Majority of Americans Still 'Believe' in Global Warming
Posted 20 November 2010 - 12:02 PM
Posted 02 December 2010 - 07:41 PM
Top Science Panel Caught in Another Global Warming Data Fraud
By John O'Sullivan Wednesday, December 1, 2010
Newly released science book revelation is set to heap further misery on UN global warming researchers. Will latest setback derail Cancun Climate conference?
Authors of a new book ’Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory’ claim they have debunked the widely established greenhouse gas theory climate change. In the first of what they say will be a series of sensational statements to promote the launch of their book, they attack a cornerstone belief of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - what is known as the “carbon isotope argument.”
Mišo Alkalaj, is one of 24 expert authors of this two-volume publication, among them are qualified climatologists, prominent skeptic scientists and a world leading math professor. It is Alkalaj’s chapter in the second of the two books that exposes the fraud concerning the isotopes 13C/12C found in carbon dioxide (CO2).
If true, the disclosure may possibly derail last-ditch attempts at a binding international treaty to ‘halt man-made global warming.’ At minimum the story will be sure to trigger a fresh scandal for the beleaguered United Nations body.
Do Human Emissions of Carbon Dioxide Exhibit a Distinct Signature?
The low-key internal study focused on the behavior of 13C/12C isotopes within carbon dioxide (CO2) molecules and examined how the isotopes decay over time. Its conclusions became the sole basis of claims that ‘newer’ airborne CO2 exhibits a different and thus distinct ‘human signature.’ The paper was employed by the IPCC to give a green light to researchers to claim they could quantify the amount of human versus natural proportions just from counting the number of isotopes within that ‘greenhouse gas.’
Alkalaj, who is head of Center for Communication Infrastructure at the “J. Stefan” Institute, Slovenia says because of the nature of organic plant decay, that emits CO2, such a mass spectrometry analysis is bogus. Therefore, it is argues, IPCC researchers are either grossly incompetent or corrupt because it is impossible to detect whether carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere is of human or organic origin.
Skeptics Out to Derail Cancun Climate Conference?
Cynics are already claiming ‘Isotope-gate’ is more than just a promotional stunt to hype this book launch. They say its also deliberately timed to disrupt the latest major international climate conference in Cancun, Mexico (November 29th - December 10th).
The Cancun Climate conference (COP 16) is seen as a make or break attempt by world leaders to secure a binding international treaty to limit emissions of carbon dioxide after the failure of the Copenhagen Climate Summit last year. Copenhagen was undermined by the Climategate revelations and this latest attempt by skeptics may be a repeat.
The ‘Isotope-gate’ story is one of many planned promotional releases from the book and this publication is bound to cause embarrassment to delegates in Mexico if the revelations it contains become widely known.
Worryingly for Cancun (and the IPCC) this new book makes far bolder claims than have been made before by skeptics. Its authors say they have scientifically and mathematically disproved the greenhouse gas theory. The theory is the bedrock of all scientific claims that humans are responsible for climate change.
‘Slayers’ Book Reveals New Evidence of UN Climate Fraud
The 13C/12C argument being attacked by Mišo Alkalaj may be found in IPCC’s AR4—The Physical Science Basis Working Group. The IPCC clarifies its position on Page 139 of that chapter.
According to Mišo the fatal assumption made by the IPCC is that the atmospheric concentration of the 13C isotope (distinctive in prehistoric plants) are fixed. They also assume C3-type plants no longer exist so would need to be factored into the equations. Indeed, as Mišo points out such plants, “make up 95% of the mass of all current plant life.”
Therefore, decay of 95% of present-day plant material is constantly emitting the 13C-deficient carbon dioxide supposedly characteristic of coal combustion—and CO2 emitted by plant decay is an order of magnitude greater than all human-generated emissions.
‘Isotope-gate’ is Twin Brother of Himalayagate
But a more sinister twist to the story is not just that the researchers erred in mistakenly overlooking the flaws about the 13C isotope, but that they never referred the analysis to outsider verification.
As with the Himalayagate controversy, the Prentice paper was never reviewed beyond the secretive four walls of UN climate alarmism; it relied entirely on an internal uncorroborated source.
On this cynical practice Mišo observes, “Few readers will be bothered to follow the trail all the way and especially not the ‘policymakers.’ But the few that do frequently find out that the argument is circular (A quotes B and B quotes A), etc.”
Thus, there exists no proof of any such distinct ‘human signal’ anywhere in samples of atmospheric CO2 and the IPCC is discredited. Therefore, once again, the public has been shown compelling evidence of how it was duped by junk science promoted knowingly by an international gang of fraudsters.
