Friday, December 20, 2013

Marc Morano in Warsaw.

here

Friday, November 29, 2013

Tempête: des Néo-Brunswickois sans électricité


Tous ce monde la devrais être content! Un vrai bel exemple pour vous tous. Pas d’électricité, pas de chaleur, pas d’eau potable, pas de communication,  pas de pétrole, pas de pollution, pas de pompe pour pomper vos (déchets) de vos toilettes…… Bien voilà  Aucune Émission des gaz de schistes/pétrole. La prochaine fois que vous écouté vos Écologiste vous faire des sermons comment nous devons tous arrêté de vivre confortablement dans nos maison chauffer par les produit pétroliers. Rappeler vous de ceux qui sont présentement sans aucune de c’est bonne chose que nous ont apporté le Pétrole.  

Sunday, September 15, 2013

IPCC admit models are wrong.

The 31-page ‘summary for policymakers’ is based on a more technical 2,000-page analysis which will be issued at the same time. It also surprisingly reveals: IPCC scientists accept their forecast computers may have exaggerated the effect of increased carbon emissions on world temperatures  – and not taken enough notice of natural variability.
 

Here

Friday, August 30, 2013

North West Passage blocked with ice - yachts caught

The Northwest Passage after decades of so-called global warming has a dramatic 60% more Arctic ice this year than at the same time last year. The future dreams of dozens of adventurous sailors are now threatened. A scattering of yachts attempting the legendary Passage are caught by the ice, which has now become blocked at both ends and the transit season may be ending early. Douglas Pohl tells the story: 

Here

Friday, June 28, 2013

Obama: the Science - Challenged President

 
 
Jun 26, 2013
Blowing Smoke: Obama Climate Speech Riddled With Lies
By Tim Ball and Tom Harris
 
King Canute, attempting to teach his people a lesson regarding his abilities, supposedly went to the sea and commanded the tide to stop. Twelfth-century English historian Henry of Huntington wrote that Canute took his throne to the seashore, but the tide, “continuing to rise as usual dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person.”

President Barack Obama’s naive and error-riddled speech at Georgetown University on Tuesday clearly demonstrated that he is serious about trying to stop global climate change. However, like the tide, climate change is a natural event of such proportions that it is largely unaffected by human activities. Obama ignores that the “official climate science” on which he bases America’s climate and energy policies has been washed away by 17 years without global warming, despite atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) - the gas Obama blames for rising temperatures - continuing to increase primarily due to the emissions of China and India.

Unlike America’s hopelessly misguided president, the reasons behind Canute’s action were sensible. He wanted to reduce unrealistically elevated expectations of him. Canute’s goal was to show fawning courtiers that there were things over which he had no control. He knew the facts about tides. Sadly for our American friends, and indeed for the whole free world which depends on a strong America, Obama lacks Canute’s humility and knowledge about nature. The president’s misunderstanding and his apparent disinterest in real climate science is leading the United States into an economic black hole from which it may take generations to recover.

Obama also seems oblivious to real-world economic evidence that the policy path on which he is setting the U.S. has already been tried and has failed in other countries. It is not surprising that when he launched his most recent climate change initiative last week in Berlin, the German public response was less than enthusiastic, they are already suffering the economic and energy consequences of “going green” in a hopeless attempt to stop climate change. Many Germans are also aware of the implications of the Climategate scandal, through which the corrupted science of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was exposed through leaked emails.

In foisting many of the same policies on America that have already failed in Europe, the president appears to be counting on U.S. media to continue to hide the significance of Climategate and the recent halt in planetary warming.

In telling Georgetown students on Tuesday that he doesn’t “have much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is real,” Obama reveals his ignorance. Nobody is denying that climate change is “real” and that coping with such changes can be challenging. What skeptical scientists do question, however, is the degree to which human activity causes those changes. Saying that “ninety-seven percent of scientists” “acknowledged the planet is warming and human activity is contributing to it,” as Obama did in his speech, is both wrong and meaningless.

As ICSC policy advisor Lord Christopher Monckton just showed, the study that backs this claim is fatally flawed. First, science is never determined by a show of hands. If it were, the Earth would still be considered flat and the center of the universe and space travel impossible. Second, the only statistic that could be interesting would be the fraction of scientists who study the causes of climate change and support the idea that our CO2 emissions are causing serious climate problems. There has never been a reputable survey that asked experts this question.

