Posts Tagged ‘IPCC’

There Is No Compelling Scientific Argument For Global Warming, Say The Scientists

January 28, 2012

It’s not enough to say that Al Gore was wrong when he kept lecturing us about the “consensus” of science.  Unless it’s the other way around.

Another Global Warming Oops Moment, and it’s a dilly
January 27th, 2012, 9:48 am · posted by Mark Landsbaum

The Wall Street Journal has a letter today signed by 16 noteworthy scientists who wanted to go on the record about global warming. What they had to say constitutes today’s Global Warming Oops Moment, one of those delightful public displays that reveal the emperor has no clothes.

We quote:

“Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.”

Oops. As we so enjoy saying.

It’s sad that the bullies who run the global warming scare machine have intimidated so many for so long, threatening to label any critics as cranks and not real scientists, even cutting them off from tenure, funding and membership and publishing in journals. But thuggery sooner or later is exposed and courage sooner or later overcomes it. Here’s one of those tipping points, as delineated in the WSJ letter:

“Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job. “

What’s this remind you of? If the old Soviet system comes to mind, you’re correct. Also from the letter:

“… we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.”

As we have written for years, global warming alarmism is not and never has been about the earth heating up dangerously, which it isn’t. It’s always been about control and money – their control over your money.

It seems these 16 scientists understand this motivation:

“Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word ‘incontrovertible’ from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question ‘cui bono?’ Or the modern update, “Follow the money.”

Did we say Oops?

Incidentally, these scientists also echo our long-standing observation that global warming simply isn’t dangerously warming the earth, and hasn’t at all this century.

“Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 ‘Climategate’ email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: ‘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.’ But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.

“The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.”

We have to repeat, Oops!

Hey, anyone in a hurry to scuttle the economic engine of our society so we can subsidize these masters of deceit and fraud? Count up the things government tells you that you must do – and pay for – because of global warming. Subsidizing Solyndra, and countless others, is just the tip of the iceberg.

=-=-=

RELATED POSTS:

I used to live in Orange County and loved the Register.

I miss it even more reading this guy.

He’s got another short piece that supports the one above (Bob Lutz being one of the best engineers in America):

Global warming quote of the day
January 26th, 2012, 4:51 pm · · posted by Mark Landsbaum

It’s been a few days since our last Global Warming Quote of the Day, and because our readers probably have yearned for another, we bring you without further ado, today’s Global Warming Quote of the Day.


“I don’t pursue the electrification of the automobile out of any fear I might have of planetary meltdown. First of all, you have to realize that carbon dioxide is a trace gas, one of most minimal gases in atmosphere. If you believe in the greenhouse effect, you should realize that methane, also known as bovine flatulence, has more than 20 times the power of CO2, and yet nobody talks about it. More than 98 percent of CO2 is from natural causes—just two percent is from humans, and mostly from stationary sources. And just a fifth of the human-caused emissions are from the global automotive sector. You could plug up the spark plug holes of every car and truck on the planet with cement and it would be a rounding error as far as CO2 production is concerned.

“The whole thing [blaming cars for global warming] is outrageous, and the purpose is to create an artificial scarcity of fossil fuel to raise prices and get alternative fuels, which cost way more, to start paying off.” – Bob Lutz, former vice chairman of General Motors.

These words came when Lutz was asked to give context to words he previously had uttered regarding global warming. You recall what he said then, right?

He said global warming was “a crock of *$%*#@.”

There’s a great article that explains what Bob Lutz was saying available here called “An Inconvenient Truth.”  If you read it you will begin to understand the incredibly deceitful bait and switch that global warming alarmism truly is.

Advertisements

UN Global Warmers Admit ‘Climate Change’ About Wealth Redistribution; Invoke Demonic ‘Goddesses’

December 7, 2010

If you didn’t think that the global warming alarmist movement was out of control; you’re already an idiot in my estimation.

But what was bad is now worse.

First, there’s the frank admission that conservatives have been proclaiming from every rooftop all along; that global warming (relabeled ‘climate change’ when ‘global warming’ became another ‘inconvenient truth’ for them) is and always has been about the socialist redistribution of wealth, rather than any kind of legitimate science:

IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”
Thursday, 18 November 2010 13:16 Neue Zürcher Zeitung

Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, says the German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer. The next world climate summit in Cancun is actually an economy summit during which the distribution of the world’s resources will be negotiated.

Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010

Interview: Bernard Potter

NZZ am Sonntag: Mr. Edenhofer, everybody concerned with climate protection demands emissions reductions. You now speak of “dangerous emissions reduction.” What do you mean?

Ottmar Edenhofer: So far economic growth has gone hand in hand with the growth of greenhouse gas emissions. One percent growth means one percent more emissions. The historic memory of mankind remembers: In order to get rich one has to burn coal, oil or gas. And therefore, the emerging economies fear CO2 emission limits.

[…]

That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

And just who the heck is this Ottmar Edenhofer guy?  He’s the man who was appointed as joint chair of Working Group 3 at the Twenty-Ninth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, Switzerland. He’s the the deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and the Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Berlin Institute of Technology.

In other words, he is hardly a global warming nobody.  He’s a global warming alarmist bigwig who clearly understands the global warming alarmist agenda.  If he made a mistake, it was that he was honest (something very few leftists can be accused of).

And he’s telling you – as the new generation of global warming alarmists who are now calling themselves “climate change” alarmists – want to do.  It’s something that the OLD generation of global warming alarmists for the most part refused to tell you: that this whole “climate change” malarkey is ultimately merely a guise to take what little wealth Obama will leave your children with, and redistributing it to all the impoverished nations such as Africa.

If you’re living in a country blessed with natural resources – and formerly blessed with capitalist free market economies – your children be damned.

Because Africa has for the most part ALWAYS embraced socialism (or what Dinesh D’Souza accurately calls “anticolonialism“), they should finally get their reward for their faithful embrace of such socialism.  Their bounty should be seized by international fiat from your children’s mouths and given to socialist Africa’s children.  And socialist Latin America’s.  And socialist Asia’s children.

It’s the same “social justice” crap that liberals have been talking about.  And when they need to recruit scientists to help legitimize their propaganda – offering enormous government-funded research grants as carrots – their will be plenty of “scientists” willing to make their “science” say whatever they want it to say.

And what goes on in these people’s minds, these neo-global-warming alarmists who want to accomplish all this?

This movement isn’t just bizarre.  And it isn’t just flagrantly anti-Christ.  It’s a “let the facts be damned in the face of our agenda” approach to reality and to science.

Posted at 12:11 PM ET, 11/29/2010
Cancun talks start with a call to the gods
By Juliet Eilperin

With United Nations climate negotiators facing an uphill battle to advance their goal of reducing emissions linked to global warming, it’s no surprise that the woman steering the talks appealed to a Mayan goddess Monday.

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, invoked the ancient jaguar goddess Ixchel in her opening statement to delegates gathered in Cancun, Mexico, noting that Ixchel was not only goddess of the moon, but also “the goddess of reason, creativity and weaving. May she inspire you — because today, you are gathered in Cancun to weave together the elements of a solid response to climate change, using both reason and creativity as your tools.”

She called for “a balanced outcome” which would marry financial and emissions commitments from industrialized countries aimed at combating climate change with “the understanding of fairness that will guide long-term mitigation efforts.”

“Excellencies, the goddess Ixchel would probably tell you that a tapestry is the result of the skillful interlacing of many threads,” said Figueres, who hails from Costa Rica and started her greetings in Spanish before switching to English. “I am convinced that 20 years from now, we will admire the policy tapestry that you have woven together and think back fondly to Cancun and the inspiration of Ixchel.”

Delegates from 193 countries are gathered in Cancun for the two-week meeting, which kicked off today at 10:20 a.m. local time, or 11:20 a.m. Eastern. Mexican President Felipe Calderon, a major proponent of action on climate change, attended the opening.

Two weeks from now, we’ll have a sense of whether Ixchel — and the delegates — were listening to Figueres’s appeal.

And, of course, these jet-setting “delegates ” hypocritically sent massive tonnages of carbon into the air as they met in the very kind of nice, warm climate that they want to tell us that we need to be so terrified of.

This isn’t the science of Bacon’s scientific method; it’s the “science” of pagan goddesses.  It’s “socialism as science.”  It’s the science of wealth redistributionism.

It’s a giant load of crap.

