USPS Causes Global Warming

Enlarged here.

GlobalWarming: The Other Side

See John Coleman’s on-hour special on KUSI Global Warming, the Other Side here.

The Early Weather Channel Days and a Discussion of Global Warming
By Joe D’Aleo and Andre Bernier

Here more of an interview, I did with TV Meteorologist Andre Bernier of FOX 8 in Cleveland on Weatherjazz, who was a student of mine at Lyndon State College, and who by luck of the draw, was one of two on-camera meteorologists who did the first half hour of the Weather Channel (along with Bruce Edwards) on May 2, 1982. We talked about both the early days of the Weather Channel and global warming. The audio is here.

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

Here is a series of radio interviews by Kim Greenhouse on It’s Rainmaking Time:

Rethinking Wind Power
By Kim Greenhouse, It’s Rainmaking Time, February 5, 2010

In this show, guest Lawrence Dwight, Jr. of Dwight Investment Counsel gives us valuable insight into true energy independence and the economics of wind power. We tend to perceive it as an exciting, cost-effective, sustainable energy solution for the future. It seems very alluring. But is it really as great as we’ve been told?

The details suggest that wind power may not be as affordable or efficient as we thought. Of course everything has its place, but where does wind power fit in? How does it work? And who benefits from using it? Tune in to find out! Go here.

The Art of Weather
By Kim Greenhouse on January 11, 2010

When I learned about a meteorologist who was teaching educational weather programs at elementary, middle, and high schools, I became very excited! Voted the best weatherman in Palm Beach, Art Horn was a weather anchor for 25 years. He spoke at the first International Climate Change Conference in New York in 2008. Now he teaches a popular program about weather that informs audiences about the realities and myths of climate change.

Art founded the program “The Art of Weather” and writes online for The Energy Tribune, Pajamas Media, and China Daily. He received an Emmy nomination and a Telly award for a documentary he produced called “Hurricane: Direct Hit”.  Join us for an enlightening interview that is sure to broaden your perspectives on climate change! Click here for more and streaming audio interview.

An Inquiry About Polar Bears With Dr. Mitch Taylor
By Kim Greenhouse on January 8, 2010

We have heard plenty about diminishing polar bear populations and the loss of their habitats due to melting sea ice. I thought it was about time that we defined an initial frame of reference for polar bears in order to empower personal inquiry into their status. Dr. Mitch Taylor has 30 years of professional experience studying polar bears firsthand in the field. Consider this segment an introduction to polar bears through one man’s professional life amongst them.

Now more than ever, anyone doing this kind of work is worth listening to and learning from. Mitch Taylor’s perspective is refreshing and rare. How many people do you know that have lived such a life? Spend some time with us and learn about these beautiful animals that many of us have come to love. No matter how much confusion and conflict may surround the concept of climate, one thing is for sure: many of us are concerned about our friends, the polar bears. Click here to hear interview.

The International Climate Change Treaty at Copenhagen
By Kim Greenhouse on December 9, 2009

Lord Viscount Monckton of Brenchley joins us live from the Copenhagen Climate Conference to reveal the legal underbelly of this event, and to share his take on the entire new international power deal being sealed in Denmark. The focus of this conference is the introduction of one of the most critical International Frameworks outside of the Lisbon Treaty, the EU and the New Call for a World Banking System and Currency.

If you want to hear the single most controversial figure in the Climate Change arena - one who is well-grounded in the evolution of the IPCC and the Science itself, who understands and has read the new legal framework which is about to be signed - please tune in. He is with SPPI. Here the interview here.

CO2: The Breath of Life or A Dangerous Pollutant?
By Kim Greenhouse on December 15, 2009

On December 7th, 2009 - Day 1 of the Copenhagen Climate Conference - the EPA declared that carbon dioxide (CO2) is now a pollutant. I thought that we had better get to the seed of the matter right away and explore scientific facts about CO2. Instead of focusing on the declarations of major stakeholders in the new industrial complex, I wanted to learn how CO2 affects Nature. What I discovered may startle you.

I personally believed that carbon dioxide was a pollutant. For many years, that has been the official story: that CO2 is the root cause of “Global Warming”. However, Nature apparently views it as “the breath of life”.

