2008 was the year man-made global warming was disproved
By Christopher Booker Last Updated: 4:28PM GMT 31 Dec 2008
Looking back over my columns of the past 12 months, one of their major themes was neatly encapsulated by two recent items from The Daily Telegraph.
The first, on May 21, headed "Climate change threat to Alpine ski resorts" , reported that the entire Alpine "winter sports industry" could soon "grind to a halt for lack of snow". The second, on December 19, headed "The Alps have best snow conditions in a generation" , reported that this winter's Alpine snowfalls "look set to beat all records by New Year's Day".
Easily one of the most important stories of 2008 has been all the evidence suggesting that this may be looked back on as the year when there was a turning point in the great worldwide panic over man-made global warming. Just when politicians in Europe and America have been adopting the most costly and damaging measures politicians have ever proposed, to combat this supposed menace, the tide has turned in three significant respects.
First, all over the world, temperatures have been dropping in a way wholly unpredicted by all those computer models which have been used as the main drivers of the scare. Last winter, as temperatures plummeted, many parts of the world had snowfalls on a scale not seen for decades. This winter, with the whole of Canada and half the US under snow, looks likely to be even worse. After several years flatlining, global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century.
Ever shriller and more frantic has become the insistence of the warmists, cheered on by their army of media groupies such as the BBC, that the last 10 years have been the "hottest in history" and that the North Pole would soon be ice-free – as the poles remain defiantly icebound and those polar bears fail to drown. All those hysterical predictions that we are seeing more droughts and hurricanes than ever before have infuriatingly failed to materialise.
Even the more cautious scientific acolytes of the official orthodoxy now admit that, thanks to "natural factors" such as ocean currents, temperatures have failed to rise as predicted (although they plaintively assure us that this cooling effect is merely "masking the underlying warming trend", and that the temperature rise will resume worse than ever by the middle of the next decade).
Secondly, 2008 was the year when any pretence that there was a "scientific consensus" in favour of man-made global warming collapsed. At long last, as in the Manhattan Declaration last March, hundreds of proper scientists, including many of the world's most eminent climate experts, have been rallying to pour scorn on that "consensus" which was only a politically engineered artefact, based on ever more blatantly manipulated data and computer models programmed to produce no more than convenient fictions.
Thirdly, as banks collapsed and the global economy plunged into its worst recession for decades, harsh reality at last began to break in on those self-deluding dreams which have for so long possessed almost every politician in the western world. As we saw in this month's Poznan conference, when 10,000 politicians, officials and "environmentalists" gathered to plan next year's "son of Kyoto" treaty in Copenhagen, panicking politicians are waking up to the fact that the world can no longer afford all those quixotic schemes for "combating climate change" with which they were so happy to indulge themselves in more comfortable times.
Suddenly it has become rather less appealing that we should divert trillions of dollars, pounds and euros into the fantasy that we could reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by 80 per cent. All those grandiose projects for "emissions trading", "carbon capture", building tens of thousands more useless wind turbines, switching vast areas of farmland from producing food to "biofuels", are being exposed as no more than enormously damaging and futile gestures, costing astronomic sums we no longer possess.
As 2009 dawns, it is time we in Britain faced up to the genuine crisis now fast approaching from the fact that – unless we get on very soon with building enough proper power stations to fill our looming "energy gap" - within a few years our lights will go out and what remains of our economy will judder to a halt. After years of infantile displacement activity, it is high time our politicians – along with those of the EU and President Obama's US – were brought back with a mighty jolt into contact with the real world.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon Feb 16, 2009 7:12 pm Post subject:
Item7, have you noticed a pattern at all to your previous posts?
In case you haven't, it is that they consist of nothing but a bunch of unfounded claims by mouthpieces for hire for the benefit of industry.
John Coleman, a TV weatherman since leaving college and latterly founder of the Weather Channel is not a climate scientist, just like someone who eats a lot isn't an expert on either cooking or food technology.
Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt is a geologist and Republican candidate and neither is he a climate scientist. He does accept invitations to speak at events by the Heartland Institute (the name alone should sound warning bells) a "Chicago based think tank promoting public policy based on individual liberty, limited government, and free markets".
No surprises there.
Christopher Booker is a journalist and buffoon who is also not a climate scientist (and who also claims asbestos is as harmless as talc due to the chemical formula being similar (if you squint and know f *ck all about chemistry).
All of them make grandiose claims with no data whatsoever to validate those claims. Your one exception is Augie Auer who though confusing the properties and effect of one substance does use a relevant figure, but underestimates it by 90% to come to his conclusion (you have looked into it enough to know which figure I'm talking about, right)?
No doubt you can find dozens of similar claims and statements to continue putting up - the industrialists can afford whole armies of hacks to speak up for their interests. That's their job - to create the impression of 'reasonable doubt' and paralyse the political process that will lead to the curtailing of their current laissez faire cost-dodging business model.
The question is who apart, evidently from yourself, do you think their transparent flummery convinces? _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
New World Order Desperation: Global Cooling Is Global Warming, Low Water Is High Water!
Posted by Anders under English, Euromed
Maintaining the climate lie is all-important to the New World Order (see videos on the right margin of this blog) – for there is a lot of money for them to take away from us in it – and it is a potent means of scaremongering to chase us into claiming their corporate world governance/government predicted by the Financial Times, as well.
It loathes me to bring all these climate posts – but here is a documentation of the New World Order´s blatant deceit. It is not quite so easy to demonstrate in its other fields of action. And after Poznan and an EU summit ending with the lowest common denominators it is necessary once again, unfortunately.
Arktis-16.12.2008In June of this year the National Geographic predicted that the North Pole would be ice-free last summer – a statement widely believed. A lie of course.
Worse still, the nearly US-monopolistic AP reports that global cooling is due to global warming. “Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it.
As shown by these satellite photos ice and snow of the North Pole is definitely not decreasing over the last 28 years – on the contrary (The Cryosphere Today).
“The time for denial is over,” he said on Tuesday after meeting with former Vice President Al Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming. “We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years now that this is a matter of urgency and national security and it has to be dealt with in a serious way.”
Arktis-1.-juli-2008Scientists fear that what’s happening with Arctic ice melt will be amplified so that ominous sea level rise will occur sooner than they expected. They predict Arctic waters could be ice-free in summers, perhaps by 2013.
As shown by these summer satellite photos the melt of the North Pole ice cap since 1980 is minimal – and certainly does not allow free sailing across the North Pole. What they forget to tell us is, that what has melted from the North Pole has been bound at the South Pole ice cap which has increased correspondingly – and is therefore rarely shown on satellite photos!! But here is a Fox-interview video featuring James Taylor of the Heartland Institute. He shows how the Antarctic ice cap has reached a historically large expansion – and a NASA report showing that the Arctic ice cap is being broken up by winds having nothing to do with global warming. He is being insolently interrupted –not allowed to speak freely about this decisive, but heretical information.
Let us not forget that Mr. Climate, Al Gore, has the word of a British Court of Justice that his propaganda film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize, contains at least 11 falsities about the climate.
And the Nobel referees knew!
However, the CNN on Dec. 17, 2008 – founded by CFR-member Ted Turner – makes the situation even worse: Between 1.5 trillion and 2 trillion tons of ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska has melted at an accelerating rate since 2003, according to NASA scientists, in the latest signs of what they say is global warming.
“The best estimates are that sea levels will rise about 18 to 36 inches by the end of the century, but because of what’s going on and how fast things are changing, there’s a lot of uncertainty.”
Nuuk-temperaturerMother Nature, of course, is oblivious to the federal government’s machinations. Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line. La Nina, “experts” say.Left: Greenland´s temperatures according to NASA. Temperatures as in 1920! Here is no man-made temperature to increase polar ice cap melting.Oceanographer Gary Mitchum of the University of South Florida, says making any judgement from the limited data available is “statistically so uncertain as to be meaningless.The sea level has been constantly rising since the latest ice age - but now less and less: According to the Daily Tech, Dec. 15, 2008, a study by TOPEX/Poseidon was launched by NASA in 1992, and collected data until 2005. “In 2001, NASA and France’s Centre National d’Études Spatiales (CNES) launched its follow-up mission, Jason-1. The study shows that the increase in sea level has diminished from 3 to 2 mm a year since 2005 – in spite of increasing CO2.”
Astonishingly, the Council on Foreign Relations brings a notice on the more than 650 scientists who in a US Senate report debunk the lie of man-made climate change, even writing:“The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.”
There is no consensus on man-made climate change any more – there never was in spite of politicians postulating the opposite to me.
I just want to quote 5 of the 650 scientists of the US Senate Report
“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
New World Order Desperation: Global Cooling Is Global Warming, Low Water Is High Water!
Posted by Anders under English, Euromed
Maintaining the climate lie is all-important to the New World Order (see videos on the right margin of this blog) – for there is a lot of money for them to take away from us in it – and it is a potent means of scaremongering to chase us into claiming their corporate world governance/government predicted by the Financial Times, as well.