When I first heard about global warming and the potential destruction of the planet, I was open to the idea.  There is nothing in my worldview that would be opposed to such a concept.

But, almost right from the start, I found out what it really was.

The infamous 1997 Kyoto Accord, embraced by Bill Clinton but roundly rejected by the US Senate on a unanimous and bi-partisan 99-0 vote, would have massively restricted developed Western countries from economic development, but would have given waivers to Russia, China, India and the entire developing world.  That was when I knew that this wasn’t about “science,” but rather that it was all about socialism.

Nothing has emerged from that day to do anything other than confirm that fact – especially the Climategate emails that revealed that “respected climate researchers” had destroyed, fabricated and altered data to “prove” the “consensus” of global warming.

Now we know that man-caused global warming is not only a socialist lie, but a demonic lie straight from hell.

75 Facts Showing Global Warming Is Psuedo-Science

February 25, 2010

Josh Fulton has this excellent refutation of global warming on his blog.  I suggest going to his site, because there is additional information contained in the comments to the article.

75 reasons to be skeptical of “global warming”


* Carbon dioxide contributes to only 4.2 – 8.4% of the greenhouse gas effect

* Only approximately 4% of carbon dioxide is man-made

* Water vapor accounts for 90 – 95% of the green house gas effect


* 99.99% of water vapor is natural, meaning that no amount of deindustrialization could get rid of it

* There have been many times when the temperature has been higher than it is now including the Medieval Warming Period, the Holocene, the Jurassic, and the Eemian

* Increases in carbon dioxide follow increases in temperature by about 800 years, not precede them

* Phil Jones of the Hadley CRU, and key figure in the “climategate” scandal, admits that there has been no “statistically significant” global warming since 1995

* 2008 and 2009 were the coolest two years of the decade

* During the Ordovician period carbon dioxide concentrations were twelve times what they are now, and the temperature was lower

* Solar activity is highly correlated with temperature change:

* Studies show that half of all recent warming was solar

* Mars has warmed about 0.5°C since the 1970’s, approximately the same that earth has warmed over the same period

* The 0.7°C increase in temperatures over the last century is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends


* The distance between Earth and Sun changes every year, affecting the amount of energy the earth receives

* Earth’s tilt oscillates between 21.4° and 24.8°, which affects the distribution of the sun’s energy

* Dr. Roy Spencer has written that clouds have been a more important driver of climate than carbon dioxide since 2000

* Approximately 40% of the uncertainty in temperature projections come from uncertainty in the strength of the “feedback loop” between temperature and carbon dioxide. Recent research suggests the “feedback loop” is less than half as strong than many had presumed

* James Hansen of NASA said in a simulation of temperatures from 1880 to 2000 soot accounted for 25% of observed global warming

* Research suggests that soot could have nearly as much impact on climate change as carbon dioxide

* Antarctica has 90% of earth’s ice and it is growing

* Arctic sea ice has returned to 1979 levels, which is when records began

* The Arctic ice caps have recovered from their loss in 2007

* The Arctic is now 1°C cooler than it was in the 1940’s

* Polar bear populations are increasing

* Polar bears are able to swim over 60 miles continuously

* Sea level 81,000 years ago was 1 meter higher than it is now while carbon dioxide levels were lower

* A chart of sea level change over millions of years looks like this:



* According to satellite data, sea level has been decreasing since 2005

* Instead of hurting forests, the increased level of carbon dioxide has been helping them grow

* The official “record” for temperatures only goes back 150 years

* Although the IPCC may have 2500 members, only approximately 800 contribute to the scientific writing of the report

* Only 52 scientists contributed to the 2007 IPCC summary for policy makers, although diplomats from over 115 countries contributed

* Only 20% of the members of the IPCC deal with climate science

* Head of the IPCC, Dr. Rajendra Pachauri has no background in climate science. His PhD is in economics and he worked as a railway engineer before becoming head of the IPCC

* Former IPCC lead author Ben Santer openly admits that he altered portions of the 1995 IPCC report to make them “consistent with the other chapters”

* John Christy, former lead author on the 2001 IPCC report, speaks of his former co-lead authors deliberately trying to sensationalize the report

*Richard Lindzen, another lead author on the 2001 IPCC report, accused the IPCC of being “driven by politics”

* Michael Mann’s “hockey stick” graph, which was featured prominently in the 2001 IPCC report, was created using only portions of a data set. The red line is the graph of Mann’s selected data, while the black line is the graph of all the data:


* When asked to act as an expert reviewer on the IPCC’s last two reports, Dr. Nils Axel-Morner was “astonished to find that not one of their 22 contributing authors on sea levels was a sea level specialist”

* Until 2003, the IPCC’s satellite-based evidence showed no upward trend in sea level, so they used an increase of 2.3mm in one Hong Kong tide-gauge to adjust the entire global sea level up 2.3mm

* The IPCC’s claim that the Himalayan glaciers were melting was based off of a phone interview with a non-scientist. They were forced to retract the claim

* The IPCC claim that global warming was led to increased natural disasters was based on an unpublished report that had not been subject to peer-review. They were forced to retract the claim

* The IPCC’s claim that global warming was going to lead to deficiencies of up to 50% in African agriculture was based on a non-peer-reviewed and non-scientific paper. They were forced to retract the claim

* The IPCC’s claim that “up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation” was based on a non-peer-reviewed and non-scientific paper. They were forced to retract the claim

* The IPCC reported that 55% of the Netherlands was below sea level when just 26% of the country is below sea level. They were later forced to retract the claim

* According to the United States Historical Climatology Network (USHNC,) 90% of US climate-monitoring surface stations have been found to be “poorly situated,” meaning that they have a margin of error greater than 1°C, more than the global warming in the entire 20th century. (The US surface data is generally considered the best surface data in the world):



* Many climate-monitoring surface stations are in locations that look like this:

* Temperature measurements from climate-monitoring surface stations are collected by hand. At one surface station in California, Anthony Watts found that only data from 14 out of 31 days had been completed in a month

* If a surface station is missing data for a particular day, data from surrounding surface stations is used to fill-in. Since 90% of all surface stations are poorly situated, even if a surface station itself is not poorly situated, if its data is missing for a day, there is a very good chance its temperature will be calculated using data from surface stations that are poorly situated

* In April 1978, there were 6,000 climate-monitoring surface stations. There are now about 1,200

* The vast majority of climate-monitoring stations that were lost were rural ones, which have been shown to give the most accurate data:


* The raw data is “adjusted” by a computer program. The net effect of this “adjustment” has been to increase the “adjusted” numbers over the “raw” numbers by .5°F, an increase that has been growing year by year:


* Difference between the USHCN “raw” data (in blue) and NASA “homogenized” data (in red):

* According to a leaked email in “climategate,” “temperatures in Darwin [a monitoring station in Australia] were falling at 0.7 Celsius per century […]but after the homogenization, they were warming at 1.2 Celsius per century. […][W]hen those guys “adjust,” they don’t mess around.”

* According to a leaked email in “climategate,” computer programmer Harry Harris called the CRU data set “hopeless,” and said “the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. […]This whole project is SUCH A MESS. No wonder I needed therapy!!”

