California Dreamin' is a green nightmare...

...ahh California, the cradle of cool, the State of the Nation, where the American dream was first dreamt. Where, (with apologies to Garrison Keillor ) the women are all beautiful, the men are all handsome and the children are all above average...Not however, any more. California is in the death grip of a huge demented green monster, more destructive and frightening than anything seen in any of Arnie's Terminator movies. Arnie's neighbour state, Oregon is in similar financial crisis due to "green" jobs and tax breaks which are in effect breaking the taxpayer...more here... Look out, the green giant is heading our way too...This article from the current online City Journal, is in response to Time magazine's rose coloured, spin doctor cover story...Time magazine applauds California’s voters for approving “huge bonds” for stem-cell research and a high-speed rail line, and its politicians for adopting “first-in-the-nation greenhouse-gas regulations, green building codes and efficiency standards for automobiles and appliances that have rearranged the national energy debate.” These expensive innovations are going to pay for themselves, it appears, because California is “by far the national leader in green jobs, green patents, supply from renewables and savings from efficiency. It’s also leading the way toward electric cars, zero-emission homes, advanced biofuels and a smarter grid.” Which is all terribly exciting, unless it turns out that the green economy of the future is always in the future...California’s achievement of creating 10,000 green jobs annually has been overwhelmed by the loss of 700,000 jobs in the state since the start of the recession.
Worse, the state’s economic policies are based not on environmental planning but on “environmental preening,” according to Troy Senik, author of the forthcoming California at the Crossroads. The state is committed, by law, to greenhouse-gas emissions in 2020 that are no larger than its emissions in 1990. Since California’s population (like every state’s) will be much larger 11 years from now than it was 19 years ago, this goal will be impossible without “massive economic regression,” according to Senik. “Such is the fate of Californians: to live in a state where environmentalism is a religion and economics a superstition.” ...more here...

Without a doubt, we're winning...

...and by "we", I mean the "denialists" as the green left like to call us. And with that level of disdain they shoot themselves in their minute green brains, because Mr and Mrs Public have a keen sense for censorship of dissent...

A question...are the so-called climate skeptics so far out there that their views don’t qualify as within the realm of reason? Consider that the skeptics are holding their own, if not actually prevailing, in the battle for the hearts and minds of Americans on climate.
No significant federal legislation has passed and it’s not clear that any will any time soon. Polls indicate that Americans aren’t so concerned about global warming. Democrats on Capitol Hill have been advised to give up on global warming and, instead, to focus on “clean energy.” How powerful must the skeptics arguments be when this small, under-funded, rag-tag “band of brothers” has held off for more than 20 years the onslaught of the giant eco-industrial lobbying machine....Finally, consider Obama chief-of-staff Rahm Emanuel’s effort to denigrate and dismiss Fox News as a media outlet with a “point of view.” The White House may not like Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity, but at least those two don’t pose as unbiased journalists...more from GreenHell blog, here...

...and why are global warming/climate change sceptics winning ? For several reasons; the main one being that alarmists have overstated their case, and that the small kernel of truth in their argument has been hyperinflated to the point of farcical hysteria. Consider this...

...and this...it may well be that global warming is best tackled with a variety of cheap fixes, if not by pumping SO2 into the stratosphere then perhaps by seeding more clouds over the ocean. Alternatively, as "SuperFreakonomics" suggests, we might be better off doing nothing until the state of technology can catch up to the scope of the problem. All these suggestions are, of course, horrifying to global warmists, who'd much prefer to spend in excess of a trillion dollars annually for the sake of reconceiving civilization as we know it, including not just what we drive or eat but how many children we have. And little wonder: As Newsweek's Stefan Theil points out, "climate change is the greatest new public-spending project in decades." Who, being a professional climatologist or EPA regulator, wouldn't want a piece of that action? Part of the genius of Marxism, and a reason for its enduring appeal, is that it fed man's neurotic fear of social catastrophe while providing an avenue for moral transcendence. It's just the same with global warming...more from the Wall Street Journal here...

Time to eat the dog, (but not the cat)...

...from PKH, this gem...the carbon footprint left by domesticated animals is out of proportion to the size of their paws. A medium-sized dog has the same impact as a Toyota Land Cruiser driven 6,000 miles a year, while a cat is equivalent to a Volkswagen Golf. But rabbits and chickens are eco-friendly because they provide meat for their owners while a canary or a goldfish has little effect on the environment. At the same time a pair of hamsters do the same damage as running a plasma television, suggests the book Time to Eat the Dog: The Real Guide to Sustainable Living. New Zealand based authors Robert (Bunty) Vale and Brenda Vale base their findings on the amount of land needed to grow food for pets ranging from budgerigars to cats and dogs. They say an average Collie eats 164kg of meat and 95kg of cereals a year, giving it a high impact on the planet. But a pair of rabbits can produce 36 young annually, which would provide 72kg of meat and help decrease the owner's carbon footprint. Mr Bunty Vale, (right) an architect who claims to specialise in sustainable living, (for everything other than edible animals of course) said: "There are no recipes in the book. We're not actually saying it is time to eat the dog or the pussy. "We're just saying (farting loudly) that we need to think about and know the (ecological) impact of some of the things we do and that we take for granted." He explained that sustainability issues require us to make choices which are "as difficult as eating your dog". Mr Vale added: "Once you see where cats and dogs fit in your overall balance of things, you might decide to keep the cat but not also to have the two cars and the three bathrooms and be a meat-eater yourself." ...or have the private jet and fleet of Hummers and an open cast coal mine and participate in intensive rabbit farming. And while we're on the topic, what about the CO2 added to carbonated drinks, and belched out with gusto every day ? When will green left groups target Pepsi, Coke, and all the international brewing giants and demand that they replace their CO2 in our beverages with a non-greenhouse gas? When do the fun police start stepping in ?