I reached out to someone who has studied CO2 for many years in order to get a clear perspective. On the spur of the moment, I called Sherwood Idso, the president of The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide & Global Change, who graciously granted me an interview on short notice. I’m glad I did it! His many years of experience and multi-disciplinary expertise were very enlightening. Listen and see what you think. See CO2Science. Here interview here.

A True Inquiry Into Climate & Weather, Part 2: The Plot Thickens
By Kim Greenhouse on November 14, 2009

The plot really does thicken as we continue our inquiry into climate and weather. The verifiable data offered in this interview is both fascinating and disturbing. Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) and climatologist Dr. David Legates (University of Delaware) brief us on key scientific data that cannot be overlooked or dismissed.

I deeply appreciate the gift of real knowledge that these men have brought us. Speaking with clarity, passion, and openness, they identify numerous factors that leave the average activist and global warming advocate with a totally different understanding of what is really occurring. They display a rare courage in standing up for the integrity of verifiable science as they continue to speak truth to power against vicious attacks.

Have a listen. See what you come up with and ask the questions that need to be asked. If addressed improperly, this incredibly complex up-and-coming piece of inquiry could lead humanity to shocking and chilling new discoveries about climate that will overshadow global politics and outweigh any ideology.

A True Inquiry Into Climate & Weather, Part 1: A Hot Potato
By Kim Greenhouse on October 25, 2009

This broadcast segment addresses the urgent need for verifiable facts about climate and weather that have been unable to make their way in a cohesive, understandable way to the public. The first in a multi-part series, this show features Bob Felix, author of Not by Fire, But By Ice and Magnetic Reversals & Evolutionary Leaps. Bob has spent considerable time researching climate, extinctions, magnetic reversals and ice ages. His books present staggering evidence of global cooling that suggests an ice age could begin at any moment (i.e. NOW!).

As I prepared for this interview, I came across two other individuals that I felt would contribute greatly to the discussion. Meteorologist Joe D’Aleo (of http://icecap.us) and climatologist Dr. Tim Ball join us to provide a broader perspective on climate change and explain what’s missing from the established climate dialogues. The information these men bring to bear will shake you to your very foundations!

Well-meaning politicians must open their field of receptivity to improve their understanding of climate in a larger context - one that is devoid of political and economic survival, peer pressure, fear of marginalization, and fear of losing their positions. As a result, a gross body of distortion and misinformation exists about the climate dangers we are truly facing.

The truth is that very few of us understand climate or weather. Most of us have taken a blind faith approach to researching these subjects. Unfortunately, this will be to the great detriment of all of humanity. In order to adequately prepare for coming changes, we need a different framework to quickly and properly understand weather and climate. Get ready to learn things you have never known before about weather, climate, and the business of climate change! Listen here.

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

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) - a DC think tank - has produced a science-based critique of a recent film produced by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The SPPI paper is entitled Acid Test: The
Global Challenge of Ocean Acidification - A New Propaganda Film by the National Resources Defense Council Fails the Acid Test of Real World Data

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

Fourth International Conference on Climate Change on May 16-18, 2010, Chicago, Illinois.

Make plans now to attend ICCC-4, an international conference on climate change calling attention to new scientific research on the causes and consequences of climate change, and to economic analysis of the cost and effectiveness of proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

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

75% of American Meteorological Society Broadcasters Reject IPCC Man-made Climate Claims
By Bill Murray, Weather Historian, Alabamawx.com

A survey of weathercasters’ feelings on global warming was published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. It had some interesting findings. There were 121 respondents. 94% of the respondents had at least one of the three major seals.

Television meteorologists are the official scientists for most television stations. The overwhelming majority felt comfortable in that role for their stations. The majority agreed that the role of discussing climate change did fall to them.

The eyebrow raising responses:

“Respond to this IPCC conclusion: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.” Only 35% agreed or strongly agreed. 34% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

“Most of the warming since 1950 is likely human induced.” A full 50% disagreed or strongly disagreed. 25% were neutral on this question. Only 8% strongly agreed.

“Global climate models are reliable in their predictions for a warming of the planet.” Only 3% strongly agreed and another 16% agreed. A full 62% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

“Respond to one TV weathercaster’s Quote saying “Global warming is a scam.” Responses were mixed. The largest percentage was neutral, at 26%. A total of 45% disagreed (23%) or strongly disagreed (22%). 19% of the respondents agreed with this statement and 10% strongly agreed.

