By Tom Nelson Blog
Romm Excerpt: (In the interests of full disclosure: I consulted with Kleiner several years ago on a clean-tech investment; Doerr wrote a jacket quote for my book “The Hype about Hydrogen”; I own shares in two clean-tech start ups; and I expect to consult with VCs in the future. That is one reason I don’t typically talk about individual companies.)
Tom Nelson comment: But if we’re supposed to completely ignore any climate realist who’s ever received a dime from any company that’s ever received a dime from fossil fuels, why does climate alarmist Romm get a free pass?
[Note: An August 2007 Senate report detailed how proponents of man-made global warming fears enjoy a monumental funding advantage over skeptical scientists. - Also, Romm’s climate views are laughable. See: Ex-Clinton Official Ties Minneapolis Bridge Collapse to Global Warming]
ALERT TO DEVASTATING FALL CONDITIONS
See also this amusing spoof on climate and weather alarmism on youtube thanks to Onion.
By Tom Nelson
My house is lit by compact fluorescent light bulbs. Let me just tell you, though: Suppose I drove an SUV and lit my house with the worst kind of light—I could still be an environmentalist. Al Gore flies around in a jet plane—absolutely fine with me. The important thing is not getting Al Gore out of his jet plane; the important thing is solving the world’s problem. What we really need are policies around the world that address the problem, not feel-good measures. If [Al Gore] reaches more people and convinces the world that global warming is real, even if he does it through exaggeration and distortion—which he does, but he’s very effective at it—then let him fly any plane he wants. Author and physicist Richard A. Muller chats with Grist here.
By Dr. Fred Singer, TWTW Editorial October 3
Sarah Palin is the only major candidate who has expressed doubts about manmade global warming - and she is right. This attack in the CS Monitor does not understand the interpretation of a temperature trend. The common way to define a temperature trend is to equate it to the slope of a straight line that provides the ‘best fit’ for values of temperatures (usually yearly averages) plotted against time. The implicit assumption is that the trend does not vary with time. But we know that’s not true; climate is always changing - warming or cooling. The ‘trend’ therefore depends on the choice of the time interval - the beginning year and the ending year. (Think of the fluctuations of the stock market.) And the choice is often quite arbitrary. So, for example, we have seen an overall warming trend since 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age [Akasofu 2008], and a cooling since 1998.
A different problem has to do with the quality of the data. It is generally agreed that atmospheric temperature data are more reliable than surface data. But ‘global’ data from weather balloons go back only 50 years - and the truly global data from satellites only 30 years. The latter show a warming trend from 1979 to present. But one can also interpret the data as showing essentially zero trend from 1979 to 1997, followed by a sudden ‘jump’ and another zero or even cooling trend since 1998 [NIPCC 2008, Fig. 13]. The point is that the observations do not correspond to what greenhouse models would predict.
So Sarah Palin is right. The temperature record shows a mixture of natural and human causes, with the latter quite a bit smaller. There is absolutely no reason to believe that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) will be of any consequence - even by 2100. And, of course, impacts of any AGW will be unimportant too.
By Chris Horner on Planet Gore
In February, the geniuses at Mensa will host keynote speaker James Hansen, among others, to frighten them with scary stories. How can bright people believe, like the UN Secretary General, that computer model scenarios of the future are more frightening than Hollywood movies? Because they’re real? Well, apparently because they also accept observed, um, truths like “It is now firmly established that Earth’s global surface temperature is increasing and that human emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary cause of that global warming.”
See larger image here
See larger image of Hansen model forecasts versus actual temperatures here
Back to my point about this nerdy “second life” and avatar business going too far, when things that only happen in computer models are the new reality. Something about this is just odd. Methinks I smell another membership group being hijacked by a few activist members, a la the American Meteorological Society and all of those others now invoked as proof of a consensus, though their members never were asked to vote on whether they agreed to lend the group’s name to the cause. So going along with the crowd to be cool and - who knows, pocket some of the billions - is also the smart thing to do.
See story here.
By Robert M. May, Reply by Freeman Dyson
Dyson scolds the Royal Society - the British Commonwealth’s leading academy of science, founded in 1660 and, among other things, the initiator of peer-reviewed publications - for its “dogmatic tone” on issues of climate change.Dyson’s annoyance at the Royal Society and others derives from his worry that “in the history of science it has often turned out that the majority was wrong and refused to listen to a minority that later turned out to be right.” This is a valid worry. But its application varies as one advances on the scientific journey of investigating any particular topic.
A particularly clear and topical example of this process is to be found in the recent debates about the extent to which human activities are causing global warming, as distinct from warming deriving from natural causes. Even three decades ago there were very significant uncertainties associated with our quest for understanding. With computational power doubling every eighteen months, things have greatly advanced since then, and the basic facts are now unambiguous. Hence the recognition by the G8+3 science academies that we are well past the point where we should doubt the serious consequences of climate change.”
Robert M. May, Former President of the Royal Society (2000–2005), Chief Scientific Adviser to the British Government (1995–2000), Oxford, England
Read this back and forth on this and on CO2 residence time here.
Governor Patrick says there’s a real possibility that people in America could freeze to death this winter due to the soaring cost of home heating fuel. Patrick met today with members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation on Capitol Hill and later testified before a House panel on the need for heating aid in cold-weather states. Patrick said the cost of heating a home—whether by electricity, gas or oil—is expected to cost between 20 and 31 percent more than a year ago. He said that will have an impact on many families, and not just those who are defined as low-income. The House has approved legislation to double the government’s Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program to 5.1 billion dollars for the coming winter. Massachusetts would receive 163 million dollars under the plan, an increase of 36 million dollars from the last fiscal year.
Icecap Note: Patrick is looking for more federal assistance. This points out that the congress needs to develop a realitstic energy plan that leaves no stone unturned or area off limits in finding new oil and gas providing incentive instead of obstacles for states and oil companies to invest in it (see link) Although alternative energy is a desired future supplement to fossil fuels, we can’t heat our homes with wind turbines or here in the north with solar panels. Blame for any unnecessary deaths can be shared by Gore and Hansen and their environmental friends for their inventing a crisis based on a proven flawed theory.
Thanks to Tom Nelson Blog for this NWS statement
Sea surface temperatures along the Alaska Chukchi and Beaufort Sea coasts are 2 to 8 degrees Celsius colder this year than at the same time last year. Significant ice will begin developing along the Alaska coast north of 70n within the next 10 to 14 days.
Icecap Note: Having planted well over 100 trees in my lifetime, I love trees in all their seasons. But I never reacted like this to a downed tree or trees. They get recycled in my wood stove. See video here.