Stop Press !!...Just weeks before an international conference on climate change, the United Nations signaled it was scaling back expectations of reaching agreement on a new treaty to slow global warming. Janos Pasztor, director of the secretary-general’s Climate Change Support Team, said Monday “it’s hard to say how far the conference will be able to go” because the U.S. Congress has not agreed on a climate bill, and industrialized nations have not agreed on targets to reduce their carbon dioxide emissions or funding to help developing countries limit their discharges... Copenhagen most likely won’t produce a treaty, but instead will push governments as far as they can go on the content of an agreement...more from WuWT here...

...and anyway, what is Copenhagen really all about ? A columnist in the Australian tells all here...

Oh frabjous day, calloo callay...

...the link to this article from a commenter below had me chortling with joy this morning, headed ...Science Museum's climate change poll backfires...(see disgruntled museum curator Mr Rintin Fintin Bintin at left) ...A poll by the Science Museum designed to convince the nation of the perils posed by climate change has backfired after being hijacked by sceptics... The museum’s Prove It! website, (link here ) which is designed to influence politicians at the Copenhagen climate summit in December, allows members of the public to pledge their support, or lack of it, to the environmentalist cause. But so far those backing the campaign are out-numbered nearly six-to-one by opponents. By Saturday, 2,385 people who took the poll said “count me out” compared to just 415 who said “count me in”, after being asked whether they agreed with the statement: “I’ve seen the evidence. And I want the government to prove they’re serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen.” The website, which accompanies a major new exhibition at the venerable South Kensington museum, claims to offer "all the evidence you need to believe in climate change"...more from the UK Telegraph here... and note the FINAL results here after multiple votes were discounted...
...and this from Clive James, writing in the BBC news in praise of global warming/climate change scepticism, sliced deep fried golf balls and potato chips...In Montaigne's day you could get into terminal trouble for taking scepticism too far, which is probably one of the reasons why not even he pushed it on the subject of religion. Since then, a sceptical attitude has been less likely to get you burned at the stake, but it's notable how the issue of man-made global warming has lately been giving rise to a use of language hard to distinguish from heresy-hunting in the fine old style by which the cost of voicing a doubt was to fry in your own fat...more here...
...AND (off topic totally) quote of the day, from the misogynistic, hedonistic, dangerous and deluded bounder and cad Roissy...Many men are crippled by doubt. They have no understanding of the possible. To these men I say: Stop listening to the jealous naysayers, the bitter betas, the furious fembots, the condescending scolds, the cackling c**ts, your Mom, your Dad, your drinking buddies, your aging ex, your fat girlfriend, your boss, society, the world. They don’t have your best interest at heart. They never did, and they never will. You have no idea just what you are capable of as a man. Game is that powerful...read more from Roissy, about Game, here...

The BBC and global warming...

...Damian Thompson of the UK Telegraph happily kicks for goal with this article, and writes with palpable glee about recent BBC discomfort (see posting 12.10.09). This about face from the BBC is significant of course, because it shows a crumbling of the compliant united media front that maintains the whole global warming/climate change charade and heartens the green left...

“Whatever happened to global warming?” is the title of an article by Paul Hudson that represents a clear departure from the BBC’s fanatical espousal of climate change orthodoxy. The climate change campaigners will go nuts, particularly in the run-up to Copenhagen. So, I suspect, will devout believers inside the BBC. Hudson’s story was not placed very prominently by his colleagues – but a link right at the top of Drudge will have delivered at least a million page views, possibly many more.
Hudson’s piece is a U-turn – not because he has joined the ranks of sceptics who reject the theory of man-made global warming, but because at last he has written a story about the well-established fact that the earth’s temperature has not risen since 1998, and reports seriously the theories of climatologists (themselves not sceptics) who believe that we are in for 30 years of cooling caused by the falling temperatures of the oceans...a commenter answers...

...You miss the point, Damian.
The story was changed to climate change when they realised that global warming did not wash. The eco-marxists will continue regardless, because it’s the man-made bit that they want to focus on, not dear old Mother Earth and her menstrual cycle. The struggle is about controlling human behaviour, for therein lies power on earth. Right-thinking people believe in liberty, self-control, individual responsibilities and obligations as well as freedoms, capitalism & private enterprise, property ownership, freedom of movement and choice of mode of transport. These are all anathema to the left. So all human behaviour is bad (except that of tribes that is (sic) not white, western, conservative, Christian, etc etc). As a catholic, you will understand original sin – this is it, re-incarnated for the age of anti-Christianity. These people hate all forms of individual, non-collectivised behaviour. The BBC is part of the project – after all, without the collective, how would they get their TV tax revenue? How would they disseminate their message?
1984-style, the script changes but the conflict continues and Big Brother is watching over you...more here...

...and Deborah Hill Cone, writing in the NZ Herald puts another crack in the green media wall...the most powerful organised psychosis these days does not worship God but the environment : the Godless religion of global warming...

The green/left hate and fear this man...

...Dr Roy W. Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama in Huntsville and the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshal Space Flight Centre in Huntsville, Alabama. While Spencer is known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award, he has in recent years become better known for his denial of the (so called) scientific consensus that human activity is primarily responsible for global warming. (From Wikipedia.)

...Unquestionably, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was formed to build the scientific case for humanity being the primary cause of global warming. Such a goal is fundamentally unscientific, as it is hostile to alternative hypotheses for the causes of climate change...more here...