As we have come to expect from this president on global warming and energy, yesterday’s presentation included many basic science mistakes and inappropriate cherry picking of data. For example, Obama’s assertions about abnormally high temperatures and the extent of Arctic sea ice melt are either meaningless or simply wrong. Last July, new average U.S. temperature records were set by one-fifth of a degree Fahrenheit. This is meaningless since the measurement uncertainty in most of the record is one-half degree Fahrenheit. Similarly, last July’s record temperature was not based on the highs of the day. A record was set merely because the nights were slightly less cool in July 2012 than those experienced in the 1930s. So, when the high and lows of the day were averaged, a record average was established. Nevertheless, the highs of the day in the 1930s still exceeded anything experienced in July 2012.

Obama also neglected to mention that Arctic sea ice coverage records began only three decades ago, when we first started to monitor the Arctic by satellite. Land-based measurements indicate that it was warmer in the Arctic in the 1930s and so ice melt was likely greater then as well, although no one knows for sure.

Obama used the erroneous phrase “carbon pollution” a total of twenty times in his Georgetown speech.

He is, of course, really speaking of CO2, an odorless, invisble gas essential to plant life and in no way a pollutant. Yet the Obama Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) still designates CO2 a “harmful substance” so as to allow greater bureaucratic control of industry under the Clean Air Act. In Tuesdays address, the president promised to expand the EPA’s CO2 regulations to cover existing power stations, an action sure to cost billions of dollars and millions of jobs for no environmental benefit. EPA’s claim is based on three lines of evidence that a recent amicus brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court shows are invalid. Regardless, calling CO2 “carbon” helps Obama politically since it encourages people to think of CO2 as associated with soot, something that is pure carbon and is clearly dirty and undesirable.

Of course, we can and should reduce the amount of soot going in to the atmosphere, and apart from China, significant advances have occurred. Scrubber technology for coal-fired power plants has been available for a long time. If Obama really wants to help people’s health and the environment, he should encourage all possible use of scrubbers.

The “carbon pollution” mistake is often used by activists to focus negative attention specifically on coal-fired electricity generation, since “carbon” comes from the Latin carbo, meaning coal. Over 40 percent of U.S. energy comes from coal, and so killing this energy source is fundamental to the president’s apparent goals of expanding government control and redistributing wealth. Obama wants to end coal use entirely in the U.S., no matter how clean it can be made. Obama even told the San Francisco Chronicle in 2008: “What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as an ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.”

Aside from his support for climate change adaptation measures, actions that make sense if carried out properly, Obama’s Georgetown speech appears to be mostly oriented towards accomplishing political objectives unrelated to environmental protection. This is very much in line with former Colorado Democratic Senator Timothy Wirth, who in 1993 summed up the strategy well: “We’ve got to ride to global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing.”

It is ironic that Obama would equate his unscientific campaign to “fight against climate change” with NASA’s trips to the Moon. Unlike Obama’s dogmatic approach, always focused on reducing greenhouse gases no matter what science demonstrates about the real causes of climate change, NASA learned from their mistakes and made necessary changes.

For example, when Apollo 1 went up in flames, killing all three astronauts in 1967, engineers ended the use of high oxygen atmospheres in manned space vehicles. But, when climate models on which the global warming scare is based fail to forecast what actually happens in the real world, when cyclones and strong tornadoes diminish, when ice cover in Antarctica increases, Obama and his fellow alarmists simply raise the rhetoric.

Trying to scare us away, he labels scientists who want to base policy on real-world observations as members of “the Flat Earth Society.” Such name calling merely strengthens our resolve to expose the most serious climate threat we face the exploitation of public ignorance by alarmists such as Obama.

The president was, however, right to say: “This is not just a job for politicians. So I’m going to need all of you to educate your classmates, your colleagues, your parents, your friends. Tell them whats at stake. Speak up at town halls, church groups, PTA meetings. Push back on misinformation. Speak up for the facts. Broaden the circle of those who are willing to stand up for our future.”

Yes, that is exactly what we will continue to do. Because you are wrong, Mr. President, dangerously wrong. America is too important for anyone, even those of us who are not U.S. citizens, to let it die because of a lie. And much of what you told Georgetown students on Tuesday was indeed a lie.

Thursday, May 2, 2013

Where wind turbines come from

Environmentalists love wind turbines, right? They’re so healthy and good for the environment, so pretty, innocent, clean. Environmentalists love peddling heartwarming images of wind farms basking under sunny blue skies and nestled in the bucolic embrace of verdant hills. People picnic under them, children skip and shout for joy at the sight of them!

