(YES SORRY FOR USING THIS ONE AGAIN) BUT IT WORKS WITH WHATS POSTED BELOW (Photo credit: SS&SS)
Skeptics (Photo credit: Newtown grafitti)
Reflections (Photo credit: kevin dooley)
English: Graphic illustrating the percentages of public opinions on the likelihood of some scientists falsifying global warming research. Based on Rasmussen polling of 1,000 American adults conducted July 29-30, 2011. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Drinking water at Back (Photo credit: Nirmal Adhikari)
no correlation (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Sources of stratospheric chlorine. According to World Meteorological Organization, Scientific Assessment of Ozone Depletion: 1998, WMO Global Ozone Research and Monitoring Project - Report No. 44, Geneva, 1998. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
14th March 2011 (Day 283) - How Does Order Arise? (Photo credit: helenogbourn)
Web 2.0 Summit (Photo credit: Kevin Krejci)Calling the Prince of Darkness, Calling Beelzebub
( You have to love Harper fans. They are so astute. )
Climate Disasters- Climate Skeptic Chemist Dr. Art Robinson: 'I don't believe in doing scientific research with government money'
- New peer reviewed study: Good food, walking and cycling keep climate change away
- Warmists claim 'North Carolina Considers Making Sea Level Rise Illegal' -- But reality is on side of skeptics
- Forbes Mag. says human sacrifice affects climate! 'Climate change is happening, it's a problem & we ought to do something about it. What we ought to do about it is is impose carbon tax'
- Asian Air Pollution Warms U.S More than Our GHG Emissions (More futility for U.S. EPA)
- Fred Pearce: On Safe Drinking Water, Skepticism Over UN Claims: UN claims 'world had reduced by half the proportion of people drinking unsafe water'
- Meteorologist Joe Bastardi on claim that 'US is warmest year on record' -- 'Globe is cooling'
- UNEP Warns of New 'Tipping Points' Being Reached -- '20-30 years into future...far enough away that it can be forgotten when date approaches & Armageddon hasn't yet arrived on schedule'
- UN's Rio Earth Summit 'will be a farce': UN process 'has proved utterly unsustainable, a dysfunctional mess that generates nothing but endless meetings, agendas and reports'
- Gleick Review Won't Be Made Public, Pacific Institute Says: 'The UK Guardian's headline gives the distinct impression Gleick was cleared of forgery by the Pacific Inst. But he wasn't
- Heartland Inst. Responds to Pacific Inst.'s Reinstatement of Gleick – cites Federal criminal prosecution
- Ahead of Rio summit, U.N. report embraces 'boundaries': 'Planetary boundaries has been seen as a successor to global warming, climate change or biodiversity as a top-level message'
- A Skeptic's Treasure Trove of Peer Reviewed Science That Challenges The AGW Climate Change 'Consensus'
- Warming nears point of no return, scientists say: 'The Earth is reaching a 'tipping point' in climate change that will lead to increasingly rapid and irreversible destruction'
- Politico cites Climate Depot's Morano on Gleick: 'It appears the Pacific Institute recognizes no consequences for clearly unethical behavior'
It Has Been Foretold
The World Meteorological Organization has issued he following statement:
Several regions of the world are currently coping with severe weather-related events: flash floods and widespread flooding in large parts of Asia and parts of Central Europe while other regions are also affected: by heatwave and drought in Russian Federation, mudslides in China and severe droughts in sub-Saharan Africa. While a longer time range is required to establish whether an individual event is attributable to climate change, the sequence of current events matches IPCC projections of more frequent and more intense extreme weather events due to global warming.Even though the IPCC report can be parsed in many ways, I await the textual exegesis that supports the claim that the "sequence of current events matches IPCC predictions." This will be difficult given that the IPCC didn't even make projections for 2010. I welcome in the comments efforts to justify the claim by the WMO.
I am coming to the conclusion that there is something about the climate issue that makes people -- especially but not limited to academics and scientists -- completely and utterly lose their senses. The WMO statement is (yet) another example of scientifically unsupportable nonsense in the climate debate.
Because various unsupportable and just wrong claims are being advanced by leading scientists and scientific organizations, it would be easy to get the impression that on the issues of extreme events and climate change, IPCC science has a status similar to interpretations of Nostradamus and the Mayan calenders.
- All my ex post facto forecasts are 100% accurate.