...While popular press reports would lead one to believe that all reputable scientists now agree that manmade global warming will be a serious problem, there is a sizeable minority of reputable scientists who disagree. They have published peer reviewed papers on the subject, yet they are largely ignored by mainstream climate scientists. .. recent evidence support(s) the view that our climate is relatively immune to mankind’s emissions of carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere...more here...

..."There's probably a natural reason for global warming...We will look back on it as a gigantic false alarm...The Earth isn't that sensitive to how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere... I think we need to consider the possibility that more carbon dioxide is better than less."
Asked in December 2008 what his advice was for then-President-Elect Obama, Spencer responded, "He should put off the environmentalists indefinitely... Tell them we have to fix the economy first before we can afford unaffordable renewable energy 'solutions.'...

...I hope that the (Senate Works) Committee realizes that, if true, these new results mean that humanity will be largely spared the negative consequences of human-induced climate change. This would be good news that should be celebrated, not attacked and maligned. And given that virtually no research into possible natural explanations for global warming has been performed, it is time for scientific objectivity and integrity to be restored to the field of global warming research ...more here...

None dare call it fraud...

...Understanding the AGW scams is essential. Here are just a few of them...

Michael Mann’s hockey-stick-shaped historical temperature chart supposedly proved that twentieth century warming was “unprecedented” in the last 2000 years...the hockey stick was based on cherry-picked tree-ring data and a computer program that generated temperature spikes even when random numbers were fed into it.

...This year, another “unprecedented” warming study went down in flames. Lead scientist Keith Briffa managed to keep his tree-ring data secret for a decade, during which the study became a poster child for climate alarmism. Finally, McKitrick and McIntyre gained access to the data... (and found) a case study in how to lie with statistics...

...Meanwhile, scientists associated with Britain’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) also withheld temperature data and methods, while publishing papers that lent support to climate chaos claims, hydrocarbon taxes and restrictions, and renewable energy mandates. In response to one request, lead scientist Phil Jones replied testily: “Why should I make the data available, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?”...When pressure to release the original data became too intense to ignore, the CRU finally claimed it had “lost” (destroyed?) all the original data...

...The supposedly “final” text of the IPCC’s 1995 Second Assessment Report emphasized that no studies had found clear evidence that observed climate changes could be attributed to greenhouse gases or other manmade causes. However, without the authors’ and reviewers’ knowledge or approval, lead author Dr. Ben Santer and alarmist colleagues revised the text and inserted the infamous assertion that there is “a discernable human influence” on Earth’s climate...

...Highly accurate satellite measurements show no significant global warming, whereas ground-based temperature stations show warming since 1978. However, half of the surface monitoring stations are located close to concrete and asphalt parking lots, window or industrial-size air conditioning exhausts, highways, airport tarmac and even jetliner engines; all of which skew the data upward...

...With virtually no actual evidence to link CO2 and global warming, the climate chaos community has to rely increasingly on computer models. However, the models do a poor job of portraying an incredibly complex global climate system that scientists are only beginning to understand; assume carbon dioxide is a principle driving force; inadequately handle cloud, solar, precipitation, ocean currents and other critical factors; and incorporate assumptions and data that many experts say are inadequate or falsified...Not one correctly forecast the planetary cooling that began earlier this century, as CO2 levels continued to climb.

...Al Gore’s climate cataclysm movie is replete with assertions that are misleading, dishonest or what a British court chastised as “partisan” propaganda about melting ice caps, rising sea levels, hurricanes, malaria, “endangered” polar bears and other issues. But the film garnered him Oscar and Nobel awards, speaking and expert witness appearances, millions of dollars, and star status with UN... And as in the case of Briffa, the IPCC and journals typically ignore and refuse to publish contrary studies.

Scandals like these prompted EPA analyst Alan Carlin to prepare a detailed report, arguing that the agency should not find that CO2 “endangers” human health and welfare, because climate disaster predictions were not based on sound science. EPA suppressed his report and told Carlin not to talk to anyone outside his immediate office, on the ground that his “comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision,” which the agency supposedly would not make for several more weeks...The endless litany of scandals underscores the inconvenient truth about global warming hysteria...it will mean massive pain for no environmental gain...more from GlobalWarming.org here...

Wazzup George ?

...Billionaire George Soros, one-time railway porter, will invest $1 billion of his own money in clean energy technology to combat climate change, says The Guardian. He will also create an organization to advise policy makers on environmental issues, which will receive an annual stipend of $10 million over the next 10 years. Soros, founder of the hedge fund Soros Fund Management LLC and the policy think tank The Open Society Institute, made the announcement this week at a meeting in Copenhagen organised by Project Syndicate, an international association of 430 newspapers...Who will get to pocket the $10 million? Soros says that he's on the prowl for profitable opportunities, but that he "will also insist that the investments make a real contribution to solving the problem of climate change...more from New Scientist here...

...very interesting indeed. I wonder though if he sought Bjorn Lomborg's advice (I note Lomborg is listed as a "thought leader" with Project Syndicate above) re the disbursement of all this dosh ? I wonder too, if his network of 430 newspapers carry much sceptical AGW news ?...and I wonder too, if George Soros is concerned over the deaths of future populations who will be deprived of cheap and efficent energy ?...Wind power, biomass power and animal power were abandoned when the greater energy intensity of fossil fuels became available by use of the steam engine. The increased energy supply enabled more people to exist and the human population exploded. The population is now about 6.6 billion and all estimates indicate that the present population growth will continue and is likely to peak at around 9 billion in the middle of this century. That additional more than 2 billion people requires additional energy supply. Billions of people - mostly children - will die from lack of energy without that additional energy supply. Reducing the energy supply would kill more millions - probably billions - of people. Replacement of fossil fuels by wind and solar is not possible because the laws of physics do not allow it. Only an increase to nuclear power could make much reduction to use of fossil fuels and that reduction is limited because many activities require energy that is not only available where there is a wire...a perceptive commenter here...

