The great global warming collapse

In 2007, the most comprehensive report to date on global warming, issued by the respected United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, made a shocking claim: The Himalayan glaciers could melt away as soon as 2035.

These glaciers provide the headwaters for Asia's nine largest rivers and lifelines for the more than one billion people who live downstream. Melting ice and snow would create mass flooding, followed by mass drought. The glacier story was reported around the world. Last December, a spokesman for the World Wildlife Fund, an environmental pressure group, warned, “The deal reached at Copenhagen will have huge ramifications for the lives of hundreds of millions of people who are already highly vulnerable due to widespread poverty.” To dramatize their country's plight, Nepal's top politicians strapped on oxygen tanks and held a cabinet meeting on Mount Everest.

But the claim was rubbish, and the world's top glaciologists knew it. It was based not on rigorously peer-reviewed science but on an anecdotal report by the WWF itself. When its background came to light on the eve of Copenhagen, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, shrugged it off. But now, even leading scientists and environmental groups admit the IPCC is facing a crisis of credibility that makes the Climategate affair look like small change.

Hide the Decline

"tranzis"

The United Nations would be the shell in which this new power structure would live. As for the uber-wealthy who had constructed this entity, they would hold privileged positions, as well as hold on to theirwealth . The rest of us would be compelled by our national governments to shell out money to implement whatever programs and controls deemed worthy by the new transnationalgovernment (expect the first 100 or so years to be dominated by "reparation payments" to every group that had been oppressed by anyone, ever). Our local governments would be given limited latitude to act independently, always subject to oversight by the transnational (unelected)government.

Sounds paranoid? What do you call what the global alarmists want to do? They want to compel countries to transfer billions, flowing from industrialized Western nations (primarily the United States) to developing nations, under the pretext of preparing for the effects ofglobal warming . They want to remove national sovereign control of energy resources. Extra-national entities would use mechanisms like global carbon taxes (and likely more direct means in due course) to control what means for generating energy are allowed, and how much energy is consumed. National governments would to do the dirty work. Having ceded sovereignty, neither individuals nor nations would have means of recourse or appeal.

Glaciergate: Hitler's last straw

Got his from a certain Mr Xyz.
The screaming and the pounding is Sooooo alarmist.

new faith: Climate Change Hysteria

So it doesn't matter that the climate change science is unraveling - scientists admit faulty information in order to push their political agenda; a "consensus" of scientists on glaciers melting is actually ONE scientist who wasn't so right. None of that matters. Al Gore and Yale University are indoctrinating students with a new faith: Climate Change Hysteria. (click project participants, go to "G" and who will you see? Al Gore! Shock!) I think someone needs to go to confession - now! (Excerpt below from Yale univ link, click on "Objectives")

she was practically a virgin.

But global warming climate models never make statements like that. They say that any temperature is possible, even if this possibility is low. Certain temperatures have probabilities as low as you like, but they are never precisely zero. (To anticipate an objection: “that number was practically zero” is logically equivalent to “she was practically a virgin.”)

him a lying glaciers.

The IPCC treatment of Himalayan glaciers and its chairman's conflicts of interest are related. The points and time line below are as I understand them and are informed by reporting by Richard North.

1. In 2007 the IPCC issues its Fourth Assessment Report which contains the false claim that the Himalayan glaciers are expected to disappear by 2035.

2. The basis for that statement was a speculative comment made to a reporter by Syed Hasnain in 1999, who was then (and after) a professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

3. Following the publication of the IPCC report, and the widespread media coverage of the false claim about Himalayan glaciers, Dr. Hasnain joins TERI as a Senior Fellow, where Dr. Pachauri is the director.

January 21, 2010 The UN’s top climate change body has issued an unprecedented apology over its flawed prediction that Himalayan glaciers were likely to disappear by 2035.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said yesterday that the prediction in its landmark 2007 report was “poorly substantiated” and resulted from a lapse in standards. “In drafting the paragraph in question the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly,” the panel said. “The chair, vice-chair and co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of IPCC procedures in this instance.”

"It emerged last week that the prediction was based not on a consensus among climate change experts but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999."