The amount of uncertainty found in this survey tells that even the most educated and motivated communicators are still uncertain about the truth on this issue. Interesting article.

The entire text can be found here.

ICECAP NOTE: The broadcasters asked for more materials such as powerpoints and graphics which they could use to better study and present climate change.

Here is an excellent very detailed time-line and forensic analysis on climate-gatedone by an Australian physicist.

Here is an excellent source of short videos by the top scientists to provide an alternative to the dogma from COMET and Heidi Cullen and Climate Central and sadly The Weather Channel.  KUSI’s Coleman’s Corner has four videos by Dr. Richard Lindzen, Dr. Willie Soon, John Coleman and Joe D’Aleo here.

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.

Excellent libraries of stories and papers and reviews can be found at Climate Science weblog by Roger Pielke Sr., CO2 Science site with the Idsos, Watts Up With That with Anthony Watts and Friends, World Climate Report, SPPI compiled by Bob Ferguson, Climate Audit by Steve McIntyre and Friends of Science with Tim Ball and others. This is just a few web sources.

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

See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additonal scientific youtubes here. Note that many more are coming, in part thanks to your donations.

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

See 500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming here. See more here and still more annotated 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.

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

Available now some items that will gore your alarmist friends (part of the proceeds go to support Icecap) SOME NEW ITEMS:

See full size display here.

And “My carbon footprints are bigger than yours and plants love me for it” items here and here

See sister sites:

Science and Public Policy Institute here.

Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.

RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.

Weather/Climate and Health here.

The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool.

While climate skeptics have gleefully pointed to the past decade’s lack of temperature rise as proof that global warming is not happening as predicted, climate change activists have claimed that this is just “cherry picking” the data. They point to their complex and error prone general circulation models that, after significant re-factoring, are now predicting a stretch of stable temperatures followed by a resurgent global warming onslaught. In a recent paper, a new type of model, based on a test for structural breaks in surface temperature time series, is used to investigate two common claims about global warming. This statistical model predicts no temperature rise until 2050 but the more interesting prediction is what happens between 2050 and 2100.

David R.B. Stockwell and Anthony Cox, in a paper submitted to the International Journal of Forecasting entitled “Structural break models of climatic regime-shifts: claims and forecasts,” have applied advanced statistical analysis to both Australian temperature and rainfall trends and global temperature records from the Hadley Center’s HadCRU3GL dataset. The technique they used is called the Chow test, invented by economist Gregory Chow in the early 1960s. The Chow test is a statistical test of whether the coefficients in two linear regressions on different data sets are equal. In econometrics, the Chow test is commonly used in time series analysis to test for the presence of a structural break.

A structural break appears when an unexpected shift in a time series occurs. Such sudden jumps in a series of measurements can lead to huge forecasting errors and unreliability of a model in general. Stockwell and Cox are the first researchers I know of to apply this econometric technique to temperature and rainfall data (a description of computing the Chow test statistic is available here). They explain their approach in the paper’s abstract:

A Chow test for structural breaks in the surface temperature series is used to investigate two common claims about global warming. Quirk (2009) proposed that the increase in Australian temperature from 1910 to the present was largely confined to a regime-shift in the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) between 1976 and 1979. The test finds a step change in both Australian and global temperature trends in 1978 (HadCRU3GL), and in Australian rainfall in 1982 with flat temperatures before and after. Easterling & Wehner (2009) claimed that singling out the apparent flatness in global temperature since 1997 is ‘cherry picking’ to reinforce an arbitrary point of view. On the contrary, we find evidence for a significant change in the temperature series around 1997, corroborated with evidence of a coincident oceanographic regime-shift. We use the trends between these significant change points to generate a forecast of future global temperature under specific assumptions.

The climatic effects of fluctuations in oceanic regimes are most often studied using singular spectrum analysis (SSA) or variations on principle components analysis (PCA). In other words, by decomposing rainfall and temperature into periodic components. Such approaches can capture short period phenomena like the effects of El Nino , and the potential impact of longer term phenomena such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) on variations in global temperature. These phenomena take place over a period of years or decades. For finding and testing less frequent regime-shifts different techniques are called for. According to the authors: “An F-statistic known as the Chow test (Chow, 1960) based on the reduction in the residual sum of squares through adoption of a structural break, relative to an unbroken simple linear regression, is a straightforward approach to modeling regime-shifts with structural breaks.” All the statistical details aside, the point here is that a sequence of data that contains sudden shifts or jumps is hard to model accurately using standard methods.

