Monday, 30 November 2009
...Expectations that Mr Hockey would agree to challenge came as a Newspoll conducted for The Australian on the weekend revealed a stunning eight-percentage-point collapse in the Opposition Leader's rating among voters. After a week of attempting to force his reluctant party to vote in favour of the Prime Minister's Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, Mr Turnbull was rated preferred prime minister by only 14 per cent of voters, down from 22 per cent a fortnight ago... Mr Hockey is likely to contest tomorrow's Liberal leadership ballot under a deal allowing the Liberals to crush Kevin Rudd's hope of a pre-Copenhagen deal on climate change.
...meanwhile an emotional Mr Turnbull (pictured left with possible leadership contender Joe Hockey) pleads with the Australian media to "leave me alone."
More from the Australian here...
Friday, 27 November 2009
...The other (example of monetary muckiness) concerns a gaggle of Newton's heirs, scientific geezers beavering away, recording data, analysing statistics and reporting only what is provable and true. Except these crooks haven't. They've cooked the books. They've lied. They've falsified the facts to induce needless panic and alarum in the bosoms of the groundlings. Along the way, they've blackened the reputations of others who challenged their conclusions, whilst earning for themselves great renown and large amounts of dosh.There's supposed to be an absolute rule in science: if the facts don't fit the theory, the theory must be wrong. But these beneficiaries of massive research grants have adopted a more creative approach. In their world, the First Law of Prestige and Avarice applies; when the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts...But these egregious boffins have done more than remind us that the purest of research is prone to the corruptions of ambition and income. What they've done is wilfully attempt to influence public opinion - and political outcomes - around the world. For these data-bodgers weren't investigating the mating habits of the Lesser Crested Gobsnot. No, they were climate scientists. Or, more precisely, pseudo-scientists, twisting the truth to produce results which they and their employers desired...more here...
As with other MSM, the NZ Herald has reported the scandal around the CRU as a breach of security rather than a gross and grotesque scientific fraud. Jim Hopkins, God bless him and reward him, has shone the spotlight on the elephant in the room. We wait now for further news and comment re NIWA, CRU and Jim Salinger as posted yesterday. The s*** has now hit the fan..
...AND, because it's Thanksgiving...
...and from the usually very unexcitable Bishop Hill...On the code thread, James Smith has just posted this comment:
From the file pl_decline.pro: check what the code is doing! It's reducing the temperatures in the 1930s, and introducing a parabolic trend into the data to make the temperatures in the 1990s look more dramatic.
Could someone else do a double check on this file? Could be dynamite if correct.
Thursday, 26 November 2009
This issue will not go away, and has the potential to rival Watergate as a political scandal. It may become the defining issue of the Obama presidency. And talking of scandals, closer to home the NZ Climate Science Coalition has been doing some simple spadework, and what they've found appears to link NIWA, CRU and their ex-employee Dr Jim Salinger, to some more dodgy statistics...
There have been strident claims that New Zealand is warming. The Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), among other organisations and scientists, allege that, along with the rest of the world, we have been heating up for over 100 years. But now, a simple check of publicly-available information proves these claims wrong. In fact, New Zealand’s temperature has been remarkably stable for a century and a half. So what’s going on? New Zealand's National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research (NIWA) is responsible for New Zealand's National Climate Database. This database, available online, holds all New Zealand's climate data, including temperature readings, since the 1850s. Anybody can go and get the data for free. That’s what we did, and we made our own graph...
...and what the Coalition have found is that the official graph used by NIWA, and largely collated by Dr Jim Salinger, and started by him in the 1980's when he was at the CRU, differs markedly from the data. They therefore conclude...
The shocking truth is that the oldest readings have been cranked way down and later readings artificially lifted to give a false impression of warming as documented below. There is nothing in the station histories to warrant these adjustments and to date Dr Salinger and NIWA have not revealed why they did this...We have discovered that the warming in New Zealand over the past 156 years was indeed man-made, but it had nothing to do with emissions of CO2—it was created by man-made adjustments of the temperature. It’s a disgrace...more here... and here... and now featuring on WuWT here...
It remains to be seen what Dr Salinger will say about all this, but the suspicion is now raised that NIWA understood Salinger's apparent distortion of the data, and may have sacked him as a result...Now Rodney Hide has asked Minister for the Environment, Nick Smith, to "please explain." However, the ball remains firmly in Dr Salinger's court...watch this space.
