open-access chemistry journals (those that charge researchers to publish their papers, but make them available for free). It was accepted by more than half of them.
One that didn’t bite was PloS One, an online open-access journal sponsored by the Public Library of Science, which Eisen co-founded. In fact, PloS One was among the few journals that identified the fake paper’s methodological and ethical flaws.
It was the traditionalist Science that published the most dubious recent academic paper of all.
This was a 2010 paper by then-NASA biochemist Felisa Wolfe-Simon and colleagues claiming that they had found bacteria growing in Mono Lake that were uniquely able to subsist on arsenic and even used arsenic to build the backbone of their DNA.
The publication in Science was accompanied by a breathless press release and press conference sponsored by NASA, which had an institutional interest in promoting the idea of alternative life forms. But almost immediately it was debunked by other scientists for spectacularly poor methodology and an invalid conclusion.
To Eisen, the Wolfe-Simon affair represents the “perfect storm of scientists obsessed with making a big splash and issuing press releases” - the natural outcome of a system in which there’s no career gain in trying to replicate and validate previous work, as important as that process is for the advancement of science.
The demand for sexy results, combined with indifferent follow-up, means that billions of dollars in worldwide resources devoted to finding and developing remedies for the diseases that afflict us all is being thrown down a rathole. NIH and the rest of the scientific community are just now waking up to the realization that science has lost its way, and it may take years to get back on the right path.
JC comments: This article raises some important issues, convolutes several of them and then concludes that science has lost its way. Has it?
In thinking about this issue, I find it useful to return to the previous CE post on Pasteur’s quadrant, and the distinction between pure discovery research, use-inspired research, and applied/regulatory research. The arsenic study is arguably pure discovery research, whereas most of the rest of the research (including the deliberately fake paper discussed in this Science article) is use inspired research. It doesn’t really matter outside the scientific community if pure discovery research is incorrect, i.e. it is not immediately obvious what kind of adverse societal impacts might be associated with arsenic and the bacteria in Mono Lake. On the other hand, with cancer research, there are substantial societal and financial impacts involved. The other distinction is between mechanistic research, whereby physical/chemical/biological processes are postulated, in contrast to epidemiological research which is fundamentally statistical. Mechanistic flaws are more easily identified, whereas flaws in epidemiological research is much more difficult to identify and to replicate.
There should be different reward structures for scientists working in the different quadrants, novelty and pushing knowledge frontiers is key for Bohr’s quadrant. However, in use-inspired research there is tremendous potential to provide a misleading foundation for applied/regulatory research, and this is where I see the biggest problem. Replication/auditing and robustness should be key goals for use-inspired research (and part of the reward system for scientists working on these problems). Unfortunately, scientists are rewarded in a way that makes sense for Bohr’s quadrant, and not so much for Pasteur’s quadrant.
Where does climate research lie in all this? Elements of climate research and mechanistic focused on processes, whereas other elements are statistical in nature. In terms of money being thrown down a rathole for climate research, I argued in the Pasteur’s Quadrant post that taxonomical studies of model-based regional impacts rests on the premise that climate models provide useful information for regional impact studies, and they do not.
And finally, I am a big fan Eisen’s models for open access publishing and extended peer review, and I am not a fan of the Nature/Science model with its press releases and press embargoes. Eisen’s model provides the right incentive structure for scientists, whereas the Nature/Science model IMO does not.
So, has science lost it’s way? I don’t think so, but the Science/Nature publishing model and the way that universities reward scientists are providing perverse incentives that do not serve well the societally-relevant applications of science.
Dec 02, 2013
2013: slowest Atlantic hurricane season in 30 years
By Anthony Watts
A couple of days ago, Dr. Roger Pielke Jr. updated his famous graph of hurricane drought, and despite some ribbing from me on what could happen in May 2014, has confidently extended the drought out to the start of the hurricane season in June 2014:
No major hurricanes formed in the Atlantic basin, first time since 1994
The 2013 Atlantic hurricane season, which officially ends on Saturday, Nov. 30, had the fewest number of hurricanes since 1982, thanks in large part to persistent, unfavorable atmospheric conditions over the Gulf of Mexico, Caribbean Sea, and tropical Atlantic Ocean. This year is expected to rank as the sixth-least-active Atlantic hurricane season since 1950, in terms of the collective strength and duration of named storms and hurricanes.
“A combination of conditions acted to offset several climate patterns that historically have produced active hurricane seasons,” said Gerry Bell, Ph.D., lead seasonal hurricane forecaster at NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center, a division of the National Weather Service. “As a result, we did not see the large numbers of hurricanes that typically accompany these climate patterns.”
Thirteen named storms formed in the Atlantic basin this year. Two, Ingrid and Humberto, became hurricanes, but neither became major hurricanes. Although the number of named storms was above the average of 12, the numbers of hurricanes and major hurricanes were well below their averages of six and three, respectively. Major hurricanes are categories 3 and above.
Suomi NPP satellite peers into Tropical Storm Andrea, the first storm of the season. (Credit: NOAA/NASA)
Tropical storm Andrea, the first of the season, was the only named storm to make landfall in the United States this year. Andrea brought tornadoes, heavy rain, and minor flooding to portions of Florida, eastern Georgia and eastern South Carolina, causing one fatality.
The 2013 hurricane season was only the third below-normal season in the last 19 years, since 1995, when the current high-activity era for Atlantic hurricanes began.
“This unexpectedly low activity is linked to an unpredictable atmospheric pattern that prevented the growth of storms by producing exceptionally dry, sinking air and strong vertical wind shear in much of the main hurricane formation region, which spans the tropical Atlantic Ocean and Caribbean Sea,” said Bell. “Also detrimental to some tropical cyclones this year were several strong outbreaks of dry and stable air that originated over Africa.”
GOES East satellite tracks Subtropical Storm Melissa, the last storm of the season. (Credit: NOAA)
Unlike the U.S., which was largely spared this year, Mexico was battered by eight storms, including three from the Atlantic basin and five from the eastern North Pacific. Of these eight landfalling systems, five struck as tropical storms and three as hurricanes.
NOAA and the U.S. Air Force Reserve flew 45 hurricane hunter aircraft reconnaissance missions over the Atlantic basin this season, totaling 435 hours, the fewest number of flight hours since at least 1966.
NOAA will issue its 2014 Atlantic Hurricane Outlook in late May, prior to the start of the season on June 1.
