A real scientist shows why the “hide the decline” crowd are frauds

Below is a video excerpt from a lecture by Richard A. Muller, a scientist at the University of California at Berkeley. He illustrates forcefully and clearly why frauds like Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and anyone who excuses the climategate scandal are not to be trusted with science. Or as he says,

I now have a list of people whose papers I won’t read anymore.

It is imperative that more scientists come forward like this and condemn these guys, as Muller does. Only then, can climate research begin to recover its reputation.

Random variations are still too large for climate models

The uncertainty of science: a paper published today in Geophysical Research Letters has concluded that the the long term random variations of the climate, sometimes lasting as long as three or four decades, are large enough to hide any actual changes to the climate. In the quote from the abstract below, the term “random walk” is jargon for a long term random fluctuation having nothing to do with climate change.

This result indicates that the shorter records may not totally capture the random variability of climate relevant on the time scale of civilizations, for which the random walk length is likely to be about 30 years. For this random walk length, the observed standard deviations of maximum temperature and minimum temperature yield respective expected maximum excursions on land of 1.4 and 2.3°C and over the ocean of 0.5 and 0.7°C, which are substantial fractions of the global warming signal.

In other words, it might simply be too soon to be making predictions about the climate, based upon the presently available data.

The icecaps of Greenland and Antarctica: are they melting?

NASA scientists have published a paper warning that there is growing evidence that the melting at the polar caps is accelerating. From the press release:

The pace at which the polar ice sheets are losing mass was found to be accelerating rapidly. Each year over the course of the study, the two ice sheets lost a combined average of 36.3 gigatonnes more than they did the year before. In comparison, the 2006 study of mountain glaciers and ice caps estimated their loss at 402 gigatonnes a year on average, with a year-over-year acceleration rate three times smaller than that of the ice sheets.

Several things to note after reading the actual paper:

Climate science hearing changes nothing

There was a hearing in Congress today on climate science, though it apparently changed nothing: the Republican leadership in the committee is going to proceed with legislation to try to roll back the EPA regulations relating to carbon dioxide imposed by the Obama administration.

The most interesting detail I gleaned from the above article however was this quote, written by the Science journalist himself, Eli Kintisch:

The hearing barely touched on the underlying issue, namely, is it appropriate for Congress to involve itself so deeply into the working of a regulatory agency? Are there precedents? And what are the legal and governance implications of curtailing an agency’s authority in this way?

What a strange thing to write. If I remember correctly, we are a democracy, and the people we elect to Congress are given the ultimate responsibility and authority to legislate. There are no “legal or governance implications.” If they want to rein in a regulatory agency, that is their absolute Constitutional right. That Kintisch and his editors at Science don’t seem to understand this basic fact about American governance is most astonishing.

How Los Angeles’s community colleges wasted millions on green energy construction

How the head of Los Angeles’s community college construction program wasted millions on green energy construction. This quote sums up the absurdity of this environmental wet dream:

As head of a $5.7-billion, taxpayer-funded program to rebuild the college campuses, Eisenberg commanded attention. But his plan for energy independence was seriously flawed. He overestimated how much power the colleges could generate. He underestimated the cost. And he poured millions of dollars into designs for projects that proved so impractical or unpopular they were never built. These and other blunders cost nearly $10 million that could have paid for new classrooms, laboratories and other college facilities, a Times investigation found.

The problems with Eisenberg’s energy vision were fundamental. For starters, there simply wasn’t room on the campuses for all the generating equipment required to become self-sufficient. Some of the colleges wouldn’t come close to that goal even if solar panels, wind turbines and other devices were wedged into every available space.

Going off the grid did not make economic sense either. Given the cost of alternative energy technology, it would be more expensive for the district to generate all its own electricity than to continue paying utilities for power.

Weather and geology also refused to cooperate. Three solar power arrays had to be scrapped because the intended locations were atop seismic faults. Plans for large-scale wind power collided with the reality that prevailing winds at nearly all the campuses are too weak to generate much electricity. To date, a single wind turbine has been installed, as a demonstration project. It spins too slowly in average winds to power a 60-watt light bulb. [emphasis mine]

Worse, the man who forced this idiocy on the colleges still sees nothing wrong with it. And his justification illustrates how completely uneducated he is.