Some more light relief. What do you think Homer Simpson thinks about climate change ? Check it out...with thanks to PKH here...
...and... We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to suspend the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia from preparation of any Government Climate Statistics until the various allegations have been fully investigated by an independent body...here...
...and for a great overview, with links to blogs, media sources around the world, see The Week, here...
Wednesday, 25 November 2009
The tiny, close-knit clique of climate scientists who invented and now drive the “global warming” fraud — for fraud is what we now know it to be (link here) — tampered with temperature data so assiduously that, on the recent admission of one of them, land temperatures since 1980 have risen twice as fast as ocean temperatures. One of the thousands of emails recently circulated by a whistleblower at the University of East Anglia, where one of the world’s four global-temperature datasets is compiled, reveals that data were altered so as to prevent a recent decline in temperature from showing in the record. In fact, there has been no statistically significant “global warming” for 15 years — and there has been rapid and significant cooling for nine years.
Worse, these arrogant fraudsters — for fraudsters are what we now know them to be — have refused, for years and years and years, to reveal their data and their computer program listings. Now we know why: As a revealing 15,000-line document from the computer division at the Climate Research Unit shows, the programs and data are a hopeless, tangled mess. In effect, the global temperature trends have simply been made up. Unfortunately, the British researchers have been acting closely in league with their U.S. counterparts who compile the other terrestrial temperature dataset — the GISS/NCDC dataset. That dataset too contains numerous biases intended artificially to inflate the natural warming of the 20th century.
Finally, these huckstering snake-oil salesmen and “global warming” profiteers — for that is what they are — have written to each other encouraging the destruction of data that had been lawfully requested under the Freedom of Information Act in the UK by scientists who wanted to check whether their global temperature record had been properly compiled. And that procurement of data destruction, as they are about to find out to their cost, is a criminal offense. They are not merely bad scientists — they are crooks. And crooks who have perpetrated their crimes at the expense of British and U.S. taxpayers.
I am angry, and so should you be...more here...
...and news from the US based Competitive Enerprise Institute, a lawsuit pending against NASA GISS (Goddard Institute of Space Studies)...more here...
...and this little titbit re President Obama and the US Freedom of Information Act...On his first full day in office, January 21, 2009, President Obama issued a memorandum to the heads of all departments and agencies on the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The President directed that FOIA “should be administered with a clear presumption: In the face of doubt, openness prevails.” Moreover, the President instructed agencies that information should not be withheld merely because “public officials might be embarrassed by disclosure, because errors and failures might be revealed, or because of speculative or abstract fears.”
...and to top it off, this from George (Moonbeam) Monbiot of the UK Guardian...It's no use pretending this isn't a major blow... I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken by them....there are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad. There appears to be evidence here of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a freedom of information request.
Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the IPCC... I believe that the head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.
...and for some light relief, brought to you by Minessotans for Global Warming, and sung to the tune of Draggin the Line, Hide the Decline...here...
Tuesday, 24 November 2009
Monday, 23 November 2009
John Christy, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville who was attacked in the emails, said, "It's disconcerting to realize that legislative actions this nation is preparing to take, and which will cost trillions of dollars, are based upon a view of climate that has not been completely scientifically tested -- but rather orchestrated."
Some commentators even think this is the beginning of the end for the IPCC. I doubt it.
The scientists at the center of this row are defending themselves. Phil Jones has claimed that some of the more alarming statements in his e-mails have been taken out of context. The semi-official response from RealClimate.org, a website whose roots can be traced to George Soros (which I’m sure is irrelevant), claims the whole episode is much ado about nothing.
At a minimum, some of these e-mails reveal an undercurrent of elitism that many of us have always claimed existed in the IPCC. These scientists look upon us skeptics with scorn. It is well known that the IPCC machine is made up of bureaucrats and scientists who think they know how the world should be run. The language contained in a draft of the latest climate treaty (meant to replace the Kyoto treaty) involves global governance and the most authoritarian means by which people’s energy use will be restricted and monitored by the government...more from Roy W. Spencer here...
...AND, o/t but the Hadron Collider is back in action...
Sunday, 22 November 2009
Saturday, 21 November 2009
The Wall St. Journal...
The NY Times...
...from Michelle Malkin... The global warming scandal of the century...
...from Pajamas Media...But then, the whole package is very large — 63 megabytes — and seems to be very internally consistent. Several people have already corroborated a number of the emails as being ones they wrote or received. The package also includes substantial data and computer programs, which are being explored as this is being written.