* When looking at source code leaked in “climategate” used to “process” and “adjust” temperatures, software engineer John Graham-Cumming said he found at least five errors and “wouldn’t trust it”

* The Hadley CRU, the institution at the center of the “climategate” scandal, threw out original temperature data because it claimed it did not have “storage space”

* In 1990, Dr. Phil Jones, the man at the center of the “climategate” scandal, contributed to a paper arguing that the effect of urban warming in eastern China was “negligible.” This became a key reference source for the IPCC. It turns out that 49 of the 84 climate-monitoring stations used for this report had no history of their locations or other details. This included 40 of the 42 rural stations. Of the rest, 18 had “certainly been moved” during the study period, including one that was moved five times over a total distance of 41 km. When Jones “re-examined” data in the same area for a 2008 paper, he found that urbanization was responsible for 40% of the warming found from 1951 to 2004

* Ross McKitrick and Patrick Michaels have argued that half of the global warming trend from 1980 to 2002 is caused by urban warming

* The Hadley CRU has been accused of using data from just 25% of Russia’s surface stations, deliberately overstating Russia’s warming by .64°C between the 1870’s and 1990’s

* According to emails leaked in “climategate,” when “Climate Research” published articles by global warming skeptics, Phil Jones and others urged scientists to “stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal”

* William Connolly, a Wikipedia administrator and co-founder of Realclimate.org, a website that supports the theory of anthropogenic global warming, “touched” over 5,400 Wikipedia articles, routinely omitting voices that were skeptical of global warming

* Large computer climate models are unable to even simulate major features of past climate such as the 100 thousand year cycles of ice ages that have dominated climate for the past 700 thousand years

* This is a picture of what Britain looked like in the summer of 2009 when its sophisticated climate “supercomputer” had predicted a “barbeque summer”:

* The US government spends over $2.5B funding climate research every year, and over $7B when grants for technology, tax breaks, and foreign aid are included (this is while Exxon gave $22M to global warming skeptics over a 10 year period)

* Many scientist assert that government grant money is given preferentially to advocates of man-made global warming

* Bart Chilton, a CFTC commissioner, said “carbon markets could be worth $2 trillion in transaction value – […]within five years of trading (starting). […]That would make it the largest physically traded commodity in the US, surpassing even oil”

* The owners of the trading floor where the carbon credits will be traded, including Goldman Sachs and Al Gore, stand to earn trillions if cap-and-trade is passed


* The cap-and-trade bill allows the government police powers to come into your home and inspect it for “energy efficiency,” and to fine you every day your home is not compliant

* Australian homes now have to undergo a mandatory energy-efficiency assessment – costing up to $1500 per property – before they can be sold or rented under new laws to tackle carbon emissions

* UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has called for “global governance structure” to monitor greenhouse gases, which everyone on the planet emits with every exhale

* The United Nations forecasts that the global population will rise, peak and then decline between 2050 and 2300 to just under 9 billion

* Despite proclamations that there is a “consensus” and the debate is “settled,” 18% of scientists surveyed in the last poll trying to discern scientific opinion do not believe in man-made global warming

* 45% of Americans think global warming is man-made, down 9% from just half a year earlier

* In the court case Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills, a British judge ruled that there were nine “inaccuracies” in An Inconvenient Truth, including Gore’s claim that sea level could rise by up to 20 ft. The IPCC’s own report predicted a maximum rise of 59cm in sea level over 100 years. The Science and Public Policy Institute has taken issue with thirty five of Gore’s claims in An Inconvenient Truth

* Al Gore bought a $4M condo feet from ocean in Fisherman’s Wharf, San Fransisco, a city he had explicitly warned about in An Inconvenient Truth

Hmm, well, that’s suspicious, but I suppose that doesn’t matter if he tells us it’s alright.

I have a couple of articles that are now several months old, but which report information contained in the incredible book, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years:

What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

Climate Change Alarmists: ‘The Sky Is Falling! The Sea Is Rising!’ Oops. Never Mind

February 22, 2010

I wonder if the global warming “climate change” alarmists get as tired of being wrong as the skeptics are with being right?

I mean, day after day, we keep getting “snowmageddons” on the global warmers’ parade.

And the global warmers are forced to tell us obvious self-referentially absurd nonsense such as, “It’s only freezing cold outside because it’s actually so damn hot.”

And the media engages in yet another never-ceasing campaign to make sure the pseudo-scientific drivel that helps justify their leftwing socialist agenda appears legitimate to the gullible unwashed masses.

But cold water is being thrown everywhere on the crap they are peddling.

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels
Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report’s author now says true estimate is still unknown

David Adam
guardian.co.uk, Sunday 21 February 2010 18.00 GMT

Scientists have been forced to withdraw a study on projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding mistakes that undermined the findings.

The study, published in 2009 in Nature Geoscience, one of the top journals in its field, confirmed the conclusions of the 2007 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). It used data over the last 22,000 years to predict that sea level would rise by between 7cm and 82cm by the end of the century.

At the time, Mark Siddall, from the Earth Sciences Department at the University of Bristol, said the study “strengthens the confidence with which one may interpret the IPCC results. The IPCC said that sea level would probably rise by 18cm-59cm by 2100, though stressed this was based on incomplete information about ice sheet melting and that the true rise could be higher.

Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100.

Siddall said that he did not know whether the retracted paper’s estimate of sea level rise was an overestimate or an underestimate.

Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: “It’s one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science.” He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study’s conclusion.

“Retraction is a regular part of the publication process,” he said. “Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances.”

Nature Publishing Group, which publishes Nature Geoscience, said this was the first paper retracted from the journal since it was launched in 2007.

The paper – entitled “Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change” – used fossil coral data and temperature records derived from ice-core measurements to reconstruct how sea level has fluctuated with temperature since the peak of the last ice age, and to project how it would rise with warming over the next few decades.

In a statement the authors of the paper said: “Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

“One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes.”

In the Nature Geoscience retraction, in which Siddall and his colleagues explain their errors, Vermeer and Rahmstorf are thanked for “bringing these issues to our attention”.

Confirmed the conclusions.”  “Strengthens the confidence.”  Only it was a giant load of rotting baloney all along.

The “scientists” are trying to tell us that they don’t know whether the “error” (make that “propaganda”) was an overestimation or an underestimation of a sea level rise.  Bullcrap.  These are the same people who told us that the Amazon rain forest was being destroyed by global warming when there’s no evidence that it is even being affected at all.  These are the people who assured us that the Himalayan glacier would melt by 2035, when the “conclusion” wasn’t even based on science.

And when it comes to sea levels, these are the same people who made the following massive screw-up because it suited their ideology:

MPs have reacted angrily to a second mistake in an international climate panel report, this time focusing on the Netherlands itself, the Volkskrant reports on Friday.

According to the last IPCC report, published in 2007, some 55% of the Netherlands is below sea level and 65% of gross national product is produced in that area.

But according to the national statistics office CBS, just 20% of the country is below sea level and 19% of GDP is earned there.

‘I am very disturbed,’ environment minister Jacqueline Cramer told MPs. ‘I do not wish to accept any more mistakes.’

Last week Cramer said a mistake in the same report about melting glaciers is ‘extremely worrying’.

The science and the facts aren’t on the global warmers’ side, so they just make up their own.  Or, to put it another way, “The IPCC didn’t even get their data from scientific studies, but used anecdotal information from advocacy groups such as the WWF and from mountain climbing magazines.”

How do you not conclude these people weren’t “data shopping” to find the best deal for their propaganda?

At some point – I don’t know when – enough people are going to realize that global warming by any other name is not at all about science, and is all about a socialist redistributionist political ideology.

Give me and my military-industrial complex special interests all your money so I can save the planet from an impending attack by evil space aliens.  You’ll be sorry if you don’t because you’ll be lobotomized and transformed into a worker drone.

What’s that you say?  Liberals have already lobotomized themselves, and welcome being enslaved by aliens?  Oops.  Never mind.

OK, then let me frighten you this way: the aliens will ruin the climate and the sea levels will rise.

Evidence Mounting That Climate ‘Scientists’ Manipulated Data To Exaggerate Global Warming

December 17, 2009

Russia just dropped the bomb on the global warming frauds.

Climategate goes SERIAL: now the Russians confirm that UK climate scientists manipulated data to exaggerate global warming

By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 16th, 2009

Climategate just got much, much bigger. And all thanks to the Russians who, with perfect timing, dropped this bombshell just as the world’s leaders are gathering in Copenhagen to discuss ways of carbon-taxing us all back to the dark ages.

Feast your eyes on this news release from Rionovosta, via the Ria Novosti agency, posted on Icecap. (Hat Tip: Richard North)

A discussion of the November 2009 Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate,” continues against the backdrop of the abortive UN Climate Conference in Copenhagen (COP15) discussing alternative agreements to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that aimed to combat global warming.

The incident involved an e-mail server used by the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA) in Norwich, East England. Unknown persons stole and anonymously disseminated thousands of e-mails and other documents dealing with the global-warming issue made over the course of 13 years.

Controversy arose after various allegations were made including that climate scientists colluded to withhold scientific evidence and manipulated data to make the case for global warming appear stronger than it is.

Climategate has already affected Russia. On Tuesday, the Moscow-based Institute of Economic Analysis (IEA) issued a report claiming that the Hadley Center for Climate Change based at the headquarters of the British Meteorological Office in Exeter (Devon, England) had probably tampered with Russian-climate data.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country’s territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

The data of stations located in areas not listed in the Hadley Climate Research Unit Temperature UK (HadCRUT) survey often does not show any substantial warming in the late 20th century and the early 21st century.