The Chow test since 1978 finds another significant breakpoint in 1997, when an increasing trend up to 1997 (0.13 plus/minus 0.02C per decade) changes to a practically flat trend thereafter (-0.02 plus or minus 0.05C per decade). Contrary to claims that the 10 year trend since 1998 is arbitrary, structural change methods indicate that 1997 was a statistically defensible beginning of a new, and apparently stable climate regime. Again, according to the authors: “The significance of the dates around 1978 and 1997 to climatic regimeshifts is not in dispute, as they are associated with a range of oceanic, atmospheric and climatic events, whereby thermocline depth anomalies associated with PDO phase shift and ENSO were transmitted globally via ocean currents, winds, Rossby and Kelvin waves .”

Perhaps most interesting is the application of this analysis to the prediction of future climate change, something GCM climate modelers have been attempting for the past 30 years with little success. Figure 3 from the paper illustrates the prediction for temperatures to 2100 following from our structural break model, the assumptions of continuous underlying warming, regime-shift from 1978 to 1997, and no additional major regime-shift. The projections formed by the presumed global warming trend to 1978 and the trend in the current regime predicts constant temperatures for fifty years to around 2050. This is similar to the period of flat temperatures from 1930-80.

Icecap Note: A good analysis. Actually, properly adjusted, the trends from the1940 to late 1970s and since 2001 were down. How far down we go between now and 2050 depends on whether we will be like the PDO- phase from 1947 to 1977 or the early 1800s due to a Dalton like Minimum. A Maunder like Minimum seems unlikely unless the projections of Livingston and Penn for the disappearance of spots after 2014 occurs. The following chart (enlarged here) from Don Easterbrook captures these scenarios.

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) - a DC think tank - has produced a science-based critique of a recent film produced by the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC). The SPPI paper is entitled Acid Test: The
Global Challenge of Ocean Acidification - A New Propaganda Film by the National Resources Defense Council Fails the Acid Test of Real World Data

In late 2009, NRDC released a short 21-minute film entitled Acid Test: The Global Challenge of Ocean Acidification.  Featuring Sigourney Weaver as its
narrator, the film highlights the views of a handful of scientists, a commercial fisherman, and two employees of the NRDC, as they discuss what they claim is a megadisaster-in-the-making for Earth’s marine life. 

The villain of the story is industrial man, who has “altered the course of nature” by releasing large quantities of carbon dioxide or CO2 into the air via the burning of the coal, gas and oil that has historically fueled the engines of modern society.  Once emitted into the atmosphere, a portion of that CO2 dissolves into the surface of the world’s oceans, where subsequent chemical reactions, according to the NRCD, are lowering the pH status of their waters.  This phenomenon, they theorize, is reducing marine calcification rates; and if left unchecked, they claim it will become so corrosive that it “will cause sea shells to dissolve” and drive coral reefs to extinction “within 20 to 30 years.”

“Typically, the NRDC chose to present an extreme one-sided, propagandized view of ocean acidification in their film,” says SPPI president, Robert Ferguson.  “The part of the story that they clearly don’t want the public and policy makers to know was just released in our newest review of the
peer-reviewed scientific literature,” added Ferguson.

Written by Dr. Craig D. Idso for the Science and Public Policy Institute, the new review reveals that an equally strong, if not more persuasive, case can be made that the ongoing rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration will actually benefit calcifying marine life.  As such, the NRDC’s portrayal of CO2-induced ocean acidification as a megadisaster-in-the-making is seen, at best, to be a one-sided distortion of the truth or, at worst, a blatant attempt to deceive the public and their elected representatives.

According to Dr. Idso, “Surely, the NRDC and the scientists portrayed in their film should have been aware of at least one of the numerous peer-reviewed scientific journal articles that do not support a catastrophic - or even a problematic - view of the effect of ocean acidification on calcifying marine organisms; and they should have shared that information with the public.  If by some slim chance they were not aware, they should be called to task for not investing the time, energy, and resources needed to fully investigate an issue that has profound significance for the biosphere and public policy making.  And if they did know the results of the studies we have discussed, no one should ever believe a single word they may utter or write in the future.”

The full report can be accessed here.

Additional studies on the topic:
CO2, Global Warming and Coral Reefs: Prospects for the Future here.
Effects of Ocean Acidification on Marine Ecosystems here.