IPCC (TAR) Third Report (2001), ‘The Scientific Basis,’ Working Group 1
IPCC (FAR) Fourth Report (2007) ‘The Physical Science Basis,’ Working Group 1
Ball, T., Johnson, C., Hertzberg, M., Olson, J.A., et al., ’Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory,’ (November, 2010), accessed online at: amazon.com (November 26, 2010).
Posted 14 December 2010 - 05:18 PM
Climate Change: It's the Sun, Stupid
by Randall Hoven
Guess who wrote this.
"The Sun is the primary forcing of Earth's climate system. Sunlight warms our world. Sunlight drives atmospheric and oceanic circulation patterns. Sunlight powers the process of photosynthesis that plants need to grow. Sunlight causes convection which carries warmth and water vapor up into the sky where clouds form and bring rain. In short, the Sun drives almost every aspect of our world's climate system and makes possible life as we know it.
"... According to scientists' models of Earth's orbit and orientation toward the Sun indicate that our world should be just beginning to enter a new period of cooling -- perhaps the next ice age...
"Other important forcings of Earth's climate system include such "variables" as clouds, airborne particulate matter, and surface brightness. Each of these varying features of Earth's environment has the capacity to exceed the warming influence of greenhouse gases and cause our world to cool. " [Emphases added.]
Lord Monckton didn't write that. Neither did physicist Richard Lindzen, physicist William Happer, or physicist Hal Lewis. Nor was it Steve McIntyre who blew the whistle on the "hockey stick." It was none of the usual suspects among the "skeptic" community.
It was NASA, home of our space program, the currently unmuzzled James Hansen and one of the major centers for collecting climate data and analyzing it. (HT: Ace.)
The NASA statement is simply astounding to me. It says, quite unambiguously, that our climate is dominated by the sun and our orientation to it. It also credits non-carbon sources as "important forcings" of our climate: clouds, particulate matter and surface brightness. Finally, it warns of coming global cooling!
Of course, the NASA statement still says there is human-caused warming. But, it will be swamped by these other forces to yield net cooling. In short, whatever man is doing to the climate, it is insignificant in the face of natural forcings.
The science "consensus" has not only collapsed, it has raised the white flag and confessed that the skeptics were right all along. I think we can stick a fork in the climate change agenda. A few nuts will continue to wander the streets, mumbling to themselves and each other. But as a significant political agenda, I think it's over. I sure hope it is.
Posted 23 December 2010 - 06:24 PM
As directed from this topic Predjudice and bias in "Science" to here. Here's something to chew on. Read the comments also. Plus I've added a link to the question of Milankovitch theory of ice ages at the bottom of the post.
From Real Climate
Myth vs. Fact Regarding the "Hockey Stick"
Numerous myths regarding the so-called "hockey stick" reconstruction of past temperatures, can be found on various non-peer reviewed websites, internet newsgroups and other non-scientific venues. The most widespread of these myths are debunked below:
MYTH #0: Evidence for modern human influence on climate rests entirely upon the "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction of Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures indicating anomalous late 20th century warmth.
This peculiar suggestion is sometimes found in op-ed pieces and other dubious propaganda, despite its transparant absurdity. Paleoclimate evidence is simply one in a number of independent lines of evidence indicating the strong likelihood that human influences on climate play a dominant role in the observed 20th century warming of the earth’s surface. Perhaps the strongest piece of evidence in support of this conclusion is the evidence from so-called “Detection and Attribution Studies”. Such studies demonstrate that the pattern of 20th century climate change closely matches that predicted by state-of-the-art models of the climate system in response to 20th century anthropogenic forcing (due to the combined influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations and industrial aerosol increases).
MYTH #1: The "Hockey Stick" Reconstruction is based solely on two publications by climate scientist Michael Mann and colleagues (Mann et al, 1998;1999).
This is patently false. Nearly a dozen model-based and proxy-based reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere mean temperature by different groups all suggest that late 20th century warmth is anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context (see Figures 1 and 2 in “Temperature Variations in Past Centuries and The So-Called ‘Hockey Stick’”).
Some proxy-based reconstructions suggest greater variability than others. This greater variability may be attributable to different emphases in seasonal and spatial emphasis (see Jones and Mann, 2004; Rutherford et al, 2004; Cook et al, 2004). However, even for those reconstructions which suggest a colder “Little Ice Age” and greater variability in general in past centuries, such as that of Esper et al (2002), late 20th century hemispheric warmth is still found to be anomalous in the context of the reconstruction (see Cook et al, 2004).
MYTH #2: Regional proxy evidence of warm or anomalous (wet or dry) conditions in past centuries contradicts the conclusion that late 20th century hemispheric mean warmth is anomalous in a long-term (multi-century to millennial) context.