- In my opinion, what is happening is that a very large number of people are being told to lie. As they are salaried employees, they really don't have much of a choice. Scientists, journalists and many others are doing it. * Let me be honest and say if I was a climate 'scientist', I would keep my head down and my mouth shut, unless I was directly told to do something unethical. This is a gigantic criminal enterprise coming from the very top of global politics (Soros, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan Chase etc.). It's why the sceptics are almost all toward the end of their careers or retired. There are obviously zealots like the RC squad. They are lying because they think are one of the good guys. It's a culture thing. Dope, music, liberalism, music etc. Steve Jobs made a fortune extracting money from suckers like these. Everything is a commodity in 2010. *I took redundancy rather than do a whole lot of unethical things. Mine and friends' recent experiences of a top UK university were pretty awful. The staff were extremely unhappy and all over the place.
- In the hypothetical parallel universe which many climate activists believe they inhabit, unlimited money for climate mitigation seems to be available (ignoring obvious political realities). And, for even more extravagant wishful thinking, the allocation of resources to climate policy does not compete with anything else that's actually worthwhile. It can somehow be taken exclusively from luxury spending. In the real world, of course, public spending on climate is most likely to compete with public spending on other environmental problems.
- If Russian peat bogs and NW India/Pakistan never suffered from fire/flood, the claim this is caused by CO2 could have some credibility. But peatbogs have been burning since there have been peatbogs, and Pakistan/India have been flooding since there have been river basins in the area. I fail to see that these historically typical events can blamed on the social obsession of CO2. Now if people were going to talk about how diverting water from peatbogs lets them dry out more, and how over development and poor development near a river increases flood risks, then we could discuss something. But to blame CO2 at ~350ppm for these fires and floods only makes the one doing the blaming look ignorant, and the person believing the CO2 story look naive.
- Anyone who wants to listen to my "debate" with Bob Ward earlier this year about climate change and disasters can find it here: http://www.rigb.org/contentControl?action=displayEvent&id=1000
- Bob Ward Does it concern you that the man who funds your employer, The Grantham Institute for Climate Change, $ 100 billion plus dollar hedge fund manager Jeremy Grantham wrote this in his recent newsletter ? "Global warming will be the most important investment issue for the foreseeable future. But how to make money around this issue in the next few years is not yet clear to me. In a fast-moving fi eld rife with treacherous politics, there will be many failures. Marketing a “climate” fund would be much easier than outperforming with it." http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_SummerEssays_2Q10.pdf Do you see that as a conflict of interest ? Similarly with the massive involvement of the finance industry in funding and running the $100 million a year lobby group The Environmental Defense Fund. http://www.edf.org/page.cfm?tagID=365 Tony Blair is also earning literally millions a year promoting global warming for JP Morgan Chase, Zurich insurance and others. George Soros, one of the most successful hedge fund managers in the world is on the UN climate finance group along with Larry Summers (Citigroup) and your hedge fund sponsored colleague Lord Stern. Perhaps they all lie awake at night wondering how many hurricanes and floods there will be in 100 years ?
- @Bob Ward, Every time you AGW promoters try to demean a skeptic, all you do is make yourselves look more and more shallow and reactionary. You still have answered in any meaningful way why floods in a flood prone region, and fires in a fire prone region are caused by CO2 in the atmosphere. By the way, a certain amount of the weather causing rain in Pakistan is going to become snow pack in the Himalayas. think about that a bit. Do you have any idea how AGW promoters looked after blaming the Australian fires on CO2, only to find out that bad land and forestry management was the real cause?
- Well I had a feeling that there actually was a real scientific explanation somewhere and I learn from New Scientist that it is "unusual holding patterns in the jet stream". http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727730.101-frozen-jet-stream-links-pakistan-floods-russian-fires.html Abnormal jet stream behaviour was responsible for the incredibly cold Northern Winter too of course. Nice to see some real science. The challenge for scientists then is to prove what affects the jet stream. May it perhaps be the current solar minimum as Nes Scientist suggests? "This is the quietest sun we've seen in almost a century" says David Hathaway of NASA. Didn't Lockwood link the solar minimum to the cold Winter in Europe? Hasn't Elsner now linked the solar cycle to hurricanes? Apparently water management was also partly to blame in Pakistan and forest management was also partly to blame in Russia. In any event saying that an extra (disputable) 4% of water vapour in the atmosphere affects the Jet Stream is scientifically untenable to the point of putting the cart before the horse. And of course the models cannot predict anything about the Jet Stream so any argument that they predicted this is totally without foundation. Ergo no need for more pointless ifs and maybes about CO2. The Science says it's almost certainly blameless.