ICECAP NOTE: See Alan Caruba’s post “The Next Hoax, Ocean Acidification” here

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

Fourth International Conference on Climate Change on May 16-18, 2010, Chicago, Illinois.

Make plans now to attend ICCC-4, an international conference on climate change calling attention to new scientific research on the causes and consequences of climate change, and to economic analysis of the cost and effectiveness of proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

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

75% of American Meteorological Society Broadcasters Reject IPCC Man-made Climate Claims
By Bill Murray, Weather Historian, Alabamawx.com

A survey of weathercasters’< feelings on global warming was published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. It had some interesting findings. There were 121 respondents. 94% of the respondents had at least one of the three major seals.

Television meteorologists are the official scientists for most television stations. The overwhelming majority felt comfortable in that role for their stations. The majority agreed that the role of discussing climate change did fall to them.

The eyebrow raising responses:

"Respond to this IPCC conclusion: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal." Only 35% agreed or strongly agreed. 34% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

"Most of the warming since 1950 is likely human induced." A full 50% disagreed or strongly disagreed. 25% were neutral on this question. Only 8% strongly agreed.

"Global climate models are reliable in their predictions for a warming of the planet." Only 3% strongly agreed and another 16% agreed. A full 62% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

"Respond to one TV weathercaster's Quote saying "Global warming is a scam." Responses were mixed. The largest percentage was neutral, at 26%. A total of 45% disagreed (23%) or strongly disagreed (22%). 19% of the respondents agreed with this statement and 10% strongly agreed.

The amount of uncertainty found in this survey tells that even the most educated and motivated communicators are still uncertain about the truth on this issue. Interesting article.

The entire text can be found here.

ICECAP NOTE: The broadcasters asked for more materials such as powerpoints and graphics which they could use to better study and present climate change.

Excellent libraries of stories and papers and reviews can be found at Climate Science weblog by Roger Pielke Sr., CO2 Science site with the Idsos, Watts Up With That with Anthony Watts and Friends, World Climate Report, SPPI compiled by Bob Ferguson, Climate Audit by Steve McIntyre and Friends of Science with Tim Ball and others. This is just a few web sources.

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

See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additonal scientific youtubes here. Note that many more are coming, in part thanks to your donations.

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

See 500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming here. See more here and still more annotated 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.

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

Available now some items that will gore your alarmist friends (part of the proceeds go to support Icecap) SOME NEW ITEMS:

See full size display here.

And “My carbon footprints are bigger than yours and plants love me for it” items here and here

See sister sites:

Science and Public Policy Institute here.

Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.

RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.

Weather/Climate and Health here.

The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool.

Voter support for offshore oil drilling remains as strong as it was during last year’s presidential election, but many also continue to believe individual states should be able to stop it off their own coastlines. A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 68% of U.S. voters believe offshore oil drilling should be allowed. Just 20% oppose drilling for oil off the coast of the United States, with another 12% undecided.

But far more dramatic is the divide between Mainstream voters and the Political Class, voters who tend to trust political leaders more than the public at large and are far less skeptical about government. While 76% of Mainstream voters support offshore drilling, 70% of the Political Class are opposed to it.

Sixty percent (60%) of all voters say oil drilling should be allowed within 50 miles of the U.S. coastline. Of that number, 26% say drilling is okay just 12 miles out. Twelve percent (12%) favor drilling 100 miles off the shore, while 14% say it should be done more than 100 miles out.

GOP voters and those who are unaffiliated are much more likely than Democrats to favor drilling within 12 miles of the coast.  However, 48% of voters nationwide say individual states should have the right to ban drilling off their own coastlines. Thirty-four percent (34%) disagree and say states should not have this right. Seventeen percent (17%) aren’t sure. Fifty-four percent (54%) of unaffiliateds and the plurality (48%) of Democrats say states should have the power to stop drilling off their own coasts. Republicans are more closely divided on the question.

Sixty percent (60%) of voters think it is at least somewhat likely that gas and oil prices will go down if the United States allows offshore oil drilling, including 33% who say it’s very likely. Thirty-one percent (31%) say it’s not very or not at all likely that offshore drilling will cause gas and oil prices to decline.

