The sun, cosmic rays, and the politics of climate change
The sun, cosmic rays, and the politics of climate change.
The sun, cosmic rays, and the politics of climate change.
Tag: climategate
The sun, cosmic rays, and the politics of climate change
Another IPCC prediction fails
In a paper published in Geophysical Research Letters of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) earlier this month, climate researchers have found that another prediction in the UN’s IPCC reports — what Al Gore likes to call “settled science” — is simply wrong, and that IPCC’s predicted rise in sea level over the next century is likely not going to happen.
» Read more
It’s the coverup, not the crime
A new Rasmussen poll finds that 69% of the public now believe that climate scientists falsified data to support their own theories about global warming. Moreover, these numbers are up ten points since December 2009, which happens to be just after the climategate emails were released.
These terrible numbers are further evidence that the willingness of the scientific community to whitewash their investigations of the climategate scientists, what I consider to be the equivalent of a community-wide cover-up, has done serious harm to science and its reputation.
» Read more
Thank the Gods for Climategate
Thank the gods for climategate.
We are certainly in a far different world vis-a-vis global warming than 21 months ago. The [global warming] climatologists are, to a very large extent, being ignored. Yes, there is an IPCC coming up, and perhaps we should wait until that is over. But I will predict that no matter what hoohah comes out of it, it will not have 50% of the energy of the previous IPCCs, because governments just aren’t listening with baited breath anymore. If there is any place where the mojo counted, it was with governments. But it ain’t there any more.
Thank the gods for climategate.
We are certainly in a far different world vis-a-vis global warming than 21 months ago. The [global warming] climatologists are, to a very large extent, being ignored. Yes, there is an IPCC coming up, and perhaps we should wait until that is over. But I will predict that no matter what hoohah comes out of it, it will not have 50% of the energy of the previous IPCCs, because governments just aren’t listening with baited breath anymore. If there is any place where the mojo counted, it was with governments. But it ain’t there any more.
The journal Science finally admits things have not gotten warmer in the past decade
The journal Science finally admits things have not gotten warmer in the past decade.
The explanation provided, that recent volcanic eruptions cooled a warming earth, might be true, though the conclusions are based not so much on data but on climate computer models, a fact that leaves me somewhat skeptical. Nonetheless, what is significant to me about this article is that Science — which has been decidedly in the global warming political camp for years and has frequently lambasted scientists who suggested the climate’s warming has slowed or even stopped in the past decade — has now been forced to admit that the warming has stopped. That they feel compelled to push the global warming threat in the same sentence only reveals their continuing scientific bias.
The journal Science finally admits things have not gotten warmer in the past decade.
The explanation provided, that recent volcanic eruptions cooled a warming earth, might be true, though the conclusions are based not so much on data but on climate computer models, a fact that leaves me somewhat skeptical. Nonetheless, what is significant to me about this article is that Science — which has been decidedly in the global warming political camp for years and has frequently lambasted scientists who suggested the climate’s warming has slowed or even stopped in the past decade — has now been forced to admit that the warming has stopped. That they feel compelled to push the global warming threat in the same sentence only reveals their continuing scientific bias.
The sun, climate change, and censorship
The chief of CERN has prohibited its scientists from drawing any conclusions from a major experiment that appears to prove that solar activity and the resulting ebb and flow of cosmic rays has a direct effect on the climate.
Two points:
First, the results described provide strong evidence that the sun is a much more important component in climate change than any climate model has previously predicted. These results could help explain the Little Ice Age, which took place around 1700 at exactly the same time the sun became very quiet and stopped producing sunspots for decades. They could explain the Medieval Warm Period around 1000 AD, when cosmic ray activity declined (which also suggests the sun become more active) and the earth apparently warmed. And they might very well even explain the recent cooling during the past decade, which also took place during a period of solar inactivity and a comparable increase in cosmic ray activity.
» Read more
Why Hasn’t The Earth Warmed In Nearly 15 Years?
Wither the Arctic Icecap?
In a paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters, climate scientists have estimated the distribution and trends for the Arctic icecap from 1980 through March 2011. What they have found is a significant decline in older ice on top of an overall declining trend that showed a strong but partial recovery since 2008. The graph below, from the paper, illustrates clearly these trends.
What this means for the icecap itself remains unclear. As the scientists themselves note in their conclusion:
» Read more
Gore Announces New Campaign and Worldwide Event to Re-energize Global Warming Hysteria
Al Gore has announced a new campaign “to broadcast the reality of the climate crisis and mobilize citizens to help solve it.”