Such claims reflect a lack of awareness of the distinction between regional and large-scale climate change. Similar such claims were recently made in two articles by astronomer Willie Soon and co-authors (Soon and Baliunas, 2003; Soon et al, 2003). These claims were subsequently rebutted by a group of more than a dozen leading climate scientists in an article in the journal “Eos” of the American Geophysical Union (Mann et al, ‘Eos‘, 2003). The rebuttal raised, among other points, the following two key points:
(1) In drawing conclusions regarding past regional temperature changes from proxy records, it is essential to assess proxy data for actual sensitivity to past temperature variability. In some cases (Soon and Baliunas, 2003, Soon et al, 2003) a global ‘warm anomaly’ has been defined for any period during which various regions appear to indicate climate anomalies that can be classified as being either ‘warm’, ‘wet’, or ‘dry’ relative to ‘20th century’ conditions. Such a criterion could be used to define any period of climate as ‘warm’ or ‘cold’, and thus cannot meaningfully characterize past large-scale surface temperature changes.
(2) It is essential to distinguish (e.g. by compositing or otherwise assimilating different proxy information in a consistent manner—e.g., Jones et al., 1998; Mann et al., 1998, 1999; Briffa et al., 2001) between regional temperature changes and changes in global or hemispheric mean temperature. Specific periods of cold and warmth differ from region to region over the globe (see Jones and Mann, 2004), as changes in atmospheric circulation over time exhibit a wave-like character, ensuring that certain regions tend to warm (due, for example, to a southerly flow in the Northern Hemisphere winter mid-latitudes) when other regions cool (due to the corresponding northerly flow that must occur elsewhere). Truly representative estimates of global or hemispheric average temperature must therefore average temperature changes over a sufficiently large number of distinct regions to average out such offsetting regional changes. The specification of a warm period, therefore requires that warm anomalies in different regions should be truly synchronous and not merely required to occur within a very broad interval in time, such as AD 800-1300 (as in Soon et al, 2003; Soon and Baliunas, 2003).
MYTH #3: The "Hockey Stick" studies claim that the 20th century on the whole is the warmest period of the past 1000 years.
Milankovitch theory of ice ages
Posted 25 December 2010 - 06:58 PM
Funny thing; the warmists keep telling us that "the science is settled".
So, is "the science settled?". Or is there a large body of empirical data under dispute and a corresponding huge amount of uncertainty?
Posted 06 January 2011 - 11:31 PM
Posted on January 6, 2011 by Anthony Watts
From the Global Warming Policy Foundation: the questions begin, news coverage follows:
Did UK Government Keep Cold Winter Warning Secret In Run-Up To UN Climate Conference?
London, 6 January: The Global Warming Policy Foundation has called on the House of Commons Transport Select Committee to set up a parliamentary inquiry into the winter advice the Government received by the Met Office and the renewed failure of both the Government and local authorities to prepare the UK transport system for the third severe winter in a row.
In a letter to the Chair of the Transport Committee, Louise Ellman, MP, the GWPF stresses that “Lessons have to be learned well in advance of the start of next year’s winter so that we are much better prepared if it is severe again.”
In recent days, the Met Office has stated that it apparently warned the Cabinet Office in late October that the start of the winter would be exceptionally cold. It would appear that the extreme weather warning was kept secret from the public.
According to media reports, the Cabinet Office has been unwilling to confirm whether or not it failed to pass on the Met Office warning to local and road authorities, airports and water companies.
“Not only is the lack of Government preparedness a cause for concern, but we wonder whether there may be another reason for keeping the cold warning under wraps, a motive that the Met Office and the Cabinet Office may have shared: Not to undermine the then forthcoming UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun,” said Dr Benny Peiser, the GWPF director.
It will be important to establish whether the Met Office consulted with government officials about their Cancun strategy and what effect this may have had on the handling of the ‘secret’ cold winter warning.
In light of the renewed failure to prepare the UK and its transport system for a prolonged and harsh winter, the GWPF has listed 19 questions that need to be addressed in order to avoid future debacles.
The full letter is attached below.
Louise Ellman, MP
Chair, Transport Select Committee
House of Commons
5 January 2011
Dear Mrs Ellman
Transport System’s Winter Fiasco
I am writing to you on behalf of the Global Warming Policy Foundation regarding the transport system’s ill-preparedness in face of this year’s record cold winter.
The GWPF is calling on the Transport Committee to set up a parliamentary inquiry into the winter advice the Government received by the Met Office and the renewed failure of both the Government and local authorities to prepare the UK transport system for the third severe winter in a row.
This year’s winter fiasco has severely damaged the British economy – and its international reputation – as a result of the country’s ill-preparedness.
It would appear that the Met Office provided the government with contradictory winter advice and we need to find out what went wrong. Lessons have to be learned well in advance of the start of next year’s winter so that we are much better prepared if it is severe again.
Last summer, the Department of Transport carried out a study of the resilience of Britain’s transport infrastructure in the light of the two previous severe winters.