It loathes me to bring all these climate posts – but here is a documentation of the New World Order´s blatant deceit. It is not quite so easy to demonstrate in its other fields of action. And after Poznan and an EU summit ending with the lowest common denominators it is necessary once again, unfortunately.
This is the first fallacy. If the NWO means anything, it means the Owners of Production and it is they (and their surrogates) at every turn who dispute that their activities have any effect on the atmosphere. To attempt to do a switcheroo and claim the polar opposite is to claim that we have always been at war with Eastasia.
Quote:
Arktis-16.12.2008In June of this year the National Geographic predicted that the North Pole would be ice-free last summer – a statement widely believed. A lie of course. Worse still, the nearly US-monopolistic AP reports that global cooling is due to global warming. “Time is close to running out, and Obama knows it.
As shown by these satellite photos ice and snow of the North Pole is definitely not decreasing over the last 28 years – on the contrary (The Cryosphere Today).
“The time for denial is over,” he said on Tuesday after meeting with former Vice President Al Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work on global warming. “We all believe what the scientists have been telling us for years now that this is a matter of urgency and national security and it has to be dealt with in a serious way.”
Arktis-1.-juli-2008Scientists fear that what’s happening with Arctic ice melt will be amplified so that ominous sea level rise will occur sooner than they expected. They predict Arctic waters could be ice-free in summers, perhaps by 2013.
As shown by these summer satellite photos the melt of the North Pole ice cap since 1980 is minimal – and certainly does not allow free sailing across the North Pole. What they forget to tell us is, that what has melted from the North Pole has been bound at the South Pole ice cap which has increased correspondingly – and is therefore rarely shown on satellite photos!! But here is a Fox-interview video featuring James Taylor of the Heartland Institute. He shows how the Antarctic ice cap has reached a historically large expansion – and a NASA report showing that the Arctic ice cap is being broken up by winds having nothing to do with global warming. He is being insolently interrupted –not allowed to speak freely about this decisive, but heretical information.
You again bring the old Exxon Oil funded Heartland Institute to the table as if they have some credibility other than a pressure group for Big Oil. Then there is a second fallacy that all predictions about unknown conditions should be true. The reason the comparisons are flawed is because they in essence compare long term climate change (climatology)to short term weather variability (meteorology). It is entirely possible as anyone familiar with using graphs will know to show decreasing temperature points for some years while maintaining an upward trend. Short period analysis is as meaningless in terms of long term trend as claiming a couple of sunny days in January proves winter days aren't short, dark and cold.
Quote:
Let us not forget that Mr. Climate, Al Gore, has the word of a British Court of Justice that his propaganda film, “An Inconvenient Truth”, for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize, contains at least 11 falsities about the climate.
And the Nobel referees knew!
Oh dear - not true. The High Court rejected a lawsuit by right wing political activist Stuart Dimmock to stop the distribution of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth to British schools based on what Dimmock claimed were "errors", not "falsities". Justice Burton agreed that "Al Gore's presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change in the film was broadly accurate." The judgement itself can be read here:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2007/2288.html
and a fuller rebuttal of Dimmock's fraudulent claims can be read at:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/10/an_error_is_not_the_same_thing .php
Quote:
However, the CNN on Dec. 17, 2008 – founded by CFR-member Ted Turner – makes the situation even worse: Between 1.5 trillion and 2 trillion tons of ice in Greenland, Antarctica and Alaska has melted at an accelerating rate since 2003, according to NASA scientists, in the latest signs of what they say is global warming.
“The best estimates are that sea levels will rise about 18 to 36 inches by the end of the century, but because of what’s going on and how fast things are changing, there’s a lot of uncertainty.”
Nuuk-temperaturerMother Nature, of course, is oblivious to the federal government’s machinations. Ironically, 2008 is on pace to be a slightly cooler year in a steadily rising temperature trend line. La Nina, “experts” say.Left: Greenland´s temperatures according to NASA. Temperatures as in 1920! Here is no man-made temperature to increase polar ice cap melting.Oceanographer Gary Mitchum of the University of South Florida, says making any judgement from the limited data available is “statistically so uncertain as to be meaningless.The sea level has been constantly rising since the latest ice age - but now less and less: According to the Daily Tech, Dec. 15, 2008, a study by TOPEX/Poseidon was launched by NASA in 1992, and collected data until 2005. “In 2001, NASA and France’s Centre National d’Études Spatiales (CNES) launched its follow-up mission, Jason-1. The study shows that the increase in sea level has diminished from 3 to 2 mm a year since 2005 – in spite of increasing CO2.”
I can only presume you're 'avin' a larf here. Only 2mm instead of 3mm. How reassuring!
You could also take note again of the inadvisability of confusing short term
measurements with long term trends.
Quote:
Astonishingly, the Council on Foreign Relations brings a notice on the more than 650 scientists who in a US Senate report debunk the lie of man-made climate change, even writing:“The over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.”
There is no consensus on man-made climate change any more – there never was in spite of politicians postulating the opposite to me.
Oooh - 650 is a big impressive figure. Obviously the biggest gang must be right!
Only when you look, they actually disagree on individual points of data interpretation.
I can't seem to find any actual group paper that challenges the IPCC at all.
Maybe you know of one, or maybe you just think having a big gang is convincing enough.
In which case how about the statement by the American Geophysical Union (est. 1919 with 45,000 members)
"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century."
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml
Quote:
I just want to quote 5 of the 650 scientists of the US Senate Report “Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.” – . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
As covered in a previous post regarding Augi Auer (which you also ignored) water vapour and CO2 affect different wavelengths of light. Period.
Quote:
Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history…When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.” - UN IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist.
A statement with no context or actual data is opinion and nothing more, no matter how dramatic sounding.
Quote:
“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds… I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists,” - Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the UN-supported International Year of the Planet.
And again, another opinion unencumbered by any data.
Quote:
“Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense…The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning.” - Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
... and another opinion.
Quote:
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.” - U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA.
... and again, another statement of opinion (with some sour sounding grapes thrown in).
From all of which so far I can only conclude that you are willing to buy what you want to hear regardless of who's selling it.
As an addendum, you can be sure that the 'haves' and the 'have mores' will be doing their utmost to preserve the level of luxury to which they have become accustomed and no doubt think they're entitled to. It's possible that the unprecedented levels of global wealth transfer currently in progress are to that end, at the expense of the 'have nots'.
That isn't a cue to go into courtiers-of-Canute-style denial that the climate change tide is coming in, but rather the time to get active about political change and at least attempting to effectively mitigate the effects on the little people. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Melanie Phillips might not be everyone's cup of tea (perhaps like viscount Monckton??) but here goes with the left wing loony take on The Great Scam anyway!
The British government's chief scientific adviser, Sir David King, has said that global warming is a more serious threat to the world than terrorism. His remarks are utter balderdash from start to finish and illustrate the truly lamentable decline of science into ideological propaganda.
Sir David says the Bush administration should not dismiss global warming because: 1) the ten hottest years on record started in 1991 2) sea levels are rising 3) ice caps are melting and 4) the 'causal link' between man-made emissions and global warming is well established.
Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. There is no such evidence. The whole thing is a global scam. There is no firm evidence that warming is happening; even if it is, it is most likely to have natural, not man-made causes; carbon dioxide, supposedly the culprit, makes up such a tiny fraction of the atmosphere that even if it were to quadruple, the effect on climate would be negligible; and just about every one of the eco-doomster stories that curdle our blood every five minutes is either speculative, ahistorical or scientifically illiterate.
To take a few examples from Sir David's litany.
1) Sea levels are rising. As this article explains, this claim is not the result of observable data. Like so much of the global warming industry, it is the result of frail computer modelling using dodgy or incomplete data. It is therefore not an observed value, but a wholly artificial model construct. Furthermore, the data fed into the computer is drawn from the atypical North Atlantic basin, ignoring the seas around Australia where levels have remained pretty static. And anyway, as this article explains, sea level rises have nothing to do with warmer climate. Sea levels rose during the last ice age. Warming can actually slow down sea level rise.
2) Ice caps are melting. Some are, some aren't. Some are breaking up, as is normal. But some are actually expanding, as in the Antarctic where the ice sheet is growing, as this article points out. The bit of the Antarctic that is breaking up, the Larsen ice-shelf, which has been causing foaming hysteria among eco-doomsters, won't increase sea levels because it has already displaced its own weight in the sea.
3) The hottest years on record started in 1991. Which records? The European climate in the Middle Ages was two degrees hotter than it is now. They grew vines in Northumberland, for heaven's sake. Then there was the Little Ice Age, which lasted until about 1880. So the 0.6% warming since then is part of a pretty normal pattern, and nothing for any normal person to get excited about.
