Cause and Effect and Global Warming Hysteria

When scientists confuse cause and effect aka "that's my story and I'm sticking to it."
H/T to Secondhand Smoke for picking up on the article from the WSJ

For  years we have heard that we humans have caused CO2 to rise–and hence it is “physics,” to  use Al Gore’s terminology–that we are causing warming.  Proof was in the ice core pudding.  But then, we found that the earth warmed before the CO2 level rose in the past.  But why let that interfere with an easy to sell government/GWH complex story line? More here

coldest December for 100 years

From the Mail Online:

• Overnight lows of -15C in Scotland and -13C in England
• Experts say cold snap is 'once in a lifetime'

Slight thaw this weekend but a return to snow predicted for next week

The Army was called in today to help clear away ice and snow as Britain headed towards its coldest December for 100 years.

fuel runs out at petrol stations in Scotland and East Anglia

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336705/UK-big-freeze-Army-standby-coldest-December-100-years.html#ixzz17mCgqlI4

fatal flaws in the NASA study of arsenic-based life

"This Paper Should Not Have Been Published"

 "I was outraged at how bad the science was," she told me.

Redfield blogged a scathing attack on Saturday. Over the weekend, a few other scientists took to the Internet as well. Was this merely a case of a few isolated cranks? To find out, I reached out to a dozen experts on Monday. Almost unanimously, they think the NASA scientists have failed to make their case. More from Slate

“Gore effect” strikes Cancun Climate Conference 3 days in a row

From Watts Up with That:

From the “weather is not climate department” – New record low temperatures set in Cancun for three straight days, and more new low temperature records are possible this week.

Dr. Roy Spencer, who is in Cancun representing climate skepticism on behalf of CFACTwrites on his blog:

Today’s my first full day in Cancun at COP-16, and as I emerged from my hotel room I was greeted by a brisk, dry, cool Canadian breeze.

It was 54 deg. F in Cancun this morning — a record low for the date. (BTW, Cancun is nowhere near Canada).

Al Gore is not supposed to be here…but it could be that the Gore Effect has announced his secret arrival. We will check into this.

Things might get real cold- Super La Nina

From Pajamas Media:

A super La Nina is developing.

Historically, these strong La Nina events drop the Earth’s average temperature around one degree Fahrenheit, and the drop comes quickly. As a result, some of the same places that had record heat this summer may suffer through record cold this winter.

...

Right now the Pacific Ocean is in the beginning of a thirty year cooler spell called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. There is a strong, potentially super La Nina developing. The sun is still quiet with very few sunspots. When these conditions exist, the first two months of the cold season (December and January) tend to be cold from Montana to Iowa to Florida up to the Great Lakes and most of New England. In addition, temperatures tend to be very cold from central and western Canada to Alaska. China could suffer a bitterly cold December and January if historic temperature patterns are consistent with current conditions. Much of central and western Europe are cold in these situations as well.

The second half of the cold season (February and March) typically experiences some changes in the global temperature patterns in these types of winters. More...

Here's A Story You Won't See On This Side of the Pond

Global warming science implodes overseas: American media silent

Remember when our press was the best in the world? Vanguards of the truth? If there was any lingering doubt in your mind about how far journalism has fallen in this country then this matter should finally put it to rest:( From American Thinker)

The revelations have been nothing short of jaw dropping. Dozens - yes dozens - of claims made in the IPCC 2007 report on climate change that was supposed to represent the "consensus" of 2500 of the world's climate scientists have been shown to be bogus, or faulty, or not properly vetted, or simply pulled out of thin air.

