Where the climate change debate is concerned, the temptation to use military metaphors is sometimes irresistible. Until recently, the vastly superior forces of the IPCC and its allies in the scientific establishment have prevailed against the guerrilla warfare of the sceptics, who have sometimes done localised damage but never threatened the monolith. However, as a series of weaknesses in their campaign have become increasingly public, those who are currently in the scientific mainstream are being forced to conduct a more vigorous defence of their position. But the various groups of dissenting and sceptical irregulars, though they have gained ground, are far from having won the war. Both camps are now digging in for the long haul. Whether there will ever be a decisive victory for one side or the other is doubtful, but for now the battlefield is at least more even.

Without belabouring the metaphor any further, what has reduced the seemingly unstoppable impetus of the climate change policy brigade? The answer is really two-fold: a failure to achieve meaningful agreement in Copenhagen, which had been billed as the make-or-break summit, and a series of revelations about the workings of the IPCC panel which raise serious questions about credibility. Taken together, the resultant loss in policy-making momentum may never be regained. The consequence is likely to be that any meaningful post-Kyoto agreement might have to be negotiated in light of considerably more evidence than we currently have, which is surely no bad thing.

When faced with criticism - much of it both legitimate and measured, although it must be admitted that some of it became quite personal and vitriolic - the climate change establishment closed ranks and condescendingly dismissed all the points raised. Dissenters were routinely said to be in the pay of the oil industry (despite the fact that companies have little to fear from the policies mooted) or disparaged as flat-Earthers or even village idiots. They framed the debate (while seeking to close it down) as between “scientists” on one hand and “sceptics” on the other (fortunately, the term “denier” is now less frequently heard), with the implicit assumption that no scientist could possibly disagree with the mainstream view. Ad hominem slurs were common.

Human nature being what it is, this failure to acknowledge the credibility of any criticism riled many sceptics so much that, when evidence of sloppiness, closed-mindedness and downright obstruction among key climate scientists started to appear, quite a few went straight for the jugular. Claims that the various revelations totally discredit the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) hypothesis and the work of the IPCC are wide of the mark but, in such a highly partisan and polarised debate, understandable.

In fact, the various “gates” paint an unflattering picture of arrogance and unscientific behaviour within the influential clique of scientists and policymakers central to the IPCC process. A little humility and acceptance of the faults would not be amiss and would very likely enhance the IPCC’s reputation. Instead, there are the beginnings of a full-blown counterattack and the setting up of an “independent” enquiry which promises to be anything but.

The problems (or faults, or mistakes, call them what you will) which have been publicised do not in themselves undermine the AGW hypothesis, but taken together they do call into question the supposedly objective nature of the massive assessment reports which the IPCC publishes periodically (the fourth, and most recent, AR4, in 2007). Discounting for now evidence which either conflicts with AGW or supports alternative hypotheses, climategate and its ilk hint at a process where scientific open-mindedness comes a distant second to the search for evidence which supports what has come to be seen as a self-evident truth, that humans are disrupting climate.

The leaking of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, which will inevitably continue to be referred to as climategate, showed the defensiveness of the key scientists responsible for collating the global temperature record. While we should not place too much weight on particular words or expressions (after all, who does not at some time or another regret committing some things to email?) there appears to have been a clear attempt to withhold data, together with non-compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.

While requests for data from people known to be critical of your work must be very annoying, good science has nothing to fear from open questioning of results. But the exact temperature record is not really the key issue, average temperature being sensitive to the means used to derive it. Nevertheless, hiding the raw data can only give rise to suspicions about how selectively it might have been used.

In many ways a more worrying incident was the inclusion of a statement in AR4 that Himalayan glaciers were set to disappear by 2035. This conclusion was questioned, in particular by the Indian government, which published an independent report coming to very different conclusions (and which was dismissed as “voodoo science” by Rajendra Pachauri, current head of the IPCC).

It turned out that the quote had come from a non-peer reviewed WWF report and had no basis in reality. In itself a small thing, but it gives cause for concern that the authors of the chapter in question could include such a reference. Were they simply slapdash, or were they happy to include anything, however tenuous, which supported their case?

There was too much publicity for these and other concerns (including being selective with cut-off dates to ensure inclusion of the ‘right’ papers and exclusion of the ‘wrong’ ones) simply to be ignored. The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-Moon, has asked the InterAcademy Council (comprising various national academies of science) “to conduct an independent review of the IPCC’s processes and procedures to further strengthen the quality of the Panel’s reports on climate change”.