4) The causal link is well established. Totally false. It is simply loudly asserted. Virtually all the scare stuff comes from computer modelling, which is simply inadequate to factor in all the -- literally-- millions of variables that make up climate change. If you put rubbish in, you get rubbish out.
That's why this week's earlier eco-scare story, that more than a million species will become extinct as a result of global warming over the next 50 years, is risible. All that means is that someone has put into the computer the global warming scenario, and the computer has calculated what would happen on the basis of that premise. But -duh! -the premise is totally unproven. The real scientific evidence is that -- we just don't know; and the theories so far, linking man, carbon dioxide and climate warming. are specious. There's some seriously bad science going on in the environmentalist camp.
After Kyoto, one of the most eminent scientists involved in the National Academy of Sciences study on climate change, Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT, blew the whistle on the politicised rubbish that was being spouted. Since his article was so significant, I reproduce it in full here:
'Last week the National Academy of Sciences released a report on climate change, prepared in response to a request from the White House, that was depicted in the press as an implicit endorsement of the Kyoto Protocol. CNN's Michelle Mitchell was typical of the coverage when she declared that the report represented "a unanimous decision that global warming is real, is getting worse, and is due to man. There is no wiggle room."
'As one of 11 scientists who prepared the report, I can state that this is simply untrue. For starters, the NAS never asks that all participants agree to all elements of a report, but rather that the report represent the span of views. This the full report did, making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them.
'As usual, far too much public attention was paid to the hastily prepared summary rather than to the body of the report. The summary began with a zinger--that greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise, etc., before following with the necessary qualifications. For example, the full text noted that 20 years was too short a period for estimating long-term trends, but the summary forgot to mention this.
'Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than it was a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, the most important being water vapor and clouds).
'But--and I cannot stress this enough--we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us almost nothing relevant to policy discussions.
'One reason for this uncertainty is that, as the report states, the climate is always changing; change is the norm. Two centuries ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from a little ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle Ages, the same region was in a warm period. Thirty years ago, we were concerned with global cooling.
'Distinguishing the small recent changes in global mean temperature from the natural variability, which is unknown, is not a trivial task. All attempts so far make the assumption that existing computer climate models simulate natural variability, but I doubt that anyone really believes this assumption.
'We simply do not know what relation, if any, exists between global climate changes and water vapor, clouds, storms, hurricanes, and other factors, including regional climate changes, which are generally much larger than global changes and not correlated with them. Nor do we know how to predict changes in greenhouse gases. This is because we cannot forecast economic and technological change over the next century, and also because there are many man-made substances whose properties and levels are not well known, but which could be comparable in importance to carbon dioxide.
'What we do is know that a doubling of carbon dioxide by itself would produce only a modest temperature increase of one degree Celsius. Larger projected increases depend on "amplification" of the carbon dioxide by more important, but poorly modeled, greenhouse gases, clouds and water vapor.
'The press has frequently tied the existence of climate change to a need for Kyoto. The NAS panel did not address this question. My own view, consistent with the panel's work, is that the Kyoto Protocol would not result in a substantial reduction in global warming. Given the difficulties in significantly limiting levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, a more effective policy might well focus on other greenhouse substances whose potential for reducing global warming in a short time may be greater.
'The panel was finally asked to evaluate the work of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, focusing on the Summary for Policymakers, the only part ever read or quoted. The Summary for Policymakers, which is seen as endorsing Kyoto, is commonly presented as the consensus of thousands of the world's foremost climate scientists. Within the confines of professional courtesy, the NAS panel essentially concluded that the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government.
'The full IPCC report is an admirable description of research activities in climate science, but it is not specifically directed at policy. The Summary for Policymakers is, but it is also a very different document. It represents a consensus of government representatives (many of whom are also their nations' Kyoto representatives), rather than of scientists. The resulting document has a strong tendency to disguise uncertainty, and conjures up some scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.
'Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. This is what has been done with both the reports of the IPCC and the NAS. It is a reprehensible practice that corrodes our ability to make rational decisions. A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty--far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge--and that the NAS report has hardly ended the debate. Nor was it meant to.'
As Professor Philip Stott wrote in the Wall Street Journal on April 2 2001:
'"Global warming" was invented in 1988, when it replaced two earlier myths of an imminent plunge into another Ice Age and the threat of a nuclear winter. The new myth was seen to encapsulate a whole range of other myths and attitudes that had developed in the 1960s and 1970s, including "limits to growth," sustainability, neo-Malthusian fears of a population time bomb, pollution, anticorporate anti-Americanism, and an Al Gore-like analysis of human greed disturbing the ecological harmony and balance of the earth.
'Initially, in Europe, the new myth was embraced by both right and left. The right was concerned with breaking the power of traditional trade unions, such as the coal miners -- the labor force behind a major source of carbon-dioxide emissions -- and promoting the development of nuclear power. Britain's Hadley Center for Climate Prediction and Research was established at the personal instigation of none other than Margaret Thatcher.
'The left, by contrast, was obsessed with population growth, industrialization, the car, development and globalization. Today, the narrative of global warming has evolved into an emblematic issue for authoritarian greens, who employ a form of language that has been characterized by the physicist P.H. Borcherds as "the hysterical subjunctive." And it is this grammatical imperative that is now dominating the European media when they complain about Mr. Bush, the U.S., and their willful denial of the true faith.'
There was a time (around the turn of the millennium) that I thought anyone who didn’t believe in Global warming was a deluded, oil-industry paid Charlie-ton! And, I had a point, because at that time the evidence was clearly showing a rise in temperature in the latter half of the 20th century and there were some people who simply would not admit that temperatures had risen and that there was reason to be concerned. But then again, there was a time when we all thought the world was going to end at midnight 31st December 1999, because what the experts told us was the "an impending disaster" known as the millennium bug. Strangely, the millennium bug never happened, and we all seem to have forgotten how close we were to the end of western civilisation!
Looking back now, it wasn’t just the “deniers” as the global warming brigade call them who were deluded, it was sensible, scientifically trained people like me who were wrong. My excuse? In life, even if you are a trained scientist, you simply cannot check every detail yourself and you have to judge arguments based on the authority and credibility of people presenting those arguments. Even someone trained in the most rigorous science (physics) like me has to rely on others and unfortunately, sometime we misjudge people.
My "tipping point"?
It happened when I tried to engage a group of these "climate experts" in a simple discussion. Working in the wind industry, I had met numerous of these so called experts at conferences and whilst some of what they said seemed a little over the top, the simple fact that temperatures had risen seemed to suggest there was a lot of truth in what they were saying. Moreover, I saw these people as "lovable underdogs" in a way seeing them as those eco-warriors "fighting the capitalist tyranny of the oil companies". When you see the "pro-warming" group as the honest underdog, and the anti-warming as being in the pay of the oil-lobbyists you tend to listen to those you think are "honest". Then through my interest in energy matters, I read that there wasn't enough oil and gas to cause global warming and try as I might I couldn't find any mention of this by the "pro-warming lobby", so I wanted to see how this fitted in with their calculations. It seemed an innocent question and fairly obvious that if CO2 causes temperature increase, and the amount of manmade CO2 is limited by the amount of fossil fuel, then there must be a physical limit to the amount of warming that is possible, and I simply wanted to know what the worse case scenario was if all the accessible fossil fuel was burnt.
What I didn't realise was, that this didn't fit in with the climatologists view of the world: it wasn't part of their calculations, it wasn't something they even considered. When they say "if we carry on burning fossil fuels", they didn't consider the possibility that fossil fuels might run out, they literally meant that there was no limit to available fossil fuels. As someone firmly convinced of global warming, it was very strange, to find myself being labelled a "denier" for simply stating the obvious: that there was a practical limit to the amount of fossil fuels and therefore there must be a limit to the amount of manmade global warming.
To cut a long story short, I finally came to my senses when I realised that I had met precisely the same people with the same attitudes at school - I began to realise these climatologists weren't using the normal rational arguments you expect of scientists, they never answered simple questions like "where is the proof that CO2 is causing global warming". They spouted facts and figures, dodged and dived, citing this authority and that, never really allowing themselves to be pinned down nor to answer the simple questions like "what happens when the oil runs out" .... imagine my horror, when it turned out these climatologists were same narrow minded, "born again Christians" who stubbornly refused to believe in evolution, that it took millions of years to create the Universe, or that Jesus might have been a human, the same people who frustratingly answered every question by asking one back.
