So much has been revealed over that last week or so that you have to wonder if anyone will be able to make a convincing argument for Global Warming” without a complete new set of scientific studies that are properly reviewed, subject to rigorous testing and free from political influence.
If you haven’t been following the recent press, you simply have to read the following articles published just in the last week:
In this BBC Q&A with Phil Jones the embattled head of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit admits that there has been no statistically significant warming in 15 years and that the vast majority of climate scientists don’t believe that the “debate on climate change is over”. Coming from a leading researcher in favor of the GW theory, these admissions are stunners!
Another revelations are that he thinks that the Medieval Warm Period may have been global in scope which would destroy the alarmists’ assertion that the current period of warming is “unprecedented”. In addition, he cannot produce the data on which his research is based leading his colleagues to assert that he is so disorganized he may have lost them. This makes his research untestable and therefore of limited value.
The London Telegraph reports that an alarming claim the UN’s IPCC made in its 2007 report that GW will cause food production to drop by 50% in some African countries in the next decade is completely without scientific backing. The Telegraph’s reporter is lead to conclude that the IPCC report is disintegrating under closer examination.
England’s Guardian newspaper, long a supporter of AGW ran this story suggesting that fraud has been committed by climate scientists refusing to release data on the location of Chinese weather stations whose data appeared to support the theory of AGW. As it turns out those stations were located in urbanizing areas or had been moved rendering their data invalid.
The London Times quotes John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and a former lead author of theIPCC that “temperature records cannot be relied upon” because of the factors cited in the Guardian story
This information is very recent and the effects will be realized over the next weeks and months but it doesn’t bode well for the alarmists. Of course all of this stuff is just the most recent. For a compendium of the Warmers’ woes see this column by Mark Landsbaum
An interesting thing to note is that all of this reporting is being done by British news organizations. Do you wonder why the American Press especially the NY Times seems to have no interest? So does Walter Russell Mead here.
Stay tuned. This is going to get REALLY interesting soon!
What do kangaroos, mooses and Mom have in common?
Dear Dr. Donohue — My daughter complains that I flatulate more often than most individuals. Furthermore, she claims that the gas an individual passes contributes to global warming. I don’t know if I am physically able to keep my gas to myself to go green. Is my daughter really right?
I don’t know who’s funnier, a daughter who tells her mother to stop her farts to stop global warming or a mother who writes to a newspaper doctor to find out if its true.
Thanks, Erin, for sending along a great laugh!
EPW HEARINGS POSTPONED DUE TO WEATHER
UPDATE: The following Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works hearings have been postponed due to inclement weather this week:
– The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife, will hold a hearing entitled, “Collaborative Solutions to Wildlife and Habitat Management.”
– The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works will hold a hearing entitled, “Global Warming Impacts, Including Public Health, in the United States.”
Michael Barone believes that the “climate change” scare crowd has jumped the shark from a credibility standpoint and may have damaged the whole movement into ineffectivenes.
Quick, name the most distrusted occupations. Trial lawyers? …Used car dealers? …over the last three months a new profession has moved smartly up the list and threatens to overtake all. Climate scientist.
…the Climategate e-mails made public in November… showed how top-level climate scientists distorted research, plotted to destroy data and conspired to prevent publication of dissenting views. …The e-mails conclusively establish the intellectual dishonesty of the climate scientists at the CRU and their co-conspirators.
The e-mails were just the start of the UN Warmongers woes. Since that story broke last fall they have:
- Admitted getting it wrong about Himilayan glacial melt by over 300 years;
- Admitted using non-peer-reviewed scientific sources in their 2007 report; and,
- Been found to have used as sources statements by advocacy groups like Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Federation, including an anti-smoking activist quoted about warming damaging 40% of the Amazon rain forest in the same report.
As Mr Barone concludes:
Unfortunately, the cadre of climate scientists who have dominated public discussion and have controlled the IPCC have been demonstrated to be far, far less than trustworthy. Like the theorists who invented epicycles to explain away the failure of Ptolemaic theory to account for astronomical observations, they have distorted science in the interest of something that resembles religious dogma.
That arbiter of all things noble. That trustworthy organization that only wants to do good for mankind. Of course I’m talking about the UN.