...AND not that we're mean or anything, but just for a laugh... women drivers, here...

Where the USA goes, we go...

...with apologies to the late Peter Fraser...The most remarkable aspect of the evolving U.S. debate over climate legislation is how quickly it is evolving in the direction of Republican policy preferences while Democrats, especially the most left-leaning, are silently accepting this revolution, if not helping it along...

...could it be that even the most left leaning are aware that the American voter will not tolerate a return to pre-industrial poverty ?

...The climate bill is rapidly moving from a bill that would move money around and do little to reduce emissions, to a bill that will move money around and accommodate a Republican-preferred "all of the above" energy policy that is very carbon intensive. The take over of climate policy by the Republican agenda is the most over-looked aspect of this entire debate. Perhaps those covering the horse race can't see the forest for the trees. I wonder what will happen if drilling in ANWR (Arctic National Wildlife Refuge) were to become an explicit part of the climate bill negotiations? Are left-leaning Democrats willing to give that away in silence as well?...more from "the honest broker" Roger Pielke Jnr, here...

...and from the workers paradise of Cuba, the voice of blogger Yoani Sanchez...This coming Saturday, July 26, Raúl Castro will speak in Santiago de Cuba. Broadcasting live on TV, he will address a people who still remember last year’s speech in which he mentioned “structural changes,” “a glass of milk for everyone,” and “the fight against the invasive marabu weed.” More than just listening to the announcement of new measures, we Cubans are preparing ourselves to confirm how little has been accomplished in the past twelve months.
The time for promises, and for magical solutions to overcome our underdevelopment, is definitely behind us. The political discourse, without a doubt, has begun its descent. But this doesn’t mean that some day it will touch down. A man with maximum powers continues to pilot the plane, while nobody tells us, over the loudspeakers, if we are maintaining our altitude or heading into a nosedive, if we have the wind at our backs or if the engines are about the explode. Only silence, interspersed with calls for discipline and sacrifice, comes from the speakers of this Soviet-era IL-14 airplane.
We don’t expect pirouettes in the air, nor caramels under our tongues to help us withstand the turbulent ride. What we do want is for the pilot to show his face, to tell us our itinerary, and for us to decide the course. We don’t need this speech on Saturday to turn into an exaltation about floating on air; we would prefer a clear report on how and when we can board a different flight...more here...

Quote(s) of the day...

...all courtesy of WuWT...Copenhagen was essentially kicked into the long grass yesterday at another event, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon’s Climate Change Summit in New York. There, along with Chinese leader Hu Jintao, U.S. President Barack Obama more or less shuffled climate control policy off into the great dreamscape of unattainable plans and long range objectives. Like equality for all and peace in our time, the world will have to wait for sweeping and binding climate policy. Terence Corcoran, Financial Post, 22 September 2009...

...The UN Climate Change Summit in New York managed to produce a concrete result. It has nothing to do with CO2 reduction targets, however, but with a simple political insight: Forget Copenhagen! The chances that the Copenhagen summit will deliver more than just a non-binding framework agreement decreased further on Tuesday. They now tend towards zero. Therefore, it would be best to postpone the climate conference until the United States is ready to agree to clear progress in negotiations. Otherwise, there is a real danger that a compromise formula in Copenhagen would make any progress impossible for years to come because the big climate sinners could hide behind the agreement. Editorial, Financial Times Deutschland, 22 September 2009...

Initially, many climate activists had hoped this year would yield a pact in which nations would agree to cut their greenhouse gas emissions under the auspices of a legal international treaty. But recent announcements by China, Japan and other nations point to a different outcome of U.N. climate talks that will be held in December in Copenhagen: a political deal that would establish global federalism on climate policy, with each nation pledging to take steps domestically. Juliet Eilperin and Colum Lynch, The Washington Post, 23 September 2009...

None of the alarmists and their supercomputer climate models ever predicted even a 30-year respite in their apocalyptic scenarios. Neither did they predict the sun, that thermonuclear furnace in the sky that has more influence on earth’s climate than any number of Ford Explorers, would suddenly go quiet for an indefinite period. Latif and others conclude that, at the very least, we have time to think about it and analyze and learn. We don’t have to fight global warming by inflicting global poverty. More things on Earth affect climate than are dreamed up in computer models. Investor’s Business Daily, 22 September 2009...

...AND far be it from me to pass comment on the Nobel Peace prize award to the POTUS, because Iowahawk has said it all...here...

The flag is being raised on the hill...

...these must be very trying times for those in the scientific community who have staked their reputations, their careers, their whole professional future on catastrophic global warming. Worse (for them) is still to come...

“...I have been researching and reporting on the environmental movement since 1992 and specifically on man-made global warming science over the past decade...The past few weeks have, without a doubt, seen the most dramatic acceleration of developments against the claims of a so-called 'consensus.' The Houston Chronicle science reporter Eric Berger's latest admission (below) merely reflects an inescapable reality: Man-made global warming fears are quickly descending into the ash heap of history. Even top UN IPCC scientists are now openly questioning these claims.” Berger joins other reporters and media outlets in recent times who are being swayed by latest science...more here...