We know this because newspapers in Great Britain are doing their job; vetting the 2007 report item by item, coming up with shocking news about global warming claims that formed the basis of argument by climate change advocates who were pressuring the US and western industrialized democracies to transfer trillions of dollars in wealth to the third world and cede sovereignty to the UN.
Glaciergate, tempgate, icegate, and now, disappearing Amazon forests not the result of warming, but of logging. And the report the IPCC based their bogus "science" on was written by a food safety advocate according to this Christopher Booker piece in the Telegraph :

Dr North next uncovered "Amazongate". The IPCC made a prominent claim in its 2007 report, again citing the WWF as its authority, that climate change could endanger "up to 40 per cent" of the Amazon rainforest - as iconic to warmists as those Himalayan glaciers and polar bears. This WWF report, it turned out, was co-authored by Andy Rowell, an anti-smoking and food safety campaigner who has worked for WWF and Greenpeace, and contributed pieces to Britain's two most committed environmentalist newspapers. Rowell and his co-author claimed their findings were based on an article in Nature. But the focus of that piece, it emerges, was not global warming at all but the effects of logging.

A Canadian analyst has identified more than 20 passages in the IPCC's report which cite similarly non-peer-reviewed WWF or Greenpeace reports as their authority, and other researchers have been uncovering a host of similarly dubious claims and attributions all through the report. These range from groundless allegations about the increased frequency of "extreme weather events" such as hurricanes, droughts and heatwaves, to a headline claim that global warming would put billions of people at the mercy of water shortages - when the study cited as its authority indicated exactly the opposite, that rising temperatures could increase the supply of water. (more)

Scientists in stolen e-mail scandal hid climate data

The university at the center of the climate change row over stolen e-mails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.

The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man-made emissions were causing global warming.

More from the - Times Online

Inconvenient Truth for Gore as Arctic Ice Claims Don't Add Up

A web of deception. Seeing a pattern yet?
Sometimes the force behind the design is not so intelligent......
FOXNews.com - Inconvenient Truth for Gore as Arctic Ice Claims Don't Add Up

Posted using ShareThis

ClimateGate- The conspiracy to hide information against global warming

***Updated*** added link to referenced NASA temp error
***UPDATE*** searchable database here
***UPDATE*** University spokesman confirms hack


If you have visited this site for any length of time you know I am no fan of the view that man is responsible for global climate change. My view has been and continues to be, that global warming is a currently a fiction and that the more recent declarations of climate "change" are cyclical rather than man-made. Views to the contrary are either driven by blameless ignorance or by political agendas which have hijacked science to make their point. I've been in the weather forecasting business for too long (25years) to believe otherwise.

Attached articles seem to indicate that someone hacked e-mails that prove the position to greater links than even I could have imagined. If this turns out to be as damning as it seems then it is clear that no conspiracy theory is too great to account for the climate change alarmists data.
Which is certainly nothing new since NASA was caught fudging temperature data some time ago. (whether it was deliberate fudging or simply an inherant problem with computer models, the result is about the same. Remember, computer models do not reflect El Nino/Nina or account for blocking highs ) Still...
For discussion of the NASA temp correction see Am Spectator GeoTimes for example. Go here for a pretty good summary of problems computer models have and are providing and some of the other errors that have had to be corrected.

Here's a sample:

Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming ? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather)....
....The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate.***

comment from Hot Air: Do scientists use data to test theories, or do they use theories to test data? Scientists will claim the former, but here we have scientists who cling to the theory so tightly that they reject the data. That’s not science; it’s religious belief.

more:
Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that theland also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean – but we’d still have to explain the land blip.

H/T Hot Air and Watts Up With That

Silence Galileo Again

"Galileo Silenced Again" is the name of a post over at the Heartland Institute.
In the introduction paragraphs the authors have this to say about Galileo's run in with the Church:

Four centuries ago, “heretics” who disagreed with Church orthodoxy were burned at the stake. Many were the dissenting views that could send offenders to a fiery end.
In 1633, the astronomer Galileo Galilei came within a singed whisker of the same fate, for arguing that the sun (and not the Earth) was at the center of the solar system. He was saved only because he was already famous, had good friends in high government places, and agreed to recant his “heresy” (at least publicly) and submit to living under house arrest until the end of his days.