The HadCRUT database includes specific stations providing incomplete data and highlighting the global-warming process, rather than stations facilitating uninterrupted observations.

On the whole, climatologists use the incomplete findings of meteorological stations far more often than those providing complete observations.

IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations.

The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass. The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.

Global-temperature data will have to be modified if similar climate-date procedures have been used from other national data because the calculations used by COP15 analysts, including financial calculations, are based on HadCRUT research.

What the Russians are suggesting here, in other words, is that the entire global temperature record used by the IPCC to inform world government policy is a crock.

As Richard North says: This is serial.

UPDATE: As Steve McIntyre reports at ClimateAudit, it has long been suspected that the CRU had been playing especially fast and loose with Russian – more particularly Siberian – temperature records. Here from March 2004, is an email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann.

Recently rejected two papers (one for JGR and for GRL) from people saying CRU has it
wrong over Siberia. Went to town in both reviews, hopefully successfully. If either
appears
I will be very surprised, but you never know with GRL.
Cheers
Phil

And here at Watts Up With That is a guest post by Jeff Id of the Air Vent

And here is what one of the commenters has to say about the way the data has been cherry-picked and skewed for political ends:

The crux of the argument is that the CRU cherry picked data following the same methods that have been done everywhere else. They ignored data covering 40% of Russia and chose data that showed a warming trend over statistically preferable alternatives when available. They ignored completeness of data, preferred urban data, strongly preferred data from stations that relocated, ignored length of data set.

One the final page, there is a chart that shows that CRU’s selective use of 25% of the data created 0.64C more warming than simply using all of the raw data would have done. The complete set of data show 1.4C rise since 1860, the CRU set shows 2.06C rise over the same period.

Not, of course, dear readers that I’m in any way tempted to crow about these latest revelations. After all, so many of my colleagues, junior and senior, have been backing me on this one to the hilt….

Oh, if anyone speaks Russian, here’s the full report.

Keep in mind that we’re supposed to just swallow this gargantuan load of fraud and pay $10 trillion in indulgences to these fools for our sins.

Even thought it turns out that our “sins” were carefully constructed by ideologue scientists who stood to profit in huge sums of grant money.

Liberals are liars and demagogues.  And we’ve seen both in enormous abundance over this global warming garbage.

Global Warming ‘Scientists’ Admit Purging Their Raw Data

November 30, 2009

This is what a massive scientific hoax looks like.

November 29, 2009
Climate change data dumped
Jonathan Leake, Environment Editor

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU’s director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

The CRU is the world’s leading centre for reconstructing past climate and temperatures. Climate change sceptics have long been keen to examine exactly how its data were compiled. That is now impossible.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.

Jones was not in charge of the CRU when the data were thrown away in the 1980s, a time when climate change was seen as a less pressing issue. The lost material was used to build the databases that have been his life’s work, showing how the world has warmed by 0.8C over the past 157 years.

He and his colleagues say this temperature rise is “unequivocally” linked to greenhouse gas emissions generated by humans. Their findings are one of the main pieces of evidence used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which says global warming is a threat to humanity.

“Trust us.”  That’s what it all boils down to.

Silly me, but I thought “science” was supposed to amount to something more than that.

Here’s your bottom line: global warming, climate change, or whatever you want to call it, is a load of nonsense.  And the only anthropogenic or “man-made” problem is the giant sack of lies that an elitist group of pseudo-scientific ideologues  sold us.

One of the emails simply demonstrates what patently bad “science” global warming has been in the first place.  At its core, science is an endeavor which predicts a certain measurable outcome, and then attempts to determine whether that prediction is verified in nature according to a fair, open, and repeatable process.  Global warming isn’t even close to being science by the very standards of science:

At the end of 2008, the scientists at East Anglia predicted that 2009 would be one of the warmest years on record:

On December 30, climate scientists from the UK Met Office and the University of East Anglia projected 2009 will be one of the top five warmest years on record. Average global temperatures for 2009 are predicted to be 0.4∞C above the 1961-1990 average of 14 ∫ C. A multiyear forecast using a Met Office climate model indicates a rapid return of global temperature to the long-term warming trend, with an increasing probability of record temperatures after 2009.

We know now that the alarmists’ prediction for 2009 didn’t come true.

But bad science wasn’t all these global warming alarmists were guilty of.  They were also guilty of making skeptics of their bogus man-caused global warming alarmism modern versions of Galileo (I’ve previously written about this chilling development in postmodernized academia to punish politically “incorrect” academics and scientists).  They used the peer-review process as an ideological club to attack and undermine fellow scientists rather than using it as a means to get at the truth:

Dating back to 1996, the emails show that both U.S. and U.K. based scientists referred to any research offering alternate viewpoints as “disinformation”,“misinformation” or “crap” that needs to be kept out of the public domain.

The emails include deliberations amongst the scientists regarding efforts to make sure that reports from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change include their own research and exclude that of dissenting scientists.

In one of the emails, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

This is a startling quote, given that Jones and Mann as climate scientists have the authority to review papers and determine whether they are eligible to be published by scientific journals.

Mann even discussed how to destroy a journal that had published papers with contrary views, telling his colleagues that he believed it had been “hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board” who had “staged a coup”.

“Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal.” Mann wrote.

One article, entitled, how “The Alarmists Do “Science:” A Case Study,” describes just “one of many exchanges that shed light on the priority that the global warming alarmists give to politics and career advancement over science.”  The author provides a fairly lengthy segment of an email conversation that is frankly chilling.

Another article compiles emails under the title, “When In Doubt, Delete,” that documents a pattern of deceptive behavior by people who called themselves “scientists” and yet were more interested in destroying evidence than producing and preserving it.

There are so many emails to go over no single article can do so, but here’s a few tidbits:

From a Powerline article entitled, “Global Warming Bombshell“:

They also suggest that pro-global warming scientists fudge data to get the results they are looking for. Just over a month ago, on September 28, 2009, Tom Wigley wrote to Phil Jones of the Hadley Centre about his efforts to get the right-sized “blip” in temperatures of the 1940s:

Phil, 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 the land 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.

I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with “why the blip”.

This and many other emails convey the impression that these theorists are making the “science” up as they go along, with data being manipulated until it yields the results that have been predetermined by political conviction.

One email from Phil Jones is particularly damning about “scientists” making up their own version of “science” in order to sell an ideology:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd [sic] from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

A RealClearPolitics article entitled, “ClimateGate: The Fix Is In” explains what the “trick” is:

Anthony Watts provides an explanation of this case in technical detail; the “trick” consists of selectively mixing two different kinds of data-temperature “proxies” from tree rings and actual thermometer measurements-in a way designed to produce a graph of global temperatures that ends the way the global warming establishment wants it to: with an upward “hockey stick” slope.

A “trick” to “hide the decline.”  And these demagogues call US “deniers.”

As loathsome of a collection of frauds as our global warming “scientists” have proven to be, they don’t hold a candle to the mainstream media propagandists who made this colossal hoax possible in the first place – and who are still trying to conceal the fraud even now.

Barack Obama is going to go to Copenhagen to sign some pathologically insane economy-destroying accord because he is a true believer in the religion of liberalism.

And that is what global warming has now been proven to be: a religion.  It is an ideology advanced by religious fanatics.  This latest admission proves they have no raw data; they have no “science”; all they have is a rabid faith commitment that their own self-created narratives must be true because they believe it is true.

Emails: Global Warming ‘Science’ Exposed As The Lie It Has Been All Along

November 20, 2009

Blatant scientific fraud and global warming alarmism have been best buddies for quite some time.

But hundreds of emails pilfered from a major British university climate change center are stunning even to those who know what a whopping load of crap global warming is.

The emails are available in an easy-to-digest format HERE.  There are somewhere in the vicinity of a thousand-plus, along with some 72 documents.

A UK Telegraph article slams the whole industry as bogus.  And we learn that some of the “scientists” who took part in these emails were huge names in the bogus industry they created:

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?
By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: November 20th, 2009

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

One of the alleged emails has a gentle gloat over the death in 2004 of John L Daly (one of the first climate change sceptics, founder of the Still Waiting For Greenhouse site), commenting:

“In an odd way this is cheering news.”

But perhaps the most damaging revelations  – the scientific equivalent of the Telegraph’s MPs’ expenses scandal – are those concerning the way Warmist scientists may variously have manipulated or suppressed evidence in order to support their cause.