And I ask: what the hell does a propaganda campaign tell us about the climate? The answer: nothing. Just because you say so, Al, does not make it so.
On another note, satellite data continues to show absolutely no warming for the past decade.
Al Gore has announced a new campaign “to broadcast the reality of the climate crisis and mobilize citizens to help solve it.”
And I ask: what the hell does a propaganda campaign tell us about the climate? The answer: nothing. Just because you say so, Al, does not make it so.
On another note, satellite data continues to show absolutely no warming for the past decade.
Global warming — or not
In the realm of science, when a computer model is contradicted by empirical observation, the model is deemed to have been refuted. Only in the field of global climate do purported scientists refuse to recognize that basic principle.
In the realm of science, when a computer model is contradicted by empirical observation, the model is deemed to have been refuted. Only in the field of global climate do purported scientists refuse to recognize that basic principle.
Stop the Lying
AAAS campaigns to stop attacks on global warming advocates
The board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has issued a statement demanding that all attacks on global warming advocates cease.
Though they couch their wording as if they oppose all outside interference with the scientific process (a bad idea on its own), they conveniently only complain about the efforts of skeptics to challenge the work of scientists who support human-caused global warming.
Lawmakers and activist groups also have sought detailed disclosure of records from climate researchers. The American Tradition Institute (ATI) has asked the University of Virginia to turn over thousands of e-mails and documents written by Michael E. Mann, a former U-Va. professor and a prominent climate scientist. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a climate change skeptic, demanded many of the same documents last year in an effort to determine if Mann had somehow defrauded taxpayers in obtaining research grants. ATI also has sued NASA to disclose records detailing climate scientist James Hansen’s compliance with federal ethics and disclosure rules.
In other words, don’t question these people, only skeptics are open for attack.
The board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has issued a statement demanding that all attacks on global warming advocates cease.
Though they couch their wording as if they oppose all outside interference with the scientific process (a bad idea on its own), they conveniently only complain about the efforts of skeptics to challenge the work of scientists who support human-caused global warming.
Lawmakers and activist groups also have sought detailed disclosure of records from climate researchers. The American Tradition Institute (ATI) has asked the University of Virginia to turn over thousands of e-mails and documents written by Michael E. Mann, a former U-Va. professor and a prominent climate scientist. Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, a climate change skeptic, demanded many of the same documents last year in an effort to determine if Mann had somehow defrauded taxpayers in obtaining research grants. ATI also has sued NASA to disclose records detailing climate scientist James Hansen’s compliance with federal ethics and disclosure rules.
In other words, don’t question these people, only skeptics are open for attack.
Tim Pawlenty goes from advocate of global warming to skeptic
Presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty switches from global warming advocate to skeptic.
This is just more fallout from Climategate and the unwillingness of scientists to clean house.
Presidential candidate Tim Pawlenty switches from global warming advocate to skeptic.
This is just more fallout from Climategate and the unwillingness of scientists to clean house.
At House hearing head of NOAA challenged on ignoring Congressional law
At House hearings this week the head of NOAA was attacked for ignoring Congressional law in setting up a National Climate Service.
One big sticking point for legislators is language in this spring’s final 2011 spending bill that averted a government shutdown, which states that “none of the funds made available by this division may be used to implement, establish, or create a NOAA Climate Service.” Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) said the appointment of Karl and the hiring of six regional directors appear to have ignored those instructions. He quipped that NOAA was “living in climate sin,” a reference to Karl’s statement during an interview in December 2010 with ClimateWire that “we’ve moved in, … we’re waiting for the marriage certificate, but we’re acting like we have a climate service.”
Lubchenco defended her actions, saying that her appointments were “smart” and merely “good planning.” She said their salaries are drawn from “existing funds” and that legislation dating back to the National Climate Program Act of 1978 describes providing climate services as part of NOAA’s mission. She responded to Hall’s concerns that the climate service would take away from NOAA’s other activities by saying, “It’s good government to reorganize periodically.” She also referred to its economic potential, citing the $1 billion industry that has emerged around the National Weather Service.
Speaking with ScienceInsider after the hearing, she made it clear that NOAA intends to push ahead. “This is an idea whose time has come.” [emphasis mine]
In other words, so what the law forbids NOAA from doing this. We know best, Congress can go to hell.
At House hearings this week the head of NOAA was attacked for ignoring Congressional law in setting up a National Climate Service.