We’ve come a long way since then. The Church eventually adopted Galileo’s view of science as its own: Nature is the criterion of the truth about nature. ....

Which of course is not true but it is one of the more famous of the Politically Correct truths of the day. The Politically Incorrect truth is that Galileo found himself in the predicament he was in, not because he said the earth was not the center of the universe but because he said it without sufficiently arguing the scientific case against geocentrism. Among the problems with the theory as presented by Galileo was he said the tides were responsible for the earth's motion and he never answered the geocentrist argument involving stellar parallax. Tycho Brahe, who could hardly be called an enemy of science was unconvinced by Galileo. So it really wasn't, as is the popular myth, that the Church was/is against science. But rather the "sin" Galileo was guilty of was bad science and his insistence that the Church take seriously a theory still in its infancy. A theory if you will, that had not yet learned to walk.

There is a delicious irony to the the title, "Galileo Silenced Again." The posting describes the attempts of the authors, to host a scientific session entitled, "Diverse Views from Galileo’s Window: Researching Factors and Processes of Climate Change in the Age of Anthropogenic CO2." The session was to be hosted at the upcoming Fall 2009 Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) in San Francisco.

As the American Spectator puts it, "It was a "go" until it wasn't. The AGU put a stop to the session due to highly suspect causes which seem to toddle about with all the directness of a very young child. Speculation rests on the idea that perhaps the AGU preferred silence to any questioning of the official party line choosing to ignore research that contradicts it.

The Church in Galileo's day was the seat or at least the springboard and ally of many great scientific discoveries. Galileo's case was an exceptional one. The Church acted as a gate-keeper for bad science among others. No gate-keeper and we are overrun by bad science. The theory of man-made climate change has no legs. Would that we could silence Galileo again.

Ideology Subverting Evidence-

While the American House of (non) Representatives approves the Cap and Trade climate bill the rest of the world is waking up to the reality that they have been scammed by the charlatans of Gore and company.

Let's start with Poland:

The Committee of Geological Sciences of the Polish Academy of Sciences has published a paper concerning the question of impending global warming and urges attention to 10 principal aspects of the problem. Awareness of these principal aspects is essential, they say, if reasonable and responsible decisions are to be arrived at.
Here is number 10:

Research experience in the Earth sciences suggests that simple explanation of
natural phenomena, based on partial observations only and without consideration of
numerous factors important for individual processes in a geosystem, leads generally to
unreasonable simplification and misleading conclusions.

Steve Fielding, a member of the Australian Senate, recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming.
The administration was unable to do that since they were busy reassuring the American public on the economy, and reassuring the Iranian protesters, and the Honduran people, and the U.S car industry...

When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation and thus Australia prepares to kill it's country's carbon emissions scheme while the American Congress prepares to stick it to the people, I mean, pass its own bill.

President Vaclav Klaus of the Czech Republic believes believes that climate change is a dangerous myth and his view is supported by 89% of the population.

In France, Claude Allegre, who twenty years ago was heralding the earth's demise from global warming has since changed his tune and in New Zealand, (take note please, members of Congress et al) a new government has been elected which immediately dismantled its own young cap and trade program.

The WSJ sums up the rest:

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. (Her article is here) Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

Falling Belief in Man-Made Global Warming

According to the American Spectator, there may be hope yet...

Bad news for environmental extremists. Despite control of the government and media, the alarmists are losing the battle for public support. Reports Rasmussen Reports:

Despite the rise in voters who say human activity is to blame, the overall results represent a complete reversal from a year ago, when 47% blamed human activity and only 34% blamed planetary trends. (more)

Stop global warming? No, stop the insanity!

Just when I thought the whole global warming argument couldn't get any crazier, I'm proven wrong. What next? Everybody smear their bodies with zinc oxide?