Here are a few tasters. (So far, we can only refer to them as alleged emails because – though Hadley CRU’s director Phil Jones has confirmed the break-in to Ian Wishart at the Briefing Room – he has yet to fess up to any specific contents.) But if genuine, they suggest dubious practices such as:

Manipulation of evidence:

I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.

Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up:

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.

Suppression of evidence:

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4?

Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment – minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists:

Next
time I see Pat Michaels at a scientific meeting, I’ll be tempted to beat
the crap out of him. Very tempted.

Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

……Phil and I have recently submitted a paper using about a dozen NH records that fit this category, and many of which are available nearly 2K back–I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”, even if we don’t yet have a hemispheric mean reconstruction available that far back….

And, perhaps most reprehensibly, a long series of communications discussing how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process. How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority.

“This was the danger of always criticising the skeptics for not publishing in the “peer-reviewed literature”. Obviously, they found a solution to that–take over a journal! So what do we do about this? I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…What do others think?”

“I will be emailing the journal to tell them I’m having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor.”“It results from this journal having a number of editors. The responsible one for this is a well-known skeptic in NZ. He has let a few papers through by Michaels and Gray in the past. I’ve had words with Hans von Storch about this, but got nowhere. Another thing to discuss in Nice !”

Hadley CRU has form in this regard. In September – I wrote the story up here as “How the global warming industry is based on a massive lie” – Hadley CRU’s researchers were exposed as having “cherry-picked” data in order to support their untrue claim that global temperatures had risen higher at the end of the 20th century than at any time in the last millenium. Hadley CRU was also the organisation which – in contravention of all acceptable behaviour in the international scientific community – spent years withholding data from researchers it deemed unhelpful to its cause. This matters because Hadley CRU, established in 1990 by the Met Office, is a government-funded body which is supposed to be a model of rectitude. Its HadCrut record is one of the four official sources of global temperature data used by the IPCC.

I asked in my title whether this will be the final nail in the coffin of Anthropenic Global Warming. This was wishful thinking, of course. In the run up to Copenhagen, we will see more and more hysterical (and grotesquely exaggerated) stories such as this in the Mainstream Media. And we will see ever-more-virulent campaigns conducted by eco-fascist activists, such as this risible new advertising campaign by Plane Stupid showing CGI polar bears falling from the sky and exploding because kind of, like, man, that’s sort of what happens whenever you take another trip on an aeroplane.

The world is currently cooling; electorates are increasingly reluctant to support eco-policies leading to more oppressive regulation, higher taxes and higher utility bills; the tide is turning against Al Gore’s Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. The so-called “sceptical” view is now also the majority view.

Unfortunately, we’ve a long, long way to go before the public mood (and scientific truth) is reflected by our policy makers. There are too many vested interests in AGW, with far too much to lose either in terms of reputation or money, for this to end without a bitter fight.

But if the Hadley CRU scandal is true,it’s a blow to the AGW lobby’s credibility which is never likely to recover.

You can’t even begin to imagine what a pure scientific fraud all this global warming crap is.

Let’s take a moment to contemplate the “science” of chief global warming propagandist Al Gore when he appeared on Conan O’Brien’s program [youtube available here]:

CONAN O’BRIEN, HOST: Now, what about … you talk in the book about geothermal energy…

AL GORE: Yeah, yeah.

O’BRIEN: ...to create energy, and it sounds to me like an evil plan by Lex Luthor to defeat Superman. Can you, can you tell me, is this a viable solution, geothermal energy?

GORE: Yeah.

O’BRIEN: …and that is, as I understand it, using the heat that’s generated from the core of the earth …

GORE: It definitely is, and it’s a relatively new one. People think about geothermal energy – when they think about it at all – in terms of the hot water bubbling up in some places, but two kilometers or so down in most places there are these incredibly hot rocks, ‘cause the interior of the earth is extremely hot, several million degrees, and the crust of the earth is hot …

The problem is that even the earth’s core is only around 2,000-7,000 degrees Celsius (we can’t get to it to measure it precisely).  The whole “several million degree” thing is the blathering idiocy of a blathering idiot.

A blathering idiot who received a Nobel Prize for Science.

This is on top of the fact that Al Gore’s new book pimping global warming relied on photoshopping to artificially “show” the effects of global warming.

And THAT’S on top of the fact that the propaganda film that Al Gore won his Nobel Prize for science in the first place was based on documented exaggerations and lies.

From the Times Online Business section:

An Inconvenient Truth won plaudits from the environmental lobby and an Oscar from the film industry but was found wanting when it was scrutinised in the High Court in London.

Mr Justice Burton identified nine significant errors within the former presidential candidate’s documentary as he assessed whether it should be shown to school children. He agreed that Mr Gore’s film was “broadly accurate” in its presentation of the causes and likely effects of climate change but said that some of the claims were wrong and had arisen in “the context of alarmism and exaggeration”.

In what is a rare judicial ruling on what children can see in the class-room, Mr Justice Barton was at pains to point out that the “apocalyptic vision” presented in the film was politically partisan and not an impartial analysis of the science of climate change.

There were at least nine significant bogus claims contradicted by science in Gore’s Inconvenient Truth.

But that didn’t stop him from receiving a Nobel Prize for it.

The Nobel Prize for Leftwing Propaganda.

When you include the Nobel Prize for Accomplishing Nothing that Barack Obama “won,” you begin to see what an empty suit our chief institutions of leftwing credibility truly are.

But it’s worse than making the Nobel committee or the Nobel Peace Prize a mockery.  What has happened with global warming has made science itself a mockery.

I wrote a couple of articles that expose a lot of these frauds and present the actual legitimate science some time back:

What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

What You Never Hear About Global Warming

There are a few truly good scientists out there.  But there are way too many partisan ideologues who are willing to go to any lengths to pass of ideology as science.  And the new “Galileos” are those who stand in the way of liberal secular humanists academics for whom ideological political power and science are one.

The “scientists” who support global warming theory are not scientists, regardless of their degrees or positions.  They are propagandists.  They are political ideologues who seek to exploit their positions to impose economic redistributionism on people who can scarcely afford to make ends meet as it is.

It doesn’t seem to matter how many times these pseudo-scientific fascist frauds are caught lying, fabricating data, making bogus claims, or generally defecating on the principles, methodologies, and ethics of science.  They just keep rolling merrily along as an equally dishonest, ideological, and propagandistic media covers up for them.

And if I may make one more comment: the people who are trying to impose ObamaCare on us are the same sort of people who are using the same sort of deceit.

[Update, November 22] From “IPCC Researchers Admit Global Warming Fraud,” by Rebecca Terrell and Ed Hiserodt:

[In reference to a] New York Times article [which] opined, “The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument.”Climatologist Patrick J. Michaels challenged that position. “This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud.” The e-mails implicate scores of researchers, most of whom are associated with the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization many skeptics believe was created exclusively to provide evidence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Among the IPCC elite embarrassingly, if not criminally, compromised is Phillip D. Jones, a Ph.D. climatologist at the University of East Anglia whose work figured prominently in the IPCC Third Assessment Report of 2001. Jones also contributed significantly to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 (AR4), but he failed to follow through when skeptical investigators asked to review raw data associated with that report. They announced intent to use UK Freedom of Information laws to obtain the data, so Jones sent the following e-mail to one of his collaborators: “Mike, Can you delete any e-mails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise…. Can you also e-mail Gene and get him to do the same?… Will be getting Caspar to do likewise.” The Mike in this message is Michael Mann, professor of meteorology at Pennsylvania State University, whose influential “hockey stick” graph warning of pending global warming eco-catastrophe was found by a congressional investigation to be fraudulent. In another correspondence about AR4 labeled HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL, Jones contacted Mann regarding research critical of their global warming platform. “I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” wrote Jones. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Mann received another incriminating e-mail from Dr. Kevin Trenberth, a New Zealander now with the University of Colorado and Head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “The fact is we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.” An incredulous Trenberth simply blamed “our [inadequate] observing system.”  Yet he and his colleagues are now dodging the “Climategate” bullet, indignant that global warming skeptics are supposedly taking their comments out of context. One wonders if they might be referring to a message from Jones who wrote about a statistical “trick” he used to “hide” data. Or perhaps they mean Mann’s reference to climate change skeptics as “idiots.”