...says Eric Berger...For a long time now, science reporters have been confidently told the science is settled. That the planet is warming and humans are unquestionably the primary cause. We've been told to trust the computer models -- the models which show a markedly upward trend in temperatures as carbon dioxide concentrations increase. And I've trusted the scientists telling me this.
It seems pretty clear that the models forecast a steady upward trend in global temperatures as long as carbon dioxide levels rise. (Which they have). Yet according to satellite and surface temperature measurements the global average temperature has essentially remained flat for the last 12 years. This strikes me as somewhat curious. When An Inconvenient Truth came out I believed the movie to be scientifically accurate. Carbon dioxide levels were rising and so were temperatures. And hurricane activity, especially after the disastrous 2005 season, was out of control. But a funny thing happened on the way to the end of the world: hurricane activity on the global scale is near historical lows. And the Earth seems to have, at least temporarily, stopped warming...more here...

...and, on the BBC's about face, this from Samizdata...This is not the usual BBC line, is it? Whatever your opinion of A(nthropogenic) G(lobal) W(arming) - mine has for quite a while been that it is wall-to-wall made-up nonsense - I think you will agree that this is quite a moment, as is further illuminated by the fact that Instapundit has just linked to the above piece. Which is how I just heard about it. I wonder if the BBC feels inclined to switch to being AGW-skeptic in order to try to make difficulties for David Cameron...I just have a question. Is it right that this marks a big shift for the BBC, or have I not been paying attention properly? This is entirely possible...But whatever the truth of that, I will certainly keep my eyes and ears open for what others, especially people like Bishop Hill, make of this, in the days and weeks ahead...more from Samizdata...

...and from the Comments on Steve McIntyre's Climate Audit...When the history of the Hockey Stick fiasco is written, you will have a very honorable place in it. And it will be written, and it will be taught in classes for many years to come. It is a real classic episode in science with all the instructive themes, importance of the subject, initial acceptance of the findings, obfuscation or concealment of the evidence, and finally refutation and repudiation. We're just now at refutation, and what everyone is afraid of is what comes next. It will be ugly, but there is no way the principals can avoid it now, as they are probably realizing with increasing dismay...

Look look ! A flying pig !

Who would have thought it ? A BBC NEWS headline "What happened to global warming ?"

From Paul Hudson, the BBC climate correspondent no less... This headline (above) may come as a bit of a surprise, so too might the fact that the warmest year recorded globally was not in 2008 or 2007, but in 1998. But it is true. For the last 11 years we have not observed any increase in global temperatures. And our climate models did not forecast it, even though man-made carbon dioxide, the gas thought to be responsible for warming our planet, has continued to rise. So what on Earth is going on?
Climate change sceptics, who passionately and consistently argue that man's influence on our climate is overstated, say they saw it coming. They argue that there are natural cycles, over which we have no control, that dictate how warm the planet is. But what is the evidence for this? ...Piers Corbyn from Weatheraction, a company specialising in long range weather forecasting ...claims that solar charged particles impact us far more than is currently accepted, so much so he says that they are almost entirely responsible for what happens to global temperatures. He is so excited by what he has discovered that he plans to tell the international scientific community at a conference in London at the end of the month.
If proved correct, this could revolutionise the whole subject.... So what can we expect in the next few years?
Both sides (of the climate change debate) have very different forecasts. The Met Office says that warming is set to resume quickly and strongly. It predicts that from 2010 to 2015 at least half the years will be hotter than the current hottest year on record (1998). Sceptics disagree. They insist it is unlikely that temperatures will reach the dizzy heights of 1998 until 2030 at the earliest. It is possible, they say, that because of ocean and solar cycles a period of global cooling is more likely. One thing is for sure. It seems the debate about what is causing global warming is far from over. Indeed some would say it is hotting up.

...This is a significant tipping point in the debate. The BBC, once regarded as paragons of media impartiality, lost their well earned laurels by famously doctoring President Obama's acceptance speech in favour of climate alarmism...see Harmless Sky here... they now appear to be hedging their climate change bets. However, irrespective of this, two things are perfectly clear. The climatastrophe scenario; a crude attempt at terror propaganda, has clearly failed. So too, has the attempt to bluster and intimidate by declaring that the science is settled. Note the movement towards cosmic ray/cloud/warming, cooling scenarios. The panic in other words is over. So too then, should be fruitless and draconian "remedies"...more here...

...and totally O/T, but my nomination for the highly coveted Piece Prize ? Silvio Berlusconi of course...more from the loathsome and highly entertaining Roissy here...

Newspeak, and new science...and world socialism...

...the inconvenient fact about global warming/climate change is that the planet has been much warmer than today without our modern day SUVs, flat screen TV's and air conditioning. This fact, and the knowledge that Greenland used to be green, (see the Viking farm under the sand in Greenland, here) and that climate models have proved to be a laughable failure, is a big problem for the hand wringing green left, who like to portray our few decades on this earth as ones deserving alarm and guilt...hence the need for climate propagandists to attempt to rewrite history and distort and misrepresent science. Many people have exposed the whole farcical scam; it's only held together now by the fact that the MSM refuse to accept it. This is an excellent expose from The American Thinker...
...During testimony before the Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Hearing on Climate Change and the Media in 2006, University of Oklahoma geophysicist Dr. David Deming recalled “an astonishing email from a major researcher in the area of climate change” who told him that "we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period." In June of this year, Deming identified the year of that email as 1995 and the source only as a lead author of that month’s Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States report.
Many believe that man to be Jonathan Overpeck – which Prof. Deming didn’t deny in an email response - who would later also serve as an IPCC lead author. So it comes as no surprise that this reconstruction, which did indeed “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period,” was featured prominently in the subsequent 2001 TAR, particularly in the Summary for Policymakers (SPM), the highly-politicized synopsis which commands the bulk of media and political attention...alarmists know all too well that as long as citizens are convinced that warming is both enduring and unprecedented, such inconveniences as the missing hot spot, laughably mistaken climate models, 800 year CO2 /temperature latency and perhaps even current cooling can be cleverly obfuscated with Goebbels-like double-talk and outright lies. And without the Hockey Stick’s counterfeit portrait of runaway 20th century warming, climate crisis peddlers’ credibility levels are reduced to those of used car salesmen. Not where you want to be when hoping to sell the instinctively absurd premise that the actions of mankind can influence temperatures in either direction.
So they cheat. And they lie. And they have from the very beginning...more here...