No mention of the failure of the predictions in 2013, nor the fact that this year goes against wild claims made by alarmists of increasing hurricanes due to global warming, something Pielke Jr. also illustrates with a new graph:
The graph below shows total US hurricane landfalls 1900 through 2013.
The five-year period ending 2013 has seen 2 hurricane landfalls. That is a record low since 1900. Two other five-year periods have seen 3 landfalls (years ending in 1984 and 1994). Prior to 1970 the fewest landfalls over a five-year period was 6. From 1940 to 1957, every 5-year period had more than 10 hurricane landfalls (1904-1920 was almost as active).
The red line in the graph above shows a decrease in the number of US landfalls of more than 25% since (which given variability, may just be an artifact and not reflecting a secular change). There is no evidence to support more or more intense US hurricanes. The data actually suggests much the opposite.
Dr Ryan Maue adds:
Here’s a sorted list of North Atlantic hurricane ACE numbers from 1950-2013 - this year tied for 5th lowest on record
By the way the tornado season was the quietest on record and the wildfire season the quietest since 1985 when the current monitoring method began.
The EPA’s highest-paid employee and a leading expert on climate change deserves to go to prison for at least 30 months for lying to his bosses and saying he was a CIA spy working in Pakistan so he could avoid doing his real job, say federal prosecutors.
John C. Beale, who pled guilty in September to bilking the government out of nearly $1 million in salary and other benefits over a decade, will be sentenced in a Washington, D.C., federal court on Wednesday. In a newly filed sentencing memo, prosecutors said that his “historic” lies are “offensive” to those who actually do dangerous work for the CIA. Beale’s lawyer, while acknowledging his guilt, has asked for leniency and offered a psychological explanation for the climate expert’s bizarre tales.
“With the help of his therapist,” wrote attorney John Kern, “Mr. Beale has come to recognize that, beyond the motive of greed, his theft and deception were animated by a highly self-destructive and dysfunctional need to engage in excessively reckless, risky behavior.” Kern also said Beale was driven “to manipulate those around him through the fabrication of grandiose narratives...that are fueled by his insecurities.”
The two sentencing memos, along with documents obtained by NBC News, offer new details about what some officials describe as one of the most audacious, and creative, federal frauds they have ever encountered.
When he first began looking into Beale’s deceptions last February, “I thought, ‘Oh my God, How could this possibly have happened in this agency?” said EPA Assistant Inspector General Patrick Sullivan, who spearheaded the Beale probe, in an interview with NBC News. “I’ve worked for the government for 35 years. I’ve never seen a situation like this.”
Beyond Beale’s individual fate, his case raises larger questions about how he was able to get away with his admitted fraud for so long, according to federal and congressional investigators. Two new reports by the EPA inspector general’s office conclude that top officials at the agency “enabled” Beale by failing to verify any of his phony cover stories about CIA work, and failing to check on hundreds of thousands of dollars paid him in undeserved bonuses and travel expenses including first-class trips to London where he stayed at five-star hotels and racked up thousands in bills for limos and taxis.
Until he retired in April after learning he was under federal investigation, Beale, an NYU grad with a masters from Princeton, was earning a salary and bonuses of $206,000 a year, making him the highest paid official at the EPA. He earned more money than Gina McCarthy, the agency’s administrator and, for years, his immediate boss, according to agency documents.
In September, Beale, who served as a “senior policy adviser” in the agency’s Office of Air and Radiation, pled guilty to defrauding the U.S. government out of nearly $900,000 since 2000. Beale perpetrated his fraud largely by failing to show up at the EPA for months at a time, including one 18-month stretch starting in June 2011 when he did “absolutely no work,” as Kern, Beale’s lawyer, acknowledged in his court filing.
To explain his long absences, Beale told agency officials, including McCarthy, that he was engaged in intelligence work for the CIA, either at agency headquarters or in Pakistan. At one point he claimed to be urgently needed in Pakistan because the Taliban was torturing his CIA replacement, according to Sullivan.
:Due to recent events that you have probably read about, I am in Pakistan,” he wrote McCarthy in a Dec. 18, 2010 email. “Got the call Thurs and left Fri. Hope to be back for Christmas....Ho, ho, ho.”
In fact, Beale had no relationship with the CIA at all. Sullivan, the EPA investigator, said he confirmed Beale didn’t even have a security clearance. He spent much of the time he was purportedly working for the CIA at his Northern Virginia home riding bikes, doing housework and reading books, or at a vacation house on Cape Cod.
“He’s never been to Langley (the CIA’s Virginia headquarters),” said Sullivan. “The CIA has no record of him ever walking through the door.”
Nor was that Beale’s only deception, according to court documents. In 2008, Beale didn’t show up at the EPA for six months, telling his boss that he was part of a special multi-agency election-year project relating to “candidate security.” He billed the government $57,000 for five trips to California that were made purely “for personal reasons,” his lawyer acknowledged. (His parents lived there.) He also claimed to be suffering from malaria that he got while serving in Vietnam. According to his lawyer’s filing, he didn’t have malaria and never served in Vietnam. He told the story to EPA officials so he could get special handicap parking at a garage near EPA headquarters.
When first questioned by EPA officials early this year about his alleged CIA undercover work, Beale brushed them aside by saying he couldn’t discuss it, according to Sullivan. Weeks later, after being confronted again by investigators, Beale acknowledging the truth but “didn’t show much remorse,” Sullivan said. The explanation he offered for his false CIA story? “He wanted to puff up his own image,” said Sullivan.
Even at that point, prosecutors say, Beale sought to “cover his tracks.” He told a few close colleagues at EPA that he would plead guilty “to take one for the team,” suggesting that he was willing to go to jail to protect people at the CIA. This has led some EPA officials to continue to believe that Beale actually does have a connection to the CIA, Sullivan said.
Kern, Beale’s lawyer, declined to comment to NBC News. But in his court filing, he asks Judge Ellen Huvelle, who is due to sentence Beale Wednesday, to balance Beale’s misdeeds against years of admirable work for the government. These include helping to rewrite the Clean Air Act in 1990, heading up EPA delegations to United Nations conferences on climate change in 2000 and 2001, and helping to negotiate agreements to reduce carbon emissions with China, India and other nations.
Two congressional committees are now pressing the EPA, including administrator McCarthy, for answers on the handling of Beale’s case. The new inspector general’s reports fault the agency for a lack of internal controls and policies that allegedly facilitated Beale’s deceptions.