Heresy
Basically, by daring to question whether global warming might have a "natural end" when fossil fuel runs out, I was committing a heresy! It turns out that Global warming is little more than another doomsday religion clothed in a thin veneer of science, and to even ask whether it may self-limit, undermines the basic tenant of this religion and so is heretical! And, as a heretic I had to be converted or ostracised. Slowly I realised, that far from the "pro global warming group", being a disorganised but well-being bunch of people trying against the odds to get their message across in the face of multi-national organisation hell bent on perverting the public perception, in fact if anything, the pro-lobby were a highly organised, ruthlessly efficient well-oiled publicity machine that was railroading their ideas based on only the flimsiest of evidence. And once I started asking myself "what exactly is the evidence to link CO2 with recent warming", I began finding that virtually nothing I had assumed to be scientifically "proven" about global warming was anything of the sort. In fact, the whole theory really boils down to nothing more that the coincidental change of two (probably) entirely unrelated variables: global temperature and CO2. The science linking the two was non-existent, no one had sat down in a lab and proved a link, it was all someone's opinion about this, someone's interpretation of that, and much of the interpretation was clearly questionable - I had been conned, and what is worse I had conning other people by suggesting a link between manmade CO2 and a recent rise in temperatures when no honest scientist could have stated a causal link!
The Con Trick
Many people are concerned by global warming, but try to argue about the "evidence". The fact is that science is on the side of the sceptic, it is not up to the sceptic to prove there is no link between CO2 and global warming, science requires those asserting a link to prove it. But global warming isn't like that you can't prove or disprove global warming, because global warming simply can't be pinned down, it can't be disproven, because it is fundamentally a scam. The scam behind global warming is one of the simplest cons known to mankind and to show you how it works, I will draw a parallel with fortune telling:
List of global warming activists, now skeptics Growing number of major scientific figures convert to skeptics after reviewing new research
Wednesday, May 16, 2007, By Marc Morano
Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure, there is a shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose the perceived alarmism of man-made global warming.
The media's climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics.
Once Believers, Now Skeptics
Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.” Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers” mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.”
Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.” A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel’s conversion while building his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures.” Wiskel now says “the truth has to start somewhere.” Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, “If this happened once and we were the cause of it, tha
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:06 pm Post subject:
When the time comes that Melanie Phillips is being proffered as support for a view on anything other than menopausal hysteria - which commenced when she was about 19 I believe - I think it's time for me to leave you to spam away.
Although "loony left" Mel was a good'un, I'll give you that. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Glimmer of hope for consensus climate honesty is short-lived
Paul MacRae, Canada Free Press, Mon, 16 Feb 2009 21:34 UTC
For one giddy, almost magical moment, I thought the "consensus" climate science community, or at least a small portion of it, had finally come to its senses. I should have known better.
The almost-magical moment came on reading a headline in the U.K. Guardian online. It read: "Scientists must rein in misleading climate change claims: Overplaying natural variations in the weather diverts attention from the real issues." The article was by Dr. Vicky Pope of the British Meteorological (Hadley) Centre, one of the four major centres monitoring climate.
Finally! I thought. The consensus climate scientists who believe, passionately but with almost no scientific evidence beyond computer models, that the planet is warming, that it's all humanity's fault, and that we're heading for oblivion, are willing to admit they've been wildly exaggerating the threat of warming to places like the Arctic.
Pope even seemed to agree, noting:
Recent headlines have proclaimed that Arctic summer sea ice has decreased so much in the past few years that it has reached a tipping point and will disappear very quickly. The truth is that there is little evidence to support this. Indeed, the record-breaking losses in the past couple of years could easily be due to natural fluctuations in the weather, with summer sea ice increasing again over the next few years.
But the giddiness quickly passed. The rest of Pope's article is just another consensus attempt to explain away its deplorable track record in predicting a great deal of warming when there is either very little or no warming at all (see Figure 1 and Is the Planet Still Warming?).
At best, Pope will only admit that "in the past 10 years the temperature rise has slowed," when in truth temperature rise hasn't "slowed" (see How the Hadley Centre Spins the Data on Non-Warming), it's stopped. The climate may even tip into cooling for the next decade or two or longer. But why quibble over facts?
Pope's target isn't global warming believers
Of course, Pope isn't criticizing those who believe the planet is inexorably warming due to human causes and use extreme warm weather events as proof. That's been OK with her up to now.
At least, I don't recall seeing an article from Pope complaining about, say, Eugene Linden's 2006 book The Winds of Change: Climate, Weather, and the Destruction of Civilizations, which ends with a chapter documenting extremely warm weather over the past few decades as evidence of human-caused global warming. For example, Linden writes on 2003: "Heat and drought in Europe so reduce the flow to the Rhine that shipping is interrupted" (p. 299). (In January 2009, by contrast, Europe experienced record cold weather that trapped ships in ice.)
Where was her attack on Ross Gelbspan's The Heat is On (1997), with its catalogue of extreme weather stories in the Introduction and first chapter? Or Lydia Dotto's 2000 book Storm Warming: Gambling with the Future of Our Planet? Its publisher, Random House, promotes the book with the following litany of weather events:
The Ice Storm of 1998. The flooding of Manitoba of 1997. Wherever you live, it's likely you've experienced some extreme weather lately. A recent report from the Red Cross stated that natural catastrophes in 1998 has wreaked the most havoc on record, and warned that a series of "super-disasters" could be imminent. What's behind all this stormy weather?
What's behind this stormy weather? Why, human-caused global warming, silly.
Global warming even blamed for Aussie plant growth
Perhaps Pope will write to chide Tim Flannery's latest alarmist diatribe, this one blaming global warming for Australia's disastrous fires ("A deadly reminder that we must tackle climate change," Sydney Morning Herald, Feb. 12, 2009). Indeed, an Australian reporter even suggested that "years of global warming and increased CO2 emissions have caused these trees to grow at an unprecedented rate, providing more fuel for these fires." Oh, evil global warming and carbon emissions that allow more vegetation to flourish.
Or, last but not least, when is Pope going to tackle Al Gore's wildly exaggerated accusation, from An Inconvenient Truth, that global warming is causing more hurricanes, including Katrina, and extreme weather in general? (Unfortunately for Gore, the people who actually track hurricanes say the number is, if anything, below average in the past decade. But, again, why quibble over facts?)
No, Pope's target isn't the anthropogenic global warming believers. Her target is, of course, those evil skeptics, makers of mischief who, perversely, play the same game as Gelbspan and Dotto and Gore. If the AGW believers can point to extreme warm weather as evidence of global warming, why can't skeptics point to the recent cooling weather as evidence of global cooling?
If warmers can cite extreme weather, why can't skeptics?
Pope only wants to rein in the consensus climate extremists because, in their claims that extreme warming weather equals a warmer (human-created) climate, they legitimize skeptical claims that perhaps today's cooling weather equals a cooling climate. If the planet is cooling, even temporarily, then human carbon emissions can't be a key factor, and we don't want people thinking that, do we?
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, after all. For warming believers, when it's warming that's climate, when it's cooling that's weather. Another version of this: If it's warming, that's human-caused; if it's cooling, that's natural variation. Why can't skeptics play the same game in reverse?
The AGW believers have a logically untenable position, as Pope clearly realizes, hence her suggestion that they cool their rhetoric to take the wind out of the skeptics' sails.
However, there's no danger of Pope admitting that the AGW hypothesis might be flawed even though, according to the hypothesis, the current cooling should not be happening (to avoid looking completely ridiculous, AGW believers now refer to "climate change" rather than "global warming"). Or, at least, none of the consensus climate models predicted this cooling although, ironically, the consensus models do predict cooling if human influence is removed (see Figure 2).
Maybe climate change is natural
Humans are continuing to put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, yet the planet is not warming and may even be cooling. If this is so, then logic suggests that perhaps humans aren't to blame for warming (or cooling) after all.
Maybe the planet just naturally warms and cools, as it has for hundreds of millions of years, as it has for the past two centuries when the climate was cool (the Little Ice Age) up to 1850 or so, then warmed up to 1940, then cooled until the mid-1970's, then warmed until about 2000. Now it appears to be cooling again - something that shouldn't happen if the consensus climate models are to be believed, but something that might happen if the earth's climate warms and cools regardless of what humans do.
And, lest we forget, the planet has been in an Ice Age for the past two and a half million years. Our current warmth is a relatively brief, perhaps 15,000-year, interlude between bouts of 80,000 years of glaciation. We're past the 12,000-year mark; the ice will return eventually. Indeed, the planet is, overall, the coldest it's been in 250 million years (Link1) (Link2). Why consensus climate scientists regard warming as a danger under these adverse geological circumstances is yet another mystery to skeptics.
At the very least, the decade's non-warming (or cooling) should make consensus climate scientists question their theories, as real scientists do when the empirical evidence doesn't support those theories.
Defending the dogma
But we won't hear that kind of questioning from Pope. Instead, at the end of her article, she issues a ringing endorsement of the dogma of human-caused warming, which (like all dogmas) does not believe it is dogma but God's truth. She writes:
When climate scientists like me explain to people what we do for a living we are increasingly asked whether we 'believe in climate change'. Quite simply it is not a matter of belief. Our concerns about climate change arise from the scientific evidence that humanity's activities are leading to changes in our climate. The scientific evidence is overwhelming.