President Obama's energy adviser has suggested all the world's roofs should be painted white as part of efforts to slow global warming.

Five Reasons the EPA Should Not Attempt to Deal with Global Warming

Comon Sense form the Heritage:

On April 17, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued an endangerment finding, saying that global warming poses a serious threat to public health and safety. Thus, almost anything that emits carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases could be regulated under the Clean Air Act. This is the first official action taken by the federal government to regulate carbon dioxide.

The endangerment finding is the initial step in a long regulatory process that could lead to the EPA requiring regulations for almost anything that emits carbon dioxide. Automobiles would likely be the first target, but subsequent regulations could extend to a million or more buildings and small businesses, including hospitals, schools, restaurants, churches, farms, and apartments. The following five reasons explain why this would be a big, costly mistake.

1. It's an Economy Killer
Above anything else, any attempt to reduce carbon dioxide would be poison to an already sick economy. Even when the economy does recover, the EPA's proposed global warming policy would severely limit economic growth.

2. Negligible Environmental Benefit
The extraordinary perils of CO2 regulation for the American economy come with little, if any, environmental benefit.

3. Lack of Scientific Consensus
The scientific consensus behind global warming, especially the seriousness of the impacts, is anything but strong. Last December, the U.S. Senate Minority released a report that included 650 dissenting scientists refuting claims made in the IPCC report.[4] That number has grown to over 700, more than 13 times the number of scientists (52) who had a direct role in the IPCC report.

4. Backdoor Policy
While some Members of Congress undoubtedly support the EPA's attempt to curb global warming, the fact that unelected and unaccountable EPA bureaucrats are trying to bypass legislative efforts makes it all the more objectionable.

5. Expanded Bureaucracy
Having EPA bureaucrats micromanage the economy, all in the name of combating global warming, would be a chilling shift to a command-and-control system in which EPA officials regulate just about every aspect of the market.

go here to read all of the article and the reasins in their entirety

cap and trade could cost the average household more than $3,900 per year

The MIT braintrust has done some refiguring and it turns out the Republicans may be a bit closer to the truth on this one.

From the Weekly Standard:

It's just another inconvenient truth: If Americans want any of the government remedies that would supposedly save a planet allegedly imperiled by global warming, it's going to cost them.

Just how much it will cost them has been a point of contention lately. Many congressional Republicans, including members of the GOP leadership, have claimed that the plan to limit carbon emissions through cap and trade would cost the average household more than $3,100 per year. According to an MIT study, between 2015 and 2050 cap and trade would annually raise an average of $366 billion in revenues (divided by 117 million households equals $3,128 per household, the Republicans reckon).

...In other words, Reilly estimates that "the amount of tax collected" through companies would equal $3,128 per household--and "Those costs do get passed to consumers and income earners
in one way or another"--but those costs have "nothing to do with the real cost" to the economy. Reilly assumes that the $3,128 will be "returned" to each household. Without that assumption, Reilly wrote, "the cost would then be the Republican estimate [$3,128] plus the cost I estimate [$800]."...(more)

Fatties cause global warming

I used to be a skeptic but this article might have convinced me.....not.
From the Sun:

THE rising number of fat people was yesterday blamed for global warming.
Scientists warned that the increase in big-eaters means more food production — a major cause of CO2 gas emissions warming the planet.
Overweight people are also more likely to drive, adding to environmental damage. (more)

Obama looks at climate engineering

You really can't make this stuff up...

WASHINGTON (AP) - The president's new science adviser said Wednesday that global warming is so dire, the Obama administration is discussing radical technologies to cool Earth's air.
John Holdren told The Associated Press in his first interview since being confirmed last month that the idea of geoengineering the climate is being discussed. One such extreme option includes shooting pollution particles into the upper atmosphere to reflect the sun's rays. Holdren said such an experimental measure would only be used as a last resort.

"It's got to be looked at," he said. "We don't have the luxury of taking any approach off the table."