Read more

Friday, April 5, 2013

Climatologists are no Einsteins, says his successor

 Dyson said his skepticism about those computer models was borne out by recent reports of a study by Ed Hawkins of the University of Reading in Great Britain that showed global temperatures were flat between 2000 and 2010 — even though we humans poured record amounts of CO-2 into the atmosphere during that decade.


here


Monday, April 1, 2013

The Clear and Cohesive Message of the International Conference on Climate Change

By Marc Sheppard

“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. 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.” -- from the Oregon Petition, signed by over 31,000 scientists

United by that conviction, over 800 scientists, economists, and policy makers arrived in New York City last Sunday to attend the Heartland Institute’s 2nd Annual International Conference on Climate Change. They came to talk a wide range of subjects, from climatology to energy policy, from computer climate models to cap-and-trade, from greenhouse gas (GHG) effects to solar irradiation. But most of all they came to help spread the word that the answer to the question posed by this year’s theme -- Global warming: Was it ever really a crisis? -- is a resounding NO.


Sunday’s keynote speakers wasted no time making that point. Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus scolded those whose alarmist opinions are driven by profits from writing and speaking fees, carbon trading and investments in non-carbon fuel products. And policy makers who blindly accept hyped Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publications as the final word in climate science. In truth, says Klaus, there is no fixed relationship between CO2 and temperatures, as clearly illustrated by the wavering heat trends of the 20th century, despite the steady rise in CO2.

Next, M.I.T’s Richard Lindzen explained that many scientists toe the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) line to “make their lives easier,” as underfunded scientists can write a single paper endorsing AGW and suddenly be inundated with offers. Even ambiguous or meaningless statements that can be easily spun are financially beneficial to scientists, so why complain about the spin? Ever wonder why you never stop hearing about studies finding GW responsible for everything from kidney stones to cannibalism? Explains Lindzen: It’s become standard that whatever you’re studying, include global warming’s effects in your proposal and you’ll get your funding.


Lindzen then dismissed climate models that alarmists depend on as they themselves depend entirely on warming positive feedback but, unlike nature, ignore the cooling effects of negative feedback. And rejected the warming alarmists alarm us about as so miniscule that there’s no need for any external forcing to achieve or explain it. In reality, said the world renowned atmospheric physicist, doubling or even tripling CO2 would have only marginal impacts on temperatures.

Both speakers masterfully set the stage for the days and sessions to come. What follows is just a sampling of the brilliance I encountered.



Roy Spencer echoed Lindzen’s position that negative feedbacks ultimately bring equilibrium to the energy balance, making sustained global warming a non-issue. David Douglass assured us that ocean and atmospheric heat will always work toward such balance as per conservation of energy laws. S. Fred Singer commented that a 2005 paper by Hansen et al claiming that Earth’s energy imbalance is proof of AGW was absurd.



Geologist and former astronaut Jack Schmidt inverted the IPCC position that burning fossil fuels increases atmospheric CO2, which in turn warms the planet. Slowly increasing temperatures from 1660 AD or so, said he, would increase CO2 and methane from land, land confined water, the biosphere and, mostly, the oceans. The vapor pressure of CO2 is temperature sensitive. So as a matter of established physics of gases, we’d expect atmospheric CO2 to increase as temperature increases. Therefore, he concludes, saying that CO2 causes heating is like saying “accidents cause speeding.”



Singer moderated a panel discussion thoroughly debunking a recent paper claiming that CO2 put into the atmosphere lasts thousands of years. Participant Douglass questioned the premise as “it has nothing to do with global warming as CO2 continues to rise but GW stopped after 1998*.” But as Singer pointed out, alarmists will claim it proves that peak values reached in the next few years will determine climate for the next millennium.



And Christopher Essex nailed it: Their 1000 year forecast is remarkable – even groundhogs only predict 6 weeks ahead.


The Sun, The Seas and The Science


Astrophysicist Willie Soon proclaimed the sun-induced climate change theory alive and well. He believes that, while IPCC AR4 fraudulently disregarded Milankovich's theory of orbital influences on climate, the comings and goings of the ice ages may be controlled by changes in solar insolation at climatically sensitive latitudes. He displayed adjacent line graphs overlaying 20th Century arctic temperature anomalies with solar irradiance levels on one and atmospheric CO2 levels on the other. Whereas the former lined up almost perfectly, the latter wasn’t even close.



Jack Schmidt pointed out that the 1400 -1900 cold period known as the Little Ice Age corresponds to a cycling sequence of 3 deep minima of sunspot activity and was at its coldest during the last of these minima, the 70 year period of exceptionally few spots we now know as the Maunder Minimum. Dennis Avery reinforced his 1,500 year climate cycle argument and its implications for the current warming period. He told us that solar variations are linked to decade-lagging sea temperatures. What’s more, diminished sunspot activity since 2000 and Pacific Sea Surface cooling since 2008 predict a 20-30 year global cooling due to short term Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).