Dr. Pope is, of course, entitled to her views, as we all are (or should be, even skeptics). But her claim that the scientific evidence for human-caused warming is "overwhelming" begs the question: If the evidence is so overwhelming, why do so many consensus scientists and their supporters feel compelled to exaggerate the evidence? Why not let the facts speak for themselves?
Even after 150 years and a mountain of supporting evidence, Darwin's theory of evolution is still a theory, open to re-evaluation based on new data. But after only 20 years of serious climate research, human-caused global warming is regarded by consensus climate science not as a theory but incontrovertible fact. Really, this arrogance is another example of the consensus exaggeration that Pope claims to deplore.
In truth, the scientific evidence is anything but overwhelming, if the past decade of non-warming is any indication, and anthropogenic warming is still an hypothesis, not a proven scientific fact as Pope would like us to believe. But, then, no consensus climate scientist wants to admit even the teeniest, tiniest possibility that he/she could be wrong. Do that and, even worse than global warming, the research funding and jobs might dry up.
To review: At first sight, Pope's article appears to be a refreshing call for intellectual honesty from the consensus climate-science camp: "Hey, why don't we try telling the public the truth, for a change, instead of all this exaggerated alarmism?" After all, as anyone who studies the climate issue with an open mind knows, the Arctic example is only one of hundreds of perfectly natural phenomena that consensus climate science blames on human-caused global warming.
Alas, on further reading, Pope's article is revealed not as a plea for honesty but yet another consensus scientist's attempt to keep the public from hearing any views on climate but her own.
Oh, well. I suppose a glimmer of hope for consensus climate honesty is better than none....
'Mr. Gore's movie has claims no informed expert endorses'
Posted: May 19, 2008, 8:51 pm Eastern, By Bob Unruh, WorldNetDaily
More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. –including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate. "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or
other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the
Earth's climate," the petition states. "Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth." The Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.
31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.
(Story continues below)
Posted by: David Puner, on February 16, 2009 at 10:56 am
If the debate over climate change is closed, why is John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, still trying to prove it’s all a scam?
Well over a quarter-million weathercasts—that’s the ballpark figure the 74-year-old founding father of the Weather Channel guesses he’s probably performed in his 55 years in the business. Today, as for the past 15 years, he’s chalked up another weathercast like it’s his job, because it is. This, he tells me, is the best time of his career.
Which seems odd, because in the past few years, he’s admittedly become mad as hell. Coleman is angry because he believes we have been brainwashed into thinking we’re ruining our own planet. He wants to let us off the hook, and give us some good news for a change, because, you see, John Coleman says that climate change is a scam.
If you consume mainstream media, odds are you’re not hearing much debate about climate change these days. We’re told the debate is effectively over. Scientists say so, too. It’s our consumption that continues to ruin our planet’s environmental health, so there’s no longer time to debate—it’s time to act. Every time we do anything, like flip on a light switch or charge an iPod or turn on the A/C, we’re contributing to the release of greenhouse gases, and so the oceans rise and that’s a problem for the polar bears and, well, you know—something like that. It may be difficult to explain, but we know the state of the environment is bad. Most recently, in fact, we were told that the effects of man-made climate change are all but irreversible.
John Coleman has dedicated his life to studying weather and the science that creates it—so shouldn’t we at least hear him out?
So, yes, the debate is over. And yet for some reason, somewhere outside the fray, the weather sage John Coleman decided it shouldn’t be. That we’d been hoodwinked. That it was still worth talking about. So a year and a half ago, determined he’d heard enough of the noise and the Al Gore and the polar bears, he threw his voice into the conversation.
When Coleman posted his first climate change brief online, he was surprised by the attention it got. “I thought I was the only one,” he says. “I started finding that there were plenty of people out there, it’s just that the media was ignoring them and the place to find them was on these little corners of the internet.” In May, 2008, an organization called the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine released a petition at the National Press Club, with the signatures of 31,000 scientists rejecting the U.N. consensus of man-made climate change. Nine thousand of the names reportedly belong to Ph.Ds.
Encouraged, he delivered a speech last March at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York where he said that Al Gore and others selling carbon credits should be sued for fraud. His hope, he said, was that the publicity from such a suit would potentially debunk climate change in a court room instead of waiting for the media to do its supposed due diligence.
So is he a crank—Willard Scott with an agenda that goes beyond hooky old-school weatherman shtick? Coleman’s life has been dedicated to studying and presenting weather and the science that creates it—so shouldn’t we at least hear him out? He thinks we should, and he has supporters. He says the science we’ve digested is erroneous.
Coleman’s still got a steady gig, and he doesn’t feel he personally has much to lose in allowing himself to be one of the most prominent climate-change naysayers. He’s already lost his baby—the Weather Channel—and, he says, TWC is a perpetrator of the scam along with all the other mainstream media organizations. Coleman doesn’t like what his baby has grown into. When I ask him about the current product, he doesn’t skip a beat. “Everything. The Weather Channel is terrible. Pathetic.”
Long estranged from the Weather Channel, Coleman has been living out his golden years and serving up sunny local weather for KUSI in San Diego, California, what he refers to as his “retirement job,” since 1994. San Diego wasn’t on Coleman’s radar after his ousting from TWC. First, he tried New York for about a year, then back to Chicago for a few years. Then, when things dried up in Chicago, in 1993, he looked around and, he says, nobody wanted him, so he wound up in the desert–Palm Springs. “No station in the world wants an old, has-been weatherman in his fifties,” he says. Coleman was 56 at the time. “Old’s a curse.” Coleman spent less than a year in Palm Springs–he’s been getting older in San Diego ever since.
Coleman says being in San Diego is “like living in heaven without dying.” In San Diego you’ve got your occasional Santa Anas, a little El Niño and La Niña, some night and morning low cloud patterns, but most of the time you’ve just got sunshine and the breeze. The weather in San Diego itself is why Coleman’s KUSI website bio begins with the quote: “Being a TV weatherman in San Diego is an outrageous scam.” The bio, incidentally, was written well before John Coleman made a few headlines, calling climate change warming a scam.
Coleman saw An Inconvenient Truth on DVD and he says he made it all the way through, but “not without screaming.”
Among other things, it took drowning polar bears and the internet to get John Coleman firing on all cylinders. “Gradually there’s this build-up, this hysteria about global warming,” he says. “The Al Gore book comes out. The Al Gore movie comes out and starts winning awards. The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change gets headline news status and starts issuing its predictions. The media is clamoring aboard and the next thing I know, it’s headline news every day, everywhere. And I’ve been studying it, reading stuff, and looking at it, and can’t figure out what the heck they’re talking about.”
What “they” are talking about, and we have heard much about is that climate change is one of greatest challenges we face in our lifetime and that humankind is generally * up everything imaginable involving air, water, and land. John Coleman says it’s perpetrated by the media who loves it some Gore. “You’ve got Al Gore. You’ve got the environmentalists. And then all the networks come aboard, because they love gloom and doom, the-end-is-near,” he says. “From Y2K to killer bees—God, give us something to tell people their lives are coming to an end—cancer scare, HIV, whatever we’ve got—let’s go, Man, scare the hell out of people,” he says. “This is awful. Shame on them, scaring people. That’s deplorable.”
According to Coleman, the media is biased and sloppy and perpetuates the climate change myth. “Has Larry King called me? Oh no. Has 60 Minutes been interested in our side of the story? Oh no. 20/20? Oh no.” Coleman continues: “I’ve been totally ignored by ABC, NBC, CBS—put down by CNN.” He has been interviewed by FOX News and also by Glenn Beck, who, he says, “used me as part of his rant.”
Coleman saw An Inconvenient Truth on DVD and he says he made it all the way through, but “not without screaming.” Gore’s film won two Oscars—one for best documentary—and in October, 2007, Gore and the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won the Nobel Peace Prize. (”I have a friend who calls the Nobel Peace Prize the Liberal of the Year Award,” Coleman tells me.) Coleman seethed. Soon thereafter, he posted a missive on KUSI.com’s “Coleman’s Corner.”
“So I get indignant and I write that blog and throw it on the website,” he says. “That’s kind of totally absorbed my life since.”
Sitting at our table overlooking Montgomery Field, a regional airport, just a few miles north of downtown San Diego late last spring. With the distant whir of single-engine props in the background, John Coleman tells me that all anyone really needs to know about the climate change scam is carbon dioxide.
“Environmentalists, they think CO2 is a pollutant,” he says, and then makes an act of exhaling. “There’s a little pollution for you,” he says, and then points in the general vicinity of vegetation that isn’t looking all that vibrant (unless brown is vibrant). “See that bush beside you there? It’d be dead without CO2.” Without CO2, he says, “We wouldn’t have any food. Humans couldn’t exist. CO2 is vital to life.” He pauses for a moment and then raises his voice an octave. “My God! Calling that a pollutant? Ridiculous.”