Yet most voters like the idea of developing alternative energy sources, too. Sixty-five percent (65%) favor tax incentives to help develop solar power, wind power and new conservation programs. Still, that’s down 12 points from September 2008. Twenty-six percent (26%) oppose tax incentives for these purposes.

Democrats are more strongly in favor of tax breaks for the development of alternative energy sources than are Republicans or unaffiliated voters. The Political Class, while strongly opposed to offshore drilling, is overwhelmingly supportive of promoting alternative energies.

Forty-four percent (44%) of all voters see a conflict between economic growth and environmental protection, a view that’s been fairly consistent for months. Thirty-one percent (31%) do not see this conflict, and another 25% are undecided.

Seventy-five percent (75%) say it’s more important for the country to find new sources of energy than to require automakers to produce more fuel-efficient cars. Just 15% of voters think development of new energy sources should be President Obama’s top priority. Cutting the federal deficit in half by the end of his first term as president is the priority voters have consistently listed first all year. See report here.

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

Fourth International Conference on Climate Change on May 16-18, 2010, Chicago, Illinois.

Make plans now to attend ICCC-4, an international conference on climate change calling attention to new scientific research on the causes and consequences of climate change, and to economic analysis of the cost and effectiveness of proposals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

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

75% of American Meteorological Society Broadcasters Reject IPCC Man-made Climate Claims
By Bill Murray, Weather Historian, Alabamawx.com

A survey of weathercasters’< feelings on global warming was published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. It had some interesting findings. There were 121 respondents. 94% of the respondents had at least one of the three major seals.

Television meteorologists are the official scientists for most television stations. The overwhelming majority felt comfortable in that role for their stations. The majority agreed that the role of discussing climate change did fall to them.

The eyebrow raising responses:

"Respond to this IPCC conclusion: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal." Only 35% agreed or strongly agreed. 34% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

"Most of the warming since 1950 is likely human induced." A full 50% disagreed or strongly disagreed. 25% were neutral on this question. Only 8% strongly agreed.

"Global climate models are reliable in their predictions for a warming of the planet." Only 3% strongly agreed and another 16% agreed. A full 62% disagreed or strongly disagreed.

"Respond to one TV weathercaster's Quote saying "Global warming is a scam." Responses were mixed. The largest percentage was neutral, at 26%. A total of 45% disagreed (23%) or strongly disagreed (22%). 19% of the respondents agreed with this statement and 10% strongly agreed.

The amount of uncertainty found in this survey tells that even the most educated and motivated communicators are still uncertain about the truth on this issue. Interesting article.

The entire text can be found here.

ICECAP NOTE: The broadcasters asked for more materials such as powerpoints and graphics which they could use to better study and present climate change. Thanks to your recent contributions, we are assembling materials including some videos and powerpoints and pdfs to provide balance to the dogma presented by COMET and Heidi Cullen’s George Soros sponsored Climate Central. Other broadcasters or meteorologists with powerpoints are welcome to submit them to ICECAP, where we will compile them along with our materials in a special section the next two months. One note: they transfer better via email as compressed pdfs. Thanks on behalf of the broadcasters for whatever you do. By the way, 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.

Excellent libraries of stories and papers and reviews can be found at Climate Science weblog by Roger Pielke Sr., CO2 Science site with the Idsos, Watts Up With That with Anthony Watts and Friends, World Climate Report, SPPI compiled by Bob Ferguson, Climate Audit by Steve McIntyre and Friends of Science with Tim Ball and others. This is just a few web sources.

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

Hide The Decline
By Elmer Beauregard, M4GW

A parody for “Draggin the Line” by Tommy James and the Shondells about Climategate. Thanks also to JibJab.com for their great animations, I covered up their logo so people didn’t think they made this or condone this message.

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

BOYCOTT the companies pushing cap-and-trade.

UPDATE: Reader’s Digest Responds to Boycott, Removes it’s Name as Supporter of Copenhagen Climate Treaty
Minneapolis - Reader’s Digest has responded to a boycott by having its name removed from a list of corporate supporters of the Copenhagen Climate Treaty.

Mr. William Adler, Vice President of Global Communications at Reader’s Digest sent an email to the No Cap-and-Trade Coalition asking that Reader’s Digest be removed from a list of 20 organizations that are being boycotted due to their support of the Copenhagen Treaty.  Mr. Adler stated that Reader’s Digest had been incorrectly listed as a supporter of the Copenhagen Treaty at .  A review of the website confirmed that Reader’s Digest’s name had been removed as a ”friend of Hopenhagen.”