The best we can say right now is that we should keep our eyes on this. If these files are eventually corroborated and verified, it is a bombshell indeed — evidence that there has been a literal conspiracy to push the anthropogenic climate change agenda far beyond the science.
It will mean the end of some scientific careers, and it might even mean those careers will end in jail.
...and a little bit of levity, with compliments to Neil, posting at WuWT...all together now...
...In preparing cases for court I look at reams of documents each working week and I must say that there are only a few documents that resemble a smoking gun. The most significant scientifically is the one which says “we are nowhere close to knowing where energy is going”. This blasts a big hole in any statement that CO2 is CAUSING anything, and leaves the alarmists with mere correlation at best. Without a causal relationship they have proven nothing other than a need for more research. Collectively, however, the documents show a pattern that, far from testing their hypotheses, these people are actively seeking to overcome each and every inconvenient fact in their quest to manufacture an unequivocal outcome. In the process they add layers of assumption onto layers of assumption and create a veritable house of cards. The IPCC report in the end became so elaborate and flimsy that Kevin Rudd’s spin squad would be proud...more here...
Friday, 20 November 2009
...from WuWT...Breaking News Story: Hadley CRU has apparently been hacked – hundreds of files released The details on this are still sketchy, we’ll probably never know what went on. But it appears that Hadley Climate Research Unit has been hacked and many many files have been released by the hacker or person unknown...but here is what I know so far: An unknown person put postings on some climate skeptic websites that advertsied (sic) an FTP file on a Russian FTP server, here is the message that was placed on the Air Vent today:
We feel that climate science is, in the current situation, tooThe file was large, about 61 megabytes, containing hundreds of files. It contained data, code, and emails from Phil Jones at CRU to and from many people. I’ve seen the file, it appears to be genuine and from CRU. Others who have seen it concur- it appears genuine. There are so many files it appears unlikely that it is a hoax. The effort would be too great. Here is (sic)some of the emails just posted at Climate Audit on this thread:
tobe kept under wraps.
We hereby release a random selection of
correspondence, code, and documents...
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=7801#comments I’ve redacted email addresses and direct phone numbers for the moment. The emails all have US public universities in the email addresses, making them public/FOIA actionable I believe.
From: Phil JonesTo: email@example.comSubject: Fwd: John L. Daly deadDate: Thu Jan 29 14:17:01 2004
From: Timo H‰merantaTo:Subject: John L. Daly deadDate: Thu, 29 Jan 2004 12:04:28 +0200X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4510Importance: Normal
Mike,In an odd way this is cheering news ! One other thing about the CC paper – just foundanother email – is that McKittrick says it is standard practice in Econometrics journalsto give all the data and codes !! According to legal advice IPR overrides this.
“It is with deep sadness that the Daly Family have to announce the sudden death of JohnDaly.Condolences may be sent to John’s email account (firstname.lastname@example.org)“Reported with great sadness
Timo H‰meranta, LL.M.Moderator, ClimatescepticsMartinlaaksontie 42 B 901620 VantaaFinland, Member State of the European Union
Moderator: email@example.comPrivate: firstname.lastname@example.org
Home page: personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate.htm
Moderator of the discussion group “Sceptical Climate Science”groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics
“To dwell only on horror scenarios of the futureshows only a lack of imagination”. (Kari Enqvist)
“If the facts change, I’ll change my opinion.What do you do, Sir” (John Maynard Keynes)
Prof. Phil JonesClimatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0)xxxxxxSchool of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxxxxUniversity of East AngliaNorwich Email email@example.comNR4 7TJUK—————————————————————————-
1. http://personal.inet.fi/koti/hameranta/climate.htm2. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/climatesceptics
From: Phil JonesTo: ray bradley ,firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.comSubject: Diagram for WMO StatementDate: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 13:31:15 +0000Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org,email@example.com
Dear Ray, Mike and Malcolm,Once Tim’s got a diagram here we’ll send that either later today orfirst thing tomorrow.I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd (sic) from1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline. Mike’s series got the annualland and marine values while the other two got April-Sept for NH landN of 20N. The latter two are real for 1999, while the estimate for 1999for NH combined is +0.44C wrt 61-90. The Global estimate for 1999 withdata through Oct is +0.35C cf. 0.57 for 1998.Thanks for the comments, Ray.