Coleman acknowledges that carbon dioxide continues to build up in the atmosphere. In 1958, he says, the CO2 atmospheric level was 315 parts per million. Today CO2 is 385 parts per million—more than a 20 percent increase. If you’re making a case for a direct correlation between increased atmospheric CO2 levels and climate change, you’re saying the increased CO2 is causing changes in ocean chemistry, which in turn is changing the entire climate equation.
“It’s a trace. How does that destroy the planet?” says Coleman. “And they publish their papers and scream and the media says, Oh God, the end is near! And it’s all baloney; there isn’t anything to it. It turns out to be sheer folly. But it all comes back to CO2—they haven’t got anything else.”
“Have temperatures gone up? No. Is global warming sweeping the planet? No. Is the ice melting at the poles? No. Is there any proof that it’s creating significant impact? No. Can you produce a computer model that predicts that it will? Oh yeah, anyone can manipulate a computer model, and they have.”
Of course, the prevailing wisdom is that yes, temperatures have gone up, that ice is melting, and that the scientists assessing climate data aren’t doing so with malicious intent. Attempting to debunk those who are attempting to debunk climate change, as it turns out, is complicated.
To get some sort of definitive explanation, I talked to Kerry Emmanuel, who is a professor of Atmospheric Science at M.I.T. He agrees with Al Gore that the debate is over (although he does think the movie has some “scientific flaws”). “I would not take anything that John Coleman says too seriously,” Emmanuel tells me. Emmanuel says he could relatively quickly give me a “good feeling for the evidence.” But, he says, to bring me up to speed on the physics behind the greenhouse effect, “you’d have to take a semester class.” On top of that, he says, “The models are even difficult for the professionals to understand.” So the problem, as Emmanuel presents it, is that scientists often expect the general public to accept conclusion “as an article of faith” because the explanation can be so intricate and difficult to communicate. “Therein lies a problem,” says Emmanuel. “You have to take my word for that.”
John Coleman has had a thing about being heard for a long time. “I was the fifth of five children,” he tells me. He grew up in south Texas during the Depression and says, “My parents hardly had any time for me, or any interest. Life was busy and hard. Who needed another kid?”
Coleman observed that his parents did pay attention to the radio. “So I decided I better get on the radio,” he says. As an eighth grader, he spent a lot of time reading in front of the mirror, developing The Voice. He started hanging around WCIL radio in Carbondale, Illinois, and even as a high school freshman, was pretty close to being a full-time employee—on-air from the beginning. “Sure enough, my parents listened,” he recalls. “Pretty cool.”
Coleman’s father was a college professor who had a habit of going on evening walks. On these walks Claude Coleman would look at the sky and predict the next day’s weather. Sometimes John tagged along. “So I learned something about predicting the weather by looking at the sky with my dad.” In college, John parlayed his radio experience into doing weather on TV, a new medium he was determined to conquer.
At 18, John Coleman was a local celebrity. “I was brash and pretty much a jerk,” Coleman recalls, with a deep laugh.
The ride to the top for Coleman had some stops. Bloomington to Peoria. Then to Omaha, where he once worked through 30 days straight of tornado warnings. Then came Milwaukee. When Coleman arrived in Chicago, he became a member of the first-ever local Eyewitness News team. He’d hit the weather big time. “Chicago is the Broadway of weather,” he says.
Forecasting Chicago weather with Eyewitness news led to a big-time national gig in 1975. Being the first-ever weatherman on Good Morning America was certainly a big darn deal—national weather on a national stage. “I was getting up at 3:30 in the morning, busting my tail to predict all 50 states.”
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 10:22 am Post subject:
Looks like Item7 still isn't able to grasp the difference between climate and weather.
In a preliminary report, released in December by the Hadley Centre;
"The ten warmest years on record have occurred since 1997. Global temperatures for 2000-2008 now stand almost 0.2 °C warmer than the average for the decade 1990–1999."
Myth 1
The intensity of cosmic rays changes climateThe mechanism by which cosmic rays might affect climate is as yet purely speculative and unquantified. While it has long been known that radiation could form ions and, in theory, ultimately lead to cloud formation, the importance of this process compared to all the other major sources of particles and cloud condensation nuclei has not been proven. Indeed, there is no evidence that the flux of cosmic rays has decreased over the last 30 years.
Even if cosmic rays have a detectable effect on climate (and this remains unproven), measured solar activity over the last few decades has not significantly changed and cannot explain the continued warming trend. In contrast, increases in CO2 are well measured and its warming effect is well quantified. It offers the most plausible explanation of most of the recent warming and future increases.
Myth 2
Drop in monthly global temperature means global warming has stoppedA significant drop in global average temperature in January 2008 led to speculation that the Earth was experiencing a period of sustained cooling. A brief look at the graph depicting January global average temperatures reveals large variability in our climate year-on-year, but with an underlying rise over the longer term almost certainly caused by man-made emissions of greenhouse gases.
There are a number of natural factors contributing to so-called interannual variability, the single most important being the El Niño Southern Oscillation or ENSO. In 2007-2008 the global climate was influenced by the cold phase of this oscillation, known as La Niña. The La Niña began to develop in early 2007, having a significant cooling effect on the global average temperature. Despite this, 2007 was one of the ten warmest years since global records began in 1850 with a temperature some 0.4 °C above average.
The La Niña strengthened further during early 2008 and became the strongest since 1988/89, significantly contributing to a lower January temperature in 2008, compared to recent years. In addition, global average temperature was influenced by very cold land temperatures in parts of the northern hemisphere and extensive snow cover.
January 2008 may have seem particularly cold compared to January 2007 - the warmest January on record and largely due to the warming phenomenon El Niño - but this merely demonstrates the year-to-year natural variations in our climate.
In future, while the trend in global temperatures is predicted to remain upwards, we will continue to see inherent variability of this kind.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 7:06 pm Post subject:
Frank Freedom wrote:
The Global Tax on greenhouse emmisions and a personal carbon footprint
tax will make it all go away,no worries comrades
...or at worst just give the impression that something is being done towards that which might already be too delayed and irreversible.
Even wholehearted immediate global adoption of Kyoto guidelines could mean we're only in with a shot, not that we'll all live happily ever after. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated for Weeks Due to Faulty Sensor
By Alex Morales Feb. 20 (Bloomberg)
A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.
The error, due to a problem called “sensor drift,” began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That’s when “puzzled readers” alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site.
“Sensor drift, although infrequent, does occasionally occur and it is one of the things that we account for during quality- control measures prior to archiving the data,” the center said. “Although we believe that data prior to early January are reliable, we will conduct a full quality check.’’
The extent of Arctic sea ice is seen as a key measure of how rising temperatures are affecting the Earth. The cap retreated in 2007 to its lowest extent ever and last year posted its second- lowest annual minimum at the end of the yearly melt season. The recent error doesn’t change findings that Arctic ice is retreating, the NSIDC said.
The center said real-time data on sea ice is always less reliable than archived numbers because full checks haven’t yet been carried out. Historical data is checked across other sources, it said.
The NSIDC uses Department of Defense satellites to obtain its Arctic sea ice data rather than more accurate National Aeronautics and Space Administration equipment. That’s because the defense satellites have a longer period of historical data, enabling scientists to draw conclusions about long-term ice melt, the center said.
“There is a balance between being as accurate as possible at any given moment and being as consistent as possible through long time-periods,” NSIDC said. “Our main scientific focus is on the long-term changes in Arctic sea ice.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Alex Morales in London at amorales2@bloomberg.net.
Last Updated: February 20, 2009 08:15 EST
“Although we believe that data prior to early January are reliable, we will conduct a full quality check.’
Its only the size of California - anyone can make a mistake!!
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Sat Feb 21, 2009 2:53 pm Post subject:
The satellite sensor error Item7 finds so amusing can be seen in this comparison cross-check with the NASA EOS AMSR data shown as the red line:
Or perhaps Item7 believed that teams of Inuit and specially trained polar bears armed with theodolites carried out the area surveys? Who knows what goes on in the minds of those who would reference the Daily Mail's Mel Phillips?
Genuine science isn't afraid to correct mistakes and malfunction errors, which is more than can be said for propagandists who rely on weaving a shell of perceived credibility that dare not admit inconsistency lest it disappear like a popped soap bubble.
"For several years, we used the SSM/I sensor on the DMSP F13 satellite. Last year, F13 started showing large amounts of missing data. The sensor was almost 13 years old, and no longer provided complete daily data to allow us to track total daily sea ice extent. As a result, we switched to the DMSP F15 sensor for our near-real-time analysis. For more information on the switch, see “Note on satellite update and intercalibration,” in our June 3, 2008 post.