...and... A taste of what's to come at Copenhagen...here is an excerpt from the treaty draft... a few people have already started reviewing the treaty, and what they are finding is less of a climate treaty and more of a blueprint for world socialism. One example, via WuWT from page 122 of the draft:
17. [[Developed [and developing] countries] [Developed and developing country Parties] [All Parties] [shall] [should]:](a) Compensate for damage to the LDCs’ economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity, as many will become environmental refugees;(b) Africa, in the context of environmental justice, should be equitably compensated for environmental, social and economic losses arising from the implementation of response measures...more from the Coyote Blog here...

I thought you'd like to know...

...because those of the green left who care so deeply and passionately for the planet must be delighted and relieved; that in Geophysical Research Letters, authors Tedesco and Monaghan observe that the amount of melting ice in Antarctica between October 2008 and January 2009 (the most recent local summer) ...wait for it...was the lowest figure in the (satellite) recorded history - i.e. from 1980. The graph to the right (click to enlarge) was adapted by World Climate Report from Tedesco M., and A. J. Monaghan, 2009. An updated Antarctic melt record through 2009 and its linkages to high-latitude and tropical climate variability... Geophysical Research Letters...

...“A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season.”
Not even a little peep from the climate alarmist media about this news. Now, if the melt had been a record high…more from Climate Research News here...

Nohopen hagen...the build up...

...as December draws closer, the international climate talkfest in Copenhagen looms. From Copenhagen, an outcome for NZ could be one of bizarre national economic suicide. For a small and inconsequential country like ours with a population of only 4.5 million, it would be a case of economic suicide that could only be explained by slavish adherence to the ideology of international paymasters. It certainly couldn't be because of concern for the people of New Zealand, or the wider Pacific community or because of scientific certainty... Your alternative suggestions re this are very welcome... So by the way, is an explanation for the near silence over this from Cabinet Minister Rodney Hide (who has responsibilities for Local Government, Regulatory Reform and Commerce), and who famously declared "global warming" to be a hoax...but however... this is important, from...
... Professor Chris de Freitas, climate scientist and associate professor at the University of Auckland, a timely warning and a summation...with H/T to Not PC... and from NZCPR...

... the Government has committed New Zealand to cut up to a third of current emissions by 2020. The emissions trading scheme is a first step, but this alone cannot guarantee such a massive reduction. Sweeping legislation restricting the use of oil, coal and natural gas will be required, along with far-reaching reforms in pastoral farming to cut methane release. The economic and social implications for New Zealand are immense...Given the enormity of the social and economic disruption associated with emissions reductions, we need to be convinced that the benefits are worth the enormous costs. The US federal government has spent 80 billion US dollars on climate research on the assumption that human caused rise of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem. Despite this, no one has yet found even a shred of objective scientific evidence that humans are causing damaging global climate change...
...The planet has warmed and cooled several times over the past 150 years, all within the range of natural climate variability. There are no published scientific papers that show irrefutable proof that any of this is human-caused. Proof is not to be mistaken for the output of hypothetical climate models, none of which has been shown to reliably predict climate. Proof is not merely evidence of warming coupled with the default conclusion “it must human-caused” when we don't know how else to explain it. This is nothing more than admission of ignorance. Even the IPCC acknowledges changes we have seen may be natural...
...The notion of an unchanging climate has been used to deceive us. It is a conveniently forgotten fact that most of the industrialised world went into hysterics during the forty years of global cooling beginning in the late 1930s. It has been replaced by global warming hysteria over a temperature rise over 100 years of less than one degree, a trend that started before modern industrialisation caused atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations to rise.
According to MIT atmospheric scientist, Professor Richard Lindzen, hysterics over changes in global mean temperature of a few tenths of a degree “will astound future generations”. Lindzen says “such hysteria simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth, and the exploitation of these weaknesses by politicians, environmental promoters, and, after 20 years of media drum beating, many others as well.” “Climate change” has become a pseudo religion, and much of the blame lies with the media. Rather than focus on hard climate science, the media have instead become enthusiastic advocates for scientifically unfounded alarmism. There are many well-documented examples of this.
In a letter to the New York Times, Dr. Martin Hertzberg, an atmospheric scientist who featured in the 2009 ‘U.S. Senate Report of More Than 700 Dissenting Scientists on Global Warming’, accuses the newspaper of “continuously regurgitating fear-mongering, anecdotal clap trap of global warming propagandists”. He said “your coverage of the climate issues is a reflection of either extreme negligence or simply scientific illiteracy”. But the real reason may be simpler: talk of impending climate catastrophe is interesting, whereas sober analysis of climate data is boring.
The IPCC has been complicit in the scaremongering and exaggeration. The IPCC is a governmental institution that selectively accepts and rejects critical comments from expert reviewers of its reports, as my climate science colleagues and I can prove, having been part of the IPPC-managed review process. Surprisingly, given the great costs and social impacts of emissions reducing policies, there is no government “ombudsman” or any means to “audit” what is going on in the IPCC, or to tell if all the extravagantly funded research has been a good investment. The IPCC has been a major driver of global warming hysteria, which has overshadowed concern for real global-scale problems. It is a matter of social responsibility if limited resources could have been better spent on uncontroversial environmental problems such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services - which we know affect hundreds of millions of people.
Fifty years ago it became clear that global carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere were increasing. It was assumed that this was the prime contributor to an observed period of global temperature increase. On this basis, the carbon dioxide data were used in climate model projections for future global warming. By 2006, despite the ongoing rise in global carbon dioxide emissions, data showed that mean global temperature rise had slowed, and currently shows signs of falling. A similar thing happened from 1940 to 1980 during the post Second World War industrial boom when carbon dioxide increased rapidly, but was accompanied by 40 years of global cooling. In contrast, there was a distinct global warm period in medieval times when carbon dioxide levels were much lower than they are now.
Carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is currently higher than at any time in the past 600,000 years, yet global temperature was much higher during all the major warm interglacial periods that occurred during this time, despite much lower levels of carbon dioxide.
Government decision-makers should have heard by now that the basis for the longstanding claim that carbon dioxide is a major driver of global climate is being questioned. If they have not heard, one wonders where they obtain advice on climate matters. Apparently, much of it comes from the eight-member Climate Committee of the Royal Society of New Zealand. At least six of the eight members of that Committee are people with direct or indirect links to the IPCC, or have actually been part in the IPCC process of reporting. Thus, it is not surprising that the Committee’s view coincides that of the IPCC, with no semblance of independence. The belief that science can be determined by “authorities” proclaiming to speak on behalf of entire scientific communities belongs to the medieval period.
That there is not one government scientist in New Zealand associated with climate issues who is willing to speak out against global warming alarmist claims says a lot about how the country is governed. This and the emissions trading scheme are proof that ideology has been permitted to trump science.
The United Nations is gearing up to create a sense of urgency about climate change in the hope that the meeting in Copenhagen can produce a solid agreement to replace the failed Kyoto treaty. But nature refuses to oblige. Eighteen years of global warming came to an end in 1998. Currently, we are in the eleventh year of a global temperature stasis. Sea levels, which have been rising for the past 300 years, show no sign of acceleration. Antarctica is cooling. Hurricane activity is down and does not appear to be connected to carbon dioxide emissions. Annual average Arctic sea ice extent, which is determined largely by wind and ocean currents, is increasing once again - the recent decline was hardly alarming as it was less than that which occurred in 1930s.
In the lead up to the December meeting in Copenhagen, what is needed is careful reflection on the consequences of actions taken as a result of widespread carbon phobia. If any good is to come from Copenhagen, it is that the anxiety about climate may allow the global community to see the need to pull together on truly pressing global problems. It is a wonderful opportunity to call for an era of global unity and the beginning of a new chapter international co-operation to address the planet’s real and most pressing problems ...more here...