WOW! so that's how they get the Good old Consensus .. ONE single Indian glaciologist. One Brick at the time the AGW wall is falling down.

The IPCC ,the left media,politicians and the Alarmists bragged about the AR4 report and it’s unquestionable scientific integrity.
2500 plus scientists..800 plus contributing authors..450 lead from 130 countries ..6 years in the making and one report 2007 AR4 .. IPCC Chairman "IPCC studies only peer-review science”.
This is not the first inaccuracy to be found in the AR4”.. I do agree it was not the first time and I would like to ask the " Alarmist" why they never reported any of those inaccuracies?
The skepticalscience blog said: “Unfortunately, the error was not spotted in the review process. This may be because it was buried deep in the working group II section”
Buried DEEP? It was smack in everyone’s face daily and was one of Al Gore big scare in the “ NOBEL prize winning crockumantary AIC. Maybe the IPCC should add this to it's COC ."Unless it fit within our range of scary scenarios then simple alarmist speculation from the WWF is acceptable and Peer reviews papers are not needed." It should be called the HIM A LYING report.

Global Warming: The Other Side

By John Coleman:

Is civilization doomed because of man-made global warming? You’ve been told your carbon footprint could lead to skyrocketing temperatures, melting ice caps, dying polar bears and “superstorms.” KUSI meteorologist, John Coleman, has an amazing story to tell of science gone bad, and new revelations as the “climategate” scandal comes to the United States. But there is another side to the story. See the special report that will explode the global warming myth.

20 or 30 years of cooler temperatures.

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’.

This challenge to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists could never be described as global warming ‘deniers’ or sceptics.

However, both main British political parties continue to insist that the world is facing imminent disaster without drastic cuts in CO2.

Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.

He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September.

Last night he told The Mail on Sunday: ‘A significant share of the warming we saw from 1980 to 2000 and at earlier periods in the 20th Century was due to these cycles – perhaps as much as 50 per cent.

'They have now gone into reverse, so winters like this one will become much more likely. Summers will also probably be cooler, and all this may well last two decades or longer.

‘The extreme retreats that we have seen in glaciers and sea ice will come to a halt. For the time being, global warming has paused, and there may well be some cooling.’

As Europe, Asia and North America froze last week, conventional wisdom insisted that this was merely a ‘blip’ of no long-term significance.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html#ixzz0cGxsK8Mc

The CBC and the Northwest Passage

"That was the first — that I'm aware of anyway — commercial cargo delivery from the east through the Northwest Passage.".. and of course repeated by the CBC and alarmist blogs as facts.
.
Then we get "Rayes said he's proud to know his company, which is a managing partner of Nunavut Sealink and Supply, is the first to deliver sealift cargo through the fabled Arctic waterway."

the CBC report "Waguih Rayes, the general manager of the company's Arctic division.

Rayes, who was on the vessel during its trip through the Northwest Passage, said the company informed the coast guard, which put an icebreaker on standby.

"They were ready to be there for us if we called them, but I didn't see one cube of ice," he said.
.
the original report was: "A member of the crew is reported to have claimed that " there was no ice whatsoever"
.
Now the rest of the story .
http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/nunavut_communities_await_supplies_from_crippled_avataq/

Nunavut communities await supplies from crippled Avataq.
.

Schools in Igloolik, Hall Beach and Repulse Bay still await supplies that were supposed to arrive two weeks ago on the MV Avataq, damaged Sept. 26 after a nearly disastrous incident in Hudson Strait near Salluit.

The breakdown, plus bad weather, threw the 113-metre ice-class cargo ship, owned by Nunavut Eastern Arctic Shipping Ltd., behind schedule by about two weeks.

A tug is now slated to tow the vessel to Igloolik between Oct. 7 and Oct. 9, and then on to Hall Beach, said Barry Tarrant, manager of the Northern store in Hall Beach.

His store, like Northern stores in Igloolik and Repulse Bay, is waiting for its entire sealift order to arrive. That includes soda pop, trucks, skidoos, bikes and food.