On February 16, 2009, as emails came in from puzzled readers, it became clear that there was a significant problem—sea-ice-covered regions were showing up as open ocean. The problem stemmed from a failure of the sea ice algorithm caused by degradation of one of the DMSP F15 sensor channels. Upon further investigation, we found that data quality had begun to degrade over the month preceding the catastrophic failure."
http://www.nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Meanwhile, for the second year running, The Northwest Passage is one of the most fabled sea routes in the world - a short cut from Europe to Asia through the Canadian Arctic is navigable.
Recent years have seen a marked shrinkage in its ice cover, but this year it was extreme, ESA says. It says this made the passage "fully navigable" for the first time since monitoring began in 1978.
"We have seen the ice-covered area drop to just around 3m sq km (1.2m sq miles)," Leif Toudal Pedersen of the Danish National Space Centre said. He said it was "about 1m sq km (386,000 sq miles) less than the previous minima of 2005 and 2006".
"There has been a reduction of the ice cover over the last 10 years of about 100, 000 sq km (38,600 sq miles) per year on average, so a drop of 1m sq km (386,000 sq miles) in just one year is extreme," Mr Pedersen said.
The Northeast Passage through the Russian Arctic has also seen its ice cover shrink and it currently "remains only partially blocked".
22 Feb 09 - Excerpts: “For the record, although you will never read this in The New York Times, the planet is NOT warming. It is COOLING. It has been cooling for a decade now and it is no secret to meteorologists who track the day to day temperatures or climatologists who study long term trends.
"On March 8-10, more than 500 of those scientists who dispute the vast global warming hoax will meet in New York for a second international conference on climate change sponsored by The Heartland Institute, a non-profit, free market think tank.
"Joining those scientists and others will be Vaclav Klaus, the president of the Czech Republic and current president of the European Union. Also participating will be Jose Maria Aznar, the former prime minister of Spain, along with American astronaut, Dr. Jack Schmitt, Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and other leading scientists who have led the effort to shed the light of truth on the global warming hoax.
"The IPCC’s claims have been based entirely on computer models. This in itself should have raised flags long ago. These models, as Hans Schreuder, an analytical chemist, has pointed out, “regard the earth as a flat disk bathed in a constant 24 hour haze of sunlight, without north and south poles, without clouds, and without any relationship to the real planet we live on.”
"CO2 represents just 0.038% of the Earth’s atmosphere. The dominant factors in the Earth overall temperature are the Sun, the oceans, and even clouds.
"Despite this, the EPA is tasked to impose regulations on CO2 emissions that would wreck the economy by requiring a “cap-and-trade” of “carbon credits” that would impact every single business and industrial activity. The European Union tried this and it has proved a massive failure and a huge drag on its economy.
"Carbon dioxide is not a “pollutant” as the Supreme Court has ruled. How can the Earth’s second most vital gas, other than oxygen, be a pollutant? Not one single piece of vegetation on Earth could exist without CO2. Without vegetation, no animal life including our own could exist on Earth.
"The notion that the EPA would regulate it is preposterous. It is absurd. It is criminal. It is immoral. It has no basis whatever in the actual science of the world’s climate. It is based on a massive, global hoax masterminded by the United Nations and carried out by charlatans such as Al Gore and NASA’s James Hansen.
"It is, however, the vehicle for the political control of the world’s economy that would fulfill the United Nation’s global government schemes and, if enacted here in America, would mark the destruction of an economy that is the engine of the world’s economy, despite its current difficulties.
"The Earth has existed for 4.5 billion years. The assertion that human beings and/or industrial activity have any effect on its atmosphere is an instrument of fascism.
Alan has a daily blog called Warning Signs.
His latest book is Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy.
Alan can be reached at acaruba@aol.com
"The Earth has existed for 4.5 billion years. The assertion that human beings and/or industrial activity have any effect on its atmosphere is an instrument of fascism." Very well said!!! All part of the 9/11, 7/7 and bankster criminal agenda.
Here's a partial list of climatologists and other scientists who disagree
with the idea of anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming. And just look at how many there are!!! Strange that we never hear them on mainstream media isn't it? Its almost as if we are being constantly lied to!!
Bullying the world into silence
A fantastic article by Dr. Tim Ball
19 Jan 09 – (Excerpts) “One of the most disturbing aspects of the global warming scam is the number of prominent people and entire segments of society bullied into silence. Consider the case of Dr. Joanne Simpson described as follows. “the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology, and formerly of NASA, who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.” Then consider her statement. “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical....
“Why would a scientist in an organization directly involved in climate science not feel free to speak out? But they are not the only ones who have kept quiet. Entire segments of society have either remained silent or taken evasive action. Few had the courage to even ask for a full and open debate. Now everything is changing as the claims of warming are offset by the realities of cooling.
“Cold weather is doing more to raise questions about the scam of global warming than all the appeals to scientific reason. Even people who don’t understand the science recognize the illogic of arguing that colder temperatures are due to warming. This is causing advocates of human caused global warming to take increasingly ridiculous positions to defend the indefensible…. Politicians are warned not to let economic woes divert them from saving the planet….
“When a bureaucrat convinces a politician of a scientific position, as (NASA’s) Hansen has so forcefully done with Gore and Obama, and they make it a major part of their political positions he is on a treadmill. He has to keep spinning the story and avoid the facts while increasing the threats….
“An increasing number of scientists are speaking out for a variety of reasons. The most likely is because the public is showing signs of disbelief in the entire global warming claims….
“U.S Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA recently said, “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”
The Tools of Bullying
“The tools of bullying used against those who question the claim that humans are causing global warming include:
“Expropriating the moral high ground of environmentalism. If you don’t agree with their position you are accused of not caring about the planet, the children, the future....Last year, Exxon announced they would not fund anymore climate research. Why? A company involved in energy use should know what the climate experts are saying for proper management decisions….
“Questioning credentials of those who speak out against the hypothesis, but never mentioning it for those in support. Few ever ask about Gore’s credentials.
“Belittling opponents by calling them skeptics, or deniers. Referring to them as “flat-earthers,” or comparing them to supporters of the tobacco industry.
“Forcing large corporations and governments to waste money by pretending to be green because they fear the accusations they are not good citizens.
The bullying is over and the bullies are in a panic
“…Now scientists of all political persuasions are speaking out. Consider the views of Dr Martin Herzberger. In a letter to USA Today he wrote; “As a scientist and life-long liberal Democrat, I find the constant regurgitation of the anecdotal, fear mongering clap-trap about human-caused global warming (the Levi, Borgerson article of 9/24/0 to be a disservice to science, to your readers, and to the quality of the political dialogue leading up to the election. The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence shows that the Gore-IPCC theory that human activity is causing global warming is false.”
“Even those directly involved in the process have joined the shift as the extremist positions grow. Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, and former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee became a skeptic because of Al Gore.
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp…Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.”
“The function of extremism is to determine limits for the majority. Gore’s extremism provided Mr.Smit with a limit. Cold weather is providing another limit…. The bullying is over and the bullies are in a panic.
This is less than half of Dr. Ball’s fantastic article. You really
owe it to yourself to read the entire article - originally entitled
How the world was bullied into silence - here:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/7710
Thanks to Jack Bailey for this link
“Dr. Tim Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. Dr. Ball employs his extensive background in climatology and other fields as an advisor to the International Climate Science Coalition, Friends of Science and the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.”
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 11:09 am Post subject:
Item7 still seems to be having a hard time understanding that global warming does not mean that everywhere will get warmer.
What it does mean is that climate patterns that our civilisation are based around will change as more heat is absorbed by the atmosphere, destroying or altering weather patterns and rainfall with knock on effects on agriculture and natural forestation and impact at best unpredictably and at worst catastrophically on the feeding of 6 billion people.
Item7 also seems to have no shame in spamming the indirect PR output of Big Oil front organisations who as expected and true to their form for 30 years are invested in denial that their activities are harmful.
Perhaps you would like to ask him about his oil company funding, his links to the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto based lobby firm that specializes in “energy, environment and ethics”, and his less than mediocre academic career while you're at it.
http://www.desmogblog.com/node/1272
It's amazing to see neocon front organisations being advocated on a 911 site.
Guess I've seen everything now. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
It's amazing to see neocon front organisations being advocated on a 911 site.
Well nobody is stopping you from voicing your support for the neocons fiendish agenda by your ridiculous belief in their man-made global warming scam. Or cherry-picking from the thousands of sceptical scientists those that you can try to pin the label of "neocon" on while ignoring the multitude of highly qualified ones who you cannot even begin to tarnish. I see you have endorsed fully the evolution of the scam into man-made "Climate Change" now that the multiple errors and lies of the original narrative have been exposed. I must remember that! It is getting cold because of all the heat. Now what was that one about not understanding the difference between the climate and the weather? Oh it is all so puzzling - almost like it makes no sense whatsoever. The idea that someone can see the deceit of 9/11 but fail to recognize the even more blatant lie of anthropogenic "Climate Change" is ridiculous, and even more silly is the notion that seeing the neocons lies for what they are makes one a neocon.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 7:59 pm Post subject:
item7 wrote:
Chek wrote:
It's amazing to see neocon front organisations being advocated on a 911 site.
