When the Alaska Pipeline was proposed, the Greens howled in protest, claiming the 12,000 Reindeer population would be adversely affected. We built the pipeline anyway, and today the reindeer population is approaching 100,000 animals.
- Jim Peden, Scientist
Monday, June 30, 2008
By Jim Peden — posted Jun 24 2008 07:52 PM
Quoting RealClimate.org as a reliable source of information on climate science is like quoting Disneyland.com for reliable information on mouse behavior.
"Real Climate" is a staged and contracted production, which wasn't created by "scientists", it was actually created by Environmental Media Services, a company which specializes in spreading environmental junk science on behalf of numerous clients who stand to financially benefit from scare tactics through environmental fear mongering. There you will find the word "model" used a million times, for the entire basis of the Global Warming Hoax is based on computer modeling ( not climate science ) which has thus far failed to predict anything accurately since day one. (emphasis mine: LDJ)
For example, one of their past clients, Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, hired them to create the illusion that Bovine Growth Hormone (BGH) was somehow dangerous, despite the fact that it had been fully tested and approved by the FDA. After a lengthy national fearmongering campaign by Environmental Media Services, Ben & Jerry's proudly announced that their ice cream was "BGH-free"... as if it made any difference.
Real Climate has become the Alamo for folks like the highly discredited Michael Mann, whose original analytical blunder led to the famous "hockey stick" curve, which helped kick off the Great Global Warming Hoax after it was picked up by science illiterate Al Gore and proudly paraded around the globe. The hockey stick was proven to be an absurd blunder, but by then you couldn't put the genie back into the bottle, and today we are wasting billions of dollars on a cure for a nonexistent disease.
Perhaps the best summary of "Real Climate" was given by a Harvard trained atmospheric physicist and Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Dr. Richard Lindzen, who said, "This website appears to constitute a support center for global warming believers, wherein any criticism of global warming is given an answer that, however implausible, is then repeated by the reassured believers."
The following comment appeared on another blog in response to some green drivel. It bears repeating:
Richard S. Courtney — Jun 23 2008 05:59 PM
“And perhaps some scientists are coming out against the idea that humankind has warmed the planet and continues to spew increasing pollutants into our atmosphere. If so, they are awful quiet about their challenge. Perhaps they should post their arguments here and let NRDC's real climate experts take them on."
Well, I am an Expert Peer Reviewer for the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC); i.e. I am one of the often touted “thousands of UN Climate Scientists”. I and thousands of others speak, publish and sign petitions in attempt to get the media to tell the truth of man made global climate change. And in response to your invitation I post that truth below.
The AGW-hypothesis asserts that increased greenhouse gases (GHGs) – notably carbon dioxide – in the atmosphere will cause the globe to warm (global warming: GW), and that anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide are increasing the carbon dioxide in the air with resulting anthropogenic (i.e. man-made) global warming (AGW).
I think a clear distinction needs to be made between (a) the science of AGW, and (b) the perception of AGW - and the use of AGW - by non-scientists.
The present empirical evidence strongly indicates that the AGW-hypothesis is wrong; i.e.
1. There is no correlation between the anthropogenic emissions of GHGs and global temperature.
2. Change to atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is observed to follow change to global temperature at all time scales.
3. Recent rise in global temperature has not been induced by rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations. The global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose from 1970 to 1998, and fell from 1998 to the present (i.e. mid-2008). This is 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased at a near-constant rate and by more than 30% since 1940.
4. Rise in global temperature has not been induced by increase to anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. More than 80% of the anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide has been since 1940, and the increase to the emissions has been at a compound rate of ~0.4% p.a. throughout that time. But that time has exhibited 40 years of cooling with only 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940.
5. The pattern of atmospheric warming predicted by the AGW hypothesis is absent.The AGW hypothesis predicts most warming of the atmosphere at altitude distant from polar regions. Radiosonde measurements from weather balloons show slight cooling at altitude distant from polar regions.
The above list provides a complete refutation of the AGW-hypothesis according to the normal rules of science.: i.e.Nothing the hypothesis predicts is observed in the empirical data, and the opposite of the hypothesis' predictions is observed in the empirical data.
But politicians and advocates adhere to the hypothesis. They have a variety of motives (i.e. personal financial gain, protection of their career histories and futures, political opportunism, etc..). But support of science cannot be one such motive because science denies the hypothesis.
Hence, additional scientific information cannot displace the AGW-hypothesis and cannot silence its advocates (e.g. Hansen). And those advocates are not scientists despite some of them claiming that they are.