But communities in Nunavik won’t have to wait any longer for their sealifts.

Cargo for three communities in Nunavik was transferred during the weekend, from the Avataq on to the MV Camilla Desgagnés.

Kangiqsujuaq received its cargo on Saturday.

“Camilla is presently delivering the Puvirnituq cargo load, and then will sail to Inukjuak, with cargo onboard for clients of both carriers,” said Waguih Rayes, the general manager of Desgagnés Transarctik Inc., in an Oct. 5 email.

The MV Camilla Desgagnés remains on schedule for her subsequent destinations in the Kivalliq to deliver Nunavut Sealink and Supply Inc. cargo, he said.

The cargo ship remains on " SCHEDULE" and nothing out of the ordinary a typical normal delivery before winter since ...The MV Camilla Desgagnés is a Canadian cargo vessel that has operated since 1982 in the waters of eastern and Arctic Canada.

The CBC report state "
"Residents were surprised to see the MV Camilla Desgagnés come in from the east, he said."
.
One would think there would be a least some mention of this "SURPRISE" in the article from the Arctic news?
Here is another article for this year... http://www.nunatsiaqonline.ca/stories/article/854_A_near_calamity_for_the_MV_Avataq/

Posted by SJP on October 01, 2009: Some of the comments.. My gosh! For a second year in a row, NEAS has failed to provide on-time service to my community. Last year, the haul cracked on the ship destined to Igloolik. As a result, the NEAS ship arrived in mid/late October, and the weather was just nasty at that time. This year, the AVATAQ is already 3 weeks overdue (originally scheduled September 10, give or take a couple of days), and with the transfer of cargo from the AVATAQ to the AIVIQ, will only delay arrival once again. I’m OK with considering weather delays and ship issues, but why doesn’t NEAS change there scheduling to something earlier in the shipping year (such as NSSI, whom was here in late August)? "

Why indeed? this blind faith in Global warming is so strong with these people that putting sailors lives at risk is a non issue.
.
Why was the general manager Waguih Rayes doing on that ship?
well look no further ...Could this be the reason? http://www.chesapeakeclimate.org/blog/?p=566.

.
The Northeast Passage - a trade route linking North European and Siberian ports to Asia in summer months - has been open since 1934, and was made available as a route for international traffic after the fall of the Soviet Union.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/05/times_asa_wrong/
.
The CBC as Tax payer funded entity cannot continue to ignore an entire section of the Canadian population. We must reclaim the CBC's impartiality or put it to rest by dismantling it, if it fails to respond to the tax payers.

2010 possible year for NASA & the IPCC

Very good and need to be shared.
.

If you want a “green revolution” - and the evidence suggests that you don’t - it must truly be from the bottom up. This Government’s strategy - to sneer at the doubters - is doomed, not because doubt is the cornerstone of democracy but because, on this specific issue, the doubters are in the majority. Copenhagen marked the end of an era: it demonstrated the poverty and self-regard of elite politics, the introspection and self-congratulation of a political class still in love with itself because nobody else will love it. The lesson of 2009, from duck house to green summits, was that kind of politics was dead, and a new kind is needed.

Control of Climate Policies by Unaccountable Bureaucracies; The Canadian Example

Another egregious example of ECs failure was cancellation of support for a joint program with the National Museum of Canada in the 1980s and 1990s. Run under the auspices of the National Museum of Natural Sciences it was titled “Climatic Change in Canada During the Past 20,000 years.” This program brought together a multitude of experts in all different aspects of climate and climate reconstruction and produced volumes of collected papers that put Canada in the forefront of climate research and reconstruction. To my knowledge none of these experts was called to testify before Parliamentary hearings on Kyoto or were appointed to the IPCC. EC deliberately excluded Canadian climate experts ‚Äì something that continues to this day. Although climate change became political the unaccountable bureaucrats at Environment Canada controlled it.