.

What the Science REALLY Says About Global Warming

June 16, 2008

Contrary to the typical straw-man presentation provided by the media, the vast majority of so-called “global-warming skeptics” actually accept that there is indeed evidence of warming in our climate. In fact, they see a persistant global warming cycle that has dominated earth’s atmosphere for the past 10,000 years and which extends into the distant past through a million years of periods of ice ages and warm intergalacials. What they doubt is that man has had any significant impact upon the warming that we see today.

These skeptics of anthropogenic – or man-caused – global warming would also argue that there are excellent reasons to doubt that the warming seen today is as significant as is routinely claimed by global warming alarmists in both the media and the scientific community.

The following provides a survey of the first few chapters of the book, “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years” by Dr. S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery.

SURFACE RECORDING STATIONS HAVE RECORDED CONTAMINATED DATA
NASA was recently forced to acknowledge that it had [accidentally?] inflated its official record of surface temperatures in the US beginning with the year 2000. The revised data now shows 1934 as the warmest year, followed by 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, and 1953. This is significant because 4 of the top 10 years on record occur before World war II, before human emissions could have been responsible, whereas only 3 of the top 10 years are from the past decade.

Furthermore, new data are also emerging rasing substantial doubts about the veracity of the surface temperature records kept both in the US and globally. Meteorologist Anthony Watts launched an effort to photograph 1,221 surface temperature recording stations in the US to see if land use changes might be contaminating the record. Images of the stations he’s photographed so far (www.surfacestations.org) show many cases where stations seem to be reporting warming caused by parking lots, nearby buildings, and heat-generating activities such as air conditioners which have been built around the stations since they originally began taking measurments decades ago.

For example, the temperature station in Orland, California, has been in the same location for more than 100 years and shows no evidence of being affected by nearby development. It shows a declining temperature trend from 1880 to 2007. But the temperature station in nearby Marysville, California has been surrounded by development in the form of an asphalt driveway, the base of a large cell tower, and air condiditoning units in nearby buildings. That station shows a warming trend.

Many of these stations were located at airfields which originally were little more than dirt strips with a couple of small buildings.

As Watts’ team finds more and more stations such as the one in Marysville, it is becoming clear the US temperature records shows more warming than has actually occurred. One is therefore left wondering how much of the measured warming trend is real and how much is the result of contaminated data.

Furthermore, the IPCC, in dismissing this claim, cited one paper as its primary justification for concluding that UHIs (Urban Heat Islands) did not affect the global temperature record. But the paper that they cited is now recognized to have been a fraud, with formal charges filed against its author, Wei-Chyung Wang. A British mathematician named Doug Keenan stumbled across Wang’s paper and noticed obvious red flags. Wang utilized Chinese data from the 1950s, and Keenan asked himself how a country in such disarray that it couldn’t even estimate its population within 100,000,000 people, could have so diligantly and accurately monitored so many temperature stations. A Freedom of Information Act request yielded information proving that the paper was a complete fraud. The question is, why would the IPCC have made this paper their centerpiece? Are they that incompetent, or are they rather so biased that they are not after truth, but only footnotes to substantiate their ideology?

Anyone who refuses to take such evidence into account is not practicing science, but rather propagandizing ideology.

GREENLAND’S 1,500-YEAR CLIMATE CYCLE A MATTER OF HISTORICAL RECORD
Eric the Red’s settlement of Greenland near the end of the 10th century dramatically demonstrate the Earth’s long, moderate climate cycle.

Sailing west from Iceland in 985 AD, the Vikings were pleased to discover a huge uninhabited island surrounded by ice-free waters and shores were covered with abundant green grass. They could grow vegetables and grace their animals. The colony thrived, and grew to 3,000 people by 1100, with 12 churches and its own bishop.

What the Vikings could not have known was that they were benefitting from the Medieval Warming, a major climate shift that lasted approximately 400 years which made Northern Europe abot 2 degrees centigrade warmer than previously. Nor could they have realized that after this warming period ended, their grassy domain was doomed to a 500-year period of icy temperatures called the Little Ice Age. As the Little Ice Age progressed and pack ice moved closer to Greenland, the colonists were increasingly hard-pressed to survive. Less and less hay could be harvested in the shorter and cooler summers. The storms got worse. The abundant codfish followed warm waters south, away from the colonies. By 1410, glaciers had so crushed Greenland that the supply ships could no longer make the journey.

Inuit hunters pushed south by the encroaching ice began to compete with the Norsemen. Skeletons found in the settlement’s graveyard showed the people were growing shorter and suffering poor nutrition; and a measurement of their tooth enamel indicates a nearly 1.5 degree C drop in average temperatures from 1100 and 1400. The last colonists were forced to eat the last of their milk cows, evidencing their desperation.

Denmark would not be able to recolonize Greenland until 1721, when the Little Ice Age began to lose its grip on the huge island. Today, 150 years into the Modern Warming, Greenland is the home of 50,000 people and 20,000 sheep. But the ice cores and seabed sediments that tell us of 600 natural 1,500 year climate cycles over the past 1 million years contain the proof that the cycle will eventually shift yet again to descend Greenland into centuries of ice and hardship. Only superior modern technology such as improved ice-breaking ships will allow the modern Greenlanders to surive this next coming ice age.

TEMPERATURE VARIATION ANCIENT AND MODERN CORROBORATE 1,500-YEAR CYCLE
2 million years ago: Cycles in Earth’s relation to the sun produce alternating Ice Ages (lasting 90,000 to 100,000 years) and “intergalacials” (lasting 10,000 to 20,000 years). The onset of the glacial period is often slow but ends abruptly at the transition to the warm period. The average global temperature changes 5-7 degrees C during this transition but may rise as much as 10-15 degrees C over a time span of less than 75 years at higher latitudes.

Let us take a look at the climate of the past:

  • 130,000 to 110,000 years ago: Eemian intergalacial, warm.
  • 110,000 years ago: Fairly sudden shift to glacial conditions, over perhaps 400 years or less. Northern forests retreat south, ice sheets begin to take over much of the Northern hemisphere. Trees give way to grass, and then to deserts, as more water is frozen in ice sheets instead of falling as rain on vegetation.
  • 60,000 to 55,000 years ago: In-between phase, partial melting of glaciers.
  • 21,000 to 17,000 years ago: Last Ice Age reaches its coldest point. Deserts and semi-deserts take over much of the global land area. Sea levels are 400′ lower than today.
  • 14,000 years ago: sudden warming, raising Earth temperatures to roughly present levels. Forests began to spread and the ice sheets to retreat. Sea levels begin to rise.
  • 12,500 years ago: The Younger Dryas. After only 1,500 years of recovery from the Ice Age, the Earth suddenly shifts back into a new, short-lived ice age. The dramatic cooling seems to have occurred within 100 years or less. Another 1,000 years or so of ice age follow before another sudden shift back to climate warming.
  • 11,500 years ago: The present intergalacial period known as the Holocene. The planet warms from ice age to nearly present world temperatures in less than 100 years. Half of the warming may have occurred in 15 years. Ice sheets melt, sea levels rise again, and forests expand. Trees replace grasslands and grass replace deserts.
  • 9,000 to 5,000 years ago: Climate Optimum, warmer and wetter than the Earth’s present climate. The Saharan and Arabian deserts become wetter, supporting hunting, herding, and agriculture. The climate may have been “punctuated” by a cold, dry phase 8,200 years ago, with Africa drier than before.
  • 2,600 years ago: Cooling event with relatively wet conditions in many parts of the world.
  • 600 to 200 BC: Unnamed cold period preceding the Roman Warming.
  • 200 BC to 600 AD: Roman Warming. Grape growing advances northward in both Italy and Britain.
  • 600 to 900 AD: “Dark Ages” cold period.
  • 900 to 1300 AD: Medieval Warming or Little Climate Optimum, recorded by histories in both Europe and Asia.
  • 1300 to 1850 AD: Little Ice Age.
  • 1850 to 1940: Warming, especially between 1920 and 1940.
  • 1940 to 1975: Cooling trend.
  • 1976 to 1978: Sudden warming spurt.
  • 1979 to present: A moderate warming trend, very slight according to satellites and weather balloons, somewhat stronger according to surface thermometers.

Note: the figures provided for the last 1,000 years are clearly confirmed by means of Tree Rings and Ice cores in addition to human records.

