The uncertainty of science: A new study released Tuesday has found that snowfall in the Sierra Nevada has remained consistent for 130 years, despite increased global temperatures.
The man duped is Fritz Vahrenholt, a former global warming advocate and leftwing environmentalist in Germany. The words were spoken in a long and detailed interview in Der Spiegel. Read it all, as it demonstrates without question that Vahrenholt has done his research about the complexities of climate research as well as the flaws and dishonesty contained within the IPCC reports. However, he gets to the nub of the matter when he is asked why he has taken on the role of a climate skeptic with such passion.
» Read more
The uncertainty of science: New satellite data shows that the glaciers in the Himalayas have lost no ice in past 10 years.
The scientists are careful to point out that lower-altitude glaciers in the Asian mountain ranges – sometimes dubbed the “third pole” – are definitely melting. Satellite images and reports confirm this. But over the study period from 2003-10 enough ice was added to the peaks to compensate.
Is this further confirmation that global warming stopped ten years ago? Not really. As the report notes, the time period is too short to establish a clear trend. Moreover, this study only deals with the Asian glaciers, which is also too small a sample for any firm conclusions.
Nonetheless, the data does illustrate once again how complex and uncertain the study of the Earth’s climate is. Anyone who claims we know what is really happening is either refusing to look at all the data or is simply lying.
Two more global warming scientists, this time in Germany, have become global warming skeptics.
One of the fathers of Germany’s modern green movement, Professor Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a social democrat and green activist, decided to author a climate science skeptical book together with geologist/paleontologist Dr. Sebastian Lüning. Vahrenholt’s skepticism started when he was asked to review an IPCC report on renewable energy. He found hundreds of errors. When he pointed them out, IPCC officials simply brushed them aside. Stunned, he asked himself, “Is this the way they approached the climate assessment reports?”
Vahrenholt decided to do some digging. His colleague Dr. Lüning also gave him a copy of Andrew Montford’s The Hockey Stick Illusion. He was horrified by the sloppiness and deception he found. Persuaded by Hoffmann & Campe, he and Lüning decided to write the book. Die kalte Sonne [The Cold Sun] cites 800 sources and has over 80 charts and figures. It examines and summarizes the latest science.
[The c]onclusion: climate catastrophe is called off. The science was hyped.
The inquisition is alive and well: A campaign by global warming activists is seeking to purge ‘deniers’ among local weathermen.
So far, the campaign has identified 55 “deniers” in the meteorologist community and are looking for more. They define “deniers” as “anyone who expressly refutes the overwhelming scientific consensus about climate change: that it is real, largely caused by humans, and already having profound impacts on our world. … We track the views of meteorologists through their on-air statements, blog posts, social media activity, public appearances, interviews, and interactions with viewers,” the campaign explains.
In other words, they should be fired because of their opinions.
Better go while you can: The National Park Service is considering several plans to limit the number of hikers per day on the Half Dome hike in Yosemite.
Data issued last week without fanfare by both the UK’s Met Office and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit has confirmed that the rising trend in world temperatures ended in 1997.
The article also discusses at great length the additional influence the sun and its sunspot cycle might have on the climate, something I have discussed here at great length. However, the above factoid is the article’s most important data point.
Persecution for the sake of global warming.
Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
The quote is part of an op-ed signed by sixteen prominent scientists describing why there is no need to panic over global warming.
Another green company, backed with federal grants from both the Bush and Obama administrations, has gone bankrupt.
A dollar here, a dollar there, who cares? It’s the thought that counts!
Geothermal energy developers plan to pump 24 million gallons of water into a dormant volcano in Oregon this summer to demonstrate a new way to generate electricity.
The irony I glean from this article is this: Pumping water underground to produce energy from geothermal sources (a source liked by the environmental movement) is good. However, pumping water underground to produce energy from gas or oil (energy sources hated by the environmental movement) is bad. And yet, what difference really is there between either effort?
Touching our lives every day: More on the EPA’s decision to punish refineries for not using a non-existent fuel.