Doubtless there will be a few minor slaps on the wrist over procedure. Pachauri himself may be sacrificed, given his rather intemperate way with critics. But the IPCC juggernaut itself will lumber on unchanged, with the same mission: to assemble evidence that our species is the major driver of climate change.

The IAC investigation is the defensive part of the campaign, but the climate establishment is also back on the offensive. Take, for example, a recent article in the UK Times (We climate scientist are not ecofanatics) by Sir John Houghton, first head of IPCC’s working group 1, in which he said that the IPCC was actually being too cautious in its conclusions. It is worthwhile looking at a few quotes:

“The IPCC is too big an organisation to be captured by an ideological cabal or fall foul of group-think”, which simply shows a staggering lack of understanding of human behaviour.

“The IPCC process also makes it impossible for green propaganda to be slipped in”. Such as a WWF report?

“But scientists are now faced by powerful lobbies who are working to distort and discredit the science behind climate change”. The belief that if people do not believe you, they cannot be honest.

Quite frankly, if that is going to be the nature of the debate, we are in for a long period of trench warfare. Time to invent the rhetorical equivalent of the tank.

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

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

London Science Museum goes climate science neutral

A new climate gallery at London’s Science Museum, sponsored byRoyal Dutch Shell (RDSa.L), will step back from pushing evidence of man-made climate change to adopt a more neutral position.

The 4 million pound ($6 million) exhibition, opening in November, will provide “up-to-date, accurate” information about the science of climate change and aims to “satisfy the interests and needs of those who accept that human-induced climate change is real, those who are unsure, and those who do not,” the museum said in a statement.

“The scientific community has, with some exceptions, concluded that climate change is real, largely driven by humans and requires a response,” said the museum’s director Professor Chris Rapley. “Our objective is to minimise the shrill tone and emotion that bedevils discussion of this subject.”

The new gallery follows an exhibition called “Prove It! All the evidence you need to believe in climate change” which the museum launched last October and closed in February. It featured a poll showing a large portion of its visitors disputed the scientific evidence behind man-made climate change.

The new gallery, called the Climate Science Gallery, is also sponsored by Germany’s Siemens (SIEGn.DE), the Garfield Weston Foundation and Britain’s Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

Late last year, the scientific data behind climate change was called into question after hacked e-mails from a British university were seized upon by sceptics as evidence that the case for global warming had been exaggerated. [ID:nLDE61A2NB]

Then in January, an error saying that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035—a major exaggeration of the thaw—exposed shortcomings in how a U.N. panel of climate scientists checks its sources. This led to calls for reforms of the panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. [ID:nLDE6192FS]

London’s Science Museum also reiterated this week its commitment to reducing its carbon footprint, agreeing to cut carbon emissions by a further 10 percent this year. This follows a 24 percent reduction in the museum’s emissions in 2008/9. Read story here.

GlobalWarming: The Other Side

See John Coleman’s one-hour special on KUSI Global Warming, the Other Side here. See his part II Global Warming Meltdown here. NEW: See his latest interview with Anthony Watts here. See his latest interview with Dr Fred Singer here. See his very revealing story on Roger Revelle here. See his powerful interview with E.M. Smith here.  See his other videos 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. See also episode 21 on November 10, 2009, when we talked about the upcoming winter.

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

Climategate 2.0 - The NASA Files: It’s The Data, Not The Globe, That’s Cooked (Part 1)
To the activist judges and activist journalists we know, add the activist scientists we don’t. Bill Whittle talks to bestselling author Christopher C. Horner, author of Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed. See it here.

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

Monckton’s Sydney Australia lecture and Q&A videos here courtesy of Dr. Bob Carter.

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

Henk Tennekes - He Was right After All

Read all about this skeptic pioneer - who faced the wrath of the warmers but is now being vindicated here.

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

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

Sea Level Not Rising
by Kim Greenhouse on February 22, 2010

Geologist and author Dr. Nils-Axel Morner tells us what’s really happening with sea levels, and why the truth really needs to be known. Perhaps the most graphically disturbing piece of information in the climate arena is the assertion that sea levels will rise to a catastrophic degrees. An Inconvenient Truth scared many people, and the sea level issue continues to worry them. The imagery from the movie is still etched in our minds and hearts. Imagery is powerful even if it is untrue. It lingers in the subconscious mind, where it can affect our ability to think critically and receive whole-systems information. We must be vigilant to prevent this.