So called scientists and so called capitalists...

...are groups that are by no means immune to the lure of the big dollar. "Greed is good" said Gordon Gecko in the movie Wall Street, and of course he was right, although he should have said capitalism, rather than greed. And capitalism when left unfettered to compete, and untainted by government subsidy, delivers prosperity to billions of people. When big government dangles big bucks it distorts capitalism (and of course science) and produces lies, thievery and pious platitudes ...another example of double-speak on climate change, focusing on some utility companies that are preening about their environmental conciousness, while preparing to take climate change legislation to the bank. As Kimberley A. Strassel writes in the Wall St. Journal:
"The carbon-based free lunch is over," declared Exelon CEO John Rowe, neglecting to mention that his company's free lunch is only beginning. Under the House's climate-change bill, a few utilities-primarily those that have made big bets in renewable and nuclear energy-are poised to clean up once Congress hands them carbon emission credits. The bill sets aside 35% of the free credits for utilities. Exelon and other "renewable" utilities will get a huge piece of that pie.
An internal memo produced by Bernstein Research in June described how Mr. Rowe met with investors to rejoice that the House legislation will allow Exelon to rake in additional revenue-by some estimates, up to $1.5 billion a year. Others will pay for this Exelon privilege, of course-notably, Midwestern customers of traditional coal utilities who will see their energy prices double. But hey, all's fair in love and lobbying.
It's disgusting, but certainly not surprising. Liberals who purported to hate "corporate greed" should recognize that big government and big business are often co-conspirators in gaming the system. Limiting government so that politicians can't dole out rewards to business (and, yes, to unions, donors, and other interest groups) is the best way to ensure a truly level playing field and protect the American people from this kind of thievery...H/T to Independent Womens Forum ...more here...

Unprecedented warming ?

...a basic tenet of Al Gore's climate porn movie "An Inconvenient Truth" and all green left climate hysteria is that recent warming of the planet is without parallell in our history...well Al et al, it's still bad news week...

Postings here last week have been about a major problem with historic tree ring data, data that was used to create Al's infamous "hockey stick" graph. Today we have news from the ANDRILL experiment in Antarctica of a scientific breakthrough; the proof of "a sudden, remarkably warm period in Antarctica that occurred about 15.7 million years ago and lasted for a few thousand years...."

ANDRILL is a multinational collaboration between the Antarctic Programs of the United States, New Zealand, (ta ra !) Italy and Germany...We all analyzed the new samples and saw a 2,000 fold increase in two species of fossil dinoflagellate cysts, a five-fold increase in freshwater algae and up to an 80-fold increase in terrestrial pollen,” said Warny. “Together, these shifts in the microfossil assemblages represent a relatively short period of time during which Antarctica became abruptly much warmer.”

Real climate science is ongoing, the complex mechanisms of climate change are little understood, and every day we see evidence that incorrect assumptions have been made about our contribution to climate change...from the comments... I do not, for the record, think that the frantic efforts to lower CO2 emissions to 19C levels are a rational response to this, partly because of the lack of evidence that it will work, partly because warming is not the problem. The problem is, we may get climate fluctuations large enough to threaten us, and right now we have no idea what we would do about it...more here...