- -62-Bob Ward Please bring those sort of arguments to our next debate ;-) I'll remind you of these wise words: "[I]t is difficult to tell to what extent, if any, climate change has also already affected past disaster losses around the world. Extreme weather events are rare, so identifying small trends is difficult when losses vary so much from year to year, creating a lot of "noise" in the dataset, and many competing factors contribute to the overall pattern." Bob Ward, 26 January 2010 The Guardian Well said!!
- Bob Ward is right. They got 97% of the scientists and all the journalists, all of the corporations and all of the governments. They've got the doctors. Climate change 'will increase heart deaths' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10917611 They got the linguists now Linguist on mission to save Inuit 'fossil language' disappearing with the ice. Cambridge researcher will live in Arctic and document Inughuit culture and language threatened by climate change. Struck dumb by global warming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Earth_concert,_London We got loony Lord Monckton, mad Mike Morano and silly Sarah Palin. The banks and the oil companies have bought and paid for the whole damned lot. Put down your spreadsheets and put your hands in the air. You are not going to win the science argument. The weather catastrophe argument may be nonsense, but as Ward said, the Guardian and New Scientist are being paid to tell the opposite story. The BBC is doing the same. The seminal Stern report predicting the future economic consequences of global warming was produced while Stern was being paid by Jeremy Grantham, a hedge fund billionaire who predicts the climate will be the biggest investment opportunity of the future. Now he has been set up with his very own little credit rating system to play with. Stern plans credit rating for carbon offset deals http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jun/15/carbonoffsetprojects.carbonemissions The voters know this is is a scam, they want to know why it is being perpetrated.
- Sorry, wrong link Linguists http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/aug/13/inuit-language-culture-threatened This was the link for the Live Earth concerts. The music industry is a very big deal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_Earth_concert,_London
- WMO addresses a "sequence of current events" which "matches IPCC projections". IPCC's projection has three principal elements in its sequence of events: 1. Human CO2 emissions will accumulate in the atmosphere, exceeding ocean uptake capability. 2. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 causes global warming in the amount of the "equilibrium climate sensitivity", which is " likely" (> 66% chance) to be between 2ºC to 4.5ºC, and is "very likely" (> 90%) to exceed 1ºC. Technical Summary, ¶TS.6.4.2, Robust Findings, p. 88. And by climate change, IPCC means global warming. See Human and Natural Drivers of Climate Change, AR4, SPM, p. 2. 3. Climate change is expected to cause "more frequent and longer-lasting heat waves", "greater risk of draught", "intense precipitation and flooding", and "future tropical cyclones could become more severe, with greater wind speeds and more intense precipitation." FAQ 10.1. In FAQ 10.1, IPCC concedes that "changes in some types of extreme events have already been observed." IPCC was not forecasting what was already occurring, the events WMO selected to underscore as evidence of IPCC forecasting accuracy. IPCC was instead making the distinction that climate change would evoke extreme events. Later WMO quotes the lead paragraph of FAQ 10.1 correctly where it says climate change causes extreme events. WMO then finds support for IPCC's global warming model in the fact of the existence of extreme events, lifting the effect out of IPCC's cause and effect hypothesis. WMO makes matters worse by attributing FAQ 10.1 to p. 122 of IPCC's Technical Summary of AR4. The Technical Summary ends at page 91, and cites FAQs without reprinting them. Where FAQ 10.1 is found on page 122 is in IPCC's companion report to AR4, "Frequently Asked Questions". There IPCC cautions that it was "not approved in detail", and requests, "When referencing specific FAQs, please reference the corresponding chapter in the report from whence the FAQ originated." WMO did not cite to chapter 10. Where the TS provided the equilibrium climate sensitivity (#2 above), it cited chapter 10, ¶10.2. On that same page, the TS provides just one Key Uncertainty: "Large uncertainties remain about how clouds might respond to global climate change." Indeed! IPCC's model for global warming requires ACO2 to accumulate in the atmosphere, but not natural CO2 (#1, above). And it calculates an equilibrium climate sensitivity with a static (parameterized) model for clouds. IPCC ignores the short term dynamic connection of cloud cover and hence cloud albedo to solar radiation, a positive feedback to solar radiation. And simultaneously it ignores the long term dynamic response of cloud cover and albedo to specific humidity, a negative feedback to global warming. IPCC's first element is not just false, but preposterous. It rests on the assumption that natural climate processes are in balance, an assumption contradicted by its own paleo record. See "The Acquittal of CO2" at rocketscientistsjournal.com. IPCC's second element is false due to an abundance of modeling errors and faux human fingerprints. See, id., "IPCC's Fatal Errors" and "The Sun". The third element is the only part of the sequence IPCC got right, but WMO managed to bungle that in a mistaken or misguided effort to validate IPCC's model. The WMO statement is a case study of a leading scientific organization, if not losing its senses, perhaps of having never acquired the requisite acumen to read and cite with precision. Either that or it is complicit in a fraud.