They took the singular and unsupportable position that climate change due to human CO2 was fact. It put them on the treadmill I warned Henry Hengeveld about. They thwarted the standard method of science to disprove a theory. They deliberately excluded experts who challenged the science. When Natural Resources Minister David Anderson said they had consulted all Canadian climate experts on the Kyoto Accord, I traveled to Ottawa with seven others and in a press forum announced we were never consulted. They used all the power and vehicles of government to promote their false claims to the public. The EC web site continued to carry the ‘hockey stick’ graph long after it was discredited among other erroneous information. A wider problem was all other government agencies had to accept their claims as the basis for their policies and planning. The inclusion of so many bureaucrats in the IPCC almost guarantees that similar situations occurred in most other governments.

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))

Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

Climate change alliance crumbling

Is there anything Obama can do that result is success ?
This guy is turning out to be another Useless leader.
He belong to the Useless Nation..commonly know as the UN.
.
The so-called Basic countries – Brazil, South Africa, India and China – backed the accord in a meeting with the US on Friday night, and it was also supported by almost all other nations at the talks, including all of the biggest emitters.

But on Tuesday the Brazilian government labelled the accord “disappointing” and complained that the financial assistance it contained from rich to poor countries was insufficient.

South Africa also raised objections: Buyelwa Sonjica, the environment minister, called the failure to produce a legally binding agreement “unacceptable”. She said her government had considered leaving the meeting.

“We are not defending this, as I have indicated, for us it is not acceptable, it is definitely not acceptable,” she said.

There was even harsher criticism from Andreas Carlgren, environment minister of Sweden, current holder of the rotating European Union presidency, who proclaimed the Copenhagen accord “a disaster” and “a great failure”.

A Climatology Conspiracy?

By David H. Douglass and John R. Christy.
.

The CRU e-mails have revealed how the normal conventions of the peer review process appear to have been compromised by a team* of global warming scientists, with the willing cooperation of the editor of the International Journal of Climatology (IJC), Glenn McGregor. The team spent nearly a year preparing and publishing a paper that attempted to rebut a previously published paper in IJC by Douglass, Christy, Pearson, and Singer (DCPS). The DCPS paper, reviewed and accepted in the traditional manner, had shown that the IPCC models that predicted significant "global warming" in fact largely disagreed with the observational data.

We will let the reader judge whether this team effort, revealed in dozens of e-mails and taking nearly a year, involves inappropriate behavior, including (a) unusual cooperation between authors and editor, (b) misstatement of known facts, (c) character assassination, (d) avoidance of traditional scientific give-and-take, (e) using confidential information, (f) misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of the scientific question posed by DCPS, (g) withholding data, and more.

*The team is a group of climate scientists who frequently collaborate and publish papers which often support the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. For this essay, the leading team members include Ben Santer, Phil Jones, Timothy Osborn, and Tom Wigley, with lesser roles for several others.

Global Warming Babies

To the teachers and the BC Board of Education.

I admit that I am not a climatologist on the issue of global warming. However; I support the principle that young people should be educated, not propagandized -- and I know something about what that means.

One of the most important differences between education and propaganda is how they deal with great controversies.

In education, students are taught about the controversies. In propaganda, they are shielded from them.

In education, students are taught both sides of the important debates. In propaganda, they are taught only one.

In education, students are taught both the strengths and the weaknesses of the officially favored theory. In propaganda, they are taught only its strengths.

In short, education is the training of minds, while propaganda is the training of prejudices. In a democracy, the public schools should not propagandize, but educate.

As we find in the science section of these guidelines, students must learn to "analyze, review, and critique scientific explanations, including hypotheses and theories, as to their strengths and weaknesses using scientific evidence and information.

The issue is that although students should be taught about both sides of a scientific theoretical controversy, the schools assignment, based on the description in the BC Board of Education permission request, appears to only present one side and are shielded from the weaknesses. contained in. BC Science 10.

How can a student write a critique about assertions made on global warming without having anything to compare and contrast the assertions to? Your permission/assignment sheet gave no indication as to how, if any, the views to counter Anthropogenic Global Warming would be taught.

In addition, it is not clear what alternate assignment is available to the student/teachers should they choose to Learn from a climatologist instead from a television show hosted by a journalist with no science degrees.