-Richard S. Courtney
Wednesday, June 25, 2008
At least that's what was espoused by NASA and Columbia University scientist S.I. Rasool back in 1971 as reported by the Washington Post. According to their dire predictions, continued use of fossil fuels was going to lead to a dramatic 6 degree decline in global temperatures, ushering in the next Ice Age.
Dr. Rasool's projections were supported by a computer program model created by a young research associate at Columbia by the name of Dr. James Hanson.
A couple of obersvations: First, isn't it interesting that the evil culprit for every environmental calamity is always the same thing, fossil fuels? It's even more amazing when the pending catastrophes are complete and total opposites!
Second, in the course of a couple of decades Hanson swung from cataclysmic global cooling to cataclysmic global warming!
And we're supposed to believe anything this man spews?
For a good analysis of the accuracy (or lack thereof) of his dire predictions on warming, read Anthony Watts' review of his 1988 projections compared to temperature reality.
He's a complete and total embarrassment to NASA and the entire scientific community. Only a U.S. Congress with a 18% approval rating would even consider hosting him for a hearing on climate change.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
I welcome this call for a trial. I view it as a golden opportunity for the equivalent of a modern-day Scopes Monkey Trial to try the case for man-made global warming before a jury of average American citizens.
The trial should be aired by all the news channels non-stop until its conclusion...it's certainly a more newsworthy topic than O.J. Simpson!
If the case for the "consensus" is so strong, it should certainly stand the scrutiny of a trial. Let it stand or fail on all the scientific merit, both pro and con.
Let the alarmists expound on how global climate is driven by positive feedbacks, contrary to most stable natural systems.
Let them explain why a .6 degree C increase in average global temps over 150 years is a major concern when we've just witnessed a .7 degree C drop over the last sixteen months.
Let them explain how CO2 can be the culprit when historically CO2 levels have FOLLOWED temperature increases rather than leading them.
Let Jim Hanson explain how his is the only organization currently finding temperature increases when all three of the other major meterological organizations around the globe are finding cooling.
The list of key issues is long, so I expect this to be an extended trial, possibly several weeks or more.
So, bring it on Jim. Let the trial begin!
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Over the past 18 months I've written scores of columns on global warming.
I've read nine books on the subject so far (six by authors supporting the theory of man-made global warming and the Kyoto accord, three by skeptics).
I've watched three documentaries, including Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth and two by skeptics.
I've read hundreds of articles and now spend at least two to four hours each week researching this issue alone.
The best journalism, pro and con, is coming out of the United Kingdom and Europe, where carbon taxes and cap-and-trade are already adversely affecting millions of people because of skyrocketing energy prices.
When Stephane Dion or the David Suzuki Foundation or the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy put out a paper advocating carbon pricing, I don't read their press releases. I read their papers. I would recommend this technique to more journalists.
I'm not an expert. But I am an engaged lay person who now knows enough that I can tell when someone is bullsh****** us.
Here's what I've figured out so far.
First, Canadians care about this issue, passionately. I've never had as strong a response from readers as I've had to these columns in more than 20 years of column-writing.
Second, most politicians, regardless of party, don't know what they're talking about.
They don't understand the theory of anthropogenic global warming, or what is known with confidence and what isn't.
They don't know the difference between the Earth's natural greenhouse effect and man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
They don't realize the economic dislocation involved in moving from a carbon-based to a carbon-free economy.
Most care about the issue only in so far as it can help them get elected, which, given the implications and what's at stake for ordinary citizens, is recklessly irresponsible.
Most politicians don't know what the Kyoto accord says.
They think it's an environmental treaty. It's not. It's an economic treaty.
Its purpose is not to reduce GHG emissions -- under it GHG emissions are guaranteed to rise.
Kyoto is a United Nations treaty designed to transfer wealth from the developed world to the developing world by charging the developed world for the right to emit carbon.
That's hardly surprising given that wealth redistribution from rich nations to poor ones is the goal of most countries belonging to the UN.
The main drivers of Kyoto were, ironically, the U.K. and Europe, along with the developing world, led by China, now the world's largest GHG emitter.
Last year, China alone, exempt from reducing its own GHG emissions, was responsible for two-thirds of the total global increase in these emissions, although its per capita emissions remain well below that of the United States, the second-largest emitter.
In any event, the developing world, the U.K. and Europe each saw in Kyoto (although it's now backfiring on the U.K. and Europe) not a way to save the planet, but to hobble the U.S. economy to their advantage.