“Smart organizations like Reader’s Digest are starting to realize that lending their brand to radical environmental movements is bad for business,” said Jeff Davis, organizer of the No Cap-and-Trade Coalition.  “We hope other organizations named in the boycott wake-up and recognize this fact as well.” There are a total of 19 remaining organizations targeted by the boycott, including Google, Pepsi, Nike and BP America.  The complete list of boycotted companies can be seen here.

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

See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additonal scientific youtubes here. Note that many more are coming, in part thanks to your donations.

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

See 500 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of “Man-Made” Global Warming here. See more here and still more annotated 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.

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

And from the Marshall Institute,

Read more here. Download the Cocktail Party Conversation Guide to Global Warming here.

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

Skeptics Handbook II! Global Bullies Want Your Money
By Joanne Nova

Finally, Part II in the Skeptics Handbook series - the bluster and bluff, the deceit, and the money.  Enjoy & Share.

It’s unthinkable. Big Government has spent $79 billion on the climate industry, 3000 times more than Big Oil. Leading climate scientists won’t debate in public and won’t provide their data. What do they hide? When faced with freedom-of-information requests they say they’ve “lost” the original global temperature records. Thousands of scientists are rising in protest against the scare campaign. Meanwhile $126 billion turned over in carbon markets in 2008and bankers get set to make billions. See the handbook here.

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

Available now some items that will gore your alarmist friends (part of the proceeds go to support Icecap) SOME NEW ITEMS:

See full size display here.

And “My carbon footprints are bigger than yours and plants love me for it” items here and here

See sister sites:

Science and Public Policy Institute here.

Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.

RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.

Weather/Climate and Health here.

The Weather Wiz here.

The Carbon Sense Coalition today called for an end to the practice of governments trying to buy support for their failing Ration-N-Tax Scheme using tax money raised in an underhand fashion from the same people.

The Chairman of “Carbon Sense” Mr Viv Forbes, said that since the “Climate Scare-a-Day” campaign of 2009 has failed to spook the people, the New Year will see acceleration of the next ploy - “carbon bribery and corruption”. “This dodge aims to buy supporters with promises of handouts, exemptions, subsidies, “research” grants and market privileges.

“Handouts and privileges cost money. This is why politicians will promote carbon taxes, both direct ones like that proposed recently by France, and underhand ones like the Australian Ration-N-Tax Scheme which relies on the sale of carbon emission permits. “The political challenge for warmist politicians is to publicise the bribes and subsidies, but conceal the taxes needed to fund them.

“The Australian Government Treasury mandarins have already concocted figures to show how the government can use their carbon tax slush fund to bribe 2.9 million voters with handouts. But their paltry bribe, estimated at $190 per voter per year, will not compensate for the loss of their jobs to China and India.

“And the other 11 million Australian voters will be much worse off.

“The rejection of the corrupt French carbon tax scheme by their Constitutional Court is a warning to all politicians - “Don’t bury carbon, bury carbon bribery and corruption”.

Viv Forbes is Chairman of the Carbon Sense Coalition which opposes waste of resources, opposes pollution, and promotes the rational and sustainable use of carbon energy and carbon food.

For details on the Court rejection of the French carbon tax go here.

For details on the number juggling by the Australian Treasury go here.

Settled science?: If dark carbon causes 94 percent of Arctic warming, and if contrails account for another 15-20%, how much is caused by natural variability and trace amounts of CO2?

Yet Another Human Climate Warming Effect In The Arctic - Aircraft Contrails - Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr.

...an article in Scientific American by David Biello based on a study by Charlie Zender, a climate physicist at the University of California, Irvine stated
“ on snow - even at concentrations below five parts per billion - such dark carbon triggers melting, and may be responsible for as much as 94 percent of Arctic warming”.

Now we have yet another human climate forcing that was reported by Rex Dalton of Nature News in the article How aircraft emissions contribute to warming - Aviation contributes up to one-fifth of warming in some areas of the Arctic.

The article includes the text: “The first analysis of emissions from commercial airline flights shows that they are responsible for 4-8% of surface global warming since surface air temperature records began in 1850 - equivalent to a temperature increase of 0.03-0.06 C overall. The analysis, by atmospheric scientists at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, also shows that in the Arctic, aircraft vapour trails produced 15-20% of warming.”