For example, one of the reports states, Beale took 33 airplane trips between 2003 and 2011, costing the government $266,190. On 70 percent of those, he travelled first class and stayed at high end hotels, charging more than twice the government’s allowed per diem limit. But his expense vouchers were routinely approved by another EPA official, a colleague of Beale’s, whose conduct is now being reviewed by the inspector general, according to congressional investigators briefed on the report.
Beale was caught when he “retired” very publicly but kept drawing his large salary for another year and a half. Top EPA officials, including McCarthy, attended a September 2011 retirement party for Beale and two colleagues aboard a Potomac yacht. Six months later, McCarthy learned he was still on the payroll.
In a March 29, 2012 email, she wrote, “I thought he had already retired. She then initiated a review that was forwarded to the EPA general counsel’s office . But the inspector general’s office was not alerted until February 2013 and he didn’t actually retire until April.
Sullivan said he doubted Beale’s fraud could occur at any federal agency other than the EPA. “There’s a certain culture here at the EPA where the mission is the most important thing,” he said. “They don’t think like criminal investigators. They tend to be very trusting and accepting.”
In a statement to NBC News, Alisha Johnson, McCarthy’s press secretary, said that Beale’s fraud was “uncovered” by McCarthy while she was head of the Office of Air and Radiation. “[Beale] is a convicted felon who went to great lengths to deceive and defraud the U.S. government over the span of more than a decade,” said Johnson. “EPA has worked in coordination with its inspector general and the U.S. Attorney’s office. The Agency has [put] in place additional safeguards to help protect against fraud and abuse related to employee time and attendance, including strengthening supervisory controls of time and attendance, improved review of employee travel and a tightened retention incentive processes.”
[SPPI Note: See extensive research papers on Medieval Warm Period here]
If you think the Earth is hot now, try wearing plate armor in the Middle Ages.
A Swedish study found that the planet was warmer in ancient Roman times and the Middle Ages than today, challenging the mainstream idea that man-made greenhouse gas emissions are the main drivers of global warming.
The study, by scientist Leif Kullman, analyzed 455 “radiocarbon-dated mega-fossils” in the Scandes mountains and found that tree lines for different species of trees were higher during the Roman and Medieval times than they are today. Not only that, but the temperatures were higher as well.
Historical tree line positions are viewed in relation to early 21st century equivalents, and indicate that tree line elevations attained during the past century and in association with modern climate warming are highly unusual, but not unique, phenomena from the perspective of the past 4,800 years,” Kullman found. “Prior to that, the pine tree line (and summer temperatures) was consistently higher than present, as it was also during the Roman and Medieval periods.”
Kullman also wrote that “summer temperatures during the early Holocene thermal optimum may have been 2.3C higher than present.” The “Holocene thermal optimum was a warm period that occurred between 9,000 and 5,000 years ago. This warm period was followed by a gradual cooling period.”
According to Kullman, the temperature spikes were during the Roman and Medieval warming periods “were succeeded by a distinct tree line/temperature dip, broadly corresponding to the Little Ice Age.”
For many years now, there was an alleged scientific consensus that the Earth was warming due to humans releasing greenhouse gases into the air - primarily through burning fossil fuels. However, temperatures stopped rising after 1998, leaving scientists scrambling to find an explanation to the hiatus in warming.
Increasingly, scientists are looking away from human causes and looking at solar activity and natural climate variability for explanations of why the planet warms and cools.
“All other things being equal, adding more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere will have a warming effect on the planet,” Judith Curry, a climatologist at the Georgia Institute of Technology, told the Los Angeles Times. “However, all things are never equal, and what we are seeing is natural climate variability dominating over human impact.”
The Kullman study points to mounting evidence that climate is largely out of human control, as humans were not burning large amounts fossil fuels during Roman and Medieval times.
Some scientists have pointed to solar activity as the predictor of where global temperatures are headed. Researchers have pointed to falling sunspot activity as evidence that the planet will cool off in the coming decades.
“By looking back at certain isotopes in ice cores, [Professor Mike Lockwood of Reading University] has been able to determine how active the sun has been over thousands of years,” the BBC reports. “Following analysis of the data, Professor Lockwood believes solar activity is now falling more rapidly than at any time in the last 10,000 years.”
Others have looked to natural climate systems for explanations for answers to the 15-year pause in global warming.
A study by Dr. Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama, Huntsville found that about half the warming that occurred since the 1970s can be attributed to El Nino weather events, which had a warming effect on the planet.
The Pacific Ocean’s natural warming and cooling cycles last about 30 years, with La Nina cooling being dominant from the 1950s to the 1970s and El Nino warming events dominating late 1970s to the late 1990s. Spencer suggests that the world may be in a La Nina cooling phase.
Dec 13, 2013
Pathetic press release from House Democrats disappears the testimony of Christy and Pielke
Ah, politics, the stench of spin is strong here. Note the picture below. Left to right are Dr. John Christy, Dr. David Titley, and Dr. Roger Pielke Jr..
In the text, Christy and Pielke don’t even exist, because, well, this was “A Factual Look at the Relationship between Climate and Weather.” and we can’t have factual testimony we don’t like in the press release, can we?
Really, if you are going to disappear people in your press releases, at least be savvy enough to use a photo only showing your man giving testimony. Idiots.
From the House Committee on Science Space, and Technology
Subcommittee Discusses Climate Change Impacts on Severe Weather
(Washington, DC) ‘ Today, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Environment held a hearing entitled “A Factual Look at the Relationship between Climate and Weather.” The stated purpose of the hearing was to examine the relationship between climate change and extreme weather events.
Members emphasized the prevailing scientific consensus that anthropogenic climate change is real, and discussed the need to better understand the relationship between severe weather events and climate to better manage the risks associated with a changing climate.
Ranking Member Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR) said in her opening statement, “The lesson of this hearing cannot be that a potential link between climate change and severe weather is too difficult to determine or understand, and therefore we should stop trying. It should not be controversial to examine if the weather will change as a consequence of global warming. Scientific projections from the IPCC make it apparent that we will live in a hotter world, we already have a warmer world than that of our grandparents. In many of our districts, residents will experience drier environments with more drought. Those of us who represent particularly wet areas may find that precipitation arriving in more intense storms. The oceans will be warmer and that may well produce stronger or more frequent tropical storms. To focus only on the question of whether there will be more extreme events misses the point that by the end of this century much of the world as we know it, in our districts and states, will be considerably altered by the weather effects of climate change.”