For the developing world, Kyoto, if ratified by the U.S., would place severe restrictions on American industrial activity from which developing nations are exempt.
Europe and the U.K. crafted Kyoto to give them an undeserved economic advantage over the U.S.
The key was the retroactive selection of 1990 as the base year to reduce carbon emissions for 37 developed countries, including us, as opposed to 143 nations required to do nothing.
By using 1990, a year before the Soviet Union disintegrated and its carbon emissions dramatically dropped because its economy collapsed, Europe was able to claim much of this emissions drop for itself, as major parts of the former Soviet empire were absorbed by it. It was an accounting trick. Nothing more.
The selection of 1990 also gave an undeserved bonus to the U.K., which was moving, for reasons unrelated to Kyoto, from coal to natural gas as an energy source, which emits less GHG than coal.
The Americans, wisely, refused to ratify Kyoto, even when Gore was their VP and lobbying for it.
Unfortunately, we did, either because the previous Liberal government didn't understand that the economic penalties Kyoto aimed at the U.S. would also apply to us, or because Jean Chretien, in his rush to craft himself an environmental legacy, didn't care.
The original article is here: "It's about votes, not Mother Earth"
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Such is the case with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. With each report they release their predictions become more dire, and their hollering more shrill. And the "solution" to the problem is more money for those within the IPCC clique to do more research, as well as sweeping more taxation opportunities for the politicians they serve.
Had they come back and said, "Yep, it's getting warmer, but that's probably the normal cycle of things and we'll probably start cooling again soon", how much more funding do you think they would have gotten? How much longer would the bureacracy continue to exist?
Now you know why we get the alarmism from them.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
This speech should be repeated on the floor of the U.S. Senate and the House before each and every future debate on climate change:
But let us take the time to examine some of the pseudoscience on which this whole anthropogenic global warming belief is based. Let us also examine how these disciples act and how they are reported. First, I find some of the commentary coming from some of the anthropogenic global warming zealots extremely perplexing.
We hear that the rate of increase of global temperature is faster than the science predicted. But what is actually happening?
I have three graphs: one from the third IPCC assessment report and two from the fourth assessment report. All of the projections show an increase from the year 2000, even if the graph for carbon dioxide is held constant at year 2000 levels. I repeat: all the projections show an increase over the last decade. But what do actual measurements show? I have many charts showing the global temperature as measured by four groups, including the Hadley centre, whose data is officially used by the IPCC. This data shows that the temperature has flatlined over the last 10 years. Observation does not fit theory and yet the theory is deemed correct.
A classic example of rejecting facts which do not fit the theory is the temperature graph over the last 1,000 years and the use of tree ring and tree density data as a proxy for temperature. There is a well-known problem when comparing tree ring and density data with temperature data over the last 140 years. Between 1860 and 1960, the data agreed reasonably well. After 1960, there is a divergence. The tree ring and density data indicate that temperatures have decreased, where measurements have actually indicated an increase. If you look at the IPCC graphs, the tree proxy data ends abruptly at—you guessed it—1960.
Keith Briffa, a lead author of the IPCC, in the chapter relating to tree proxy data had this to say of the divergence problem: In the absence of a substantiated explanation for the decline, we make the assumption that it is likely to be a response to some kind of recent anthropogenic forcing. On the basis of this assumption, the pre-twentieth century part of the reconstructions can be considered to be free from similar events and thus accurately represent past temperature variability.
In other words, we do not know how the hell to explain the post-1960 data, so we will just blame humans and accept that all the earlier data is correct because that fits neatly with our paradigm. This is what a friend of mine refers to as ‘situating the appreciation rather than appreciating the situation’. You make the facts fit the theory when you should make the theory fit the facts.
If global temperature is not heating as predicted, maybe this elusive heat is going into the oceans. Not so. Three thousand oceanic robots that dive up to 1,000 metres have been measuring ocean temperatures since 2003 and show, if anything, a slight decrease and certainly not an increase. So where has the heat gone? IPCC coordinating lead author Kevin Trenberth has stated: ... none of the climate states in the models correspond even remotely to the current observed climate. In particular, the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models.
According to Kevin Trenberth, the lost heat is probably going back out to space. He says the earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can trap heat, turn up the temperature or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet. So why is none of this reflected in the modelling? It is situating the appreciation again.