Don Easterbrook neatly tied variances in the PDO and another natural climate variability, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), to that of solar activity and, ultimately, temperatures. The geologist pointed out that while the IPCC predicted 1°F warming by 2011, there’s been none since 1998, and that the 1°F drop in 2008 was the largest global temperature change ever recorded. He too believes that the current PDO cool phase assures global cooling for as long as the next three decades.

Roy Spencer blamed the PDO for 75% of twentieth century warming. He provided a line graph plotting temperatures against the PDO and the correlation was quite remarkable. Weaker PDOs yielded warmer temperatures and the onset of stronger circulations cooled things down. As one might suspect -- Spencer’s graph depicted a decided cooling trend beginning in 2003.



ICECAP’s Joe D’Aleo also made an extremely compelling argument against the greenhouse effect and for the natural climate drivers of oceans, Sol, and yet another -- volcanoes. On D’Aleo’s graphs, PDO/AMO aligned well with USHCN temperatures over last century, as did stratospheric aerosol levels from volcanic eruptions, and total solar irradiance. He remarked that “all three show a cycle where the last few years look a lot like the 1960’s,” which immediately caught my attention. You see, just hours prior, I had been discussing NY weather with a British representative and had commented that this winter reminded me of those I experienced as a child in the 60’s.



Lord Monckton of Brenchley suggested that the positive feedback factor might actually be half what IPCC claims. Citing Soon’s work, he said temperatures have been plunging at the rate of 2°C per century over the last 7 years, and the reduction of Outgoing Longwave Radiation as observed by satellites is on an order of magnitude below what models predict:



“And Dick Lindzen says that’s game, set and match.”

The True Cost of Green Meddling

California Congressman Tom McClintock offered examples of just how global warming alarmism is damaging his state --- all in the form of radical construction blocking, agriculture crippling, resource wasting legislation the warm-mongers have gotten through to fight it. Here’s a beauty -- a homeowner can be fined $1000/day for refusal to cut down his trees if they block a neighbor’s solar panels, but also faces fines if he cuts them down or clears brush for fire preventive purposes. And Gov. Schwarzenegger – who just proposed the largest tax increase in history to make up for funds lost by his failed green policies -- wants Cal-E-Fornia to be “an example to the country.”



Bennie Peiser, founder and editor of the fabulous CCNet, explained the political backlash European greenies are experiencing. And it’s pretty bad -- Labor and Green parties are seeing the amalgamation of the recession and failed Kyoto-inspired energy policies driving their core voters away. Lawrence Solomon offered more examples of overseas carbon regulation disasters, declaring Kyoto the greatest single destroyer of the environment, especially in the third world.

And speaking of bad GHG accords, Competitive Enterprise Institute Senior Fellow Chris Horner explained how liberals could sneak Kyoto II through the Senate by changing it from a treaty to an executive agreement. Treaties require a 2/3 Senate vote, and the Gore brigade knows damned well they’d never pull that one off. But with a little legislative sleight-of-hand, the vote required could be lowered to 3/5. And Horner warned in detail against an even slicker trick that would place it on the fast track, making it both amendment and filibuster proof – thereby requiring only 50% plus one.



Needless to say, the regressive tax increase which is Cap and Trade (CAT) was also a popular target.



CEI director Myron Ebell proclaimed John McCain’s loss last November to actually be good news, as McCain is the biggest supporter of CAT in the Senate and actually claims that energy rationing would be a net benefit to the economy. Ross Mckitrick blasted the idea of CAT systems with predetermined carbon caps as betraying a complete lack of faith in their design. If the goal is to force down carbon output, then a “truth-based” floating cap determined by temperature is called for. Suggesting we force down caps regardless of temperature response is a sign that they don’t believe their own rhetoric.



Dave Kreutzer warned that analytical models predict estimated aggregate losses to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of $4.8 trillion and job losses in the manufacturing sector of nearly 3 million by 2029 if CAT were imposed under S. 2191. That’s over and above the million manufacturing job losses economists predict will occur even if we do nothing.