He cast himself as an environmental visionary and predicted that the college system would eventually achieve energy independence. “Somebody needs to be first,” he said. “If the great explorers really had a map and knew where they were going, maybe we wouldn’t have the result we have today.

The fact is that the great explorers always had a map, and worked carefully from real data. Granted, the horizon was unknown, but the explorers who succeeded all ground their exploration on reality, not fantasy.

With foolish leadership like this, it is no surprise California is about to go bankrupt.

Water and ice at the bottom of the Antarctic Ice Sheet

The uncertainty of science: Unexpectedly large amounts of flowing water and refrozen ice found at the bottom of the Antarctic icecap. Key quote:

It’s too early to know whether this new finding means that global warming will melt ice sheets slower or faster than scientists have predicted. But the work does suggest that current models of ice sheet dynamics are missing a huge factor, said glaciologist Donald Blankenship of the University of Texas, Austin. “The take-home message of this work is that [the bottom of ice sheets] can no longer be ignored” in the models, he says.

Two High-priority Climate Missions Dropped from NASA’s Budget Plans

Two high-priority climate missions dropped from NASA’s budget by the White House. And what’s most amazing: No one’s squealing!

“Removal of these missions was not what we desired and not what the administration desired, but it was a clear recognition and acknowledgement of the budget issues we face as a nation,” [said Steve Volz, associate director for flight programs at NASA’s Earth Science Division]. “It’s cleaner to be allowed to delete the scope that goes along with the dollars than to have to figure out how to do more with less.”

Another climategate whitewash

The inspector general of the Department of Commerce has just issued a review of NOAA’s response to the climategate emails and has essentially given the agency a clean bill of health. You can download the full report here [pdf].

It’s. just. another. whitewash. Let me quote just one part of the report’s summary, referring to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to NOAA in June 2007 in which the agency responded by saying they had no such documents:
» Read more

House cuts off funds to IPCC

Listen to the squealing: Scientists criticize the House vote to cut off funds to the IPCC. Key quote:

Without the federal support, [Stanford ecologist Chris Field] said, “We’d have no ability to organize meetings, we’d have no ability to coordinate chapters.”

In other words, no more jaunts to Cancun in the midst of winter. What a shame!

Considering the insincere effort of the IPCC and its scientists to correct its numerous errors, as well as their admitted political agenda, it seems completely appropriate to stop funding it with U.S. tax dollars. If these environmentalists want to issue a report, they should pay for it themselves.

Holdren of the Obama administration:
Deniers no, Ignorant yes!

The following story is why the advocates of global warming are losing the debate: At House hearings yesterday, Obama’s science advisor John Holdren admitted that using the term “deniers” to describe scientists who had doubts about global warming is inappropriate. “It was not my intent to compare them to Holocaust deniers, and I regret it,” he replied. “In the future I will find other terms to use.”

Sounds good, doesn’t it? Shortly thereafter, however, during the same hearing, Holdren then said this about a list of 100 climate scientists [word file] who remain skeptical about global warming:

“I haven’t seen the list,” Holdren began. “But in the past, most of the names on such petitions have turned out not to be climate scientists, and one could assume that they had not spent much time reviewing the literature.”

Without any knowledge, he slams these scientists, accusing them of being ignorant of the science.
» Read more

The great wind scam

The great wind scam. Key quote:

“With demand for power at record levels because of the freezing weather, there have been days when the contribution of our forests of wind turbines has been precisely nothing,” wrote Richard Littlejohn in the Daily Mail Dec. 27. “It gets better,” Mr. Littlejohn continued. “As the temperature has plummeted, the turbines have had to be heated to prevent them from seizing up. Consequently, they have been consuming more electricity than they generate.”