One big sticking point for legislators is language in this spring’s final 2011 spending bill that averted a government shutdown, which states that “none of the funds made available by this division may be used to implement, establish, or create a NOAA Climate Service.” Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) said the appointment of Karl and the hiring of six regional directors appear to have ignored those instructions. He quipped that NOAA was “living in climate sin,” a reference to Karl’s statement during an interview in December 2010 with ClimateWire that “we’ve moved in, … we’re waiting for the marriage certificate, but we’re acting like we have a climate service.”
Lubchenco defended her actions, saying that her appointments were “smart” and merely “good planning.” She said their salaries are drawn from “existing funds” and that legislation dating back to the National Climate Program Act of 1978 describes providing climate services as part of NOAA’s mission. She responded to Hall’s concerns that the climate service would take away from NOAA’s other activities by saying, “It’s good government to reorganize periodically.” She also referred to its economic potential, citing the $1 billion industry that has emerged around the National Weather Service.
Speaking with ScienceInsider after the hearing, she made it clear that NOAA intends to push ahead. “This is an idea whose time has come.” [emphasis mine]
In other words, so what the law forbids NOAA from doing this. We know best, Congress can go to hell.
James Hansen sued for failing failed to comply with ethics rules and financial disclosures regarding substantial compensation he earned outside his $180,000 taxpayer-paid position
Global warming scientist James Hansen is being sued for failing to comply with ethics rules and financial disclosures regarding more than $1.2 million in compensation he earned outside his NASA job.
Global warming scientist James Hansen is being sued for failing to comply with ethics rules and financial disclosures regarding more than $1.2 million in compensation he earned outside his NASA job.
Mann and company write more science fiction
Junk science: Michael Mann and associates have just released a paper claiming “The rate of sea level rise along the U.S. Atlantic coast is greater now than at any time in the past 2,000 years–and has shown a consistent link between changes in global mean surface temperature and sea level.” You can read the paper itself here.
For many, many, many reasons, I agree here with scientist Richard Mueller, who believes in global warming but also believes in good science, “I now have a list of people whose papers I won’t read anymore.”
Nonetheless, I have looked at this new paper by Mann and crew, and find its evidence so weak it ain’t worth the paper it’s written on. To look at the record of a single fossil and claim it is a sufficient proxy for sea level rise is downright laughable.
The failed predictions of global warming activists
The failed predictions of global warming activists.
In 2005 “the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations University declared that 50 million people could become environmental refugees by 2010, fleeing the effects of climate change.” Three years later . . . Srgjan Kerim, president of the UN General Assembly, said it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010. A UNEP web page showed a map of regions where people were likely to be displaced by the ravages of global warming. It has recently been taken offline but is still visible in a Google cache.
The failed predictions of global warming activists.
In 2005 “the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the United Nations University declared that 50 million people could become environmental refugees by 2010, fleeing the effects of climate change.” Three years later . . . Srgjan Kerim, president of the UN General Assembly, said it had been estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010. A UNEP web page showed a map of regions where people were likely to be displaced by the ravages of global warming. It has recently been taken offline but is still visible in a Google cache.
Research Center Under Fire for ‘Adjusted’ Sea-Level Data
A university research center is under attack for arbitrarily adjusting its sea-level data upward.
A university research center is under attack for arbitrarily adjusting its sea-level data upward.
IPCC in trouble again over using Greenpeace employee for energy report
The IPCC is in trouble again for using a Greenpeace activist to help write one of its recent energy reports.
The IPCC is in trouble again for using a Greenpeace activist to help write one of its recent energy reports.
Climate cleansing: Google to censor skeptics?
From JunkScience: Google to censor climate skeptics?
From JunkScience: Google to censor climate skeptics?
IPCC announces reforms for next report
The IPCC announced this week it has established new procedures in an effort to avoid the problems that occurred with the last report.
I remain very skeptical of these reforms, as well as anything this UN organization publishes. Consider this quote for example:
On the issue of citing non-peer-reviewed literature, such as reports from nongovernmental organizations and climate activists, the new procedures say that IPCC report authors can include such documents “as long as they are scientifically and technically valid. [emphasis mine]
How convenient. Decide that something written by Greenpeace is “scientifically and technically valid” and you can use it as evidence.
The IPCC announced this week it has established new procedures in an effort to avoid the problems that occurred with the last report.