This whole issue of anthropogenic global warming has all the classic hallmarks of religion. There are the high priests—the Gores, the Flannerys et cetera of the world, who talk the talk but are utterly hypocritical when it comes to walking their talk. There is the concept of original sin, being industry and carbon dioxide, and the whole issue of penance or paying the price for your actions. This is the way we have to pay for the use of industry which is emitting carbon dioxide. The high priests, however, can get away with their profligate lifestyle by buying indulgences, also known as carbon credits, and so continue to sin. Hence, we have Flannery jetting here, there and everywhere and Gore, similarly, with just one of his residences—one of three, I might add—consuming 20 times as much energy as the average American household. That is how concerned he is about global warming in reality.
The media indulge the high priests, castigating the many heretics who dare to differ. Yet they let the high priests off, not scrutinising their statements as the media should. Take Flannery’s suggestion, for example, of putting sulphur into the atmosphere, using terribly polluting aircraft to disperse it. What a delicious irony! For those who know a bit of chemistry, what happens when you mix sulphur, water and oxygen? You get sulphuric acid, also known as acid rain. I guess that is the price that we need to pay for our sin. But why has the media not lampooned Flannery, who is supposed to be a global warming expert scientist of the highest order, for such a ridiculous proposal? It is political correctness of the highest and most unconscionable order.
So what we have is a more and more desperate anthropogenic global warming theory supporters club who, when the data indicates that the planet has not been heating for the last 10 years and the oceans have not heated for at least the last five, tell us that global warming is happening even more quickly than the theory predicts. After all, the models must be right, just like the bookies must always be right with predictions on match or racing results.
The problem is that this religion based around the false god of a controllable and naturally benign climate is going to hurt every man, woman and child in Australia as a result of significantly higher fuel and energy prices and consequent increases in the cost of living, particularly food, so groceries and fuel and so on are going to go up significantly—estimates say approximately 10c to 30c per litre for petrol alone. This government is clearly quite happy with that, and that is a tragedy for many Australians.
Friday, June 6, 2008
Yet with global warming, they seem to give the High Priest of Environmentalism, Al Gore, a complete pass!
Here's a hypothetical for you: Assume I had Gore's high-profile status and access to the media. Now supposed I traveled around the world telling people that aliens were in the process of quietly and surreptitiously stealing our atmosphere and that if we didn't do something about it NOW our planet would be uninhabitable in 50-100 years.
Now suppose that the "solution" to this problem was for everyone to purchase (on a daily, weekly or monthly basis) a new device called a "wonklet " that you could hang outside your home or off your car antenna that would fend off these aliens. Also suppose I had hundreds of scientists confirm that "the science was settled" that our atmosphere was being stolen by these aliens.
I appear before congress urging urgent legislation that requires everyone to purchase and use these wonklets. Companies are required to buy them (or trade their wonklets with others), then make them available to their customers...or at least bake the cost of the company's wonklets into the prices they charge all their customers.
I then spend $300M on print and television ads telling the country how bad the atmosphere-stealing-alien problem is and how wonklets are the key to saving the planet. I even have ultra-left-wingers appearing with ultra-right-wingers in the TV ads to highlight how important it is for all of us to work together on this hyper-critical problem.
Now, also suppose I had a financial interest in the company that designed the wonklet, and I had invested heavily in the manufacturer of them. If the legislation I'm advocating passes, I stand to make hundreds of millions of dollars. (I've already made over $100M just talking about the atmosphere-stealing alien problem. I even made a movie about it with really big charts and graphs!)
How long do you think I'd be allowed to promote the wonklet solution without some journalist actually pointing out my enormous financial interest in the solution I was promoting?
I suspect it wouldn't be long.
So why does Saint Al get a pass on his investments in cap-and-trade brokering companies and "green energy"?
"This bill was doomed from the start," Senator Inhofe said. "When the Majority Leader filled the amendment tree and filed cloture on the Climate Tax Bill, it was obvious that the Democrats were not serious about supporting this bill. This was one of the largest bills ever considered by this Congress and probably the largest non-appropriations bill the Senate has ever considered. This bill deserved a full and honest debate, with amendments offered and voted upon. The American people did not deserve a political exercise geared toward election year politics. Republicans were prepared to debate this bill with over 150 amendments ready to be offered. The Democrats did not want to debate and vote on our amendments that were aimed at protecting American families and workers from the devastating economic impacts of this bill. The 1990 Clean Air Act amendments were considered on the Senate floor for five weeks, and this comprehensive climate bill demands at least equal debate.
I'm sure it will be back in the future, but for now we've dodged this bullet.