A fresh perspective from the new chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees National Science Foundation (NSF), NASA, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Commerce

Mo Brooks (R-Alabama), the new chairman of the House subcommittee that oversees National Science Foundation (NSF), NASA, the Department of Energy, and the Department of Commerce, gives his perspective on science and the budget. Two quotes of interest:

Q: Do you believe that federal research should be exempt from a rollback in federal spending to 2008 levels?
Brooks: I would love for that to happen. But we just don’t have the money. … We have no choice but to look at everything. If we don’t balance our budget over a short period of time, the federal government is going to collapse and there won’t be money for any of these things. So if we’re going to save money for research and advancement in science, we’re going to have to get our house in order now.

Q: Do you think the government should increase funding on research once things turn around?
Brooks: Do you mean if the budgetary situation turns around? I don’t see that happening in the next 4 to 5 years. We’ve got a $1.5 trillion budget deficit, and Admiral Mullen, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has declared it the number one security threat to the country. And if our creditors would cut us off, there would be zero money for national defense or NSF or anything else.

Note how the interviewer, from Science, can’t seem to get his head around the idea of budget cuts.

Q: Is human activity causing global warming?
Brooks: That’s a difficult question to answer because I’ve talked to scientists on both sides of the fence, especially at the University of Alabama at Huntsville. Some say yes, and some say no. I’m also old enough to remember when the same left-wing part of our society was creating a global cooling scare in order to generate funds for their pet projects. So 30-some years ago, the big scare was global cooling, and once they drained the government, they shifted to global warming. So I’m approaching the issue with a healthy degree of skepticism. If the evidence is there to prove it, then so be it.

New research finds that the Himalayan glaciers are not melting

New research finds that the Himalayan glaciers are not melting. Key quote:

The new study by scientists at the Universities of California and Potsdam has found that half of the glaciers in the Karakoram range, in the northwestern Himlaya, are in fact advancing and that global warming is not the deciding factor in whether a glacier survives or melts.

The last part of the above quote, on global warming, is almost certainly an overstatement of what we do or don’t know. Warming will cause glaciers to melt, but how much and when are factors that are still not understood. Moreover, we are still not sure how much warming has even occurred.

Climate change study had ‘significant error’: experts

Climate scientists admit that a climate change study which claimed the Earth would warm by more than 4 degrees Fahrenheit in about a decade had “significant errors”. Key quote:

Scientist Scott Mandia forwarded to AFP an email he said he sent to Hisas ahead of publication explaining why her figures did not add up, and noting that it would take “quite a few decades” to reach a warming level of 2.4 degrees Celsius. “Even if we assume the higher end of the current warming rate, we should only be 0.2C warmer by 2020 than today,” Mandia wrote. “To get to +2.4C the current trend would have to immediately increase almost ten-fold.”

Confessions of a Greenpeace founder

The confessions of a Greenpeace founder. Key quote:

The truth is Greenpeace and I had divergent evolutions. I became a sensible environmentalist; Greenpeace became increasingly senseless as it adopted an agenda that is anti-science, anti-business, and downright anti-human.

Other quotes of interest:

The collapse of world communism and the fall of the Berlin Wall during the 1980s added to the trend toward extremism. The Cold War was over and the peace movement was largely disbanded. The peace movement had been mainly Western-based and anti-American in its leanings. Many of its members moved into the environmental movement, bringing with them their neo-Marxist, far-left agendas. To a considerable extent the environmental movement was hijacked by political and social activists who learned to use green language to cloak agendas that had more to do with anti-capitalism and anti-globalization than with science or ecology.

And:

There is no cause for alarm about climate change. The climate is always changing. Some of the proposed “solutions” would be far worse than any imaginable consequence of global warming, which will likely be mostly positive. Cooling is what we should fear.

2010 Sea Level: Largest drop ever recorded?

2010 sea level: The largest drop ever recorded? Key quote:

2006 was the first year to show a drop in the global sea level. 2010 will be the 2nd year to show a decrease in sea level. That is correct, 2 of the past 5 years are going to show a decrease in sea level. 2010 could likely show a significant drop global sea level. By significant I mean it is possible that it will likely drop between 2-3 mm from 2009.

All IPCC predictions insist that increased carbon dioxide will cause sea level rise. All these predictions are now wrong, as carbon dioxide is still increasing in the atmosphere but the sea level has actually been going down.

1 29 30 31 32 33