I remain very skeptical of these reforms, as well as anything this UN organization publishes. Consider this quote for example:
On the issue of citing non-peer-reviewed literature, such as reports from nongovernmental organizations and climate activists, the new procedures say that IPCC report authors can include such documents “as long as they are scientifically and technically valid. [emphasis mine]
How convenient. Decide that something written by Greenpeace is “scientifically and technically valid” and you can use it as evidence.
We don’t know.
Earth Day predictions from 1970
The predictions of disaster from the first Earth Day, 1970. I especially like this one:
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions. . . . By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University [emphasis mine]
A consensus was reached and the science was settled!
Remember this the next time some blowhard global-warming pundit tries to claim “the science is settled” today.
The predictions of disaster from the first Earth Day, 1970. I especially like this one:
“Demographers agree almost unanimously on the following grim timetable: by 1975 widespread famines will begin in India; these will spread by 1990 to include all of India, Pakistan, China and the Near East, Africa. By the year 2000, or conceivably sooner, South and Central America will exist under famine conditions. . . . By the year 2000, thirty years from now, the entire world, with the exception of Western Europe, North America, and Australia, will be in famine.” Peter Gunter, professor, North Texas State University [emphasis mine]
A consensus was reached and the science was settled!
Remember this the next time some blowhard global-warming pundit tries to claim “the science is settled” today.
Global warming advocate discovers that anti-nuclear activists lie!
Confusion in the environmentalism movement: A global warming activist discovers that anti-nuclear activists lie!
Confusion in the environmentalism movement: A global warming activist discovers that anti-nuclear activists lie!
Met Office chief says he has received death threats from climate change skeptics
This is wrong, if true: The chief of the UK’s Met Office said yesterday that he has received death threats from climate change skeptics.
A Met Office spokesman confirmed Mr Hirst had received death threats made in a number of ”unsavoury emails”, but said they were ”isolated incidents” and the organisation had not felt it necessary to involve the police.
This is wrong, if true: The chief of the UK’s Met Office said yesterday that he has received death threats from climate change skeptics.
A Met Office spokesman confirmed Mr Hirst had received death threats made in a number of ”unsavoury emails”, but said they were ”isolated incidents” and the organisation had not felt it necessary to involve the police.
Battery powered Chevy Volt produces more CO2 than an ordinary gasoline engine
The electric-powered Chevy Volt actually produces more CO2 than an ordinary gasoline engine!
I don’t know if the analysis in the above article is completely accurate, but it sure suggests that switching to electric cars over gasoline is not all that it’s cracked up to be, and is probably not a good idea.
The electric-powered Chevy Volt actually produces more CO2 than an ordinary gasoline engine!
I don’t know if the analysis in the above article is completely accurate, but it sure suggests that switching to electric cars over gasoline is not all that it’s cracked up to be, and is probably not a good idea.
The journal Science joins the cover-up
It’s not the crime it’s the cover-up: According to Science, Michael Mann of the climategate scandal did not advocate the illegal deletion of emails that had been requested under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), as reported earlier by the Daily Caller. All he did was forward an email by Phil Jones, also part of the climategate scandal, that requested that emails should be deleted. He is therefore innocent.
This is getting absurd. That a journal like Science would try to justify this idiotic argument puts a serious stain on almost everything they publish. Michael Mann was requested by Phil Jones to contact Eugene Wahl and ask him to delete emails illegally. Mann took the easiest approach, and simply forwarded Jones’s email. Without question he was complicit in this illegal act.
If the scientific community doesn’t wake up soon and honestly deal with this scandal, they are going to destroy a four hundred year track record of honesty. Worse, they are going to find it increasingly difficult to get funds from anyone for their research.
More evidence Penn State’s investigation of Mann was a whitewash
More evidence that Penn State’s investigation of IPCC climate researcher Michael Mann was a whitewash.
The key point is that the Penn State investigators never interviewed a principal who was able to confirm or deny a key charge against “Hockey Stick” lead author of “Hide the Decline” infamy Michael Mann. This individual has now been interviewed, and what he told federal investigators has indicted Mann and Penn State.
I have noted this already, the very week the Penn State report was issued, but it is nice to see there is further evidence to confirm my conclusions.
More evidence that Penn State’s investigation of IPCC climate researcher Michael Mann was a whitewash.
The key point is that the Penn State investigators never interviewed a principal who was able to confirm or deny a key charge against “Hockey Stick” lead author of “Hide the Decline” infamy Michael Mann. This individual has now been interviewed, and what he told federal investigators has indicted Mann and Penn State.
I have noted this already, the very week the Penn State report was issued, but it is nice to see there is further evidence to confirm my conclusions.