Holdren outlined several "tipping points" involving global warming that could be fast approaching. Once such milestones are reached, such as complete loss of summer sea ice in the Arctic, it increases chances of "really intolerable consequences," he said. (more)

Really intolerable consequences- like a junior Senator from Illinois becoming President and spending trillions of dollars of our money and our children's to reflect the sun's rays with pollution particles? You mean it could be worse?

Eight Dem Senators Defend the Right to Filibuster Climate Change

From TPMDC. Would that they did it because a) the science is far from settled and b) it's expensive and c) will only serve to prolong the nation's/world recession...

When President Obama submitted a budget that predicted passage of a revenue-raising climate change bill, hopes rose that Congress could successfully rein in carbon emissions this year.

But a cap-and-trade climate bill is almost certain to be filibustered by Republicans -- and in a letter delivered to the Senate Budget Committee yesterday, eight Democratic senators joined 25 Republicans to defend the GOP's right to set a 60-vote margin for passing emissions limits.

"We oppose using the budget process to expedite passage of climate legislation," the senators, including eight centrist Democrats, wrote in their missive.

Using the procedure of budget reconciliation, which would allow a climate change measure to become law with 50 votes while preventing filibusters, "would circumvent normal Senate practice and would be inconsistent with the administration's goals of bipartisanship, cooperation, and openness," the 33 senators wrote. (more)

Global Warming is Sleeping.

Ahh, that's it. If we have a few cold snaps well, climate can change and doesn't prove that its not warming, but a few droughts and warm spells and by golly its warming! Or changing! Or I guess, now, sleeping.
This is what happens when money (aka "stimulus") and science sleep together. The bastard child lives in the attic with the crazy aunt till the lefties let it out...

Read the article over at Creative Minority Report: Shhh. Global Warming is Hibernating.:

Unstoppable Global Warming

As I've said before, when the computer models can predict next weeks weather then I might start listening to the models. Right now of course they can't model a "blocking high" or "el nino" so tell me again why we need to sink billions to thwart something thats very existence much less cause is so very far from clear? From FrontPage:

...That's right! Al Gore wants Congress to impose a tax that could be considered a tax on climate. He describes his new tax as "putting a price on carbon."

And, by the way, the new name for global warming is "climate change," acknowledging the fact that thermometers register downward trends as well as upward trends.

The warmest year in the past century was 1934, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999 and 1993. Four of the top 10 are from the 1930s, before auto emissions were a factor, while only three are from the last 10 years. As S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery point out in their latest book, Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years (2007), "That there has been no warming trend in the United States since the 1930s seriously undermines claims that the effects of global warming are already being felt in the United States." S. Fred Singer is Distinguished Research Professor at George Washington University and is author or editor of more than a dozen books and monographs. Dennis T. Avery is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute and author of several books.

Most of those individuals known as "global warmers" have consistently relied upon the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as their reference point. The IPCC Report (1995) claims they've found a "human fingerprint" in the current global warming trend. Singer and Avery claim this term "human fingerprint" was inserted for "political not scientific reasons."

The IPCC Report was challenged as lacking a scientific basis on January 28 by a former chief of the National Aeronautic and Space Administration (NASA), Dr. John S. Theon. He "slammed the computer models used to determine future climate, claiming they are not scientific in part because modelers 'resisted making their work transparent so that it can be replicated independently by other scientists.'" Dr. Theon was joined by Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, founder of the International Journal of Forecasting, in stating, "The computer models underpinning the work of many scientific institutions concerned with global warming are fundamentally flawed."

Citing procedures described in the IPCC Report they noted that there was no scientific forecast of the changes in the earth's climate. The only forecasts were based on the opinions of some scientists. An audit of the procedures described "clearly violated 72 scientific principles of forecasting," Theon and Armstrong said. In all the succeeding forecasts made by IPCC "scientists," the same 72 violations of scientific principles were repeated....(more)