When the Quarmby Report (The Resilience of England’s Transport Systems in Winter) was published in late October, it entirely relied on the Met Office’s assurance that the chance of a severe winter and heavy snow would be relatively small and that the effect of climate change had further reduced the probability of severe winters in the UK; see also Transport chaos not an annual issue, say official report. Investment in more equipment may not be economical given rarity of British snow, says RAC Foundation chairman http://www.guardian....port-met-office
In recent days, the Met Office has stated that it apparently changed its original advice in October and actually warned the Cabinet Office that the start of winter would be exceptionally cold. It would appear that the Met Office’s cold warning was kept secret from the public.
According to media reports, the Cabinet Office has been unwilling to confirm whether or not it failed to pass on the Met Office warning to local and road authorities, airports and water companies.
Not only is the lack of Government preparedness a cause for concern, but we wonder whether there may be another reason for keeping the cold warning under wraps, a motive that the Met Office and the Cabinet Office may have shared: Not to undermine the then forthcoming UN Climate Change Conference in Cancun.
Throughout October and November, the Met Office repeatedly pushed and published their key message in the run-up to the UN climate summit – that 2010 would probably turn out to be the hottest year on record, culminating in these Cancun-timed media reports: Cancun climate change summit: 2010 was hottest year on record http://www.telegraph...-on-record.html
The Met Office was represented at the UN Climate Summit in Cancun by key scientists who briefed news media about their key message; see Scientific evidence is Met Office focus at Cancun <http://www.metoffice...20101126b.html>
It will be important to establish whether the Met Office consulted with government officials about the UK’s Cancun strategy and what effect this may have had on the handling of the ‘secret’ cold winter warning.
The transport minister Philip Hammond has asked the government’s chief scientific adviser whether the last three cold winters may signal a ‘step change’ in weather in the UK.
The Met Office appears to deny this possibility. In its submission to the Quarmby Report, the Met Office claims that the chances of a harsh winter are receding steadily. Yet, the Met Office models were contradicted by Sir David King, the former government’s chief scientific adviser, who has publicly warned that the government should plan for more cold winters in the next few years.
It is evident that Sir David King has serious doubts about the reliability of the Met Office’s computer models. This manifest contradiction is further undermining the credibility of the Met Office which makes it all the more important to properly investigate the underlying problem of its erroneous winter projections and government advice over the last three years.
In light of the renewed failure to prepare the UK and its transport system for a prolonged and harsh winter, the following questions need to be addressed in order to avoid future debacles:
1. Why did the Met Office publish on its website estimates in late October showing a 60 per cent to 80 per cent chance of warmer-than-average temperatures this winter? What was the scientific basis of this probabilistic estimate?
2. Why did the Met Office provide the government with a secret forecast about a exceptionally cold start of the winter, at the same time it was publishing an opposite forecast to the public?
3. Did the government conspire to keep the Met Office forecast secret in the run-up to the Cancun climate summit?
4. Did the Cabinet Office fail to take appropriate action in response to the forecast and inform the relevant authorities to prepare the country, to keep the highways clear, to prepare airports?
5. Why did the government let its Winter Fuel Allowance budget be used up with only a fraction of the winter gone?
6. On what scientific basis did the Met Office tell the Cabinet Office that there were early indications of an exceptionally cold start to winter?
7. Why did the Met Office confirm to the news media on 27 October that its probability map showed significant warming in the months ahead?
8. Has the late October prediction by the Met Office that this winter would be mild affected planning for this winter? If so, what is the best estimate of how much this has cost the country?
9. In 2009, the Met Office predicted a 65% chance that the winter of 2009/10 would be milder than normal. Has the Met Office subsequently explained what went wrong with its computer modelling?
10. What is the statistical and scientific basis for the Met Office’s estimate of a 1-in-20 chance of a severe winter?
11. Has the Met Office changed its view, or its calculations, following the harsh winters of 2008, 2009 and 2010?
12. Is the Met Office right to be confident that the severe winters of the last three years are not related?
13. Which severe weather alerts were issued by the Met Office and when?
14. Although the Met Office stopped sending its 3-month forecasts to the media, it would appear that this service is still available to paying customers, the Government and Local Authorities for winter planning. What was their advice, in September/October, for the start of winter 2010?
15. Has the Met Office been the subject of any complaints from its paying customers regarding the quality of its advice?
16. Is it appropriate that the chairman of the Met Office is a member, or a former member of climate pressure groups or carbon trading groups?
17. Should senior Met Office staff (technically employed by the MoD) make public comments advocating political action they see necessary to tackle climate change?
18. Has the government evaluated different meteorological service providers and has it ensured that it is using the most accurate forecaster?
19. What plans has the government to privatise the Met Office?
In view of the high level of public interest in this matter, we shall be releasing the text of this letter to the press.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Dr Benny Peiser
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users