Prof. Phil JonesClimatic Research Unit Telephone +44 (0) xxxxxSchool of Environmental Sciences Fax +44 (0) xxxxUniversity of East AngliaNorwich Email firstname.lastname@example.orgNR4 7TJUK
From: Jonathan OverpeckTo: “Michael E. Mann”Subject: letter to SenateDate: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 16:49:31 -0700Cc: Caspar M Ammann , Raymond Bradley , Keith Briffa , Tom Crowley , Malcolm Hughes , Phil Jones , email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, Tim Osborn , Kevin Trenberth , Tom Wigley
Hi all – I’m not too comfortable with this, and would rather not sign – at least notwithout some real time to think it through and debate the issue. It is unprecedented andpolitical, and that worries me.
My vote would be that we don’t do this without a careful discussion first.
I think it would be more appropriate for the AGU or some other scientific org to do this -e.g., in reaffirmation of the AGU statement (or whatever it’s called) on global climatechange.
Think about the next step – someone sends another letter to the Senators, then we respond,then…
I’m not sure we want to go down this path. It would be much better for the AGU etc to doit.
What are the precedents and outcomes of similar actions? I can imagine a special-interestorg or group doing this like all sorts of other political actions, but is it something forscientists to do as individuals?
Just seems strange, and for that reason I’d advise against doing anything with out realthought, and certainly a strong majority of co-authors in support.
Dear fellow Eos co-authors,Given the continued assault on the science of climate change by some on Capitol Hill,Michael and I thought it would be worthwhile to send this letter to various members ofthe U.S. Senate, accompanied by a copy of our Eos article.Can we ask you to consider signing on with Michael and me (providing your preferredtitle and affiliation). We would like to get this out ASAP.Thanks in advance,Michael M and Michael O
______________________________________________________________Professor Michael E. MannDepartment of Environmental Sciences, Clark HallUniversity of VirginiaCharlottesville, VA 22903_______________________________________________________________________e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Phone: (434) 924-7770 FAX: (434) xxx-xxxxxhttp://www.evsc.virginia.edu/faculty/people/mann.shtml
Attachment converted: Macintosh HD:EOS.senate letter-final.doc (WDBN/MSWD) (00055FCF)
Jonathan T. OverpeckDirector, Institute for the Study of Planet EarthProfessor, Department of GeosciencesMail and Fedex Address:Institute for the Study of Planet Earth715 N. Park Ave. 2nd FloorUniversity of ArizonaTucson, AZ 85721direct tel: +xxxxfax: +1 520 792-8795http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Faculty_Pages/Overpeck.J.html http://www.ispe.arizona.edu/
...It appears that the proverbial Climate Science Cat is out of the bag.
Developing story – more later...
Thursday, 19 November 2009
Wednesday, 18 November 2009
“Where do you go after ‘unequivocal’?” asks Roger Pielke Jr., a science policy scholar at the University of Colorado, a reference to the measure of certainty the IPCC applied to its core findings in its 2007 report. By sounding the alarm too loudly, Pielke and others say, climate change campaigners could be causing the public to tune them out or could even provoke a backlash. Indeed, where do you go? Like a compulsive gambler doubling down on a bad hand, the climate change extremists continue to bet on their visions of pending disaster. It looks like the IPCC, the UN agency that cried “wolf” over climate change, is about to discover the consequences trying to deceive the world...more here...
Tuesday, 17 November 2009
So if time is running out, it would seem hard to overstate the importance of running interference and generally throwing spanners into the works for as long as possible. To prevent the latest transnational 'tranzi' red-wrapped-in-green statist power ploys, friends of liberty need to do whatever they can to 'run out the clock' and then encourage as much international political recrimination post-failure as possible, in order to keep the ball out of play for as long as possible. I think it is time to suggest creative but practical ways to help sow discord and disunity amongst the predatory political elites (and their supporters) of the various countries seeking to extend ever more control over their national subjects under the cloak of green politics.
Certainly if overtly totalitarian measures like carbon rationing are ever brought in, truly the time for unambiguous direct resistance to the state will have arrived, so preventing things getting to that stage is more than a little important...
Monday, 16 November 2009
...and that my friends is very nearly that. What will it take to awaken the sense of urgency and panic over climate change again ? Green left activists who have bet their political credibility on climatastrophe must be having many sleepless nights, and their compliant scientist friends will be similarly aware of their own credibility problems together with the knowledge that their gravy train is coming off its rails.