In this show, Dr. Nils-Axel Morner clarifies many misconceptions about rising sea levels and offers a comprehensive understanding of this subject. Dr Morner is highly qualified to speak on the matter. He was the former President of International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA). Under his charge, when INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, after deliberations and discussions at several international meetings, declared a possible sea level change of +5 cm plus or minus 15cm by the year 2100, it was based on a huge amount of world-wide data gathered by scientists from different parts of the globe. 26 Feb 10 - Dr Nils-Axel Morner, geologist, physicist, and one-time expert reviewer for the IPCC, announced this week that, contrary to IPCC claims, sea levels are not rising. 

“Sea level is not changing in any way, “ said Dr Morner in an hour-long interview with Kim Greenhouse of “It’s Rainmaking Time.”

Dr. Morner, who received his PhD in geology in 1969, is one of the greatest - if not the greatest - experts on sea levels in the world today. He has worked with sea level problems for 40 years in areas scattered all over the globe. There is no change, says Morner. There is absolutely no sea-level rise in Tuvalo, there is no change here, and there is zero sea-level rise in Bangladesh. If anything, sea levels have lowered in Bangladesh.

We do not need to fear sea-level rise, says Morner. However, “we should have a fear of those people who fooled us.”

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. Walter Starck has written this story “Observations on Growth of Reef Corals and Sea Grass Around Shallow Water Geothermal Vents in Papua New Guinea” supporting the SPPI findings.

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

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.

Growing Wisdom - a wonderful site on gardening, one of my favorite hobbies, when I had a home with sunshine and time in summer to garden.

Gallup’s annual update on Americans’ attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question.

These results are based on the annual Gallup Social Series Environment poll, conducted March 4-7 of this year. The survey results show that the reversal in Americans’ concerns about global warming that began last year has continued in 2010—in some cases reverting to the levels recorded when Gallup began tracking global warming measures more than a decade ago.

For example, the percentage of Americans who now say reports of global warming are generally exaggerated is by a significant margin the highest such reading in the 13-year history of asking the question. In 1997, 31% said global warming’s effects had been exaggerated; last year, 41% said the same, and this year the number is 48% (below, enlarged here).

Fewer Americans Think Effects of Global Warming Are Occurring

“In a sharp turnaround from what Gallup found as recently as three years ago, Americans are now almost evenly split in their views of the cause of increases in the Earth’s temperature over the last century."Many global warming activists have used film and photos of melting ice caps and glaciers, and the expanding reach of deserts, to drive home their point that global warming is already having alarming effects on the earth. While these efforts may have borne fruit over much of the 2000s, during the last two years, Americans’ convictions about global warming’s effects have waned.

A majority of Americans still agree that global warming is real, as 53% say the effects of the problem have already begun or will do so in a few years. That percentage is dwindling, however. The average American is now less convinced than at any time since 1997 that global warming’s effects have already begun or will begin shortly.

Meanwhile, 35% say that the effects of global warming either will never happen (19%) or will not happen in their lifetimes (16%). The 19% figure is more than double the number who held this view in 1997 (below, enlarged here).

Full report

There is an intense debate under way among climate change scientists over how to rebuild public confidence in their work after the damaging disclosures in hundreds of hacked e-mail messages from a British climate research center and the more recent revelations of errors in the latest United Nations report on climate change.

An article in The New York Times today captures the broad outlines of the debate and reflects the views of some of the main players. But there are many other voices worth listening to, scientists who are concerned not just about the credibility of climate research, but also about the wider question of the role of science in modern society.

Here are a couple.

Sheila Jasanoff, professor of science and public policy at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard, says that climate scientists face two significant challenges: to produce and communicate the best information about climatic changes, and to build public trust. The trust part, she says, does not necessarily flow from the quality of the science, as many scientists hope or believe.

The entire modern scientific enterprise, she argues, requires the lay public to place faith in strangers, to have confidence in the experts who understand specialized knowledge that untrained citizens do not share. The public must also believe that those experts - the scientific priesthood - are not conspiring to dupe them.

“It’s not just a function of information, but an ongoing relationship with the public, a willingness to show why you should be believed,” Professor Jasanoff said.

Another scientist, Judith A. Curry, a professor in the school of earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, suggests that climate scientists might rehabilitate their image and improve their work by embracing the so-called open source movement.