If the "theory" of global warming is to be taught in our classroom, I urge that the topic should be taught like the other sciences and like other controversial theories -- with honesty about both . When classroom activities and/or textbooks are biased, you(the school board)) are the check and balance.

Statements are made in Science 10 that are assertions that mix cause and effect: "climate change is affecting our planet right now. Ice is disappearing earlier in the spring, trees are budding earlier, and extreme weather events are causing more outbreaks of disease than 20 years ago." http://www.bcscience.com/bc10/pgs/links_u1.html .
They are not only inaccurate but also dishonest.http://www.cbc.ca/quirks/

I urge The school board to require that the scientific data to both sides of this controversy be taught and that not one side be suppressed.

To do so would be not only be good training in science, but good education in citizenship.

Copenhagen the end for Green fascism

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Copenhagen


.

This is what the Forthright Four asked for:

Point 1. No compulsory limits on carbon emissions.

Point 2. No emissions reductions at all unless the West paid for them.

Point 3. No international monitoring of any emissions reductions not paid for by the West.

Point 4. No use of “global warming” as an excuse to impose protectionist trade restrictions on countries that did not cut their carbon emissions.

After President Obama’s dramatic intervention to save the deal, this is what the Forthright Four got:

Point 1. No compulsory limits on carbon emissions.

Point 2. No emissions reductions at all unless the West paid for them.

Point 3. No international monitoring of any emissions reductions not paid for by the West.

Point 4. No use of “global warming” as an excuse to impose protectionist trade restrictions on countries that did not cut their carbon emissions.

Even though next year is an el Nino year accompanied by fast-recovering solar activity, 2010 may not, after all, set a new global-temperature record to overtop that which was set in 1998, the year of the Great el Nino. By the time the next yackfest takes place in Mexico City in December 2010, the steam will have gone out of the “global warming” scare. We should not let our guard down, but Copenhagen is more than the end of the beginning for Green fascism: it is the beginning of the end. The eco-Nazis’ attempt at global bureaucratic coup d’etat has failed, and no such attempt is likely to succeed again. Too many of you are watching.

Honor among thieves.

Even the Criminals of Climategate Avoid Gore.

What planet is this Davis on? Besides the clear evidence of criminality there is also the deliberate falsification of the science and perversion of the scientific publication and peer review process. His statement shows a complete lack of understanding of the email content and climate science. Like Watergate the problems of Climategate are compounded by the cover-up and nobody does it better than universities. Davis began with his condemnation of the leaks when first disclosed, but he had no problem with leaked emails he obtained about funding and provided to the CRU gang. http://climateaudit.org/2009/12/12/trevor-davies-uea-on-leaked-documents-then-and-now/

Of course, they were bringing in massive amounts of funding and that apparently bought Davis’s support. I watched funding create disturbing behavior and biases throughout academia.

No wonder the CRU gang ignored Gore. He took their false work and falsified it some more. Of course, they couldn’t denounce him because they might expose their own corruption. Together they achieved only one success by disproving the adage that there is honor among thieves.

IPCC and the “Trick”

Steve McIntyre
Much recent attention has been paid to the email about the “trick” and the effort to “hide the decline”. Climate scientists have complained that this email has been taken “out of context”. In this case, I’m not sure that it’s in their interests that this email be placed in context because the context leads right back to a meeting of IPCC authors in Tanzania, raising serious questions about the role of IPCC itself in “hiding the decline” in the Briffa reconstruction.

Relevant Climategate correspondence in the period (September-October 1999) leading up to the trick email is incomplete, but, in context, is highly revealing. There was a meeting of IPCC lead authors between Sept 1-3, 1999 to consider the “zero-order draft” of the Third Assessment Report. The emails provide clear evidence that IPCC had already decided to include a proxy diagram reconstructing temperature for the past 1000 years and that a version of the proxy diagram was presented at the Tanzania meeting showing the late twentieth century decline. I now have a copy of the proxy diagram presented at this meeting (see below).

Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics

Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
(Submitted on 8 Jul 2007 (v1), last revised 4 Mar 2009 (this version, v4))

Abstract: The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 degrees Celsius is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.