As a sign of the times our local NZ Herald graciously allowed warming sceptic Chris de Freitas space for rebuttal of its recent alarmist article, here... and the best news of all this weekend from Wellington's "cake tin", NZ qualifies for the World Cup ! Mark Paston (right) man of the match...more here...c'mon the lads !
Friday, 13 November 2009
Although the Senate Environment Committee last week approved a version of the bill, the proposal will face strong revisions from moderate Democrats, particularly from senators on the Finance and Agriculture committees.
“It’s common understanding that climate-change legislation will not be brought up on the Senate floor and pass the Senate this year,” Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus said on the sidelines of a caucus lunch...more here... AND from comments...
...and of course, next year is election year and with unemployment likely headed to 12% and the Republicans surging in the polls, there is no way that any of the moderate dems touch these... this will not even be voted on, much less passed, and the next Congress is going to be much more conservative than this one. The passage of Waxman-Markey in the House now looks like it is going to be the high-water mark of the warmist crusade – it looks to be all downhill from there for the movement. Let it stand as a monument to hubris for all time. There are a lot of fascinating domino’s that are going to fall as a result of this failure in the Senate:
1) The Senate will not pass this bill – not this year, not next year, not ever.It would be political suicide, and they know it.
2) cap and trade will thus never be implemented in the United States.
3) Copenhagen, already set to fall apart, fades into insignificance as it becomes clear that the US, India, and China all refuse to adopt any kind of mandatory limits on their economic outputs.
4) Other, smaller countries such as Australia will abandon their efforts because it will be futile to restrict their economies when none of the largest economies are going to reciprocate...
5) some kind of voluntary agreement will be negotiated, (but)
6) all voluntary agreements will fail to be implemented, because they will merely be political lip service to an idea whose time has passed. So pay no attention to them when they occur, they will all be nonsense.
7) Eventually even scientists will give up the cause, as it become clear that there will be no great money or power flowing from supporting it.
8) within a decade or two, Warmism will be looked at like Phrenology, as a great pseudo-scientific delusion that was overthrown by events.
How could they do this ? Don't they know we'll all fry if Copenhagen doesn't result in a comprehensive agreement to roll back capitalism ? Or at least cripple the domestic economies of the developed world for 20 years ? WTF are they thinking of ?
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero...
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
May Day began as a holiday for socialists and labor union activists, not just communists. But over time, the date was taken over by the Soviet Union and other communist regimes and used as a propaganda tool to prop up their regimes. I suggest that we instead use it as a day to commemorate those regimes' millions of victims. The authoritative Black Book of Communism estimates the total at 80 to 100 million dead, greater than that caused by all other twentieth century tyrannies combined. We appropriately have a Holocaust Memorial Day. It is equally appropriate to commemorate the victims of the twentieth century's other great totalitarian tyranny. And May Day is the most fitting day to do so. I suggest that May Day be turned into Victims of Communism Day. I am, of course, open to suggestions for the official name of this day of commemoration. Maybe someone will come up with a better one than I have.
The main alternative to May 1 is November 7, the anniversary of the communist coup in Russia. However, choosing that date might be interpreted as focusing exclusively on the Soviet Union, while ignoring the equally horrendous communist mass murders in China, Camobodia, and elsewhere. So May 1 is the best choice.
UPDATE: I don't claim that this idea is original, as I suspect that it has been suggested before. But whether original or not, I think it should be pursued, perhaps in conjunction with the opening of the Victims of Communism Memorial, scheduled for June 12... more here...
...Connecting the dots: Tax returns show anti-government extremist carefully itemized deductions
Like many Town Hall protesters, Hassan motivated by rage, pattern baldness
Phone records: suspect tried to join Hair Club for Men
Tearful Pelosi pushes Congress for new Tea Party regulations: "our lives are at stake" ...more here...
Monday, 9 November 2009
In a stunning article entitled “Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions,” a group of researchers from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Columbia University in New York, led by Drew T. Shindell, have called into question the values used to calculate the “forcing” due to various greenhouse gases...more from The Resilient Earth here... shouldn't the public be told of this ? After all we/they are expected to pay for the green left warming fantasy...