...and as an interesting aside...The Central England Temperature (CET) record, starting in 1659 and maintained by the UK Met Office, is the longest unbroken temperature record in the world. Temperature data is averaged for a number of weather stations regarded as being representative of Central England rather than measuring temperature at one arbitrary geographical point identified as the centre of England.A Scottish statistician, Wilson Flood, has collected and analysed the 351 year CET record. Here is the comparison of the 18th Century with the 20th Century:Wilson Flood comments: “Summers in the second half of the 20th century were warmer than those in the first half and it could be argued that this was a global warming signal. However, the average CET summer temperature in the 18th century was 15.46 degC while that for the 20th century was 15.35 degC. Far from being warmer due to assumed global warming, comparison of actual temperature data shows that UK summers in the 20th century were cooler than those of two centuries previously...click on graph to enlarge ...h/t A Western Heart...

...and just because it's Monday...

Re Keith Briffa (tree ring hugger)...and IPCC assumptions...

...regarding the ongoing saga of corrupted data, and the significant influence this has had on alarmist assumptions made by the IPCC and their much beloved catastrophic global warming; Jennifer Marohasy observes...

...THE IPCC and most others who believe in anthropogenic global warming (AGW), have been influenced by the work of climatologists relying on tree-ring data to reconstruct past climate because the thermometer record only goes back to about 1850. The claim that there has been an unprecedented upswing in temperatures over the last 100 years making 1998 the hottest year of the last thousand years, has for example, been based on reconstructions from tree-ring data.

...In response to recent suggestions by Canadian statistician Steve McIntyre that the official reconstructions may have been fudged, Keith Briffa (right) from the Climate Research Unit associated with the UK Met. Office, has responded explaining that there was no cherry picking of data in the development of the reconstructions used by the IPCC and others, rather, the methodology is not yet robust.
Given this admission from a leading UK climate scientist, it would perhaps be appropriate for the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, to now advise world leaders that there are potential problems with the methodology used in the develop of key assumptions underpining the consensus view on anthropogenic global warming and that until further notice, the big meeting in Copenhagen should be postponed...

...Dr Briffa responds...We have not yet had a chance to explore the details of McIntyre’s analysis or its implication for temperature reconstruction at Yamal but we have done considerably more analyses exploring chronology production and temperature calibration that have relevance to this issue but they are not yet published. I do not believe that McIntyre’s preliminary post provides sufficient evidence to doubt the reality of unusually high summer temperatures in the last decades of the 20th century...We will expand on this initial comment on the McIntyre posting when we have had a chance to review the details of his work...more here...

...the battle is on, and the eventual outcome of Dr Briffa's work will help settle the whole issue...

...and meanwhile, a possible reaction from the financial markets ?...We knew this was coming. Carbon Financial Instruments are now trading for 10 cents per metric tonne on the Chicago Climate Exchange. I wonder if the investors are reacting to the Hockey Stick Implosion news? As reported on WUWT, less than one month ago it was 25 cents a tonne, and a year ago it was over 1 dollar. The all time high was May 2008 at over 7 dollars a tonne. Today: poof...more here...

...the new authors used trees from the Yamal Peninsula, Northern Siberia, so their hockey stick was supposed to be an "Arctic hockey stick". Yamal means the "end of the world" in the local native language of the "Nenets" tribes ...spoooky...more here...

...AND, off topic, but fun...The Scottish brewer BrewDog, of Fraserburgh was criticised for an 18.2% alcohol content beer. So it has now produced a 1.1% alcohol beer and given it a label of “Nanny State Beer” ...H/T Kiwiblog...

Treemometers and scientific scandal...

...global warming/climate change sceptics like myself are enjoying the public expose of some of the shonky science used by the green left to further their political agenda. The stories in this post and below and the links they contain will no doubt one day make a book. (And maybe a film...Dan Brown could really get into it, the religous mumbo jumbo, apocalypse scenarios and skullduggery is all there.) The heroes and leading figures in this saga deserve public accolades...let's stay on the trail...

...A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent peer-reviewed climate papers. At least eight papers purporting to reconstruct the historical temperature record times may need to be revisited, with significant implications for contemporary climate studies, the basis of the IPCC's assessments. A number of these involve senior climatologists at the British climate research centre (CRU) at the University East Anglia. In every case, peer review failed to pick up the errors...Controversy has been raging since 1995, when an explosive paper by Keith Briffa at the CRU asserted that the medieval warm period was actually really cold, and recent warming is unusually warm. Both archaeology and the historical accounts, Briffa was declaring, were bunk. Briffa relied on just three cores from Siberia to demonstrate this.

...Mann too used dendrochronology to chill temperatures, and rebuffed attempts to publish his measurement data. Initially he said he had forgotten where he put it, then declined to disclosed it. (Some of Mann's data was eventually discovered, by accident, on his ftp server in a directory entitled 'BACKTO_1400-CENSORED'.)

...The scandal has serious implications for public trust in science. The IPCC's mission is to reflect the science, not create it...As the panel states, its duty is "assessing the scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related data." But as lead author, Briffa was a key contributor in shaping (no pun intended) the assessment. A small group was able to rewrite history...When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that refuted the idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more general, and more serious issue: what happens when peer-review fails - as it did here?
The scandal has only come to light because of the dogged persistence of a Canadian mathematician who attempted to reproduce the results. Steve McIntyre has written dozens of letters requesting the data and methodology, and over 7,000 blog posts. Yet Yamal has remained elusive for almost a decade.
Footnote:
The Royal Society's motto from the enlightenment era is Nullius in verba. "On nobody's authority" or colloquially, "take nobody's word for it". In 2007, the Society's then president suggested this be changed to "respect the facts"....more here...