On Thursday, Easterbrook responded to a NY Times piece suggesting his positions are aligned with those of Obama’s science advisor -- John Holdren:



“[Holdren] wants carbon cap and trade that will cost hundreds of billions of dollars to curb ‘global warming’ that the PDO shows isn’t going to happen in the next several decades (no matter what the cause). The PDO data shows conclusively that global cooling is going to continue for several decades, causing increasing demands of energy and resources (while population escalates), but if we spend hundreds of billions of dollars on cap and trade (as Holdren is pushing), we will have little left with which to handle the real problems of increasing demands on dwindling resources. Holdren’s path will lead to a real global catastrophe.”

And the losses will extend beyond the monetary. Professor Arthur Robinson, author of the afore-quoted Oregon petition, revealed the true reasons we import 30% of our energy, even though “one Palo Verde Nuclear Installation in each state results in $200 billion net export of energy.” Robinson says there are those who would prefer that 30% grow much larger, encouraging higher energy prices and ultimately – rationing. And quickly advised -- once we become victims of rationing in the west we lose our all of our freedoms, but energy deprivation in third world countries will lead to the loss of tens of millions of lives.



And Monckton took on another deadly green scheme as only his Lordship can:



“Their biofuel scam, a nasty by-product of their shoddy, senseless, failed, falsified, fraudulent ‘global warming’ bugaboo, has turned millions of acres of agricultural land from growing food for humans to growing fuel for automobiles. If we let them, they will carelessly kill tens of millions more by pursuing Osamabamarama’s stated ambition of shutting down nine-tenths of the economies of the West and flinging us back to the Stone Age without even the right to light fires in our caves.”



Such, as Kreutzer so perfectly described it, is the true “cost of accomplishing nothing.”

Of Bad Scientists, Bad Data, and Bad Conclusions

Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist John Theon expressed his regret that former employee, James Hansen, “didn’t receive the attention from me that he should have.” What followed was a heartfelt denunciation that included the fact that Hansen’s 1988 announcement of “unprecedented global warming” came as a surprise and embarrassment to Theon, as it was not NASA’s position. He then cried foul over Hansen’s endorsement of John Kerry for president in 2004, particularly after receiving the Heinz Environment Award, a $250,000 prize honoring the late-husband of Kerry’s wife in 2001. He pointed out that a civil servant endorsing a political cause violated the Hatch Act, and that alone should be grounds for dismissal, which he has publically called for. Says Theon: “I think the man is sincere, but he is suffering from a bad case of megalomania.”



There were a number of problems with data collection methods discussed.



Tom Segalstad gave us a lesson in the dubious integrity of ice-core samples. The Norwegian geologist cited numerous problems with retrieval, sampling, and storage, all of which may contaminate results. Remember -- the accuracy of these figures, combined with temperature proxies such as dendrochronology (tree ring growth analysis) is crucial as they are used to plot past temperature/CO2 correlations.



WUWT’s Anthony Watts favored us once again with stories and photographs of misplaced Maximum-Minimum Temperature Systems (MMTS). He and his cohorts have photographed and analyzed 75% of the 1200 plus national weather stations, and the results range from bad to hysterically bad. One slide showed a station in Detroit Lakes, Minnesota where the thermometer was placed within feet of not one, but two air conditioning outlets. The fact this town reported temperature well above those of its neighbors didn’t seem to raise any red-flags with the good folks ate NOAA. So it’s not particularly shocking that only 11% of stations surveyed met the required Class I or Class II requirement of likely measurement error under 1°C.



Joe D’Aleo believes that surface data suffer from serious issues biasing them to the warm side, this due to station dropout, missing monthly data, and inadequate or nonexistent urban heat island effect (UHI) adjustment. Half of the warming since 1880 may be attributed to these measurement contaminations. In fact, Climate Audit’s Steve McIntyre said we don’t actually know that the 1998 was the warmest year of the millennium as minor variations in data version yield different results.



There was also much talk about response and adaptation.



Jack Schmidt believes that while we’re awaiting the collapse of the AGW scare, we should be preparing to deal with inevitable climate change, however unpredictable it may seem. We should recognize that production of our own domestic oil and gas, coal and nuclear resources buys us time to work these challenges and preserve our liberties and our national security. We should choose sustained R&D of potential energy sources, those with clear paths to commercialization rather than continue subsidies for premature production of flawed concepts.

Bob Carter stressed preparedness, warning that abrupt natural climate change is the dangerous hazard (both warming AND cooling) and demands a planned response, which must be assessed regionally. After all, climate hazards in the Gulf of Mexico are not the same as in Australia. Besides, says Bob, if hypothetical AGW actually materializes, well – we’re prepared for that too!