They wouldn’t be deceitful in their “truth seeking” about global warming? Not just to influence how our governments act? Would they?
The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders.
Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research.
‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action.
‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’
I think they just admitted to using unsupported statements to scare governments into action. Didn’t they? No. They couldn’t have because:
According to the IPCC’s statement of principles, its role is ‘to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis, scientific, technical and socio-economic information – IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy’.
Remember those Himalayan glaciers that were melting by 2035? How about that IPCC science that is “settled”? Well…never mind.
A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.
Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world’s glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.
In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC’s 2007 report.
It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.
Yep. I get my best science from little know Indians quoted in old magazines.
Since it has happened at GW events in New York, Washington D.C., Copenhagen and now Salt Lake City, this can no longer be considered a coincidence.
A downtown protest of the climate change talks in Copenhagen became a victim of Wednesday’s snowstorm.
“Not many people showed up because of the blizzard conditions,” said organizer Clea Major, an international studies student at the University of Utah.
I love Ms. Major’s straight-faced explanation. Don’t you?
Nonetheless, despite the low turnout and completely inappropriate weather the true believers carried on:
It didn’t take long for the six friends to pack up a bullhorn and posters they’d planned to use for their “scream-in,” an outlet for their frustration about the failure of the Copenhagen climate talks earlier this month to curb the pollution blamed for climate change.
Still, they chatted with a few passers-by during the commuter-hour protest near the Gateway, and explained that, blizzard aside, climate change is expected to bring chaos to the global climate, said Major.
Finally, Ms Major delighted me again with her candor:
…As for the snow, it’s not entirely new; a protest she attended last year in Washington, D.C., suffered a similar fate.
“There is always the irony element,” Major said.
Indeed there is. Thank you God for such a hearty laugh. Keep up the good work!
Cows, then moose and now…
PARIS (AFP) – Man’s best friend could be one of the environment’s worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle.
But the revelation in the book “Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living” by New Zealanders Robert and Brenda Vale has angered pet owners who feel they are being singled out as troublemakers.
Sorry Lucy. We’re now “troublemakers” for having you as our canine companion. You make us “unsustainable” so you’ll have to go.
Puleeeaaase….. Can someone say that the emporer has no clothes?
A doctrine of faith of the Global Warming alarmists’ religion has been to point to retreating glaciers and blame it all on AGW. The focus has been on how fast they’ve been melting and the supposedly dire results for the local population if that melting continues.
The “concensus” cause of glacial melting has been assumed to be AGW. The “concensus” solution is, of course, to control carbon output and hence each of our lives.
Now comes the Swiss reporting a “surprising” finding:
…Their study into the impact of solar radiation on Alpine glaciers made the “surprising discovery” that in the 1940s, and especially summer 1947, the ice floes lost the most ice since measurements begin 95 years ago, according to Zurich’s Federal Institute of Technology.
…The researchers found from historic data on three Swiss glaciers, as well as radiation recordings from the eastern Alpine town of Davos, that the level of sunshine in the 1940s was eight percent higher than average and significantly higher than now.
As a result, snow and ice melted by about four percent.
Four percent? That sounds like a lot! And it occured 70 years ago.
So what happened since then?
A phase of less sunshine — global dimming — from the 1950s to 1980s also corresponded with the advance in the snout of glaciers.
Interesting… So the glaciers retreated big-time during a period of increasing CO2 emisions. And then they grew during a period of faster CO2 emissions.
Do we see a pattern here? OF COURSE NOT!
But since the cannon of GW scripture says humans caused glacial retreat by emitting CO2 the GW alarmists ignore the fact pattern and hope you will too.
First China praises its one child policy as a cure for GW. Now the Canadian national newspaper follows suit.
The whole world needs to adopt China’s one-child policy
Diane Francis, Financial Post
The “inconvenient truth” overhanging the UN’s Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.
A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.
Notice that it is a “disaster” that too many people have been created in God’s image. Think of that. While you may consider that newborn a “blessing” there are people like, Ms. Francis, who consider him a part of a “disaster” that needs to be prevented by a “planetary law”.
How have we gotten to the point in our society where thought leaders can say such things with no risk of challenge?