She advocates publishing more scientific papers on the Internet, posting all the relevant data and methodology, forcing authors to defend their work outside of the closed fraternity of climate scientists. (Here is her blog post on the subject; the Dot Earth blog looked recently at her approach and other moves toward more openness in climate research.)

Professor Curry says the recent flaps over the purloined e-mail and the mistakes in the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report have been an “absolute fiasco” for the climate science community.

In her view, it is only by directly engaging critics, on the Internet and elsewhere, that scientists can begin to rebuild the faith that Professor Jasanoff says has been breached.

“A lot of the issue with the bloggers is they feel they get disrespected by mainstream climate community and some have something to offer technically,” Professor Curry said in an interview. “But they just get lumped into denier, oil-funded cranks.”

She urged climate scientists to post relevant papers on the Internet and then hang around for a few hours taking questions from critics or contrarians. “It would go a long way to educating the public and giving our critics the respect they want,” she said.

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

“...China, Japan and India are laughing at America’s stupidity.”
Donald Trump

Donald Trump is not a big believer in global warming. “With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore,” the tycoon told members of his Trump National Golf Club in Westchester in a recent speech. “Gore wants us to clean up our factories and plants in order to protect us from global warming, when China and other countries couldn’t care less. It would make us totally noncompetitive in the manufacturing world, and China, Japan and India are laughing at America’s stupidity.” The crowd of 500 stood up and cheered. See post here.

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

Climate scepticism ‘on the rise’
By BBC News

There has been an increase in the number of British people who are sceptical about climate change, a poll commissioned by BBC News has suggested. The poll, based on a sample group of 1,001 adults, was conducted by Populus.

The findings, based on interviews carried out on 3-4 February, show that only 26% of people think “climate change is happening and is now established as largely man-made”, only 1% more than those who think there is no global warming.

In November 2009, a similar poll by Populus - commissioned by the Times newspaper - showed that 41% agreed that climate change was happening and it was largely the result of human activities.

See enlarged image here

“It is very unusual indeed to see such a dramatic shift in opinion in such a short period,” Populus managing director Michael Simmonds told BBC News.

“The British public are sceptical about man’s contribution to climate change - and becoming more so,” he added. “More people are now doubters than firm believers.”

The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ (Defra) chief scientific adviser, Professor Bob Watson, called the findings “very disappointing”. “The fact that there has been a very significant drop in the number of people that believe that we humans are changing the Earth’s climate is serious,” he told BBC News. “Action is urgently needed,” Professor Watson warned. “We need the public to understand that climate change is serious so they will change their habits and help us move towards a low carbon economy.”

‘Exaggerated risks’

Of the 75% of respondents who agreed that climate change was happening, one-in-three people felt that the potential consequences of living in a warming world had been exaggerated, up from one-in-five people in November.

The number of people who felt the risks of climate change had been understated dropped from 38% in November to 25% in the latest poll. During the intervening period between the two polls, there was a series of high profile climate-related stories, some of which made grim reading for climate scientists and policymakers.

In November, the contents of emails stolen from a leading climate science unit led to accusations that a number of researchers had manipulated data. And in January, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) admitted that it had made a mistake in asserting that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. All of this happened against the backdrop of many parts of the northern hemisphere being gripped by a prolonged period of sub-zero temperatures.

However, 73% of the people who said that they were aware of the “science flaws” stories stated that the media coverage had not changed their views about the risks of climate change. “People tend to make judgements over time based on a whole range of different sources,” Mr Simmonds explained. He added that it was very unusual for single events to have a dramatic impact on public opinion. “Normally, people make their minds up over a longer period and are influenced by all the voices they hear, what they read and what people they know are talking about.” See post here.

Icecap Comments: notice the care to avoid the the underlying results that 73% believe that man is or may not be involved in climate change, believing the climate is not changing (25%), is changing but man’s role is environmentalist propoganda (10%) or that climate is changing and man’s role has not been convincingly established (38%).  Notice in the full poll here, that a number of questions are written in such a way as to illicit a supportive reponse and yet in all, the message is clear, the public is not buying what the enviros, pols and media are pushing. One example is the first question that asks whether “do you think that the Earth’s climate is changing and global warming taking place?” Many skeptics might answer yes on that one. The climate is always changing, always warming or cooling.

Another sign the media dam may be breaking - this CBS Online video:

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.