THE SCIENCE VERIFYING THE 1,500-YEAR CLIMATE CYCLE
In 1984, Willi Dansgaard of Denmark and Hans Oeschger of Switzerland published their analysis of the oxygen isotopes in the first ice cores extracted from Greenland, which provided a record of 250,000 years of Earth’s climate history. The scientists compared the ratio of heavier oxygen-18 isotopes with lighter oxygen-16 isotopes, which indicated the temperatures at the time snow had fallen in each layer. They expected to find evidence of the mega ice ages and briefer mild intergalacials, and they did. But they did not expect to find anything in between. To their suprise, they found a clear cycle – moderate, but abrupt – occurring about every 2.550 years running persistantly through history as they analyzed the core layer by layer [subsequent research would soon reassess this cycle at 1,500 years, plus or minus 500 years]. At the time of their work, no such long-term climate history had ever before been available.

Dansgaard and Oeschger concluded, “the abrupt temperature rise in the 1920s may thus be the latest member of a very long series of similar events that occurs once every ca. 2,550 years to an extent that is modulated by the degree of glaciation and dependent on the latitude.”
(see W. Dansgaard et al., “North Atlantic Climate Oscillations Revealed by Deep Greenland Ice Cores,” in Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, ed. J.E. Hansen and T. Takahashi (Washington, DC: American Geophysical Union, 1984), Geophysical Monograph #29, 288-98).

With the famous work of Dansgaard and Oeschger, the importance of the discovery of climate cycles increased dramatically a year or so later when evidence of 1,500 year cycles was also found at the other end of the world – in an ice core from the Antarctic’s Vostok Glacier – by a French and Russian research team.

Gerard Bond of Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory analyzed ice-rafted debris in sediments on the floor of the southern North Atlantic ocean. he found that – roughly every 1,500 years – there was a surge in the amount of rocky bits picked up by the glaciers as they ground their way across eastern Canada and Greenland and then floated out to sea. This more abundant ice-rafted debris was also floated much farther south before it dropped to the sea floor as the icebergs melted. Both the increase in the volume of debris and its floating much farther south indicate severe cold periods.

Bond’s team analyzed two deep-seabed cores, from opposite sides of the North Atlantic, which took them back 30,000 years into prehistory, and into the Ice Age itself. They used high-resolution mass spectrometers to carbon-date the plankton fossils (and thus the layers) in the sediments. The proxies definitely indicated a series of ice intrusions big enough to deliver increased iceberg sediments to two southerly sites more than 1,000 km apart.

Bond summarized his findings in 1997 in the journal Science:

“Evidence from North Atlantic deep-see cores reveals that abrupt shifts punctuated what is conventionally thought to have been a relatively stable Holocene [intergalacial] climate. During each of these episodes, cool, ice-bearing waters from north of Iceland were advected as far south as the latitude of Britain. At about the same times, the atmospheric circulation above Greenland changed abruptly. … Together, they make up a series of climatic shifts with a cyclicity close to 1,470 years (plus or minus 500 years). The Holocene events, therefore, appear to be the most recent manifestation of a pervasive millennial-scale climatic cycle operating independently of the glacial-intergalacial climate state.” (G. Bond, “A Pervasive Millennial Scale Cycle in North Atlantic Holocene and Glacial Climates,” Science 278 (1997): 1257-266).

Bond’s climatic cycles in the North Atlantic matched those found in the the cores from the Greenland Ice Sheet, very much strengthening the confidence that the cycles are real and significant. A subsequent study by Bond, also published in Science, which demonstrated the linkage between the Earth’s warming-cooling cyle and the sun, using carbon-14 and beryllium-10 as proxies for solar activity warming/cooling. Bond then did a follow-up study, published in 2001, counting ratios of carbon and beryllium isotopes in the sediments and found these solar proxies correlated very closely with the climatic cycles found in the iceberg debris. He found 9 of these cycles in the last 12,000 years (an average of every 1,333 years).
(G. Bond, “Persistant Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate during the Holocene,” Science 294 (2001): 2130-136).

Ulrich Neff of the Heidleberg Academy of Sciences found Bond’s Atlantic seabed cycles replicated in a cave stalagmite on the distant Arabian Peninsula, taking the documented reality far beyond Europe and the North Atlantic.
(see U. Neff et al., “Strong Coherence between Solar Avialbility and the Monsoon in Oman between 9 and 6 kyr Ago,” Nature 411 (2001): 290-93).

In 1996, Lloyd Keigwin reported finding the 1,500-year cycle in the sea surface temperatures of the Sargasso Sea, reconstructed from the oxygen isotopes in the tiny one-cell organisms of a seabed sediment core.
(see L. Keigwin, “The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea,” in Science 274 (1996): 1503-508).

In addition to confirming the 1,500-year climate cycle, Keigwin wrote of the solar cycle – climate cycle connection, “The solar-climate links implied by our record are so dominant over the last 12,000 years that it seems almost certain that the well-documented connections between the Maunder Solar Minimum and cold decades of the Little Ice Age could not have been a coincidence.”

During the past decade, numerous researchers have found the 1,500-year cycle in many long-term temperature proxies, particularly from isotopes of oxygen, carbon, beryllium, and argon trapped in glacier ice, from fossil pollen records, and from algae cyst assemblages in lake and seabed sediments.

The pollen fossils in the North American Pollen Data Base records show a major reorganization of the vegetation across North America 9 times in the past 14,000 years “with a periodicity of 1,650 years plus or minus 500 years.” Question: How close is that to an erratic 1,500-year cycle? Judging by the article summarizing their findings, pretty close indeed. The pollen analysis was carried out by a team led by Andre E. Viau of the University of Ottawa. Additionally, Viau’s team also found evidence of solar connection. They wrote, “We suggest that North Atlantic millennial scale climate variability is associated with rearrangements of the atmospheric circulation with far-reaching influences on the climate.”
(see A.E. Viau et al., “Widespread Evidence of 1,500-yr Climate Variability in North America During the Past 14,000 Years,” Geology 30 (2002):455-58).

Peter deMonocal led a team studying plankton fossils and airborne dust in a deep-sea core from the Atlantic coast of Africa at Cap Blanc, Mauritania. DeMonocal’s results confirmed the same set of cycles identified by Bond’s iceberg debris in the North Atlantic, this time thousands of kilometers closer to the equator where ice never forms. Changes in plankton numbers and species gave the deMonocal team ocean temperature readings from the past, and the amounts of dust blown from Africa were an indicator of drought. His team documented a history of major changes in sea surface temperatures off West Africa, which are linked to the same pattern of climate change Bond found in the North Atlantic.

DeMonocal and Bond demonstrate a dynamic climate system in which temperature and rainfall constantly change. Moreover, the cycle they have found long predates human industrial activity, and is linked to the variability of the sun’s activity. The two proxies strongly confirm each other and accord with the long-term stable data of the ice cores. This virtually destroys the old idea that our climate changes little and slowly between the ice ages.

In the Sulu Sea near the Philippines, the productivity of the phytoplankton is closely related to the strength of the winter monsoon. The production of phytoplankton was larger during glacial periods than during intergalacial periods, but researchers found that “the 1,500-year cycle … seems to be a pervasive feature of the monsoon climate system.”
(see T. De Garidel-Thoron and L. Beaufort, “High-Frequency Dynamics of the Monsoon in the Sulu Sea during the Last 200,000 Years,” a paper presented at the EGS General Assembly, Nice, France, April 2000).

Do I need to go on presenting evidence for the 1,500-year climate cycle, also commonly known as the “Dansgaard-Oeschger climate cycle”? I certainly can. Maureen Raymo of Boston College says that the Earth was undergoing Dansgaard-Oeschger cyles more than a million years ago based on research on the very long sediment core her team retrieved from the deep-sea bottom south of Iceland. The sediments show the same pattern of periodic surges in ice-rafted debris found by Gerard Bond, but coming from a period much farther back in time.

And in the Arabian Sea, west of Karachi, Pakistan, two seabed sediment cores date back nearly 5,000 years, and show “the 1470-year cycle previously reported from the glacial-age Greenland ice record.”
(see W.H. Berger and U. von Rad, “Decadal to Millennial Cyclicity in Varves and Turbidites from the Arabian Sea: Hypothesis of Tidal Origin,” in Global and Planetary Change 34 (2002): 313-25).