Meanwhile, Dennis Avery reminded us that history shows that warm times have been good times. During the Medieval Warm Period, world population doubled, crops flourished, there was less disease and no bubonic plague. Most of Europe’s castles and cathedrals as well as India’s most famous temples were built during that period. And that as polar bears date back 130,000 years, they’ve managed to adapt through many warming periods more severe than the current one.



So whether warmer or cooler, they’ll adapt again, as will the rest of the planet – including those self-interested homo sapiens.


The Message is Clear, Cohesive, and Catching On

Last Sunday, Klaus sparked a nervous laugh when he fretted continued alarmist mainstream acceptance with the words “last year’s speech didn’t help much.” But immediately following Klaus to the podium, Lindzen reminded the Czech and the audience at large that “we should never stop trying,” which was, of course, warmly received. And the next morning, Larry Solomon gave an inspiring example of why: Recent polls in Canada showed that those who believe in “consensus” fear global warming; those who have heard from skeptics even once do not. In fact, the dominant Canadian party that made carbon pricing a major issue just suffered a major defeat.



During Tuesday’s standing-O-rousing conference-closing speech, in which he marvelously referred to alarmists as “bed-wetting moaning Minnies of the Apocalyptic Traffic-Light Tendency -- those Greens too yellow to admit they’re really Reds,” Lord Monckton added:



“Every opinion poll--even those conducted by the bed-wetters themselves – shows that global public opinion is cooling as fast as the global climate. In one recent survey, ‘global warming’ came at the very bottom of a list of political and environmental concerns, immediately behind the need to clean up dog-poop on the streets. Why? Because dog-poop is a real environmental problem and ‘Global warming’ is not. The correct policy response to the non-problem of climate change is to have the courage to do nothing.”



And then emphasized unequivocally: “There is no climate crisis. There was no climate crisis. There will be no climate crisis.”



Before gaveling the momentous proceedings, Heartland’s own James Taylor offered further encouragement to those despondent over the uphill battle it’s been to promote climate realism in an environment of mass-media-driven hyper-alarmism. Public opinion is, avers Taylor, changing in our direction, and he cited specific polls and current events to support his optimism. And he credited talk radio, cable television, the internet, and blogs with providing information to the American public “whether the mass media wants them to have it or not.”



Yet I couldn’t help recalling something I heard the ever-wise John Sununu state during one of the Q&A sessions that morning, and I paraphrase: Everything we talk about here needs to be translated into something you can put on the 6 o’clock news or explain to your neighbor. He’s right, of course. Go ask a hype-victim what causes climate variations and he’ll reflexively snap “Carbon,” and that’s quite the simple concept to propagate. Now ask a climate realist, if you have the time and patience to sit through the response.



But leaving Manhattan on Tuesday afternoon, I wondered whether it really mattered. After all, most believers don’t truly understand the workings of GHG theory, otherwise they’d surely question the influence of a trace gas. And our message may not be easily dumbed-down to a few words, but it is clear, nonetheless.



The very next day Gallup announced the results of a new poll finding that a record-high 41% of Americans now believe the seriousness of global warming is being exaggerated by “mainstream reporting.”



That’s up 11% in just three years -- despite our sometimes involute and ever media-mocked message.



Which lends undeniable assurance to Professor Lindzen’s keynote prediction that “we will eventually win against anthropogenic global warming alarm simply because we are right and they are wrong.”

_______________________



* Note: I believed I heard 1991, and originally reported as such, but Professor Douglass just responded to my verification request and confirmed that 1998 is his correct position.



Marc Sheppard is the editor of AT’s forthcoming Environment Thinker.


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/03/the_clear_and_cohesive_message.html at March 22, 2009 - 01:15:20 PM EDT

Ocean Acidification

Water PH is from 1 to 14 with 7 being neutral.

Global Warming and Eugenics

“ The sad story of Eugenics is the story of human fallibility, of people who resorted to extreme theories while being convinced that they were absolutely right. While citing science to support their presumptions, they ignored the basic principle of true science. “The pseudo-science behind eugenics was based on a crude misconception of heredity” which assumed that the "feeble-minded" inevitably passed on their pathology to their offspring.” This false biology was an important propaganda under the Hitler regime and obviously still alive if one believe in the G&M article. I am disgusted that such an article can be published without a protest from the CBC, other news outlet and by ( HERE) . This is not what freedom of the press or freedom of speech mean…This is hate speech pure and simple. The Germans also claim to have the science behind them. I use to ask how such educated people could have possibly become so dehumanized. Then I read the Garbage from that article and I got my answer. Sadly I can see how the “Eugenics” grotesque behavior is still with us like an infected boil. It was the LEFT who brought us the Horror of Canadians (EUGENICS)” The Alberta Eugenics Board took on a life of its own. Neither the wave of revulsion that followed the revelations of Hitler's policies to "purify" the German people, nor the strong repudiation of eugenics ideas by leading scientists had any impact on the operation of the board, which continued its work with the full support of the Social Credit government. The new Conservative government of Peter Lougheed finally erased the law in 1972. “And the Lefties ,as seen by the above post ,are still embracing this sickness.