- “If we don't understand what is natural, I don't think we can say much about what the humans are doing. So our interest is to understand — first the natural variability of climate — and then take it from there. So we were very excited when we realized a lot of changes in the past century from warmer to cooler and then back to warmer were all natural,” Tsonis said. Tsonis said he thinks the current trend of steady or even cooling earth temps may last a couple of decades or until the next climate shift occurs.”Other scientists have echoed these conclusions.“Over geologic time. there has been 15 to 25 times more CO2 than current concentrations; the claim that this time we will reach a tipping point is alarmist, ludicrous, and totally without foundation,” declared atmospheric scientist Robert W. Endlich on July 12, 2009. Endlich tests weather software at the Physical Sciences Laboratory at New Mexico State University, and is a former weather officer with the U.S. Air Force who has published papers in the technical literature.In addition, further evidence that the science of CO2 climate forcing is still “unsettled“ came on July 13, 2009. The University of Colorado was awarded a $42 million NASA contract to study the sun's radiation. "In order to quantify the anthropogenic influences on climate, we need accurate measurements of the natural climate-forcing agents, the most important of which is the sun," associate professor Peter Pilewskie said.Former NASA Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer, now with the University of Alabama in Huntsville, also challenged today's climate models."I do not believe we can determine — with any objective level of confidence — whether any of the current model projections of future warming can be believed. Any scientist who claims otherwise either has political or other non-scientific motivations, or they are simply being sloppy," Spencer wrote on July 12, 2009.Climate models made by unlicensed 'software engineers'The credibility of these computer model predictions -- used by governments to determine global warming policy based on future climate risks -- have been under increasingly intense scrutiny for years.In June 2007, Dr. Jim Renwick, a top UN IPCC scientist, admitted that climate models do not account for half the variability in nature and thus are not reliable. "Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don't expect to do terrifically well," Renwick conceded. (LINK)Another high-profile UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, echoed Renwick's sentiments in 2007 about climate models by referring to them as “story lines.”“In fact there are no predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been. The IPCC instead proffers 'what if' projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios,” Trenberth wrote in journal Nature's blog on June 4, 2007.Trenberth also admitted that the climate models have major shortcomings because “they do not consider many things like the recovery of the ozone layer, for instance, or observed trends in forcing agents. There is no estimate, even probabilistically, as to the likelihood of any emissions scenario and no best guess." (LINK)IPCC reviewer and climate researcher Dr Vincent Gray, of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on every single draft of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, author of more than 100 scientific publications and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," declared “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” in an April 10, 2007 article. (LINK) & (LINK)“All [UN IPCC does] is make 'projections' and 'estimates'. No climate model has ever been properly tested, which is what 'validation' means, and their 'projections' are nothing more than the opinions of 'experts' with a conflict of interest, because they are paid to produce the models. There is no actual scientific evidence for all these 'projections' and 'estimates,'” Gray noted.In addition, atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, recently compared scientists who promote computer models predicting future climate doom to unlicensed “software engineers.""I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell their products to society," Tennekes wrote on February 28, 2007. (LINK)For more on climate models, see Climate Depot's July 6, 2009 exclusive report the shortcomings of climate models:Related Links:
- Climate Skeptic Chemist Dr. Art Robinson: 'I don't believe in doing scientific research with government money'
- New peer reviewed study: Good food, walking and cycling keep climate change away
- Warmists claim 'North Carolina Considers Making Sea Level Rise Illegal' -- But reality is on side of skeptics
- Forbes Mag. says human sacrifice affects climate! 'Climate change is happening, it's a problem & we ought to do something about it. What we ought to do about it is is impose carbon tax'
- Asian Air Pollution Warms U.S More than Our GHG Emissions (More futility for U.S. EPA)
- Fred Pearce: On Safe Drinking Water, Skepticism Over UN Claims: UN claims 'world had reduced by half the proportion of people drinking unsafe water'
- Meteorologist Joe Bastardi on claim that 'US is warmest year on record' -- 'Globe is cooling'
- UNEP Warns of New 'Tipping Points' Being Reached -- '20-30 years into future...far enough away that it can be forgotten when date approaches & Armageddon hasn't yet arrived on schedule'
- UN's Rio Earth Summit 'will be a farce': UN process 'has proved utterly unsustainable, a dysfunctional mess that generates nothing but endless meetings, agendas and reports'