Well nobody is stopping you from voicing your support for the neocons fiendish agenda by your ridiculous belief in their man-made global warming scam. Or cherry-picking from the thousands of sceptical scientists those that you can try to pin the label of "neocon" on while ignoring the multitude of highly qualified ones who you cannot even begin to tarnish. I see you have endorsed fully the evolution of the scam into man-made "Climate Change" now that the multiple errors and lies of the original narrative have been exposed. I must remember that! It is getting cold because of all the heat. Now what was that one about not understanding the difference between the climate and the weather? Oh it is all so puzzling - almost like it makes no sense whatsoever. The idea that someone can see the deceit of 9/11 but fail to recognize the even more blatant lie of anthropogenic "Climate Change" is ridiculous, and even more silly is the notion that seeing the neocons lies for what they are makes one a neocon.
I did have a longer reply which just got lost in the ether, so I'll summarise it.
If you spend some time actually studying the science instead of conspiracy, you'll be able to arrive at a judgement based on fact, rather than the opinions, however seductively expressed, of the oil industry hacks whose all too transparent bottom line when backing up the do-nothings and the deniers always but always boils down to one thing: protecting profitability. If you must have one, there's your conspiracy.
Who knows, you may even learn some things can be true even while being counter-intuitive. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 4:17 pm Post subject:
"Scientists Find Bigger than Expected Polar Ice Melt
GENEVA - Icecaps around the North and South Poles are melting faster and in a more widespread manner than expected, raising sea levels and fuelling climate change, a major scientific survey showed Wednesday.
The Antarctic icecap has warmed more rapidly than the global average. (AFP photo)The International Polar Year survey found that warming in the Antarctic is "much more widespread than was thought," while Arctic sea ice is diminishing and the melting of Greenland's ice cover is accelerating.
The frozen and often inaccessible polar regions have long been regarded as some of the most sensitive barometers of environmental change and global warming because of their influence on the world's oceans and atmosphere.
Preliminary findings from the two year survey by thousands of scientists revealed new evidence that the ocean around the Antarctic has warmed more rapidly than the global average, the World Meteorological Organisation and the International Council for Science said in a statement.
Meanwhile, shifts in temperature patterns deep underwater indicated that the continent's land ice sheet is melting faster than reckoned.
"These changes are signs that global warming is affecting the Antarctic in ways not previously suspected," the statement added.
"These assessments continue to be refined, but it now appears that both the Greenland and the Antarctic ice sheets are losing mass and thus raising sea level, and that the rate of ice loss from Greenland is growing."
Shrinking sea ice was expected around Antarctica, while Arctic sea ice decreased to its lowest level since satellite records began.
During the survey in 2007 and 2008, special expeditions in the Arctic also found an "unprecedented rate" of floating drift ice, providing "compelling evidence of changes" in the region.
But the focus was on the erosion of land-based ice sheets of Greenland and the Antarctic, which hold the bulk of the world's freshwater reserves and can generate sea level changes of global scale as they melt.
"That was an urgent question three years ago and I think today it's now a more urgent question," IPY director David Carlson told journalists.
When the survey began two years ago, those areas were viewed as largely stable despite some worrying signs of fringe melting.
The joint statement concluded: "The message of IPY is loud and clear: what happens in the polar regions affects the rest of the world and concerns us all."
The survey also revealed that the melting has the potential to feed more global warming in turn as the permafrost melts faster.
Permafrost, the expanse of continuously frozen soil in polar land areas, was found to have larger pools of carbon than expected and the melting could unleash more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
The scientists also found that global warming caused substantial changes that were tantamount to a greening of the Arctic landscape.
Vegetation and soil were changing in the region, with shrubbery taking over grassland and tree growth shifting according to changing snowfall, while insect and fungi infestation increased and species move from lower latitudes into polar regions.
Those shifts also disrupted native animals, hunting and local livelihoods, the scientists found.
In some instances, reindeer raised by local herders lost grazing pasture while their migration routes became blocked by building in areas previously regarded as uninhabitable.
The survey around both poles was the first of its kind for half a century, revisiting areas that have not been seen since the 1950s and mobilising 10,000 scientists around the world".
February 18, 2009
Satellite sensor errors cause data outage
"On February 16, 2009, as emails came in from puzzled readers, it became clear that there was a significant problem—sea-ice-covered regions were showing up as open ocean."
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Wed Feb 25, 2009 8:02 pm Post subject:
albert hall wrote:
National Snow and Ice Data Center
February 18, 2009
Satellite sensor errors cause data outage
"On February 16, 2009, as emails came in from puzzled readers, it became clear that there was a significant problem—sea-ice-covered regions were showing up as open ocean."
Thanks, the SSM/I error and EOS AMSI corrections were discussed a few posts ago.
My latest post was regarding both Arctic and Antarctic melt and was also supplemented by expeditionary rather than just the satellite data. _________________ Dissolution of the Global Corporations.
It's the only way.
Climate science is 'ancient astrology', claims report
By Andrew Orlowski
Posted in Environment, 25th February 2009 12:23 GMT
Exclusive Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.
Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases. Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.
One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology. Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.
The report by Japan Society of Energy and Resources (JSER) is astonishing rebuke to international pressure, and a vote of confidence in Japan's native marine and astronomical research. Publicly-funded science in the West uniformly backs the hypothesis that industrial influence is primarily responsible for climate change, although fissures have appeared recently. Only one of the five top Japanese scientists commissioned here concurs with the man-made global warming hypothesis.
JSER is the academic society representing scientists from the energy and resource fields, and acts as a government advisory panel. The report appeared last month but has received curiously little attention. So The Register commissioned a translation of the document - the first to appear in the West in any form. Below you'll find some of the key findings - but first, a summary.
Summary
Three of the five leading scientists contend that recent climate change is driven by natural cycles, not human industrial activity, as political activists argue.
Kanya Kusano is Program Director and Group Leader for the Earth Simulator at the Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science & Technology (JAMSTEC). He focuses on the immaturity of simulation work cited in support of the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Using undiplomatic language, Kusano compares them to ancient astrology. After listing many faults, and the IPCC's own conclusion that natural causes of climate are poorly understood, Kusano concludes:
"[The IPCC's] conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely to show a continuous, monotonous increase, should be perceived as an unprovable hypothesis," he writes.
Shunichi Akasofu, head of the International Arctic Research Center in Alaska, has expressed criticism of the theory before. Akasofu uses historical data to challenge the claim that very recent temperatures represent an anomaly:
"We should be cautious, IPCC's theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. "
Akasofu calls the post-2000 warming trend hypothetical. His harshest words are reserved for advocates who give conjecture the authority of fact.
"Before anyone noticed, this hypothesis has been substituted for truth... The opinion that great disaster will really happen must be broken."
There are three more pages of reasoned and intelligent comment at the link above. Don't visit if you believe in astrology or its modern equivalent "man-made global warming climate change global cooling caused by global warming" - it might challenge your religion.
Joined: 12 Sep 2006 Posts: 3889 Location: North Down, N. Ireland
Posted: Thu Feb 26, 2009 1:13 am Post subject:
item7 wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/02/25/jstor_climate_report_translati on/
"We should be cautious, IPCC's theory that atmospheric temperature has risen since 2000 in correspondence with CO2 is nothing but a hypothesis. "
If a train is approaching a bridge detroyed by (let's say) flooding with no means of being warned, it is a hypothesis to say it will plunge into the water below until it actually happens.
The IPCC's hypothesis - that matches with the known data better than any other available and is accepted by the majority of climate scientists who haven't been hired by the debunkah industry, - is intended to stop us going over the edge before it happens.
In other words, OF COURSE IT'S A HYPOTHESIS.
item7 wrote:
Akasofu calls the post-2000 warming trend hypothetical.
He can call it whatever he likes but he'd be denying the provable fact that the global mean temperature for 2008 was 14.3 °C, making it the tenth warmest year on a record that dates back to 1850, and that the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1997.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html
item7 wrote:
There are three more pages of reasoned and intelligent comment at the link above. Don't visit if you believe in astrology or its modern equivalent "man-made global warming climate change global cooling caused by global warming" - it might challenge your religion.
Interesting that you throw in a faith analogy when it isn't about making beliefs but assembling facts from the past and present to formaluate future trends.
It still seems you can't quite understand how warming could affect existing weather systems and can result in temperetaure variations.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Chat
Usergroups
Calendar
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
to be a disservice to science, to your readers, and to the quality of the political dialogue leading up to the election. The overwhelming weight of scientific evidence shows that the Gore-IPCC theory that human activity is causing global warming is false.”