The same words ,behavior and pseudo-science is still being use today to shut down any descending voices, as posted in the Grope and Mail,… they have Changed the name but the thinking behind it is the same. I do not give a hoot if it is from the left or the right! This kind of garbage should not be allowed in a civilized society! Since we all know, but have forgotten the damaged it can do to innocent victims of this intolerant and prejudice behavior. To have someone actually post such sickness on this web site for all to read without any shame is perplexing.
As a add on.. I choose to watch what I want and when I want . I have been watching Fox for about a year and Sun news not as long. I have yet to see anything remotely intolerant, racist, full of hate and lack of Impartiality like I watch on the CBC and other Left wing news outlets. Every time I hear a lefty makes some idiotic remarks regarding non left news media, that’s my Q that there must be something good about that media .. If the left hates it ? It has to be good.



James Hansen of NASA wanted trials for climate skeptics, accusing them of high crimes against humanity

Robert Kennedy Jr. called climate skeptics traitors






Yvo de Boer of the UN called climate skepticism criminally irresponsible






David Suzuki called for politicians who ignore climate science to be jailed






DeSmogBlog’s James Hoggan wants skeptics treated as war criminals (video)












Joe Romm encourages the idea that skeptics will be strangled in their beds






A blogger at TPM pondered when it would be acceptable to execute climate deniers






Heidi Cullen of The Weather Channel called for skeptical forecasters to be decertified






Bernie Sanders compared climate skeptics to Nazi appeasers.






[Not to mention Greenpeace declaring that they know where you live...






and Clive Hamilton who tried to turn your children against you--JN]






So you can take your false accusations against Joanne and compress them until they exceed the Schwarzschild Limit and are sucked into your black hole. Your heroes are the ones counseling violence and hatred. After you deal with that, you can preach to us. Until then, it’s just simple garden variety hypocrisy.'It is simply not true we are 'addicted to oil'. We are addicted to higher life-expectancy, lower infant mortality, higher standard of living, hospitals, dentistry... all the things that come' carbon based energy -- 'High energy prices punish the poor, minorities, seniors on a fixed income'












the ice age scare

It is well known that there were many articles in the likes of Time Magazine and Newsweek back in the 70’s, which sensationalised the ice age scare. Warmists tend to write off this episode as just media hype. But what were the scientists saying at the time?