-------------------------
Thriving with Nature and Humanity
By Malcolm Roberts

Today, security has broadened beyond economic and military security to encompass many facets of life including health, safety, community and environmental. What I’ve seen in many nations and in all industry sectors is that care for our planet and our natural environment is inherent in humans. At our core, we feel concerned about fouled and toxic air, skies, water, oceans, beaches, land and food. We have green hearts and want to stop pollution. We care for our natural environment, our beautiful planet.

In developed nations, modern technology and inherent care for Earth mean city air is cleaner than it has been for hundreds of years. Technology and improved understanding of Nature raises crop yields, minimizing land clearing for food. Yet, at times, in ignorance or fear, people damage the environment.

Once humans are aware though of our actions we rectify - removing petrol (gasolene) lead, saving the Bald Eagle, changing farming practices to conserve water and topsoil. Deep within, we all know we share our own personal source with all people, animals and life forms - we are of the universe, in unity with all life.

Environmental responsibility, sound engineering and commercial acumen are natural partners because all aim to minimise waste. Fulfilling environmental responsibilities minimizes waste and maximises productivity - it makes sound business sense. Balanced fulfilment of environmental responsibilities provides commercial advantage.

Today, perceptions of environmental damage - even perceptions not rooted in integrity - can remove consent to manufacture, mine or farm. As political processes enmesh with sensationalist media headlines some politicians and executives become wind vanes. Instead, industry needs leaders with character to ensure informed and responsible community perceptions and to protect our nation’s future.

Effective, sustained leadership at all levels and in all spheres - industry, corporate, community - is ultimately based on three factors. Firstly, sound use of data to develop understanding and clarity on which to base informed, responsible decisions. Secondly, integrity of character driving sound decisions based on facts. Thirdly, solid relationships to implement decisions.

Understanding climate alarm illustrates challenges facing leaders globally in industry and in our communities and nations.

The genuine environment and conservation movement is one of the most important social movements on Earth. Yet, its credibility is endangered by confused and fearful politicians, alarmist activists, sensationalist media and prominent extremists with financial conflicts of interest. Read much more in this well-done report that replaces fear, guilt and control with facts, forgiveness and freedom. See PDF.

Today, security has broadened beyond economic and military security to encompass many facets of life including health, safety, community and environmental. What I’ve seen in many nations and in all industry sectors is that care for our planet and our natural environment is inherent in humans. At our core, we feel concerned about fouled and toxic air, skies, water, oceans, beaches, land and food. We have green hearts and want to stop pollution. We care for our natural environment, our beautiful planet.

In developed nations, modern technology and inherent care for Earth mean city air is cleaner than it has been for hundreds of years. Technology and improved understanding of Nature raises crop yields, minimizing land clearing for food. Yet, at times, in ignorance or fear, people damage the environment.

Once humans are aware though of our actions we rectify - removing petrol (gasolene) lead, saving the Bald Eagle, changing farming practices to conserve water and topsoil. Deep within, we all know we share our own personal source with all people, animals and life forms - we are of the universe, in unity with all life.

Environmental responsibility, sound engineering and commercial acumen are natural partners because all aim to minimise waste. Fulfilling environmental responsibilities minimizes waste and maximises productivity - it makes sound business sense. Balanced fulfilment of environmental responsibilities provides commercial advantage.

Today, perceptions of environmental damage - even perceptions not rooted in integrity - can remove consent to manufacture, mine or farm. As political processes enmesh with sensationalist media headlines some politicians and executives become wind vanes. Instead, industry needs leaders with character to ensure informed and responsible community perceptions and to protect our nation’s future.

Effective, sustained leadership at all levels and in all spheres - industry, corporate, community - is ultimately based on three factors. Firstly, sound use of data to develop understanding and clarity on which to base informed, responsible decisions. Secondly, integrity of character driving sound decisions based on facts. Thirdly, solid relationships to implement decisions.

Understanding climate alarm illustrates challenges facing leaders globally in industry and in our communities and nations.

The genuine environment and conservation movement is one of the most important social movements on Earth. Yet, its credibility is endangered by confused and fearful politicians, alarmist activists, sensationalist media and prominent extremists with financial conflicts of interest. Read much more in this well-done report that replaces fear, guilt and control with facts, forgiveness and freedom. See PDF.