Minority witness Dr. David Titley (USN Rear Admiral, retired) said in his testimony, “Our country is dealing with a significant change in the world’s climate; it is a large challenge. Saying we don’t know today the impact of climate change on [weather] phenomena is very different than stating that climate change has no impact on typhoons and hurricanes. What we do know is that these storms are forming in a warmer, moister environment and above a warmer ocean. We also know that current research indicates our future may include more intense, and possibly more frequent, storms. That is a risk not to be summarily discounted.”
Earlier this week, the Reinsurance Association of America sent a letter to the committee stating their support for close examination of the critical issues of extreme weather and climate. “As the scientific community’s knowledge of changes in our climate and the resulting weather continue to develop, it is important for our communities to incorporate that information into the exposure and risk assessment process, and that it be conveyed to stakeholders, policyholders, the public and public officials that can, or should, address adaptation and mitigation alternatives. Developing an understanding about climate and its impacts on droughts, heat waves, the frequency and intensity of tropical hurricanes, thunderstorms and convective events, rising sea levels and storm surge, more extreme precipitation events and flooding is critical to our role in translating the interdependencies of weather, climate risk assessment and pricing.”
In Response to a question by Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) regarding the claims made that incidents of extreme weather are not increasing, Dr. Titley responded, “One of the main definitions of ‘extreme’ is ‘away from the center.’ Again, just take the basic data. We have had for the last 36 years above normal temperatures, that is away from the center, and they are getting further and further away. A record like that is equivalent to flipping a coin and getting ‘heads’ 36 consecutive times. The chances of that happening with an un-weighted coin: 1 in 68 billion. Put another way, you are almost 400 times more likely to win the Powerball jackpot than you are to see this temperature record if the climate was not changing. I would say that is extreme. And the ice in the Arctic, that is extreme. We have seen geologic changes in less than 10 years.”
Dr. Titley’s presentation slides can be seen here.
There are certain basics which we need to stay alive. For any animal, food and water top that list, since survival is impossible without them, but sufficient warmth and shelter come a close second. The needs of hunter/gatherer communities are much the same as for groups of animals with similar diets, although the use of fire increases the range of foods consumed.
The emergence of farming allowed larger settlements to develop, although food security was by no means guaranteed. Even today, with an enormous variety of food available to the great majority of the population of the developed world for the first time in history, around one billion people, principally in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, are chronically undernourished.
Should we conclude, therefore, that food security is the biggest issue facing the world today? For the remaining bands of hunter/gatherers, it is certainly the key focus of their existence. But the great majority of those who go to bed hungry do not rely on game animals or wild plants; they are either subsistence farmers or the urban poor. In the first case, they are dependent on the success of their own harvests and do not have the money to buy additional food (nor, in many cases, the opportunity). For the urban poor, the problem is purely and simply a lack of money.
So, although food remains at the apex of the pyramid of needs, what we should really be considering is what is needed to either grow more food or to become prosperous enough to be able to afford to buy it. And the answer is: energy. Food is itself energy for the human body. For those of us lucky enough to live in the industrialised world (and for the minority of kleptocrats in poor countries) the enjoyment of food is one of the pleasures of life, with entire industries growing up to supply our needs (food manufacturers, retailers, restaurants and celebrity chefs, for example). But, ultimately, we eat to stay alive and healthy and be able to work to grow more food or earn money to buy it.
Subsistence farmers have only their own muscle power and that of any animals they may own to till their fields, plant, tend, weed and harvest their crops. This is a major constraint on both the area of land they can manage and the harvest they can expect from it. Yield is further limited by the availability of key nutrients: particularly nitrogen, but also potassium and phosphorus. So it was also in Europe until the industrial era.
Then the availability of steam power began an extended process of replacing the horse or ox (themselves offering a considerable advantage over puny humans) by the tractor. The invention of the Haber-Bosch process and its first commercial-scale use one hundred years ago made synthetic nitrogen fertilizers widely available and greatly increased the yield potential of existing land.
Nowadays, a relative handful of people grow much more food than produced from the same area at a time when the majority of people worked on the land. Rapid urbanisation in developing countries will mean that, before too long, agriculture will be a minor part of the economy of nearly every country, rather than being one of the largest sectors as at present for much of sub-Saharan Africa and South and South East Asia. But this seemingly unstoppable process of development can only continue if there is a reliable and affordable supply of energy to replace muscle power.
This is why, despite its engagement with the travelling circus that is the ongoing round of climate change negotiations, China will not be stopping building new power stations anytime soon. As some will point out, the country is installing lots of wind farms and solar panels but, in a country with such enormous energy needs, these pale into virtual insignificance compared to the coal-fired and nuclear capacity being installed.
According to a recently-posted web article (ChinaFAQs: Renewable Energy in China, An Overview), the country gets about 8% of total primary energy from non-fossil sources. However, much of this is hydroelectricity: it has nearly 230GW of installed capacity (the largest of any country), compared to 75GW of wind and just 7GW of solar PV. China may be the world’s largest producer of PV cells (many of which are exported) and plans many more wind farms, but this does not represent a shift away from fossil fuels.
An article in the Guardian from late last year tells the story: More than 1,000 new coal plants planned worldwide, figures show. The World Resources Institute found that 1,200 coal stations were being planned, about two-thirds of them in China and India. Some coal-fired plants in Beijing are being replaced by gas-fired ones, in a bid to reduce the capital’s notorious air pollution problem, but it seems clear that China and India are set for coal-fired growth for the next few decades.
China’s main comparative advantage is in low-cost manufacturing and this will not be compromised by raising energy prices unnecessarily. India, although with a less dynamic economy than its northern neighbour, can really only boost growth by exploiting similar labour cost advantages. And only by growing the economy will it be able to reduce the shockingly high level of undernourishment across the country.
Cheap and secure energy is the key to economic growth and productive farming. It is also, ultimately, the answer to the growing problem of fresh water scarcity. Water per se is not a limiting resource, but it is often either in the wrong place or too saline to use. A secure and expandable energy supply enables reverse osmosis to purify seawater, as well as powering more intelligent irrigation systems.
Global warming may or may not cause problems later this century, but a prosperous, well-fed population will be in a much better position to deal with this than a world where a billion people remain malnourished. Energy security is today’s imperative.