HH Lamb was one of the leading climate scientists at the time and founded the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA. In 1973 he wrote an article, “Is The Earth’s Climate Changing?”, for the UNESCO magazine, “The Courier”. It was a special edition devoted to climate issues and in it, HH Lamb covered a number of issues.
Early 20th Century Warming
  • Computations in the United States from surface air temperature observations all over the world show that from the 1880s to some time after 1940 the Earth’s climate was becoming generally warmer. The global warming over those years amounted to about half a degree Centigrade, but in the Arctic it was much stronger and amounted to several degrees between 1920 and 1940.
  • The ice on the Arctic seas decreased in extent by about 10 per cent and decreased in general thickness by about one third. Glaciers in all parts of the world were receding, opening up new pastures and land for cultivation.
  • The greater warmth increased the length of the growing season by two to three weeks in England. The wild flora and forests, the cultivation of various crops, and the ranges of seasonal migration of birds and fish, all spread to new regions under the increasingly genial conditions.
  • Moreover, the longest temperature records available in various northern countries from the early eighteenth century (in England from the late seventeenth century) showed that the previous warming had a very long history, traceable from the beginning of the record through various shorter-term ups and downs. This meant that the warming began before the industrial revolution and could not be altogether attributable to the effects of human activity
Post 1940 Cooling
  • For the past 25 to 30 years the Earth has been getting progressively cooler again. Around 1960 the cooling was particularly sharp. And there is by now widespread evidence of a corresponding reverse in the ranges of birds and fish and the success of crops and forest trees near the poleward and altitudinal limits.
  • The decline of prevailing temperatures since about 1945 appears to be the longest-continued downward trend since temperature records began. [This period of cooling lasted about 30 years, about 5 years longer than the recent period of warming].
Effects of The Cooling
It is perhaps here that things become most interesting. According to Lamb, among the effects of the changes of climate in recent years, which have given cause for concern are:-
  • a renewed increase (especially since 1961) of the Arctic sea ice, which has created difficulties on the northern sea routes in Soviet and Canadian Arctic waters and has produced some bad seasons on the coasts of Iceland and Greenland.
  • a substantial rise, also since 1961, in the levels of the great lakes in eastern equatorial Africa and, more recently, of the Great Lakes of North America.
  • some 200-year extremes of temperature in individual cold winters in various parts of the northern hemisphere (and probably also in the warmth of summer in 1972 in northern European U.S.S.R. and Finland).
  • The most serious effects, however, have probably been the long-continued droughts and deficient rainfalls in various parts of the world associated with shifts of the world’s anticyclone belts.
  • The subtropical anticyclones associated with the desert belt were displaced somewhat towards the equator, and the equatorial rainbelt seems to have been restricted in the range of its seasonal migrations. In consequence, rainfall increased in Africa close to the equator, causing the lakes to rise, while drought began to afflict places nearer the fringe of the desert belt, no longer reliably visited in summer by "equatorial" rains.
  • Rainfall at eight places in northern India, the Sudan and at 16 to 20°N in west Africa averaged 45 per cent less in the years 1968-72 than in the 1950′s. In all these areas people have been driven from their homes by the continued failure of the rains, and in the Cape Verde Islands at the same latitude in the Atlantic an emergency was declared in 1972 because of the last five years of drought.
  • There are indications that corresponding shifts have taken place in the anticyclone and cyclone belts of the southern hemisphere and that the droughts affecting Zambia, Rhodesia and parts of the Transvaal in recent years are essentially part of the same phenomenon. [An indication that Southern Hemisphere temperatures were also falling].
  • At the same time, the shifting positions from month to month, and from one year to the next, occupied by the main anticyclone centres in this belt have introduced an abnormal variability of temperature and precipitation. A similar development may explain the sequence of droughts and floods in different parts of Australia in 1972-3.
Drought over Africa
In another article in this issue of The Courier, Jean Dresch, Professor of Geography at the University of Paris and a “leading authority” on the world’s arid zones, writes in more detail about the African drought that Lamb touched on.
  • Famine threatens millions of villagers and herdsmen with their decimated flocks, today forced into an unprecedented migration in search of food and water, in all the West African countries to the south of the Sahara, from Mauritania to the Sudan. Its cause is drought, a prolonged decline in rainfall that has been recorded as far as central Asia, throughout the periphery of the arid zone, extending from the tropical desert of the Sahara to the continental deserts of temperate Eurasia.
  • A sequence of dry years is remembered in 1910-1914, when they caused a real famine. 1941 and 1942 were no better; and dry years have been succeeding one another since 1968, whereas the decade 1951-1960 was wetter. But there is no cyclical rhythm from which to predict disasters.
Drought and Floods
Jerome Namias, “one of America’s leading weather scientists”, comments in another article, “Long Range Forecasting of Drought and Floods” :-
  • We are all aware of the ravages of natural events of the recent past, the devastating Russian drought of 1972; current drought in sub-Saharan countries, especially Mali, Mauritania and the Upper Volta, which seems to have persisted and become aggravated in the last few years; the occasional seasonal droughts in parts of India and Australia and the "Seca" or" drought which occurs in some years in northeast Brazil.
  • On the wet side,we have the eastern U.S.A. floods in June, 1972, associated, in part, with hurricane Agnes the most costly storm in U.S. history, and we remember the 1966 tragic flood of Florence. These are but a sample of spectacular events from the climatological record.
  • From time immemorial there have been occasions when nature "goes on a rampage" and makes it appear that the climate is changing. Why does nature do this? Unfortunately man does not yet fully understand the causes of these events, and therefore he is unable to predict them reliably. [He obviously did not know about the all powerful influence of a minor trace gas].
Final Word
Were they worried about what the future would bring? They might not have talked in the apocalyptic language of Time, but there was certainly concern. I will leave the final comment to HH Lamb:-
All these events have raised an anxious demand for ultra-long-range forecasting of climate, which calls for intensified effort towards understanding of the atmosphere (and its interactions with the ocean) and for further reconstruction of the facts of the past climatic record.
The full edition of The Courier is here.

Attack attack attack

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2301757/Governments-climate-watchdog-launches-astonishing-attack-Mail-Sunday--revealing-global-warming-science-wrong.html#ixzz2P8wYexdq