THE REAL CONSENSUS OF SCIENCE
The fingerprints of this 1,500 year cycle are found all over the world. Ice-cores and seabed sediments that provide long-record data; peat bogs with organic residues; fossil pollens from around the world; long-buried trees and tree rings; stalagmites in caves where varying amounts of moisture and minerals dripped century by century; coral reefs whose tiny creators left behind clues to sea temperatures; ancient iron dust that reveal huge cycle-related droughts in ancient Africa and Patagonia; it doesn’t matter: all reveal mutually confirming evidence of cycles that stretch back into the planet’s history at least half a million years, through previous Ice Ages and warm intergalacials.

The fact of the matter is this: we have seen repeated, documented warming periods which dramatically pre-date the industrial revolution or any other man-caused carbon dioxide-creating scenarios as causative factors. While the authors of “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years” also present a significant body of evidence linking the phenomena called “global warming” to solar activity, the fact of the matter is that human beings are 1) not the cause of warming; 2) unable to prevent warming; and 3) should not want to prevent warming. Warming has heralded dramatic improvements in human civilization every time it has occurred. It is ice ages that we should fear, not warming.

Furthermore, the planet appears to have a mechanism to vent away the carbon dioxide that humans are creating. Research published in the August 2007 American Geophysical Union’s Geophysical Research Letters online edition by Roy Spencer confirmed the existence of a tropical climatic heat vent. This “natural thermostat,” which global climate models do not take into account, could single-handedly render much of the alarm over global warming moot. (also see “Natural ‘Heat Vent’ in Pacific Cloud Cover Could Diminish Greenhouse Warming,” Press Release, NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, 28 Feb 2001).

There is simply increasing evidence that there is no significant link between CO2 and global warming.

At the same time, we do have evidence that warming is occurring on other planets. One blogger has links to credible sources reporting “global warming” on Jupiter, Saturn, and other planets in our solar system. If anthropogenic CO2 is indeed responsible for global warming, then please do something about getting those darned SUVs off the gas giants! Or maybe the Martians are as reprehensible on the environment as China has been.

In direct contradiction of the anthropogenic scenario, scientists have found abundant evidence of 1,500-year climate cycles all over the world using numerous scientific methods and proxies:

We can examine ice cores from the Antarctic’s Vostok Glacier brought up in 1987 – on the other end of the world from the core brought up in 1984 from Greenland. Both showed the same 1,500 year climate cycle throughout 400,000 years of history. We can corroborate those ice-core findings with the known advances and retreats in the glaciers of the Arctic, Asia, North America, Latin America, New Zealand, and the Antarctic.

We can find the 1,500-year cycle revealed in seabed sediment cores brought up from the floors of such far-flung waters as the North Atlantic Ocean and the Arabian Sea, the Western Pacific and the Sargasso Sea.

We can find it in cave stalagmites from Ireland and Germany in the Northern Hemisphere to South Africa and New Zealand in the Southern Hemisphere. All show evidence of the Little Ice Age, the Medieval Warming, the Dark Ages, the Roman Warming, and the unnamed period before the Roman Warming.

We can find it in fossilized pollen from across North America that show 9 complete reorganizations of our trees and plants in the last 14,000 years – or once every 1,650 years.

There is overwhelming evidence for a 1,500-year climate cycle, plus or minus 500 years, available from one study after another, using one proxy after another, in one part of the world after another. We are currently 150 years into the Modern Warming, and our climate is just as the history and the science of these climatic cycles predict it ought to be.

So why doesn’t anyone who hasn’t read know about the climate cycle? Why hasn’t the media reported on it? Why hasn’t the media reported more on the tropical climatic heat vent and other natural mechanisms that facilitate the disposal of so-called “global warming gasses”? Why aren’t scientists and pseudo-scientists such as Al Gore considering any of this information in their panicky scenarios?

Why do we instead get bombarded on every side by a presentation that computer greenhouse gas models alleging terrifying cataclysmic patterns must be regarded as gospel truth when the theoretical fingerprints of these models have so often failed to match the observed data? Why doesn’t the established fact that we have cyclical climate patterns of warming and cooling and that we are currently in the warming trend of the cycle not merit prima facia status? Why should we trust a theoretical model that predicts a cataclysmic trend over a million years of actual documented history when science demonstrates a constant, continual trend?

Should computer forecasting models be considered more reliable than ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years?

HOW THE “PSUEDO-CONSENSUS” OF PSEUDO-SCIENCE WAS IMPOSED UPON US
Let me take you back a few years when news of the “hockey stick model” first began to emerge that revealed what a debacle this model truly was.

Michael Mann’s hockey stick model got its nickname from the shape of the historical temperature data it claimed to demonstrate. Rather than climate conditions cycling from warm to cool, it purported that the data had been flat until the last century, when temperatures began to spike ever upward. Hence the “hockey stick.”

This is no straw man. Michael Mann’s model was a mainstay of the Kyoto-pushing United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Mann’s hockey stick figure appeared five times in just their summary volume alone. It was cited again and again by the media and by scientific papers as evidence of anthropogenic global warming until it was absolutely blown apart by a few determined researchers.

The most chilling thing of all, however, wasn’t so much the general acceptance this terrible science received in so much of the scientific community and in the media, but rather the outright persecution that arose when scientists began to refute the model. As it turned out, independent scientists soon realized that they could not replicate the temperature curve of the hockey stick model even when using Mann’s own data. But even aside from that, Mann’s conclusions were completely falsified by literally hundreds of peer-reviewed research papers that had documented Medieval Warming. Yet scientists who attempted to reveal the truth were attacked within their own communities. Why? Because Michal Mann’s paper ostensibly provided the “smoking gun” proving anthropogenic global warming, and the fact that it was based on disgraceful science was apparently immaterial.

Six editors had to resign from the journal Climate Research because they displayed integrity and courage in the face of a manufactured “scientific consensus” and Stalinistic tactics. Their crime? They published the article “Proxy Climatic and Environmental Changes of the Past 1,000 Years,” by W. Soon and S. Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, which began to reveal that the emperor truly had no clothes.

The scientific community immediately excoriated Climate Research for allegedly failing to vet the Soon and Baliunas paper correctly. But all-too-soon it came out that it was really a case of the scientific community failing to vet the Mann paper correctly. S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick published a paper in Energy and Environment with a detailed critique of Mann’s work. Their paper bluntly demonstrated that Mann’s papers contained “collation errors, unjustifiable truncations of extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculations of principal components, and other quality control defects.”

Richard Muller wrote an article about the fiasco with a subtitle warning of the “peril of letting politics shape the scientific debate,” which contains the above quote. David Deming and Richard Lindzen have also written about this disturbing trend which is transforming science into an instrument designed to crush the truth.

Global warming is not about science, and it hasn’t been for some time. It is about politics, ideology, and power.

At some point you simply must realize that the scientists claiming evidence of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming are not practicing science, but ideology. They are not objective researchers who carefully investigate the data and cautiously report their findings; rather they are the kind of people who would give Al Gore – a radical environmentalist and a documented perpetuator of scientific fraud – a Nobel Prize simply because his agenda is the same as their own. By claiming that the planet is in crisis, these leftist ideologues are able to garner enormous political clout not only through increasingly large academic, private think-tank, and governmental research grants, but by having direct control over vast swaths of the global economy and trillions of dollars in assets.

Vaclav Klaus, the extremely popular President of the Czech Republic, recently said: “It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it’s a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It’s neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment.”

Centralized planners with “megalomaniac ambitions” are now working to restrain democratic development and economic activity under the guise of environmentalism, said Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic. He spoke Tuesday morning at conference in New York City.

Klaus, an economist, said he opposed the ‘climate alarmism’ perpetuated by environmentalism trying to impose their ideals, comparing it to the decades of communist rule he experienced growing up in Soviet-dominated Czechoslovakia.

‘Like their (communist) predecessors, they will be certain that they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea reality,’ he said.

‘In the past, it was in the name of the Marxists or of the proletariat – this time, in the name of the planet,’ he added.

Is it going too far to compare global warming alarmist scientists and bureaucrats and their policies? to the Stalinists of the communist era? Not when they use the kind of tactics they are using to destroy their opponents and prevent opposing viewpoints from being heard and evaluated. And not when they seem so terrified by free thought.

See also my article, “What You Never Hear About Global Warming.”