75 Facts Showing Global Warming Is Psuedo-Science

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

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.

Obama Climate Site Conceals Unfavorable Data

The Obama Report features this spotlight of truth into the lie that is both climate change and Barack Obama:

Climate.Gov, hiding the ice?

The President launched a new government website on Monday called Climate.gov, hoping to prove once and for all that Global Warming is a reality, and not a myth, despite the fact that Climate Change scientists have been ‘hiding the decline’ for years and that the IPOCC’s integrity has been strongly discredited.

Nevertheless, it didn’t take too long for skeptics to realize that the con artists at Climate.gov had intentionally omitted some of the sea ice data:

The sea ice data, cited from NSIDC, stops in 2007. 2008 and 2009 sea ice data and imagery, available to even the simplest of curiosity seekers at the publicly available NSIDC or even Cryosphere Today websites, is not included in the graphic. Mr. Scott chooses… 2007 as the endpoint for comparison. This leaves a reader who is “not in the know”, with the false impression that sea ice has not recovered in any way…

There’s no excuse for NOAA not showing the 2008 and 2009 sea ice data or imagery in this story. None, zilch, zero, zip, nada.

Suffice it to say, this piece on climate.gov is propaganda with a lie of omission. It is not science because it omits a portion of the data that disagrees with the article’s premise…

This news follows the IPCC being revealed as a band of pathological liars who are playing so many games with the science that India pulled out of the body after referring to “climate evangelism.”  The IPCC falsely claimed that more than half of the Netherlands was now below sea level when that wasn’t even close to being true; they falsely claimed that the Himalayas glacier was melting when it wasn’t, falsely claimed that the Amazon rain forest was being wiped out by global warming when it wasn’t.

And that’s just within the last couple of weeks.

As I write this there is snow in every single state in the Continental U. S. for the very first time ever recorded.  Washington D.C. is experiencing the snowiest winter ever recorded.

And the “scientists” are trying to explain this by arguing that warming causes cold?  I mean, really?  This is a transparent and easily refutable lie.  These ideologues are desperate, and now they are resorting to their own version of Hitler’s “Big lie” to sell their hoax.

We’re seeing so much dishonesty and deceit now because the mainstream media that used to suppress all this evidence against global warming now no longer has the power to be our “gatekeepers” any more.

Now we have the laugh-worthy news of Obama being unable to announce his new global warming office because of all the cold and snow:

The administration announced this week a new climate change office will be created as part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The idea is to consolidate global warming data and resources.

But the announcement in Washington was complicated by the historic blizzard that shut down federal offices. Because of the frigid temperatures and snowy streets, the agency was forced to hold a press conference by telephone, instead of meeting at the National Press Club.

We’re finding that our scientists aren’t any more personally or institutionally trustworthy than our politicians.

And when we have so many politicians who are as dishonest as the sun is hot (the REAL cause of global warming, by the way), that says a great deal about the sad, sad state of science in an age of propaganda.

Blaming Bush Lacks Virtue Of Being True

The following article comes from the American Thinker:

How Did Bush Do This?

Randall Hoven

Europe is in its deepest recession since World War II, so reports the UK’s Telegraph .

“German economic policy is ‘bankrupt,’ economists have said.  The declaration was made as it emerged that Europe’s biggest economy has now suffered a worse ‘lost decade’ than Japan and is deeper in recession than any other major economy.  On a day of dismal news for the European economy, official figures also showed that Italy, Austria, Spain and the Netherlands are facing their biggest combined slump in post-war history.”

Eurostat provides the raw data.  Here are real GDP growth numbers for some selected countries and averages for the latest quarter (1^st quarter of 2009, or January through March).
From Previous Quarter From Previous Year

Austria                                                 -2.8%                                     -2.9%

Belgium                                                -1.6                                          -3.0

France                                                  -1.2                                          -3.2

Germany                                              -3.8                                          -6.9

Italy                                                     -2.4                                          -5.9

Netherlands                                         -2.8                                          -4.5

Portugal                                               -1.5                                          -3.7

Spain                                                   -1.8                                          -2.9

UK                                                      -1.9                                          -4.1

Europe (EU27)                                    -2.5                                          -4.4

US                                                       -1.6                                          -2.6

Do you notice anything funny about these numbers?  Here is what I notice: the recession in the US is milder than that of Europe.  Every country on this list had more economic shrinkage from 2008 to 2009 (Q1 to Q1) than did the US.

How could this be?  Did they all have George Bush for President?  Did they all succumb to free market ideology in the last eight years?  Did they all repeal part of Glass-Steagall?  Did they all spend wildly on an unnecessary war in Iraq?  Did they all bankrupt themselves with out-of-control defense spending?

Perhaps we need to look deeper, into the last eight years, in order to discover how bad President Bush was.  Here are the average GDP growth rates over the last eight full years.

Ave. GDP Growth, 2001-2008

Austria                                                 1.5%

Belgium                                                1.3

France                                                  1.1

Germany                                              0.4

Italy                                                     0.1

Netherlands                                         1.3

Portugal                                               0.3

Spain                                                   2.3

UK                                                      1.6

Europe (EU27)                                     1.2

Japan                                                   0.6

US                                                       1.7

Well I’ll be darned.  With the minor exception of Spain, the US did better than all these countries over the last eight years as well.

What could it be?  Could it be possible that Bush was not the cause of our global economic meltdown?  Could it be possible that the economic illness spread from Europe to the US, rather than vice versa?

Could we have the whole thing wrong?

Whatever it is, I’m sure if our government does what it did in the 1930’s — raises taxes, spends more, regulates more, restricts trade, and “fine tunes” monetary policy — we will get through this just fine.  Just like we did then.  I think we’re seeing the results already.