...and from George Will writing in the Washington Post...Intelligent people agree that, absent immediate radical action regarding global warming, the human race is sunk. That is a tautology because those who do not agree are, definitionally, unintelligent. Britain's intelligent Prime Minister Gordon Brown gives scary precision to the word “immediate.” By his reckoning, humanity now has about 30 days to save itself. He says that unless a decisive agreement is reached at the 192-nation summit on climate change that opens Dec. 7 in Copenhagen, all is lost.
So, all is lost. The chances of a comprehensive and binding treaty are approximately nil...more...
Friday, 6 November 2009
This is it. You have found it. This is CERN, the European Organisation for Nuclear Research. Over the next few days the people who run the place will cautiously restart the immensely large machine (almost 27 kilometres around) known as the Large Hadron Collider and begin swooshing particles around it in a way that will, when it is fully humming, recreate conditions as they were in the Universe one millionth of a millionth of a second after the beginning of the big bang...more from the London Times here...and click here to see a PDF graphic of the LHC...
I had the honor to speak with nearly a dozen families of Marines killed in Iraq and Afghanistan a few years ago as part of a project with the Military Times newspapers. We wrote a wide-ranging investigative piece on the conduct of the services during the killed-in-action notification process and the support they provided along the way.
It was an intimidating assignment, but one I cherish to this day. For, unlike Dowd, who I doubt has ever spoken with the family of a fallen servicemember, I was forced to confront the world I obliquely reported from afar — to hear the quavering voices of mothers whose sons had been obliterated by roadside bombs.
And you know who else did that very same thing dozens of times in his eight years as president? The same man Dowd falsely accuses of declining to confront the reality of his war dead.
In my conversations with those who sacrificed a son, a husband, a brother, or a boyfriend, all were universally grateful for George W. Bush’s sincere — and private — conversations with them either before or directly after an event or speech at a military base. As a routine, Bush would meet behind closed doors with family members who’d lost loved ones as part of his stop at military installations.
These were not simply pro-war, anti-war, pro-Bush or anti-Bush families — they were all of the above. Some were against the Iraq war; others were steadfast, despite their unimaginable sacrifice, for victory there. But to a man and women, these grieving Americans appreciated the president’s heartfelt compassion and deep understanding of their sacrifice — and of the weight of the decision to send potentially more of America’s young to their deaths.
Wednesday, 4 November 2009
...and from the UK Economist, courtesy PKH, a retired professor of physics writes...
...Indur Goklany questioned whether global warming has caused an increase in droughts and floods... Letters, October 10th. In fact, the answer is already well settled. That question was examined thoroughly by the Intergovernmental Panel on ClimateChange. In its 2001 report, one chapter, titled "Has climate variability, or have climate extremes, changed?", concluded that there was no discernible increase in storms, hurricanes, floods or droughts. A re-examination of that issue therefore seemed unnecessary in the IPCC's 2007 report. Concerning rising sea levels, this is a more complex issue since a natural increase of 1-2mm a year has been occurring for many centuries. However,over the past few decades no anthropogenic signal in sea-level changes has been detected. This is firmly backed up by precise satellite altimetry. Meanwhile it was just last month that Professor Mojib Latif of the University of Kiel in Germany, a renowned climate expert and IPCC author, presented his latest work at the World Climate Conference in Geneva. His findings show that the mean global temperature has actually declined since 2001. Moreover, his computer models predict a further temperature drop over the coming decades. All of this beckons the question: just where are the supposedly detrimental effects of anthropogenic CO2?
Tuesday, 3 November 2009
...AND speaking of Al Gore...according to Andrew Bolt ...This is big. Al Gore is now saying carbon dioxide isn’t actually to blame for most of the warming we saw until 2001: Gore explored new studies - published only last week - that show methane and black carbon or soot had a far greater impact on global warming than previously thought. Carbon dioxide – while the focus of the politics of climate change – produces around 40% of the actual warming. Gore acknowledged to Newsweek that the findings could complicate efforts to build a political consensus around the need to limit carbon emissions. Which suggests not only that Gore was wrong to claim the science was “settled”, but that the hugely expensive schemes to “stop” warming by slashing carbon dixoide emissions will be less than half as effective as claimed...more here...
...now what does all this suggest to you ? To me it seems clear that there is a call for some serious repositioning among the warming hysterics, and to get the most "progressive" deal from Copenhagen some uncomfortable backdowns will have to be made. Perhaps Al should acknowledge for starters that An Inconvenient Truth was BS propaganda of the worst order. Any other suggestions ?
...and, as you know, there's a big one in Scunthorpe, but an even bigger one in Ethiopia...