By Madhav Khandekar, Excerpt from Special Reports on Extremes
Have cold weather extremes been on the rise in recent years? A quick survey of weather extremes since the millennium seems to suggest this may be the ‘new’ reality of climate change. The northern hemisphere has witnessed four severe winters (2002/03, 2005/06, 2007/08, 2009/10) since 2000, with the European continent bearing the brunt of the cold weather. The severity of winter 2002/03 was felt all the way to south Asia, where hundreds of people in Vietnam and Bangladesh were reported to have died due to exposure to colder weather (due to lack of adequate heating in residential houses).
The winter of 2011/12 was quite severe, especially the month of February 2012 when minimum temperatures in parts of eastern Europe plunged to -40C in some locales, leading to several hundred deaths. The winter of 2012/13 was also colder than normal, with March 2013 setting record-breaking low temperatures in the UK, Berlin and parts of eastern Germany. Over North America, the winters of 2002/03, 2007/08 and 2009/10 were
significantly colder and snowier than normal and were linked to an extreme negative phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation, a slow-varying large-scale atmospheric flow pattern (Seager et al. 2010). Winter severity has also increased in northern India in recent years, where several hundred deaths (mostly of elderly people living in houses with no heat or insulation) have been reported in the last five years.
Several papers published in the last three years (Benestad 2010; Cattiaux et al. 2010; Lockwood et al. 2010) have linked the cold European winters of the last ten years to low solar activity (see NIPCC post on ‘Extreme cold winters over Europe’, dated 12 February 2012). Many solar scientists now suggest that winters in Europe could become even colder, as the sun enters a grand minimum in the next few years.
Besides Europe and North America, the entire continent of South America has seen colder winters over the last five years. The winters of 2007 (July in particular) and 2010 (June to July) were significantly colder than normal and several dozen deaths were reported in Argentina and Chile. Some locales in Argentina recorded low temperatures of −25C, and in July 2007 Buenos Aires recorded its first snowfall since 1918. The most recent winter (July 2013) saw snowfall at several dozen locales in Argentina, Chile and parts of southern Brazil (see Khandekar 2010, for a list of additional cold weather extremes).
It is of interest to note here the lack of news items on cold weather extremes in the media.
Most of the media seem to be obsessed with extremes of heat, completely ignoring cold weather extremes, despite these apparently being on the rise and despite the IPCC’s science failing to offer an explanation for them. In fact, the IPCC extreme weather events table projects ‘fewer cold days and frost in future’. It is also of interest to note here that most climate scientists and advocates of the global warming hypothesis have ignored the
‘cold’ reality of present climate change. The IPCC (2007) has discussed in some detail the European heatwave of summer 2003, but made no mention of the severely cold winter of 2002/03 and the deaths it caused in south Asia. The latest IPCC SPM AR5 released in Stockholm in September 2013 once again fails to mention increasing cold weather extremes of recent years.
Se support for the northern hemisphere winters cooling since 1995 here.
Also see the 17 year winter trends are negative for all 9 climate regions and the contiguous US.
Perhaps you’ve been wondering why the alarmists have been so shrill lately? It’s not because the climate is overheating, to the contrary it’s beginning to cool and so their sham is about to be blown out into the open for everyone to see.
Austrian meteorological data show that European Alps have been cooling, at times massively, over the last 20 years. Public domain photo.
Evaluated data from the Austrian ZAMG meteorological institute now unmistakably show that the Alps have been cooling over the last 20 years and longer, “at some places massively” thus crassly contradicting all the loud claims, projections, and model scenarios made earlier by global warming scientists.
German meteorologist Dominik Jung reports on the data he himself evaluated from the European Alps and concludes at the German-language Huffington Post here:
We are obviously very far away from milder winters. The trend actually is moving in the opposite direction! A few years ago climatologists advised winter sports locations in the Alps to reduce their investments in winter sports facilities’ because of the ever increasing mean temperatures, they soon would not be worth it. So we ask ourselves, which increasing temperatures are the ladies and gentlemen even talking about?”
Some places have seen “massive cooling”
According to an expert review conducted by the Zentralanstalt fur Meteorologie und Geodynamik (ZAMG), the Austrian state weather service, using weather data from the last 20 years or more: “Winters there indeed are shown to have gotten colder over the last 20 years, and in some places quite massively. The last two winters at Kitzbuhel were in fact the coldest of the last 20 years.”
Jung then writes that also four other high elevation stations in the Alps were assessed: Zugspitze in Germany, Schmittenhohe in Austria, Sonnblick in Austria and Santis in Switzerland. Result:
They all yielded the same amazing result: Winters in the Alps over the last decades have become significantly colder, the data show.”
Jung writes that data from extra long datasets from 20 to 30 years were examined, “just like climatologists always insist.”
Jung then informs readers that he asked the Austrian meteorological experts on site what they thought of the results. According to Jung, the reaction was either dead silence induced by shock, or attempts to downplay the results. Had the data shown warming instead, then of course we would be hearing just the opposite of silence and downplaying...we’d be hearing the hysterical screams of bloody climate murder!
Jung speculates that the reason meteorologists and climatologists don’t want to hear about the results is because “it doesn’t fit with their world view.” After all, just a few years ago they were cocksure about their predictions of winters without snow and that skiing was only going to be possible at extremely high elevations. Science just possibly could not be humiliated to a greater extent.
Near the end of his Huffington Post essay, Jung comments that it appears that “climate warming has become a religion. Those belonging to it do not tolerate new findings”, even those that stem from solid observations and measurements.
Meteorologist Jung concludes that it’s almost scandalous that the responsible authorities are simply ignoring these findings.
In the US, some at NOAA research and who authored the CCSP documents and support material for the EPA promised the same. The worst offender may be the Union of Concerned Scientists. They are not really scientists but environmental advocist. Unfortunately they have displaced the real scientists at the universities in many locations. The Universities have little regard for the truth but see their chances of getting funding with warmists on staff.
In a meeting in 2007 on Mt. Washington these UCS reps form the UNH and other locations advised the ski and sugar industry that AGW will destroy their industries. That winter set new record for snow in New England and across the US north to Alaska. Last year UCS testified to NH legislature promising the same. Record snows in February and March followed. We need to purge our universities of UCS members and replace with real scientists for our children’s sake. I give talks to college students. In one class, a student stood up after my lecture and said he was mad...not at me but at his school. He said he paid for two courses in climate science and never heard in class of many of the factors I discussed in that lecture. In another even larger school a real meteorologist/climatologist who teaches a course and in his section on climate takes a very balanced approach was told by the Environmental Scientist chair of the department if he wanted to continue to teach there he could only talk weather as in the climate section he was bringing up factors that he could not talk intelligently about. These friends are not isolated instances.
Rep Kuster (D-NH) partnered with Congressman Jared Polis (CO-02) and Congressman Ben Ray Lujan (NM-03) to introduce legislation to establish a national Renewable Electricity Standard (RES). This bill, the Renewable Electricity Standard Act of 2013, would require utility companies to produce at least 25 percent of their power from renewable energy sources like wind, solar, and biomass by 2025, allegedly helping spur growth in our country’s renewable energy sector.
The claim is that “Investments in clean energy are investments in a healthier environment and a stronger economy. This common sense bill will help create good middle class jobs, cut pollution, and reduce our dependence on foreign oil - all while saving consumers money on their utilities.”
The Department of Energy (DOE) recently updated the list of loan guarantee projects on its website. In 2008, Barack Obama pledged to create 5 million jobs over 10 years by directing taxpayer funds toward renewable energy projects, but instead for the over $26 billion spent since 2009, DOE loan guarantees have created only 2,298 permanent jobs for a cost of over $11.45 million per job.
David Kreutzer of the Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis analyzed a generic RES that starts at 3 percent of total power generation in 2012 and rises by 1.5 percent per year. Such an RES would destroy 1 million jobs by 2020, when the standard reaches 15 percent. Average families will pay $2,400 more per year. Households will see their electricity prices rise 36 percent by 2035, while industrial users will see their electricity prices rise
60 percent even after adjusting for inflation.
The claims about ‘saving money on utilities’ for consumers sounds very much like the promise that the middle class families would save $2500 a year from the ACA. The CBO and experiences in Europe suggest that energy costs like health cost would instead skyrocket.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron who once pledged to lead the ‘greenest government ever’, has publicly promised to ‘roll back’ green taxes, which add more than 110 pounds a year to average fuel bills. A senior aide said “He’s telling everyone, “We’ve got to get rid of all this green crap.”
Even in EU economic leader Germany, up to 15% of the populace is now believed to be in “fuel poverty” as fuel prices have skyrocketed as renewables have seriously under-delivered on the promised energy. Firms such as RWE and E.on are going flat out to build 16 new coal-fired and 15 new gas-fired power stations by 2020, with a combined output equivalent to some 38 per cent of Germany’s electricity needs to keep more industry from fleeing to lower cost energy countries like China and India and lower the cost for the public.
Meanwhile, some 600,000 low-income Germans are now being cut off by their power companies annually, a number expected to increase as a never-ending stream of global-warming projects in the pipeline wallops customers. In the U.K., which has labored under the most politically correct climate leadership in the world, some 12 million people are already in fuel poverty, 900,000 of them in Scotland alone, and the U.K. has now entered a double-dip recession.
Almost two-thirds of young Greeks are unable to find work, exemplifying Europe’s ‘lost generation’. In France, the number of jobless rose to a record, while in Italy, the unemployment rate hit its highest level in 36 years, with 40 percent of young people out of work. In Spain, unemployment reached a record 27.2% due to a combination of the progressive big government anti-business policies and the enviro pushed green energy subsidies. This green push (wind power is not only a health hazard to humans and deadly to birds (killing millions worldwide including many endangered species like eagles and condors), but among the most inefficient of all energy sources) caused energy prices to skyrocket, shutting businesses or forcing manufacturers overseas.
In Spain, 2.2 jobs were lost for every green job created and only 1 in 10 green job was permanent. In Italy it was 3.4 jobs lost for every temporary green job, Spain ceased subsidization, but the damage has been done.
All the while, instead of global warming, Europe suffered through five of the coldest years in a century with scientists “baffled” by the failure of their climate models. The UK Office of National Statistics (www.statistics.gov.uk) in a report dated November 26th 2013 titled “Excess Winter Mortality in England and Wales” states that last winter 31,000 UK residents died due to lack of heat. The vast majority were over 75 and on fixed incomes. Since 2003, the total is estimated at 280,000 (UK Spectator). In December 2010, when the UK had the second coldest December since the Little Ice Age in 1659, the massive wind farms produced less than 0.5% of their energy needs.
Sadly, even as Europe has soured on the green dream and are furiously building coal and gas power plants, Kuster and her party want us to go down the same failed green path.
It appears Kuster needs to study more than her geography. And her call for more assistance for poor people LIHEAP to pay for rising fuel bills flies in the face of her bill that will cause those costs to skyrocket.
The cover story of the November 25, 2013 Canadian weekly magazine Macleans pictures self-appointed Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki.
The caption reads, “Environmentalism Has Failed” “David Suzuki loses faith in the cause of his lifetime.”
Suzuki doesn’t realize he’s the cause of the failure as a major player in the group who exploited environmentalism and climate for a political agenda. Initially most listened and tried to accommodate, but gradually the lies, deceptions and propaganda were exposed. The age of eco-bullying is ending. Typically Suzuki blamed others for the damage to the environment and climate but now he blames them for not listening to him. He forgets that when you point a finger at someone three are pointing back at you.
Environmentalism was what academics call a paradigm shift, which Thomas Kuhn defines as “a fundamental change in approach or underlying assumptions.” It was a necessary new paradigm. Everybody accepts the general notion it is foolish to soil your own nest and most were prepared to participate. Most were not sure what it entailed or how far it should go. Extremists grab all new paradigms for their agenda but then define the limits for the majority by pushing beyond the limits of the idea. Environmentalism and the subset climate are at that stage pushed there by extremists like Suzuki. Instead of admitting the science is wrong they double down and make increasingly extreme statements, just like the IPCC. It underscores the political rather than the scientific agenda. For example, Suzuki, apparently frustrated that politicians were not listening to his demands for action on climate change said they should be jailed.
Environmental groups grabbed environmentalism and quickly took the moral high ground preaching that only they cared about the Earth. Suzuki set up the David Suzuki Foundation (DSF) with tax benefits that required it to be non-political, but after active involvement in an Ontario election he was forced to resign. His major theme in the election was to push the climate change and alternate energies put in place in that Province when Maurice Strong was in charge of Ontario Hydro, the state controlled energy agency. Ontario is the perfect example of how and why climate energy policies promoted by Strong as Founder of UNEP are a disaster.
The Foundation campaigned on environmental issues most presented in deceptive or incomplete ways. An example was the attack on salmon farming and corrupted research on PCBs and sea lice. This was the focus of an interview of researcher Vivian Krause by Ezra Levant. Another was Suzuki’s parade across Canada pushing extinction theories and claims of DSF Board member E.O Wilson that 3 species go extinct every hour. He never named one. He never listed the plethora of new species found. He refused to discuss the issue and in his visit to schools pre-arranged and wrote a question for a selected student to ask. He promoted threats of global warming, but refused to debate the issue or answer questions. When asked questions on a radio interview in Toronto, he swore and stormed out of the studio.
He hired former Federal politician NDP (socialist party) David Fulton as Director of DSF. James Hoggan has been Chairman of the Board for many years. His PR Company has major alternate energy companies as clients. Hoggan is the proud creator of DeSmogblog a web site that claims it is “Clearing the PR Pollution that clouds climate science” but mostly involves personal attacks on people asking questions. The objective was to denigrate people by creating “favorable interpretations” to the following questions. “Were these climate skeptics qualified? Were they doing any research in the climate change field? Were they accepting money, directly or indirectly, from the fossil fuel industry?” This doesn’t answer skeptics questions about the science.
Their real agenda was disclosed in a Climatic Research Unit (CRU) leaked email dated December 2007 from senior writer Richard Littlemore to Michael Mann.
Hi Michael [Mann],
I’m a DeSmogBlog writer [Richard LIttlemore] (sic) (I got your email from Kevin Grandia)* and I am trying to fend off the latest announcement that global warming has not actually occurred in the 20th century.
It looks to me like Gerd Burger is trying to deny climate change by “smoothing,” “correcting” or otherwise rounding off the temperatures that we know for a flat fact have been recorded since the 1970s, but I am out of my depth (as I am sure you have noticed: we’re all about PR here, not much about science) so I wonder if you guys have done anything or are going to do anything with Burger’s intervention in Science. (emphasis added)
(* Grandia was a former writer for DeSmogBlog who moved there after serving as a research assistant for a Liberal Minister in Ottawa.)
Do as I say, not as I do is the hallmark of extreme environmentalists behaviour. Al Gore is the poster boy for this hypocrisy. It appears Suzuki is only different in scale. They were enumerated in programs by SUN TV Reporter Ezra Levant. They include the familiar list of funding and financial activities and personal wealth accumulated, especially in properties.
A major part of Suzuki’s attacks relate to global warming. His refusal to debate or even answer questions is legendary. He ignores his lack of qualifications on climate, but uses that challenge when it comes to his supposed expertise in genetics and genetically modified food. A possible explanation for his “environmentalism is a failure” claim is a PR move to divert from the exposure of his climate ignorance in an Australian interview. He could not answer questions about information fundamental to any understanding.
Suzuki abandoned his academic career in genetics decades ago explaining why in a 1999 Seattle speech. His concerns related to the internment of his Japanese Canadian family during WWII. Here are his words:
In the exuberance of the excitement over the discovery of new principles of heredity - that seemed to apply across the plant and animal kingdoms - geneticists began to make wonderful, wild statements about the implications of their discoveries. I’m sure most of you know that it ultimately led to what was considered a legitimate area of science called Eugenics.
Some of our most eminent geneticists taught courses in eugenics, wrote textbooks in eugenics, published articles in eugenics journals. Eugenics being the attempt to apply the new-found knowledge of heredity to improve the genetic quality or makeup of human society.
It seems more logical to maintain standing as a geneticist and work to prevent such drifts occurring. Instead he quit and became a tele-evangelist using state television (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation) to push his environmental/political agenda.
His television series became his undoing as a classic example of how extremism is its own undoing. It’s why Suzuki’s exploitation of environmentalism, as he defines it, caused failure. Most programs in the series were unjustified, misleading condemnations of different components of society. I identified some of the misinformation in a presentation to farmers in Saskatchewan a few years ago. Afterward a woman told me that a month earlier she would have disagreed with my comments. Now she understood because Suzuki did a program on farming and as a farmer’s wife she knew how wrong and biased it was. Each new program exposed another segment of society to the deception. This created a populace open to and not surprised by the exposure of his hypocrisies. The same is happening to climate alarmism as more and more segments of society are negatively affected. His actions and climate driven energy policies close industries, decimate communities, cause job losses and force business closures, virtually all unnecessarily.
As Suzuki’s campaign to use environmentalism for a political agenda fails he lashes out, blaming others for the failure. It parallels what is happening in the climate alarmist community. The comments and claims become more extreme, but achieve the opposite of their goal. It is necessary to consider the further negative effects of their exploitation and deceptions. What is the damage to the credibility of science? Can we pursue environmentalism with rational, science based, prioritized policies?
This letter, written by William Hallstein, MD, a practicing psychiatrist with over 40 years of experience, was delivered to the Chairman of the Falmouth Board of Health. Dr. Hallstein is also a resident of Falmouth Massachusetts. In his letter he explains the very real impact of the Falmouth turbines on human health.
Jed Goldstone, Chairman
Falmouth Board of Health
Subject: Falmouth wind turbines and sleep deprivation
Dear Mr. Goldstone:
In way of introduction I have been a Falmouth resident since 1970. I am a psychiatrist, my career working its way through its 44th year. Consultation/liaison psychiatry has been my primary setting. In this role one treats patients with combined physical and psychiatric illnesses in the general medical center population, be it medical, surgical or emergency units, in addition to the most severely psychiatrically ill patients admitted to locked psychiatric units and correctional institutions.
I am thoroughly acquainted with the turbine issues and neighbors who are affected. I have made it my business to spend significant amounts of time experiencing the turbine effects. I know exactly what they are describing and have experienced it.
Turning now to the topic of sleep interruption and deprivation. Sleep disturbance is not a trivial matter. Children with inadequate sleep perform poorly academically, emotionally and physically. Errors in judgement and accident rates increase with inadequate sleep and fatigue for everyone: athletes, truck drivers, ship operators , aircraft pilots and physicians. No one is exempt.
In the world of medicine illnesses of all varieties are destabilized by fatigue secondary to inadequate sleep. Diabetic blood sugars become labile, cardiac rhythms become irregular, migraines erupt and increase in intensity, tissue healing is retarded, and so forth, across the entire field of physical medicine. Psychiatric problems intensify and people decompensate. Mood disorders become more extreme and psychotic disorders more severe.
People with no previously identified psychiatric illness are destabilized by sleep deprivation. Sleep deprivation experiments have repeatedly been terminated because test subjects become psychotic; they begin to hallucinate auditory and visual phenomena. They develop paranoid delusions. This all happens in the “normal” brain. Sleep deprivation has been used as an effective means of torture and a technique for extracting confessions.
I could work my way thru the presentation of 43 years of sleep deprivation observations, but that is more than the scope of this letter. I am writing because I have witnessed Town of Falmouth officials and members of other boards trivialize symptom reports from people living close to the wind turbines. I have witnessed attempts to discredit people who are being hurt by the turbines.
Sleep deprivation breaks down individual defenses and mimics a broad range of physical and mental illnesses. Let’s hope the Town of Falmouth comes to its senses and stops the abuse.
William Hallstein, MD
Falmouth, MA 02540
Marc Morano, founder and editor of CFACT’s award-winning Climate Depot news and information service, took on the Sierra Club last night in a debate on CNN’s the 11th Hour.
If you’ve been following Marc, you know he always holds a vast arsenal of solid facts at the ready.
The warming left just isn’t prepared for him.
All they’ve got are appeals to emotion and authority. When those logical fallacies fail they try and censor their opposition.
Imagine Sierra Club Executive Director Michael Brune’s surprise when after pompously trying to accuse Marc of being controlled by energy companies, Marc responded that Sierra Club received $26 million dollars from gas companies who wanted to shut down the coal industry!
News Busters loved it and did a nice write up.
The growth of America’s natural gas industry has been of tremendous benefit to the nation. Let’s do all we can to ensure they keep going. Yet it seems no industry can resist the temptation to use government to take a cheap shot at their competition.
When it comes to a big-time radical pressure group like the Sierra Club, what they lack in substance, they are more than willing to make up in hypocrisy.
Say what you want, Sierra Club, but be prepared: Marc Morano, Climate Depot and CFACT aren’t going anywhere, and the facts are on our side.
Fanciful predictions of all the deaths that will result from climate change, decades into the future, are regularly thrown into public debate. Less attention has been given to a real statistic from the here and now, released by the Office of National Statistics this week, which shows the effects of one of the policies designed to tackle climate change: high energy prices. It emerged this week that there were 31,000 ‘excess’ deaths in England and Wales last winter, almost a third more than the previous year. Almost all were, in effect, British pensioners who died of the cold.
It’s odd: Britain is a rich country with a massive welfare state - and we know how to heat and insulate houses. We also send millions away in overseas aid. Yet somehow we have failed to find a way to stop our own people dying of the cold. Each winter, we tolerate a death toll which runs into the tens of thousands. Worse, we seem to have become inured to it.
The 2003 heatwave was blamed for 2,000 deaths, and treated as a national emergency. Sir David King, then chief scientific officer, declared that this meant climate change was ‘more serious even than the threat of terrorism’.
Since then, some 280,000 Brits have died from the cold and barely 10,000 from the heat. We have been focusing on the wrong enemy.
Yet still the government seems little bothered by the link between green levies, which are already jacking up our heating bills, and rising winter deaths. Whenever the Climate Change Secretary is presented with the charge that climate levies are hurting the poor he always makes the same claim: that one of the main roles of the levies is to subsidise home insulation schemes for low-earners, and that by doing so their energy bills will actually fall. This is a dubious assertion in that it relies on the elderly and the poor all being able to access subsidised insulation schemes. Many cannot.
The green schemes always look better on paper. The proposed ‘Green Deal’ was supposed to have led to the installation of insulation in 10,000 homes by the end of the year. It emerged this week that barely a tenth of this figure, 1,170 households, have been helped. Little wonder - the IPPR think tank (below) has shown that Green Deal repayments on the extra insulation will add back whatever is saved in energy payments. People are no better off, which is why so few have signed up.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that by adding the cost of levies onto fuel bills (rather than paying them out of general taxation) the Blair and Brown governments hoped to deflect blame to the energy companies. And the Tories signed up to this
agenda by voting for Ed Miliband’s Climate Change Act.
Far from helping the poor, a remarkable amount of money raised in green taxes seems to land at the feet of the rich: wealthy landowners who rent their land to subsidised wind farms, and well-off homeowners who can afford to fit solar panels to their roofs or to invest in ‘green’ central heating systems such as ground-source heat pumps and woodchip boilers. This, in itself, is a scandal. But we are in a situation where people are dying because they cannot afford to heat their homes. That fact that most of the 31,000 who perished last year are over 75 years of age seems to take the political sting out of this scandal. It is as if elderly lives are somehow less valuable.
Reports that David Cameron now refers to such initiatives as ‘green crap’ suggest that he has finally come round to appreciating the potential political cost of green stealth taxes on the poor. The failure of his famous wind turbine on his house in Ladbroke Grove ought to have alerted him to the false claims made of green energy. But it is no credit to him that he previously subscribed to such measures with enthusiasm. The price of ‘green crap’ is reflected not just in higher energy bills, but in the fate of pensioners who dare not turn on the radiator after having faced punitive hikes in their heating bill.
For years the Prime Minister has stuck to the conceit that the Climate Change Act would cut energy bills in the longer run by bringing forward investment in renewable energy which, though it might be more expensive now, will steadily fall in price while the cost of fossil fuels soars. It is becoming more apparent by the day that this assumption is deeply flawed. Fossil fuel prices are no longer soaring; on the contrary, in the US they are falling as fracking reduces the cost of extracting unconventional reserves. Global temperatures, too, have declined to follow the predicted path on which the Climate Change Act was justified. While other countries loosen their carbon reduction targets Britain remains legally bound to targets which threaten to render industry chronically uncompetitive.
It is highly desirable that carbon emissions fall as indeed they have in the US as gas pushes out coal as the main form of electricity generation. But it shouldn’t come at the cost of economic growth or the welfare of the old and poor. If David Cameron really wants to tackle ‘green crap’, sooner or later he is going to have to tear up the Climate Change Act and replace it with a policy aimed at lowering bills and saving lives.
The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway
Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic
zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes.
Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the
report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.
Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are
being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. Within a few years it is predicted that due to the ice melt the sea will rise and make most coastal cities uninhabitable.
November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post - 90+ years ago.
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.
Also available now some items that will gore your alarmist friends (part of the proceeds go to support Icecap):
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)