- Gleick Review Won't Be Made Public, Pacific Institute Says: 'The UK Guardian's headline gives the distinct impression Gleick was cleared of forgery by the Pacific Inst. But he wasn't
- Heartland Inst. Responds to Pacific Inst.'s Reinstatement of Gleick – cites Federal criminal prosecution
- Ahead of Rio summit, U.N. report embraces 'boundaries': 'Planetary boundaries has been seen as a successor to global warming, climate change or biodiversity as a top-level message'
- A Skeptic's Treasure Trove of Peer Reviewed Science That Challenges The AGW Climate Change 'Consensus'
- Warming nears point of no return, scientists say: 'The Earth is reaching a 'tipping point' in climate change that will lead to increasingly rapid and irreversible destruction'
- Politico cites Climate Depot's Morano on Gleick: 'It appears the Pacific Institute recognizes no consequences
- Only one in four American Meteorological Society broadcast meteorologists agrees with United Nations’ claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent global warming, a survey published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society reports. The survey results contradict the oft-repeated assertion that a consensus of scientists believes humans are causing a global warming crisis. Objective Methods The American Meteorological Society (AMS) survey was limited to television weather forecasters who are also meteorologists. A prior survey of all television weather forecasters--including ones without meteorological training--produced a heavy percentage of skeptics. The new survey was designed to determine whether the meteorologists held the same opinion as the broader group of all television weather forecasters. The survey was conducted by the congressionally funded National Environmental Education Foundation and vetted by an advisory board of climate experts from groups such as the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, and Pew Center for Global Climate Change. Alarmist Claims Rejected The AMS study found:
- Only 24 percent of the survey respondents agree with United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assertion, “Most of the warming since 1950 is very likely human-induced.”
- Only 19 percent agree with the claim, “Global climate models are reliable in their projection for a warming of the planet.”
Related Stories
-
Climate Change Weekly - The 98 Percent Consensus of Nothing
September 12, 2011 -
Nation’s Air Quality Continues to Improve
June 13, 2011 -
No Increase in Floods as Planet Warms
June 13, 2011 -
Is Jon Huntsman Stupid?
June 13, 2011
-
- Only 19 percent agree with the assertion, “Global climate models are reliable in their projections for precipitation and drought.”
- Only 45 percent disagree with Weather Channel cofounder John Coleman’s strongly worded statement, “Global warming is a scam.”
US Weather History Page; Resources. Glossary ... are posted on the website of the IPCC, and the reasons why we accept or reject ... to-date observations also match the IPCC projections ...A system in which reviewers do not see author responses or review comments from other reviewers until after (and some months after) the final report surely warrants some introspection even if IPCC reviewers have acquiesced in such a system in the past. Nor does such a system appear to me to comply with (reasonable) public expectations that IPCC procedures be “open” and “transparent” – as IPCC officials like to proclaim. Is the Science Credible ? the overwhelming body of evidence from relevant scientists is that there is a high probability that human-induced global warming,with associated changes in other climatic conditionsAnthropogenic Climate Change Obituary…
There are now so many eminent scientists with PhD’s that are scathing about how ‘climate scientists’ have distorted, bullied, lied, mocked, been name calling, even libeling scientists, and generally brought ill repute to the science of climate change, and by association, discredit on all science. Peer review has become ‘pal review’ and data has been made up and/or adjusted so it is not recognized any more. Statistical code has been withheld, models distorted, e-mails destroyed, and investigations corrupted. Climate science has been nothing but disastrous for science, and even tragic for economies that bought into it, such as Spain, UK and Germany. (Soon to be joined by Australia.) The Chicago Climate Exchange shut down after no trades were made for some months, and the Mafia and organized crime wiped the floor in corrupt European trading of carbon credits. Then IPCC head Pachauri makes serious errors in AR4 and answers with a smutty sex novel. All the above does seem like another smutty plot for a novel, but it is the real deal, as unbelievable as it seems. Politicians and media from all sides of politics ought to look into the failed hypothesis now, and reverse all the disastrous attempts to control and redistribute our hard earned income. Flashback 2009 The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a kick in the pants today from members who say the climate situation is much worse than the IPCC has so far reported. From Grist, part of the Guardian Environment Network Peter Gleick reinstated by Pacific Institute following Heartland exposé Rahmstorf changed smoothing policy not just once, but twice. First, in Rahmstorf 2007, he abandoned IPCC policy in favor of an article in the AGU newspaper; then he changed accounting parameters in the Copenhagen Report – all without explicitly stating that he had changed policy from the IPCC report and accompanying the change notice with an explicit accounting of the impact of the change.
0
Related articles
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment