Reasonable Doubt
about Global Warming

Don't let anyone tell you that "the science is settled" and "the debate is over" and it's "beyond any reasonable doubt" when it really isn't.  There are plenty of reasons to be skeptical of the hype and low-level panic about man-made global warming.  (You should always be a little skeptical of anything you hear about environmental issues on television.)  There are plenty of atmospheric scientists, and others, who aren't buying the hype.



The Real Problem with Climate Change: Experts who Aren't Experts.  I was struck by a similar lack of intellectual curiosity and professional competence in the journalists who'd come to cover the Heartland Institute's 9th International Climate Change Conference in Las Vegas.  The vast majority were what you might term "trolls".  They'd come to Heartland, basically, to write it up as a freak show:  "Look at all these crazy deniers."  I asked one of them whether he'd even tried listening to any of the erudite, informed panels by experts in their field:  the polar experts who said the poles weren't about to disappear; the marine experts who pointed out that thermohaline circulation — arguably the most significant driver of climate change — works on 1000 year cycles; the solar experts who thinks it has much more to do with — duh — the sun.  Hadn't his curiosity been piqued just a little?  And his response?  "You don't read peer-reviewed papers."

The moment I became a climate skeptic.  [Scroll down]  One item got my attention. It said: "Projections based on the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios suggest warming over the 21st Century at a more rapid rate than that experienced for at least the last 10,000 years."  I called the professor, one of the authors of the report, for a clarification (he remains nameless because we were off the record).  "If global warming is caused by man-made emissions," I asked, "what accounts for the world warming to this same level 10,000 years ago?"  There was a long silence.  Then the professor said, "Are you serious?"  I admitted that I was.  The professor loudly informed me that my question was stupid.  The panel's conclusion was indisputable science, arrived at after years of research by a conclave of the world's leading climate scholars.  Who was I to dispute it?

Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the 'Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science.  Climate alarmism is "the biggest fraud in the field of science" and the 97% consensus claim is nonsensical, Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham tells MRCTV in a preview of his presentation at the upcoming Heartland Institute climate conference, July 7-9.  "Since about 2000, I looked farther and farther into it," Col. Cunningham (USMC, Ret.) tells MRCTV in an exclusive interview.  "I found that not one of the claims that the alarmists were making out there had any bearings, whatsoever.  And, so, it was kind of a no-brainer to come to the conclusion."

The Week That Was.  [I]n its questionable finding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger public health and welfare, the EPA claimed its findings are supported by science and cited three lines of evidence.  [#1] EPA claims a distinct human fingerprint — a hot spot in the atmosphere centered over the tropics at about 10 kilometers (33,000 feet).  This hot spot may not exist.  Satellites and weather balloons have failed to find it.  [#2] EPA claims late 20th century surface global warming was unprecedented and dangerous.  It was not.  A similar warming occurred in the early 20th century, which was not associated with carbon dioxide.  The late 20th century surface warming stopped over 16 years ago.  [#3] EPA claims climate models are reliable.  Climate models failed to predict that global warming would stop and greatly exaggerate the warming over the past 30 plus years.

CO2 Good; Climate Change Bunk; Greens are Raging Extremists, says Greenpeace Co-Founder.  "Climate change" is a theory for which there is "no scientific proof at all" says the co-founder of Greenpeace.  And the green movement has become a "combination of extreme political ideology and religious fundamentalism rolled into one."  Patrick Moore, a Canadian environmentalist who helped found Greenpeace in the Seventies but subsequently left in protest at its increasingly extreme, anti-scientific, anti-capitalist stance, argues that the green position on climate change fails the most basic principles of the scientific method.

Houston, We Have No Idea What We're Talking About.  Seriously:  is there anyone in the United States of America foolish enough to think that an 86% variation in snow pack in a single year is due to global warming, rather than natural variation?  Well, maybe.  Barack Obama at least pretended to believe it.

Former NASA Scientist: Global Warming is Nonsense.  A former NASA scientist has described global warming as "nonsense", dismissing the theory of man-made climate change as "an unsubstantiated hypothesis" and saying that it is "absolutely stupid" to blame the recent UK floods on human activity.  Professor Les Woodcock, who has had a long and distinguished academic career, also said there is "no reproducible evidence" that carbon dioxide levels have increased over the past century, and blamed the green movement for inflicting economic damage on ordinary people.

Earth to Lovejoy: 0.9°C in a century is not 'huge'.  Pseudo-science by press release has become the norm among the Forces of Darkness.  With as much fanfare as McGill University could muster, the recent paper by Professor Lovejoy was promoted via a typically head-banging instance of the genre.  The gushingly flatulent halation of the university PR-wallahs is typical of the verbal diarrhea habitual among practitioners of the Dark Arts.  The ipsissima verba of Lovejoy himself in the press release are of particular interest.

Santelli: On Obamacare, Climate Change, Media Too Quick to Accept Facts are 'Settled'.  CNBC contributor Rick Santelli ranted against the media's tendency to accept certain things as settled fact.  According to Santelli, the media, "whether press, TV or whatever it is," aren't focusing enough on presenting hard data.  Santelli argued that this was due to the media accepting data from third party sources as settled science.  "Seven million, it's settled.  Climate change, it's settled.  It's all settled."  He also expressed doubt about whether or not anyone was even capable of doing anything about climate change.

American Physical Society Sees The Light.  The American Physical Society (APS) has signalled a dramatic turnabout in its position on "climate change" by appointing three notorious climate skeptics to its panel on public affairs (POPA).  As Anthony Watts has noted, this is news guaranteed to make a Warmist's head explode.  The reason it's so significant is that it comes only three years after one of the APS's most distinguished members — Professor Hal Lewis — resigned in disgust at its endorsement of what he called "the global warming scam."

Earth is Safe From 'Global Warming' Say the Men Who Put Man on the Moon.  The planet is not in danger of catastrophic man made global warming.  Even if we burn all the world's recoverable fossil fuels it will still only result in a temperature rise of less than 1.2 degrees C.  So say The Right Climate Stuff Research Team, a group of retired NASA Apollo scientists and engineers — the men who put Neil Armstrong on the moon — in a new report.

Warren Buffett: Supposed Increase in Extreme Weather 'Hasn't Been True So Far'.  Any climate alarmist will tell you that climate change is increasing extreme weather events, but liberal billionaire Warren Buffett easily destroyed that argument.  Buffett told CNBC March 3, that extreme weather events haven't increased due to climate change, saying that weather events are consistent with how they were 30-50 years ago.  Buffett, who is heavily invested in various insurance markets, said that climate change alarmism has simply made hurricane insurance more profitable, driving up premiums without increasing risk.

Obama's science czar: Opposing climate views outside the 'mainstream scientific opinion'.  White House science czar Dr. John Holdren wasn't in the mood to be contradicted on whether global warming was causing "extreme weather."  Holdren described climate scientists whose work contradicts the White House's global warming claims as outside the "scientific mainstream."  Holdren was asked by Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions to cite scientific data that supported claims that droughts and other weather events were being made worse by global warming.  Sessions then cited contradicting evidence from climate scientists, including former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer and University of Colorado climate scientist Roger Pielke, Jr.

Greenpeace Founder: No Scientific Proof for Global Warming.  Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore told a Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, "There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years."  Moreover, the Canadian ecologist, who was a member of Greenpeace from 1971-86, admitted that Greenpeace intentionally used faulty computer models and scare tactics in promoting claims man-made gases are heating up the planet.  More told the Senate committee that he decided to leave Greenpeace because it was more concerned with politics than it was with the environment.

Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific evidence of man-made global warming.  There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm, according to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who testified in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday [2/25/2014].  Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence.  He added that the Earth is in an unusually cold period and some warming would be a good thing.

GE Will No Longer Design Projects to Please Climate Change Advocates.  In a watershed moment and a huge victory over environmentalists, General Electric has agreed to stop projects that are designed solely for the purpose of carbon dioxide reductions to please those who lobby for climate change concessions.  The National Center for Public Policy Research, a non-partisan, free-market, independent conservative think-tank which has been fighting GE for years because of GE's liberal bias under CEO Jeffrey Immelt, scored a huge victory after receiving the commitment from General Electric.

Fallacies about Global Warming.  The first question to be answered is whether the Earth is warming at all. [...] But even were warming to be demonstrated, and assuming a reasonable correlation between an increase in carbon dioxide and an increase in temperature, that does not mean that the former has driven the latter.  Good evidence exists from thousands of years ago that carbon dioxide levels rose only after the temperature increased, so why should we assume that the order is somehow reversed today?

IPCC's Bogus Evidence for Global Warming.  The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up by the United Nations in 1988 and has been trying very hard to demonstrate the threat of a dangerous human influence on climate due to the emission of greenhouse gases. [...] It is interesting that IPCC "evidence" was based on peer-reviewed publications — but (reluctantly) abandoned only after protracted critiques from outside scientists.  E-mails among members of the IPCC team, revealed in the 2009 'Climategate' leak, describe their strenuous efforts to silence such critiques, often using unethical methods.

IPCC's Bogus Evidence for Global Warming.  I will show here that the first three IPCC assessment reports contain erroneous scientific arguments, which have never been retracted or formally corrected, but at least have now been abandoned by the IPCC — while the last two reports, AR4 and AR5, use an argument that seems to be circular and does not support their conclusion.

"Stadium Wave" Phenomenon Defeats Climate-changers' Claims.  The climate-changers have been scrambling lately to explain away the fact that global temperatures haven't changed since 1998.

Fallacies about Global Warming.  It is widely alleged that the science of global warming is "settled".  This implies that all the major scientific aspects of climate change are well understood and uncontroversial, and that scientists are now just mopping up unimportant details.  The allegation is profoundly untrue. [...] This paper explains the eight most common fallacies that underpin public discussion of the hypothesis that dangerous global warming is caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.

Proved: There is No Climate Crisis.  Christopher Monckton, who once advised Margaret Thatcher, demonstrates via 30 equations that computer models used by the UN's climate panel (IPCC) were pre-programmed with overstated values for the three variables whose product is "climate sensitivity" (temperature increase in response to greenhouse-gas increase), resulting in a 500-2000% overstatement of CO2's effect on temperature in the IPCC's latest climate assessment report, published in 2007.

Decision-Based Evidence-Making: More Disgrace From UN Panel on Climate Change.  Most science teachers undergo the unpleasant experience of catching students fudging experimental data so as to yield desired results.  If the data is not easily faked, students may simply run the experiment repeatedly until the "right" data are collected.  They then discard the contradictory data.  Some such cheaters make it right through the education system; perhaps some become politicians, willing to direct staff to find evidence supporting decisions they have already made for political reasons.  So it goes with the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which deserves to be disbanded following the release of their latest report.

Here Comes the Sun: Global Warming and the Perversion of Science.  In denial, warmists continue to hawk recently discredited tenets:  mankind's (read: America's) profligate use of fossil fuels pumps enormous quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere; naturally, Earth's temperature rises, exacerbating the so-called "greenhouse effect"; in time, our planet becomes a most inhospitable place.  "Settled science."  Until it wasn't.  These postulates were meant to frighten the naive and misinformed into supporting a radical correction that would (surprise!) hit the U.S. hardest.  Now that the warmists' case has come undone, we can see it for what it is:  a perversion of science and the scientific method.

The climate alarmists have lost the debate: it's time we stopped indulging their poisonous fantasy.  IPCC lead author Dr Richard Lindzen has accused [the IPCC] of having "sunk to a level of hilarious incoherence."  Nigel Lawson has called it "not science but mumbo jumbo".  The Global Warming Policy Foundation's Dr David Whitehouse has described the IPCC's panel as "evasive and inaccurate" in the way it tried dodge the key issue of the 15-year (at least) pause in global warming; Donna Laframboise notes that is either riddled with errors or horribly politically manipulated — or both; [...]

New Report Undercuts Global Warming Alarmists.  Events have failed to fulfill the prophecy.  Preachers have suddenly been struck dumb by uncertainty.  Believers are understandably nervous and some, under their breath, are abandoning the dogma. [...] But the subject here is not Millerism, but another kind of religious faith:  the faith of the global warming alarmists.  And while it's not likely to have the impact of the Millerites' Great Disappointment, we could be seeing the beginning of something similar on Sept. 27, when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issues its fifth assessment report in Stockholm.

Warming Up for Another Climate-Change Report.  When the IPCC issues a report, it assures the world that the organization bases its conclusions on reputable, peer-reviewed scientific literature, and that its members are comprised of the world's top experts and best scientists. Yet when IPCC personnel answered a 2010 questionnaire sponsored by the InterAcademy Council (a network of national science academies), there were repeated complaints about unqualified individual members.  For example, one individual (the responses to the questionnaire were anonymized) said there are "far too many politically correct appointments" involving people with "insufficient scientific competence to do anything useful."

95 per cent of intelligent people know the new IPCC report is utter drivel.  The irony is, of course, that the third, fourth and fifth assessment reports were all produced in a period of rising CO2 levels in which there has been no "global warming" whatsoever.  You'd imagine that, had the scientific method been more highly valued by the IPCC, this rather glaring flaw in AGW theory might have been afforded more prominence.  But this is not the IPCC Assessment Reports' job.  As Christopher Booker and others have often noted, the IPCC's reports are essentially political artefacts rather than scientific ones.

New Climate Study Blows Away Anthropogenic Causation.  Ahead of the soon to be released UN IPCC report, much of which has been leaked and destroyed already, and of which Nature stated that were "out of date by the time they hit the street", a new peer-reviewed report has been released that thrashes the Warmists and their Blamestorming of Mankind for releasing GHGs.  The report is strong enough that Warmists immediately trotted out their "anti-science" meme without reading it.

Summary of NIPCC's Findings.    ·   Atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is a mild greenhouse gas that exerts a diminishing warming effect as its concentration increases.
  ·   Doubling the concentration of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial level, in the absence of other forcings and feedbacks, would likely cause a warming of ~0.3 to 1.1°C, almost 50% of which must already have occurred.
  ·   A few tenths of a degree of additional warming, should it occur, would not represent a climate crisis.
  ·   Model outputs published in successive IPCC reports since 1990 project a doubling of CO2 could cause warming of up to 6°C by 2100.  Instead, global warming ceased around the end of the twentieth century and was followed (since 1997) by 16 years of stable temperature.

Global warming report could backfire on environmentalists.  Talk about bad timing.  Last month, environmental activists launched a well-funded new attack on Republican "climate change deniers" in hopes of making global warming a big issue in 2014.  But as the campaign gets underway, a new report from the world's leading climate scientists could leave environmentalists on the defensive, and the "deniers" more confident and assertive.

A science-based rebuttal to global warming alarmism.  Extensive peer-reviewed evidence is presented that climate change is natural and man-made influences are small.  Fifteen years of flat temperatures show that the climate models are in error.  Each year the world spends over $250 billion to try to decarbonize industries and national economies, while other serious needs are underfunded.  Suppose we take a step back and "reconsider" our commitment to fighting climate change?

Study: 114 Out Of 117 Global Warming Predictions Wrong.  The Left is habitually on the wrong side of any issue.  I've maintained that if these people were blindly flipping a coin to decide their policy positions, over the long term they'd be right half the time.  Clearly they deliberately choose positions that are carefully calculated to cause harm. [...] They been to the drawing board and they have conspired to promote a lie calculated to cause maximum harm to industrialized nations to fulfill a political agenda.

Beating the IPCC with Their Own Numbers.  Many parts of the MSM are monolithic in their endorsement of any and every scheme to 'combat climate change' and our pseudo-intellectual elite would make Pavlov proud as they battle to be the most vocal to decry those who "deny" the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.  But what we don't see much of are cold hard numbers.  Oh we see lots of numbers of the rubbery or nebulous variety, the plucked almost from thin air variety, but very little in the way of actual hard sensible numbers that were arrived at in an actually sensible way.

Science Says So, Suckers!  Just because climate science involves physics doesn't mean its conclusions are as certain as gravity.

Michael Mann Redefines Science.  When I was going to school to earn my degree in chemistry, we were taught that science was indeed all about absolute truths and proofs at the end of the day.  "Credible theories" is how you got to those truths, not an alternative to them.

The UN Climate Panel's 'Hot Spot' is Missing in Action.  The Second Assessment Report of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN's climate-science panel (IPCC-AR2, 1996), invented the Hot-Spot in the tropical atmosphere about 10 km above the earth's surface and assumed, mistakenly, it was proof of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).  But the hotspot has never been demonstrated observationally.  The Fifth IPCC Report (AR5, to be released on Sept 27, 2013) conveniently ignores this inconvenient fact.

If you still believe in 'climate change' read this.  No one has ever doubted that climate changes.  Pretty much everyone — probably more than 97 percent, even — agrees that there is a degree of anthropogenic input, even it's just the barely measurable contribution of beef cattle farts or the heat produced by cities.  But the dangerous bit?  No one has come even close to demonstrating it, there is no reliable evidence for it, and very few scientists — certainly far, far fewer than 97 percent of them — would ever stake their reputations on such a tendentious claim.

Al Gore's Global Warming Desperation.  First, there's the recently revealed empirical evidence that the "global warming" movement's claim that climate change is causing increased extreme weather events isn't true.  Second, there's a new summary of historical research which blows up the movement's infamous core "hockey stick" chart forecasting unprecedented, accelerating warming.  Finally, there's a new report due to arrive in a month from an increasingly desperate United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Boxer's Own Experts Contradict Obama on Climate Change.  During the July 18 Senate Environment and Public Works hearings, Sen. David Vitter asked a panel of experts, including experts selected by California Democrat Boxer, "Can any witnesses say they agree with Obama's statement that warming has accelerated during the past 10 years?"  For several seconds, nobody said a word.  After the period of deafening silence, Weather Channel meteorologist and global warming activist Heidi Cullen attempted to change the subject, saying our focus should be on longer time periods rather than the 10-year period mentioned by Obama.  When pressed, however, she contradicted Obama's central assertion and said warming has slowed, not accelerated.

Global Warming Alarmism Memorably Debunked.  Author Joe Fone of Christchurch, New Zealand has spent many years researching current and historical data on climate change, with the help of the finest scientists down under.  His new book, Climate Change: Natural or Manmade? gives a clear, unbiased view of what is reasonably true and what is clearly incorrect.  The book shows his strong intellect and unrestricted effort to find the truth wherever it lay. [...] Fone accurately calls global warming today's cause célèbre, "promoted by an army of enthusiasts from scientists and politicians to environmentalists, celebrities and now even theologians, all of whom declare it to be the most pressing issue facing us since the last such scare — the 1970s ice age panic promoted by a similar army."

Our Climate-Change Cathedral.  To [Rupert] Darwall, "the science [of global warming] is weak, but the idea is strong."  He duly discusses some of the scientific controversies that have arisen, but the underlying objection to today's scientific consensus on AGW set out in his book is more fundamental. [...] But even those convinced of the reality of AGW — and the danger it could pose — should find Darwall's book a fascinating, if uncomfortable, history of climate change as a political and intellectual phenomenon.

Senator Barbara Boxer's Own Experts Contradict Obama On Global Warming.  Speaking at a Democratic fundraiser less than a month before directing the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to impose costly new restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, Obama said, "we also know that the climate is warming faster than anybody anticipated five or 10 years ago."  "I don't have much patience for people who deny climate change," Obama added.  However, climate scientists including United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) lead author Hans von Storch report temperatures have remained essentially flat for the past 10 years, and indeed for the past 15 years.

Critical Thinking about Climate Change.  As a life-long atmospheric and environmental scientist and long-time college-science educator, I am constantly bombarded with material from a variety of sources, including many environmental groups.  Take, for instance, what can be labeled "sales" literature that I recently received from the Environmental Defense Fund.

A dangerously deluded energy policy.  Without question, it must have been one of the dottiest public utterances ever delivered by a British Cabinet minister.  This was the extraordinary speech made on Monday — at an event staged by the Met Office — by Ed Davey, our Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change.  What inevitably attracted attention was Mr Davey's attack on those 'sections of the Press' who dare question any aspect of the way his energy policy for Britain has become wholly skewed and dominated by the belief that the world is in the grip of global warming.  The timing of his outburst against 'destructive and loudly clamouring scepticism' in the Press was not accidental:  it was to preface yesterday's Commons debate on the mammoth Energy Bill by which he plans to 'decarbonise' our electricity industry.

Mr. Moniz is exactly the sort of person who should read this web page:
New Energy Secretary on Climate Change: 'I'm Not Here to Debate What's Not Debatable'.  Ernest Moniz, the nation's new Energy Secretary, said climate change is "not debatable" in one of his first speeches on the job.  "I'm not here to debate what's not debatable," Moniz said at the White House Leadership Summit on Women, Climate and Energy on May 23.  "The threat from climate change is real and urgent."

Climate Change: we really don't need to waste all this money .  There's so much rubbish out there on the internet produced by lavishly funded Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and WWF activists, junk scientists, rent-seeking corporatists and EU- and UN-funded environmental bodies.  Time we hit back with the thing these eco-loons hate most:  cold hard facts.

Who are the real climate deniers?  We know, via proxies like ice core samples, fossil remains, marine specimens, temperature-dependent remanence measurements, as well as historical documents, etc., that there were periods in history when the earth was significantly warmer than it is today, though human beings were not pumping CO2 into the atmosphere — CO2 levels during the Ordovician Age 440 million years ago were ten times higher than they are at present and happened to coincide with an ice age; closer to home, during the Medieval Warm Period the Scandinavians farmed Greenland and in the Roman Warm Period olive groves flourished in Germany.  We know that the Northwest Passage was open during the early part of the 20th century and that the Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen, as recounted in his The North West Passage, navigated the strait between 1903 and 1906.

"A Sensitive Matter" — Flat Temperatures Flummox Climate Scientists.  [Scroll down]  For its part, The Australian observed, "Debate about the reality of a two-decade pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from skeptical fringe to the mainstream."  It continued, "But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted."  Even the Global Warming Policy Foundation acknowledges the emerging evidence.  Its spokesman David Whitehouse lamented, "If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change."

Numeracy in Climate Discussions — how long will it take to get a 6 deg. C rise in temperature?  In articles like [the one] by Sarah Kent in the Wall Street Journal on April 18, 2013, we see a graph with a 6 C temperature rise by 2050 — if we don't reduce "carbon intensity."  Indeed, a 6 C temperature rise may well be cause for concern.  But anyone with a little background in mathematics and physics should be able to understand how ridiculous a number like 6 C is.

The New Climate Deniers?  When the liberals hang onto the neck of a cause, they don't let go.  They have ignored murders, rapes, wars, nuclear proliferation, and everything wrong with the world to focus in on their little area — the horror of carbon emissions.  You'd think liberals would have learned from their earlier panic about overpopulation.

Global Warming: Was It Just A Beautiful Dream After All?  I want warmer weather here in the Big City.  But I've grown old waiting for the promised global warming.  I was 35 when predictions of a looming ice age were supplanted by warmmongering.  Now I'm 68, and there's still no sign of warmer weather.  It's enough to make one doubt the "settled science" of the government-funded doom-sayers.

How the Hockey Stick Crumbled: A Post Mortem.  [Scroll down]  But when real scientists — that is, those who apply a skeptical, scientific approach rather than a religious attitude of fervor — studied the Marcott paper, it quickly fell apart.  We wrote about the Marcott fiasco here and here.  It turned out that Marcott and his colleagues had created the 20th century warming spike — which was, in reality, the sole purpose of their exercise — by changing the dates on some of the samples they used as proxies.

Eco taxes are nonsense if the earth isn't warming.  Mysteriously, anything can be produced as evidence of global warming — hot weather, cold weather, wet weather and dry.  Climate change has become a religion and any diversion from the orthodox view is pounced on as evidence of heretical wickedness.  Those who beg to differ about the global warming creed are held up as wicked rather than merely sceptical.  But now new data from the Met Office is at odds with the doomy computer predictions from the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  The new data show that the pace of climate change has been wildly overestimated.

Let's lose the dodgy climate advice — and save £165,000.  Last week, as Britain and much of Europe were struggling through the coldest spring in decades, Sir John Beddington marked his retirement from his £165,000-a-year post as the Government's chief scientific adviser by touring the television and radio studios to terrify us all once more with his all-too-familiar message of how we are threatened by runaway global warming. [...] In fact, it is far from clear why Sir John, as an expert in population biology, should be regarded as having any authority to pronounce on such matters.

Climate train wreck.  There are now two kinds of people with some understanding of climate science, sceptics and liars.  The climate change scam is turning into a train wreck and everyone keeping the score knows it.  The most delightful thing about the climate train wreck is that it is happening so slowly.  Global temperatures have not risen for about fifteen years which is not quite as predicted.  Even worse, people are losing interest as the wild-eyed threats lose their potency.

The Engineer Behind the Climate Change Train Wreck:  The individual is known in global warming skeptic circles as "Mr. FOIA" (aka. Freedom of Information Act), and he has been busy again.  He just issued a password along with instructions to a select group that provides access to a new and much larger communications file:  These files are ones that many of those researchers and their sponsoring organizations have worked very hard to suppress from legal FOIA requests.

Worse is better.  [Scroll down]  Energy is a case in point.  I think [Christopher] Booker is absolutely right to describe the crazy quest for CO2 reduction at all costs as "arguably the greatest act of political irresponsibility in our history."  There is no logic to it.  It's insanity.  And I think everybody in the country — barring the spivs in the renewables industry, the green activists and the bubble-enclosed political class — is fully aware of this.  Which, really, makes it only scarier still because if so many of us know it's wrong, how come this ugly business is able to carry on regardless?

Global Warming is [nonsense].  Recall when Michael Mann published the first hockey stick graph-we were all shocked.  Al Gore made a movie and won an Oscar.  Then, actual statisticians looked at the formula and realized no matter what data you put into it, the same graph was spit out.  It was junk science dressed up as a serious theory.

In Their Own Words: Climate Alarmists Debunk Their "Science".  President Obama has put salvation from dreaded climate catastrophes on his action agenda hot list.  During his inaugural address he said: "We will respond to the threat of climate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our children and future generations." He went on to shame anyone who disagrees with this assessment, saying, "Some may still deny the overwhelming judgment of science, but none can avoid the devastating impact of raging fires and crippling drought and powerful storms."  This sort of scary presidential prognostication isn't new.

No, David Attenborough: Africa hasn't warmed by 3.5 degrees C in two decades.  3.5 degrees C in two decades?  That would indeed be a remarkable temperature rise in anybody's money.  (Remember, since 1850 global mean temperatures have risen by about 0.8 degrees C — and we're supposed to find that worrying and significant).  Which is why, you might have thought, the BBC would have spotted so obvious an error and removed it before the programme went out.  To his credit, this troubled Leo Hickman, too.

Global Warming: One NASA Scientist Vs. More Than 20.  The most famous NASA scientist is James Hansen, the political activist and expert on the Venusian atmosphere who sounded the man-made global warming alarm at a 1988 congressional hearing.  He's just one man, but the media and the political left have made him out to be an infallible voice on climate change.  We live in a society where dissent from the left-wing narrative is not tolerated.  So it's no surprise that more than 20 retired NASA scientists and engineers are not getting the same media treatment that a single doomsayer whose quarter-of-a-century-old prediction has not come to pass.

Lawmaker wants Obama to prove climate change.  Rep. Thomas Massie challenged President Obama to roll out the proof that humans have played a hand in climate change.  Mr. Massie, Kentucky Republican, said he was "disappointed" that the president in his second inaugural address blamed droughts on "human activity" and accused some of "denying the evidence of scientists."

Global Warming Alarmists Pick and Choose Data to Support Theory.  The "think globally" people become very parochial when the global warming story isn't as scary sounding as the local one.  Climate change activists took the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) recent report showing 2012 to be the warmest on record for the continental United States, did a little geographic sleight of hand, and spun it into a Chicken Little story on global warming.

The Met Office — defending the indefensible, as per usual.  The issue is with the Met Office's medium-range forecasts, which for years have persistently erred on the side of predicting non-existent warmth because they have been corrupted by exactly the same dodgy computer models which tell us that as CO2 rises so inexorably will "global warming."

2012 probably not the hottest on record, after all.  Last summer's headlines blared, "Hottest July in the history of the United States." [...] Climate activists are linking this to man-made global warming, ignoring the fact that the area covered in the NCDC reports, the contiguous United States (excluding Alaska), comprises only 2 percent of the Earth's surface.  Trends that may manifest in the United States in no way indicate global phenomena.  In fact, the United Kingdom's Meteorological Office has said that there has been no global warming for 16 years and this week announced that temperatures are expected to stay relatively stable for another five years.  Regardless, all NCDC temperature proclamations must be taken with a large grain of salt.

Climate Science vs Politics: The Road Ahead.  There is good news and bad news about climate.  The good news is that science evidence has made it quite clear that the human contribution to a possible global warming is minor; in fact it cannot even be identified in the data record.  The bad news is that the media and politicians pay no attention whatsoever to the science and are marching ahead full-speed with efforts to control CO2 emissions — thereby hurting the economy, destroying jobs, and stunting economic growth.

Global Warming? Not a snowball's chance.  By "global warming", I mean, of course the kind of runaway, unprecedented, catastrophic warming which George Monbiot et al have been bleating on about for the last two or three decades.

Climate Change Draft Undermines U.N.'s Claims.  [Scroll down]  While the IPCC works overtime to spin the Rawls leak, another headache has emerged for the group.  Figure 1.4 from the draft shows that the models used to predict warming have projected temperatures higher than the observed temperatures we've seen.  The chart also shows that observed temperatures, rather than climbing ever upward, are where they were 15 years ago.  Skeptic Anthony Watts calls the chart a bombshell.  The media have yawned.

Man-made global warming:  Even the IPCC admits the jig is up.  [A] leaked draft of the IPCC's latest report AR5 admits what some of us have suspected for a very long time:  that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in "climate change" than the scientific "consensus" has previously been prepared to concede.

New Report: Man-made Global Warming Is a Farce.  The report is actually a massive compilation of scientific studies and news articles from both public and private sources, including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).  Together they indicate claims of "global warming," "climate change" and "climate disruption" are nothing but a ruse to usher in massive carbon taxes and crippling regulations.  Like Pavlov's dog, politicians are conditioned to react to any harsh weather event by drooling for higher taxes, notes the study.  Naturally, delegates at the UN conference were not interested in the conclusions of the CFACT study.

An assessment of current alarmist propaganda:  It's been obvious for some time, that the science behind the most alarming claims about the effects of any putative global warming, is not only unsustainable but indefensible.  We still of course get the occasional paper, trying to resurrect an old scare, which has already been demolished, but as happened with both the Shakun and Gergis papers, the climate skeptics simply tear them to pieces.  Not only hasn't the paper succeeded in clawing back any ground, but because it gets eviscerated in public, it actually becomes a propaganda liability.  This is the reason we're seeing fewer of such alarmist papers.

1100+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm.  This is a gold mine of information that would take weeks to explore.

A global warming skeptic who's a lot smarter than Al Gore.  Ever since the 1980s one of my favorite authors in the realm of science has been Freeman Dyson.  The Princeton physicist has written books on a wide range of topic, from the potential perils of nuclear weapons to discoveries in the human genome.  At the moment, I'm reading a book about him by his son George titled "Project Orion: The True Story of the Atomic Spaceship."  It's impossible to delve into Dyson's career without concluding he is several orders of magnitude smarter than the Al Gores of the world.

The godfather of global warming lowers the boom on climate change hysteria.  Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to msnbc.com in which he acknowledged he had been unduly "alarmist" about climate change.  The implications were extraordinary.

Global Warming's Killer: Critical Thinking.  We're told that skeptic scientists lie about all of the "death by a thousand cuts" evidence.  We're told that they work for big coal and oil — much like so-called expert shills were paid by tobacco industries to "manufacture doubt" about the hazards of smoking.  Yet no reporter pushing that narrative bothers to show which peer-reviewed science journal-published paper written by a skeptic is an outright fabrication written in exchange for fossil fuel industry money.  No reporter bothers to show how myriad examples of critical thinking reveal pre-existing — not manufactured — doubt about claims of evidence for global warming.

One of Germany's earliest green energy investors, is not convinced that humanity is causing catastrophic global warming.
Global warming: second thoughts of an environmentalist.  For many years, I was an active supporter of the IPCC and its CO2 theory.  Recent experience with the UN's climate panel, however, forced me to reassess my position.  In February 2010, I was invited as a reviewer for the IPCC report on renewable energy.  I realised that the drafting of the report was done in anything but a scientific manner.  The report was littered with errors and a member of Greenpeace edited the final version.  These developments shocked me.

Lord of the Skeptics.  [Scroll down]  In the community of global warming skeptics, Lord Monckton is legendary.  With his background in the newspaper industry and exceptional communications skills, the former science advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher is often targeted as a prominent "heretic" of the man-made climate change movement.

New paper shows Wyoming was warmer 6,000 years ago than the present.  A paper published today [5/31/2012] in The Holocene finds that the elevation of the treeline in the Rocky Mountains of Wyoming was higher than the present from ~9000 to 6000 years ago, indicating the climate was warmer during that period as compared to present temperatures.  The paper adds to thousands of others indicating that the current warming period is not unprecedented nor unusual compared to natural warming in the past.

It turns out the 'thought criminals' were right.  The global warming scare has not continued to unfold as projected by those bent computer models on which it rested.  Temperatures have not risen as predicted, the ice caps aren't melting, nor sea levels rising, nor hurricanes, droughts and heatwaves intensifying as we were assured they would.

Environmentalist Icon Says He Overstated Climate Change.  Not many years ago, a celebrated scientist predicted a global warming disaster awaited humanity.  Today, that same scientist admits his warning was too "alarmist."  It's time Al Gore turned his limousine around, too.

'I made a mistake': Gaia theory scientist James Lovelock.  Environmental scientist James Lovelock, renowned for his terrifying predictions of climate change's deadly impact on the planet, has gone back on his previous claims, admitting they were 'alarmist'.  The 92-year-old Briton, who also developed the Gaia theory of the Earth as a single organism, has said climate change is still happening -- just not as quickly as he once warned.

More Than 1000 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.  More than 1,000 dissenting scientists from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore.  This new 2010 321-page Climate Depot Special Report — updated from the 2007 groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming "consensus" — features the skeptical voices of over 1,000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC.

NASA rocked by global warming rebellion.  Fifty top astronauts, scientists and engineers at NASA have signed a letter asking the agency to cease its global warming buffoonery.  The global warming emperor has no clothes, and people are finally saying so out loud and in public.  Notrickzone brings us the entire letter, noting that the signers have a combined 1000 years of professional experience.

Astronauts condemn NASA's global warming endorsement.  In an unprecedented slap at NASA's endorsement of global warming science, nearly 50 former astronauts and scientists — including the ex-boss of the Johnson Space Center — claim the agency is on the wrong side of science and must change course or ruin the reputation of the world's top space agency.  Challenging statements from NASA that man is causing climate change, the former NASA executives demanded in a letter to Administrator Charles Bolden that he and the agency "refrain from including unproven remarks" supporting global warming in the media.

Former Astronauts Protest NASA's Global Warming Activism.  With proponents of the theory that human activity is the cause of global warming becoming increasingly defensive of their flawed theory, the joint letter signed by NASA veterans — including several heroes of the space program — is one more blow to a theory which has been losing ground in the realm of public opinion.  And the letter is particularly critical of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, where both director Jim Hansen and climatologist Gavin Schmidt have been particularly vocal proponents of the theory of manmade climate change.

'Fakegate': Climate Change Fanatics Wage War on Dissenters.  The rise of environmentalism, however, has generated a war on science, first by distorting it, and then by propagandizing the 'findings', studies' and resulting claims based on them."  The Heartland Institute, as a leading voice, led the effort to debunk the hoax through its sponsorship of six international conferences featuring scientists and others who presented papers demonstrating "that 0.038 percent of CO2 in the atmosphere had little or no "greenhouse" effect on the Earth's climate or weather events."  Heartland's six International Conferences on Climate Change (ICCC) attracted scientists worldwide, who employed science rather than pseudo-science in their presentations.

Queensland turns the tide of environmental lunacy.  No administration was "greener" than the one run by departing Queensland premier Anna Bligh.  She believed in environmentalism with such a passion she entrusted her beloved husband — Greg Withers:  head of Queensland's Office For Climate Change — with the task of turning Queensland into the solar powered, low-carbon, eco-paradise it very nearly is today.  I say "very nearly" because incoming premier Campbell Newman has put a stop to all that.  One of Newman's first priorities — which is why, of course, Queenslanders voted him in — has been to cancel most of Bligh's green boondoggle programmes.

Monckton's Schenectady showdown.  Traveling with Lord Monckton on the East Coast leg of his current whistle-stop tour of the US and Canada, I was looking forward to documenting the Schenectady showdown.  I have had the pleasure of listening to His Lordship at previous campus events.  He is at his best when confronted by a hostile audience.  The angrier and more indignant they are, the more he seems to like it.

Inhofe warns EPA moving to regulate carbon.  If President Obama's Environmental Protection Agency proceeds with plans to bypass Congress and restrict carbon emissions through regulation, it will be even more costly to Americans than "cap and trade" legislation, Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla. predicted in an interview with the Washington Examiner this week.  Back in 2003, Inhofe stirred controversy when he declared, "With all of the hysteria, all of the fear, all of the phony science, could it be that man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people?  It sure sounds like it."  Ever since, he's been one of the most recognizable and dedicated skeptics of global warming.

British Parliament heard devastating testimony overturning the global warming hoax.  James Delingpole of The Telegraph reports that the British Parliament heard devastating testimony overturning the global warming hoax from MIT's Richard Lindzen who is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences.

Is catastrophic global warming a mistake ... just like the Millennium Bug?  At a public meeting in British House of Commons, the climate scientist Professor Richard Lindzen of Massachusetts Institute of Technology has made a number of declarations that unsettle the claim that global warming is backed by "settled science". ... He gave us a slide with a series of familiar alarms — melting ice caps, disappearing icebergs, receding glaciers, rising sea levels.  It was published by the US Weather Bureau in 1922.  And one further element of the consensus:  there's been no increase in temperature for 15 years.

Germany's Top Environmentalist Turns Climate Sceptic.  Fritz Vahrenholt, one of the fathers of Germany's environmental movement, no longer trusts the forecasts of the IPCC.  Doubt came two years ago when he was an expert reviewer of an IPCC report on renewable energy.  "I discovered numerous errors and asked myself if the other IPCC reports on climate change were similarly sloppy.  I couldn't take it any more.  I had to write this book."

Germany's top environmentalist turns skeptic.  "The CO2 Lies ... pure fear-mongering ... should we blindly trust the experts?"  That's what Germany's leading daily Bild (see photo) wrote in its print and online editions today, on the very day that renowned publisher Hoffmann & Campe officially released a skeptic book — one written by a prominent socialist and environmental figure.

Global Warming? No Natural Predictable Change.  An extensively peer-reviewed study published last December in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics indicates that observed climate changes since 1850 are linked to cyclical, predictable, naturally occurring events in Earth's solar system with little or no help from us.

'Germany's George Monbiot' turns climate sceptic.  According to the Global Warming Policy Foundation's Benny Peiser, himself a former member of the German green movement, [Dr. Fritz] Vahrenholt's U-turn represents a huge blow to the climate alarmist camp.

'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'.  Will reduced solar activity counteract global warming in the coming decades?  That is what outgoing German electric utility executive Fritz Vahrenholt claims in a new book.  In an interview with SPIEGEL, he argues that the official United Nations forecasts on the severity of climate change are overstated and supported by weak science.

U.Va. professor throws cold water on global warming.  Earth might be slightly warmer, and sea levels might be slightly higher, but the changes are natural and should not be blamed on fossil-fuel emissions, a panel of scientists and skeptics said at a public forum Tuesday [1/24/2012].  "Human influence on the climate is very, very small — barely detectable," S. Fred Singer, a critic of global warming and professor emeritus at the University of Virginia, told an audience at the Meyera Oberndorf Central Library.

Two more scientist change sides in the AGW debate.  Evidence is building toward the robust climate theory, which would mean that while there may be more CO2 being emitted, it has little to no effect on the overall climate.  That, of course, is contrary to the AGW crowd's theory.

Children just aren't going to know what sun is.  So, to recap:  a scientist from arguably Britain's most discredited university department — the Climatic Research Unit at the UEA — made a fool of himself and his employer by feeding to a newspaper wrongheaded disaster scenarios based on woefully inaccurate computer projections, thus lending spurious credibility to a massive media scaremongering campaign which has led to the squandering of billions of pounds on an entirely unnecessary scheme to "decarbonise" the UK economy.  His reward for this was to be granted a taxpayer-funded salary to go round the world spreading more abject nonsense about a mostly non-existent threat called "climate change."  [Dr David] Viner is not the exception:  he is the rule.  We have a right, I think, to start getting very angry indeed.

There's no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to 'decarbonize' the world's economy.
No Need to Panic About Global Warming.  A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming."  Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true.  In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.

Signing Global Warming's Death Certificate.  The combined credentials of these men represent some of the best minds on planet Earth in their respective fields.  What brought them together? On the surface it was just another of the countless articles that have been published over the years as scientists of real merit and courage took on the juggernaut of those for whom global warming had become a vast flow of government and foundation funding.  The effort was to "prove" that carbon dioxide (CO2) was building up in the atmosphere and would soon incinerate Earth by trapping the heat from the sun.  It had not done that in the 5.4 billion years of the Earth's existence, but the "warmists" claims came day after day and year after year.  They permeated every aspect of society and you can go into any school in America and find textbooks still selling this garbage.

The Coup de Grace for Global Warming Catastrophe?  It is a typically dense article filled with all of the usual qualifiers, but several things make this a bombshell and a blow to the catastrophist narrative.  First, this study was conducted by the Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis of Environment Canada, which is Canada's EPA, so the climate campaigners can't use their favorite talking point that this comes from a private, fossil-fuel funded skeptic outfit.  Second, there is no disguising that the finding of this model, along with recent similar studies, that global warming is overestimated by roughly a factor of two in the usual models the IPCC uses.

Climate Change Doubts Heat Up the Classroom.  Teachers reportedly are getting push-back on middle and high school curricula that fuel the speculation that man is warming the planet.  Their frustration is almost worthy of a celebration.

Heretics in the classroom.  In the last few years school boards and state legislatures in Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Tennessee have introduced a requirement that science teachers acknowledge in their classroom instruction that the theory of AGW isn't "settled" science and that climate skepticism is a valid scientific position.  Los Angeles Times reporter Neela Banerjee, who like so many MSM reporters starts with the assumption that AGW is an incontrovertible fact, and that skeptics are self-evidently wrong, opens her news report by begging the question with a false equivalence.

Progressives Crave Energy Scarcities.  An all-purpose rationale for rationing in its many permutations has been the progressives' preferred apocalypse, the fear of climate change.  But environmentalism as the thin end of an enormous wedge of regulation and redistribution is a spent force.  How many Americans noticed that the latest United Nations climate change confabulation occurred in December in Durban, South Africa?  The futility of this nullity signaled the end — probably for decades, if not forever — of a trivial pursuit that began 14 years ago with the Kyoto Protocol, which the U.S. Senate would not even bring to a vote.

Gingrich Kills Chapter on Climate Change in Upcoming Book.  Newt Gingrich says he has killed a chapter on climate change in a post-election book of essays about the environment.  But the intended author of the chapter, who supports the scientific consensus that humans contribute to climate change, says that's news to her.

Modern-day climate change witch hunt.  [Scroll down]  Perhaps the reason the public's cynicism towards environmentalism goes up a notch whenever it snows is because for the past 10 years, before the recent big freezes set in, environmentalists told us we'd never see snow again.  "Snow is starting to disappear from our lives", declared the Independent in March 2000, quoting an expert from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia — a major producer of climate-change info — saying that "children just aren't going to know what snow is".  Mark Lynas, one of Britain's chief climate-change alarmists, told us in 2004 to prepare for life on a "hotter planet" in which "the traditional British winter [is] probably gone for good".

Tent Collapsing on Climate Change Circus.  [Scroll down]  The US "has" abundant energy supplies; the EU "has not."  The EU has to depend on schemes like carbon trading, about which Rob Elsworth of the climate-campaign group Sandbag in London said:  "is a pretty important revenue stream for most member states."  He asks, "If you take away this green-economy narrative, what's really left of Europe?"  The EU's economic crisis provides the US with living proof that we do not want to play in the global-government game where the "haves" are expected to carry the "have nots."

The Contrarians Have Better Data.  Prof. Michael E. Mann writes ("Climate Contrarians Ignore Overwhelming Evidence," Letters, Dec. 5) that his 1999 "hockey stick" graph "showed that average temperatures today are higher than they have been for at least the past 1,000 years."  But Mr. Mann's paper only covered the northern hemisphere.  It included the questionable use of annual bristlecone-pine tree rings for temperature reconstruction.  Even then, it replaced some tree-ring data with estimates.  Tree-ring series that showed a 20th-century uptick were given 390 times the weighting of other series, according to a 2005 study by Ross McKitrick, an environmental economist at the University of Guelph.

Climate talks, then climate tax.  [Scroll down]  Meanwhile, back in America, the warmist arguments increasingly are facing challenge.  Today's temperature changes are indistinguishable from historic climate cycles, and the public is beginning to notice that renewable-energy schemes are unaffordable luxuries.

Don't pretend we know what causes climate change.  Not only is the Kyoto Protocol technically flawed, the so-called science behind it is utter twaddle.  Never mind complicated things like non-linear mathematics or, indeed, mathematics of any sort.  The alarmists can't possibly know how to predict the future of Earth's climate because they can't explain its past.

The Great Global Warming Fizzle.  First released on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit two years ago and recently updated by a fresh batch, the "hide the decline" emails were an endless source of fun and lurid fascination for those of us who had never been convinced by the global-warming thesis in the first place.  But the real reason they mattered is that they introduced a note of caution into an enterprise whose motivating appeal resided in its increasingly frantic forecasts of catastrophe.  Papers were withdrawn; source material re-examined.  The Himalayan glaciers, it turned out, weren't going to melt in 30 years.  Nobody can say for sure how high the seas are likely to rise — if much at all.  Greenland isn't turning green.  Florida isn't going anywhere.

America's Energy Policy: Green or Red?  Global Warming Alarmism today drives energy policy with politicized science.  Consider this:  What if there is no Global Warming?  What if the number of drowned Polar Bears this year is fewer than the number of drowned Polar bears 1000 years ago, icecaps are not melting, there are no biblical floods, and "climate change" is simply "weather"?  What if disinformation, misinformation, and politicized science are tricking us into killing jobs and destroying prosperity?

Scientist who said climate change sceptics had been proved wrong accused of hiding truth by colleague.  It was hailed as the scientific study that ended the global warming debate once and for all — the research that, in the words of its director, 'proved you should not be a sceptic, at least not any longer'. ... It was cited uncritically by, among others, reporters and commentators from the BBC, The Independent, The Guardian, The Economist and numerous media outlets in America.  The Washington Post said the BEST study had 'settled the climate change debate' and showed that anyone who remained a sceptic was committing a 'cynical fraud'.  But today [10/30/2011] The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller's team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST's research shows global warming has stopped.

How many eco-frauds can dance on a pin?  Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America's prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller's claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a 'huge mistake', with no scientific basis.  Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project's four research papers.  Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row.

Time for Another Climate Science Scandal.  [Scroll down]  Note well that BEST's data was drawn exclusively from land-based temperature readings, since AGW alarmists were concerned that the inclusion of cooler ocean-based readings might understate the severity of the warming "crisis."  And yet, the apparent warming trend still stalled, even within this cherry-picked data.

Scientific case for man-made global warming fears is dead.  Recent scientific data and developments reveal that Mother Nature is playing a cruel joke on the promoters of man-made climate fears.  The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim, the scientific case for man-made climate fears has collapsed.  The only thing "worse than we thought" is the shoddy journalism of the mainstream media, which parrots global warming activists' baseless talking points.

New Evidence That Man-Made CO2 Does Not Cause Global Warming.  Al Gore and the global warming alarmists have long contended that man-made "greenhouse gases" are causing global warming so severe that it endangers our way of life.  They claim the main culprits are the coal fired electric generating plants, airplanes, and automobiles that use hydrocarbons for fuel.  And that the most damaging gas being emitted into the atmosphere is carbon dioxide (CO2).  The "global warmers" were making great progress at selling the American people on the dangers of man-made global warming and that we should greatly reduce, and in time eliminate completely, the use of our enormous reserves of coal, oil and natural gas.

Nobel Physicist Calls Earth's Temperature "Amazingly Stable".  If the American Physical Society's numbers on global warming are accurate, the earth's temperature has been "amazingly stable" and "human health and happiness have improved" during a century and a half of minor climate change, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever said in a message to the APS, explaining why he is resigning from the society.  Giaever cited a 2007 statement by the organization calling the evidence of global warming "incontrovertible."

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Resigns Over Global Warming.  The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man's actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.  [Dr. Ivar] Giaever does not agree — and put it bluntly and succinctly in the subject line of his email, reprinted at Climate Depot, a website devoted to debunking the theory of man-made climate change.  "I resign from APS," Giaever wrote.

A Successful Fraud.  Global warm-mongers say they can't name a single scientist who doesn't agree with them.  Well, here's one:  Nobel laureate Ivan Giaever, who just left a scientific society because he believes the debate isn't over.

The Slow, Certain Death of the Global Warming Theory.  MIT Professor, Dr. Richard Lindzen, an internationally recognized authority on atmospheric science, said, "Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age."

Nobel Laureate Resigns Over Global Warming Dogma.  Sorry to break it to you, distinguished ladies and gentlemen of letters, but the scientific genius you supported for President flushed hundreds of billions of dollars into slush funds and "green energy" rat holes, with absolutely no satisfaction of "the nation's and the world's most urgent needs," or enhancements to American "competitiveness."

Obscure editor resigns from minor journal: why you should care.  A man named Wolfgang Wagner, editor-in-chief of a science journal called Remote Sensing decided to resign because he'd read on the internet that one of the papers he'd published — by climate sceptic Roy Spencer, et al — possibly had some flaws in it.  Bizarre, eh?

Physicist Resigns in Opposition to Claims of Manmade Climate Change.  On September 13, physicist Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, announced his resignation from the American Physical Society, disgusted by the company's officially stated policy that "global warming is occurring."  The American Physical Society officially supports the theory that man's actions have led to global warming through increased emissions of carbon dioxide, an assertion with which Dr. Giaever wholly disagrees.

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Who Endorsed Obama Dissents!.  Nobel prize winner for physics in 1973 Dr. Ivar Giaever resigned as a Fellow from the American Physical Society (APS) on September 13, 2011 in disgust over the group's promotion of man-made global warming fears.  Climate Depot has obtained the exclusive email Giaever sent titled "I resign from APS" to APS Executive Officer Kate Kirby to announce his formal resignation.

Perry and Global Warming.  Last week Rick Perry questioned the prevailing orthodoxy on global warming.  There was, as is easy to imagine, no shortage of warmists waiting to pounce. ... What is troubling, however, is that some of the other candidates for the Republican nomination still accept the theory of man-made warming.  Worse, they are apparently prepared to act on their beliefs if elected president.

On Being Governed By Scientific Frauds.  Global warming racketeers end up doing science by press release.  Their models are rigged, and any time they turn out wrong, they change the model.  Then they send out more press releases to equally corrupt jourNOlists, who phone in more scary headlines to the New York Times.  Millions of suckered voters end up believing that the sky is falling, and they vote for socialist politicians like Obama to Save the Planet.

Irene is Obama's punishment.  The past few years have seen significant body blows to the global warming theory, including major revelations of altered, misused or just plain fraudulent data, undue financial interests and appearances of impropriety among climate scientists, and contrived "carbon markets" closely tied to global warming alarmists who stood to make millions of dollars from government-mandated regulations like the now defunct "cap-and-trade" scheme.  The Earth stopped warming 10 years ago.

Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman and the AP on Global Warming.  What Perry said was correct.  The realists are winning the global warming debate hands-down, and their ranks are growing steadily.  The anthropogenic global warming theory is not only unproven, it is contradicted by a vast body of empirical data, and has been shown to rest, to a considerable degree, on fraud.

Junk Science Unravels.  The global warming fraud is coming apart faster than the alarmists can repackage and rebrand their fairy tale.  Their elaborately constructed yarn can't hold together much longer.  There are just too many loose ends.

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism.  NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing.  The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

The Global Warming Hoax: How Soon We Forget.  While Americans are rightfully focused on the unemployment situation and the debt limit negotiations, we've pretty much forgotten about global warming as an issue ever since Obama failed to pass his Cap & Trade bill.  As a result, we're becoming complacent once again about the huge threat we face from the progressives' attempts to control the world's energy industry based on the greatest scientific hoax in human history.  In reality, however, nothing's changed, as Obama is still imposing his will on us through the EPA's regulation of CO2.  This hoax still threatens our economy, while advancing the UN's "Agenda 21" in more ways than one.  It's also the foundation of Obama's "green jobs" approach to the unemployment issue, since the very concept of "green jobs" is just as bogus as the idea of a "carbon footprint."

You're paying for the hysteria of our politicians.  [Scroll down]  Whatever happens now, whether it is hot or cold, whether we get heatwaves or record snowfalls, floods or droughts, sooner or later we hear those familiar little voices piping up to tell us that the blame for all these 'extreme weather events' still lies on 'disruption' to the climate caused by the sinful activities of mankind.

Supreme skeptics.  The justices of the United States Supreme Court this week became the world's most august global warming sceptics.  Not by virtue of their legal reasoning — the global warming case they decided turned on a technical legal issue — but in their surprising commentary.  Global warming is by no means a settled issue, they made clear, suggesting it would be foolhardy to assume it was.

Supremes retreat from climate panic.  The Supreme Court dealt Al Gore, the Environmental Protection Agency and other believers in alarmist climate science a surprising and severe blow this week.  In its June 20 decision on American Electric Power v. Connecticut et al., the court ruled that the mere existence of EPA regulatory authority over greenhouse-gas regulations pre-empted lawsuits against coal-burning utilities on the grounds that the emissions constitute a public nuisance.

Lots of Hot Air After Activists Lose Climate Suit.  This week, climate change activists suffered a major loss at the Supreme Court, which unanimously threw out their highly publicized lawsuit against power companies.  Although — or perhaps because — the Court's opinion was clear and direct, the losing activists have sought desperately to spin a loss into a win.  And the press's lackluster coverage of the decision only has helped obfuscate the Court's decision.

Why 'vote blue, go green' doesn't sound quite so clever any more.  At this midsummer season, it is becoming traditional for me to draw attention to a striking prediction made by the Prince of Wales in March 2009.  Speaking in Brazil, he said that the world had "only 100 months to avert irretrievable climate and ecosystem collapse".  It would be all over by July 2017, unless the right climate change policies were put in place.  Since then, the world has certainly not made the changes for which the Prince was calling.  That means that there are now just over six years left.  One wonders why he bothers to prepare for the throne...

Climate Change Scientists Face Inconvenient Truths.  Two different climate change scientists at opposite ends of the political spectrum have backtracked on their positions in the last couple of days, indicating that Al Gore's method of simultaneously scaring and inspiring everybody with graphs, while effective, might not be sustainable.

Warmists:  'We can't win the game, so let's change the rules'.  The theory linking man-made CO2 with dangerous global warming is dead.  It has been falsified.  It has run smack bang into a "null hypothesis."  It has met its Waterloo.  It has bought the farm.  It has gone for a Burton.  It has cashed in its chips, fallen off its perch, gone south, gone west, shuffled off this mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the Choir Invisible.  Man-made Global Warming has ceased to exist.

Still Hiding The Decline?  Alarmist academics are being forced to show their work and they don't like it.  Do they fear that a web of deception will unravel if their data are made public?

Was 2010 the Hottest Year Ever?  According to the world's best-known climate change mouthpiece, 2010 was the hottest year on record.  Wrong.  It's yet another example of a political activist with a Ph.D. donning a magician's cape to try pull one over on the audience. ... In fact, according to the National Climatic Data Center, the warmest decade on record was the 1930s, with twenty-two of the now 50 states recording their highest temperature ever during those years.  Thirty-eight states recorded their all-time highs before 1960.  Likewise the hottest year on record was 1934.  Even Jim Hansen's NASA unit has been forced to acknowledge this.

Regulation takes over when legislation is defeated.  Yes, cap-and-trade is back again. ... The latest vehicle for delivering this immortal tyranny is the Clean Air Act, which has been mutated by ten year's worth of lawsuits into an open-ended warrant for the Environmental Protection Agency to give itself any powers it thinks it needs, any time it sees a problem it wants to address.  Environmental activists persuaded it to declare "greenhouse gasses" a public health threat that required regulation.  (You could hear the bureaucrats howling in pain as their arms were twisted, all the way from the lobby of the EPA offices.)

'Why will no one listen to us any more?' wails AGW propagandist.  People, what is your problem?  Didn't you know that this is the third hottest year in the entire history of the universe?  Don't you care any more that it's all totally our fault?  Are you really so sick and selfish that you don't agree any more that our landscape should be carpeted with wind farms and our economy bombed back into the Dark Ages so as to bring global CO2 levels down to the correct, UN-mandated level?

UN subterfuge:  The global warming hoax.  Today, Americans perceive global warming as a low priority item, and have turned their attention to our economic and security concerns.  But big government agencies (UN and US) and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) continue to quietly expand UN influence, by teaching their insidious Marxist policies to the bureaucratic, naive, and idiotic.

17,000 People Who Don't Exist.  Apostles of the Global Warming religion claim their "science" is "settled" and that there is no disagreement in the scientific community on man-made global warming.  Well, there are over 17,000 verified signatures by PhD scientists who don't believe in anthropogenic global warming.  It's call the Oregon Petition.

Cancunhagen.  [Roy] Spencer is not skeptical about the fact that burning fossil fuels is increasing the carbon dioxide in atmosphere; that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; or that, all other things being equal, increased carbon dioxide will produce more warming.  Although some activists have called him and his colleagues "denialists," Spencer concurs that there is no scientific disagreement over the fact that the Earth has been warming.  "What we deny is that we have any certainty about how much of the recent warming is due to man," said Spencer.  "We deny that it's mostly man-made."

The EPA Versus the USA.  First, there was no "global warming"; only the normal and natural warming that had been in effect since around 1850 when a 500-year "little ice age" ended in the northern hemisphere.  Second, the Earth is now in a normal and natural cooling cycle, though with the added concern that it is also at the end of an 11,500 year interglacial cycle between the last major ice age and the next.  Third, the data put forth by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been almost entirely discredited, based as it was on rigged research by corrupted university centers and governmental agencies.

Turn out the lights, the party's over.  Scams die hard, but eventually they die, and when they do, nobody wants to get close to the corpse.  You can get all the hotel rooms you want this week in Cancun.  The global-warming caravan has moved on, bound for a destination in oblivion.

Phony Claims Infest Cancun Climate Conference.  At the United Nations climate confab in Cancun, Mexico, this week, the usual set of phony claims were once again trotted out to try to scare the world into submission.  Claim One:  A four-degree rise in global temperature is likely to occur during the 21st Century. ... Let's mow down the first claim first.  I drive this point home in my book, Climategate, and the global whiners loath it:  Since 1850 — the beginning of the Industrial Revolution — the Earth's average surface temperature has risen only .7° Celsius (just a bit more than one degree Fahrenheit).  Point-seven degrees Celsius in 160 years — that's all.  And this minuscule temperature increase coincided with the proliferation of the train, car, truck and even the lawnmower and leaf blower.  Oh, and the bulk of this warming occurred before 1940.

More about the Cancun climate conference.

New Retreat from Global Warming Data by Australian Gov Bureau.  Global warmers is in full retreat as Aussie experts admit growing doubts about their own methods as a new study shows one third of temperatures are not reliable.  The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) admits it was wrong about urban heating effects as a professional statistical analysis by Andrew Barnham exposes a BOM claim that "since 1960 the mean temperature in Australia has increased by about 0.7°C"; the BOM assertion has no empirical scientific basis.

Can environmentalism be saved from itself?  Mercifully, nobody will pay attention to the climate conference at Cancun next week, where a much-reduced group of delegates will go through the motions.  The delusional dream of global action to combat climate change is dead.  Barack Obama's cap-and-trade scheme is dead.  Chicago's carbon-trading market is dead.  The European Union's supposed reduction in carbon emissions has been exposed as a giant fraud.  Public interest in climate change has plunged, and the media have radically reduced their climate coverage.

The Green Bubble is about to Burst.  There is a revolution coming that is likely to burst the green global warming bubble:  the temperature trend used by the IPCC (the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) to support their conclusion about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is likely to turn out to be fake.  The situation will become clear once Virginia's attorney general, Kenneth Cuccinelli, obtains information now buried in e-mails at the University of Virginia.  Or Hearings on Climategate by the U.S. Congress may uncover the "smoking gun" that demonstrates that the warming trend used by the IPCC does not really exist.  It has become increasingly clear that any observed warming during the past century is of natural origin and that the human contribution is insignificant.  It is doubtful that any significant warming is attributable to greenhouse gases at all.

Climate change 'fraud' letter: a Martin Luther moment in science history.  Five centuries ago, a German priest challenged the reigning theological "consensus" about the clerical sale of indulgences, unraveling one of the great religious scams in history and inspiring the Protestant Reformation.  This month, a senior American physicist challenged the reigning scientific "consensus" about global warming.  His action may prove to be the unraveling one of the great scientific mistakes in history and the beginning of a greatly needed reformation of the scientific community.

Voters Punish Supporters of Global Warming Restrictions.  Senator Russ Feingold (D) thrust global warming front and center into the U.S. Senate race in Wisconsin, calling Ron Johnson's global warming views "bizarre" and "extreme" after the Republican challenger said he believes global warming is due primarily to natural forces, with solar variability the most likely factor.  Feingold, who polls suggested was in a dead heat with Johnson prior to making global warming a central issue, saw his polling numbers quickly deteriorate, and he ultimately lost the election by 5 percentage points.

Motive Force Behind All Climate Change.  There never was a compelling case for human caused global warming.  The CO2 climate change hypothesis is not science, it is sorcery driven to hysteria by political opportunists.  It is time to restore science to its rightful place.

Sustainable Oil Production?  [Scroll down]  As researchers dig deeper into sources of climate change, we must seriously consider the concept of a molten Earth core fed by nuclear waste from a georeactor at its center emitting heat as well as the elements to form hydrocarbons creating petroleum.  With great heat (including an abundance of CO2) escaping the crust by mechanisms such as hydrothermal vents in the ocean floor triggering major events such as El Niño ocean warming, we may be getting closer to climate change truth than the mythology of "man-made climate disruption."

Shattering the Greenhouse Effect.  A recommended essay by Swedish climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring offers a high school through advanced level debunking of the so-called 'greenhouse effect.'  Dr. Jelbring finds that basic scientific principles demonstrate that global temperatures are not controlled by human emissions of 'greenhouse gases' and the 'greenhouse effect' is explainable using only the physics of pressure, gravity, volume, and the adiabatic lapse rate.

CO2 as a radiation valve contravenes the laws of thermodynamics.  "Heat-trapping gases," you hear, and "Radiation goes in but can't get out."  Well then, what is every explanation of the greenhouse effect pointing at but a radiation valve?  Since heat rays are prevented from exiting to space, it is claimed, they have nowhere else to go but back to the earth which, by absorbing them, becomes warmer. ... Simple as it is, though, no scientist in the world is able to construct a model that exhibits any radiative gain because the theory's tenets (called "the basic science") are not valid.  On a theoretical basis alone, conservation of energy (the First Law) forbids a model like this from working.

Fossil Fuel is Nuclear Waste.  To prop up claims of the mythical abilities of atmospheric carbon dioxide to determine climate conditions, the warmists fashioned a radiant energy balance sheet.  To avoid long term heating or cooling the energy inflows must match the outflows.  Just one problem, one heat source is completely ignored.  The AGW balance sheet shows ONLY solar input.  The 259 trillion cubic miles of molten rock that forms our planet is not melted, or maintained at present temperature by solar electromagnetic radiation.  This planet is internally warmed by fission of the 700,000 cubic miles of fissionable material burning in our mantle.

A Greenhouse Effect on the Moon?  We've been told that the earth's surface is quite a bit warmer than calculations predict.  Theory has it that heat-trapping "greenhouse gases" account for a 33° Celsius disparity.  But it turns out that our airless moon is also quite a bit warmer than predicted.  Might something be wrong with the prediction method itself, then?

"It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life"
US physics professor resigns from APS.  Harold Lewis is Emeritus Professor of Physics at the University of California, Santa Barbara.  Here is his letter of resignation to Curtis G. Callan Jr, Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society.

My Resignation From The American Physical Society.  [Scroll down]  It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave.  It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist.  Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare.  I don't believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion.

An important moment in science history.  I would describe it as a letter on the scale of Martin Luther, nailing his 95 theses to the Wittenburg church door.  It is worthy of repeating this letter in entirety on every blog that discusses science.  What I would really like to see though, is this public resignation letter given the same editorial space as Michael Mann in today's Washington Post.

Climategate and the American Physical Society.  Professor Hal Lewis's resignation from the American Physical Society challenges the scientific — as opposed to the merely politically expedient — basis of the "consensus" on global warming.

Greenism.  In Canada Free Press I give many examples, in a variety of articles, of the myriad falsities inherent in the green movement.  Sometimes, falsity can be accepted as a side-effect of stupidity, but not in this case.  The green movement is the province of intelligent middle classes.  So, why is it that these people come out with such nonsense?  It's because their intellect doesn't match their intelligence, making them accept emotionalism rather than truth.  In other words, they are prejudiced against reality.

More on Greenism.  No sooner had I sent off my article on 'Greenism' to Canada Free Press, than I received notification that the leading scientific institution, the Royal Society, has backed down on its strident global warming claims!  To put it frankly, that is one in the eye for the silly young geology graduate who decided to back the green horse in the MENSA journal.

Texas Sues to Block Bizarre "Global Warming" EPA Rules.  The state of Texas today [9/16/2010] sued the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in a federal appeals court in Washington DC, claiming four new regulations imposed by the EPA are based on the 'thoroughly discredited' findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and are 'factually flawed,' [WOAI] reports.

WH Science Czar 'Global Warming' is 'Dangerous Misnomer'.  John Holdren, our official fraudulent "Science Czar" for our equally mendacious President, has dumped "global warming" as a "dangerous misnomer."  Ah, yes, that would be it then.  It's not the facts but the words that are wrong, says America's official Doctor Science.  In scientific terms this means John Holdren has run up the white flag and is begging for mercy.

Global warming?  It doesn't exist, says Ryanair boss O'Leary.  In an interview with The Independent littered with expletives, the chief executive of Europe's largest airline branded the scientific consensus that man-made pollution is heating up the planet with potentially grave consequences for the future of humanity as "h········t".  He agreed the climate was changing but denied it was caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, such as those from his planes.  "Nobody can argue that there isn't climate change.  The climate's been changing since time immemorial," he said.

Royal Society Reexamines Global Warming Position.  The Royal Society of Great Britain, generally considered the nation's most prestigious scientific society, has announced it will conduct a review of a previous public statement supporting the claims of global warming alarmists.  That statement had declared the "debate on climate change is over" and the planet is becoming disastrously warmer due to human emissions of carbon dioxide.  The Royal Society is reexamining its position after a growing number of member scientists expressed disagreement with the position of its leadership.

Climate Change Lies Are Exposed.  The world's leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a damning report into its research practices.  A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was "little evidence" for its claims about global warming.  It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made "substantive findings" based on little proof.

Al Gore's global-warming crusade shrinks.  The fortunes of Mr. Gore's global-warming crusade certainly are in decline:  A recent Rasmussen poll found that just 34 percent of respondents "feel human activity is the main contributor" to global warming and that the percentage of those who consider global warming a "serious issue" has "trended down slightly since last November."  Mr. Gore himself is to blame for at least some of the public backlash against global-warming orthodoxy:  Using bad science to justify bad policy will inevitably rub people the wrong way.

Reflected Sunlight Shines On IPCC Deceptions And Gross Inadequacies.  Moonlight is not light generated by the moon, but reflected sunlight.  First astronauts on the moon were amazed by the brightness of Earth when it appeared over the lunar horizon.  What they saw was Earthlight, which is also reflected sunlight.  It's sunlight that does little to heat the Earth because it goes directly back out to space.  The amount reflected varies with changes to the surface and atmosphere.  These changes are significant yet poorly measured or understood and pushed aside by the fanatic focus on CO2.

Global Warming, R.I.P.  In a remarkable monograph, Roy W. Spencer presents hard evidence that 75% of the observed warming since the start of the 20th century is due to natural processes.  He offers a detailed model describing how one of these processes, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), operates in the real world.  Most importantly, he demonstrates that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is a minor contributor to a global climate largely insensitive to man-made CO2.  Thanks to this highly skilled climatologist and his [new book], we can now taunt the often corrupt and overtly political planetary high priests with this:  PDO means AGW is DOA.

Global Warming:  Our Mistake, Never Mind.  In a remarkable monograph, Roy W. Spencer presents hard evidence that 75% of the observed warming since the start of the 20th century is due to natural processes.  He offers a detailed model describing how one of these processes, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), operates in the real world.  Most importantly, he demonstrates that anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a minor contributor to a global climate largely insensitive to man-made CO2.

Journalist's Guide to Global Warming Experts.  Jim Martin, executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, recently told a reporter, "You could have a convention of all the scientists who dispute climate change in a relatively small phone booth."  (Denver Post, February 12, 2008)  I suppose it depends on what is meant by "dispute climate change."  My organization, The Heartland Institute, has been studying and commenting on climate change since 1995, making contact with hundreds of scientists, economists, and policy experts whose views on climate change certainly dispute the notion that "global warming is a crisis."

Catastrophism collapses.  [Scroll down]  Support for global-warming programs is also in tatters in the U.S., where polls show — as in Europe — that the great majority rejects global-warming catastrophism.  The public resents repeated attempts to pass cap and trade legislation over their objections, contributing to the fall in popularity of President Barack Obama and Congress.  Public opinion surveys now predict that this November's elections will see sweeping change in the United States, with legislators who have signed on to the global-warming hypothesis being replaced by those who don't buy it.

Harry Reid's high-stakes climate bill gamble.  Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is planning a high-risk, high-stakes strategy for bringing climate and energy legislation to the floor ahead of the August recess.  The gamble:  yoking a bipartisan, fast-track measure to overhaul offshore drilling rules with a broad, contentious bill capping greenhouse gas emissions that otherwise would have almost no chance of passage on its own.

Democrats May Abandon Cap-And-Trade.  The Senate is due to outline a new energy bill next week when it returns from its July 4th recess.  Cap-and-trade likely will be a minor part — if it is in there at all.  Instead the bill will focus on cleaning up after the Gulf Oil spill and promoting green energy.  It may include cap-and-trade for utilities, but even that is doubtful.

Carbon dioxide NOT causing a climate crisis, say scientists.  [Scroll down]  "Contrary to the common assumption that only 'outliers' and unqualified researchers disagree with the theory of carbon dioxide-induced climate disaster, The Register demonstrates that many leading experts contest this hypothesis", said Register endorser Dr. Tim Patterson, ICSC Chair and Professor of Earth Sciences at Carleton University (Ottawa, Canada).  "Many in the Earth Sciences community in particular have trouble with the concept that today's climate change is in any way unusual or driven by human activity.  Climate has always changed, at times far faster than we are witnessing today, and it will continue to change no matter what we do."

From Climate Wars to Congress?  As has been reported here regularly, global warming alarmists have been losing to their opponents on the facts, on their credibility, in the public's eyes.  Now there's the possibility they could actually lose a Congressional seat to a climate realist, and that really scares them.

'Climate Climbdown'.  The Royal Society of Britain is rewriting its official position on global warming.  We'd say the consensus that man is causing the planet to heat is cracking, but there never was a consensus in the first place.

Climate alarmists on the run.  Former Vice President Al Gore was at his peak when the film "An Inconvenient Truth" made its initial Hollywood splash.  Faith in man-made global warming had never been more widespread, with liberal academics and media subjecting to ridicule any who dared question the "settled science."  Only a fool could deny that elevated carbon-dioxide levels had melted ice caps and stranded polar bears on rapidly diminishing ice floes.  How the tables have turned in a short time.

Are Climate Alarmists losing the Mainstream Media?  In the past week, two mainstream media giants have apparently recognized that the debate over manmade global warming is far from over.  On Monday [5/24/2010], the NY Times broke with years of blatant warmist bias in reporting that Climate Fears Turn to Doubts Among Britons. ... Now Newsweek has joined the newly aware, but with a dash more honesty.

30,000 Anti-Global Warming Scientists Can't Be Wrong.  Nature Magazine, the academic journal that introduced the world to X-rays, DNA double helix, wave nature of particles, pulsars, and more recently the human genome, is set to publish a paper in June that shows atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is responsible for only 5-10% of observed warming on Earth.  As explained by the paper's author Professor Jyrki Kauppinen, "The climate is warming, yes, but not because of greenhouse gases."  For the preeminent scientific journal in the world to publish Kauppinen's work shows conclusively that Al Gore's much touted "scientific consensus" supporting human-caused global warming is a myth.

It's the Sun, stupid.  Four years ago, when I first started profiling scientists who were global warming skeptics, I soon learned two things:  Solar scientists were overwhelmingly skeptical that humans caused climate change and, overwhelmingly, they were reluctant to go public with their views.  Often, they refused to be quoted at all, saying they feared for their funding, or they feared other recriminations from climate scientists in the doomsayer camp.  When the skeptics agreed to be quoted at all, they often hedged their statements, to give themselves wiggle room if accused of being a global warming denier.  Scant few were outspoken about their skepticism.  No longer.

Fearlessly Independent:  An Interview with Ian Plimer.  The idea that global warming is caused by human emissions of carbon dioxide is always taken for granted as the default assumption, and if you don't agree with it, you have to explain yourself.  Let's reverse that presumption and put the burden of proof where it belongs:  is there, or has there ever been, any evidence that CO2 drives the climate?  Is this a theory that should ever have gotten off the ground?

Only morons, cheats and liars still believe in Man-Made Global Warming.  [Scroll down]  Except we shouldn't use that word "sceptic" any more.  Richard Lindzen — Godfather of Climate Realism — told us so in one of the keynote addresses.  "Scepticism implies doubts about a plausible proposition," he said.  "Current global warming alarmism hardly represents a plausible proposition."  Not least, he pointed out, because the various activist scientists, greenies and government institutions pushing AGW theory have failed to "improve their case over 20 years."  So paper thin are the AGW movement's arguments that pretty much the only defences left to them are desperate techniques like the appeal to authority ("the Royal Society believes in AGW and the Royal Society is, like, really old and distinguished, so AGW must be true") and cheap slurs.

It looks like we're all global warming skeptics now.  My American Enterprise Institute colleagues Kenneth Green and Steven Hayward provide a pithy summary of this long article in Germany's Der Spiegel entitled "A Superstorm for Global Warming Research."

Germans Say 'Alles Is Kaput' on Global Warming.  Far from parroting the "settled science" canard, Der Spiegel points to many "open questions" of the science, and says "anyone who speaks with leading climatologists today will discover how many questions remain open.  The media, politicians and even scientists often talk about changes to the weather with a certainty that does not in fact exist."

Inconvenient questions:  With the fourth global Earth Hour put to bed last night, today let's ask some inconvenient questions of the global warmists.  First, does the real-world failure of virtually all of your ideas ever give you a moment's pause?  From the fiasco in Copenhagen, to the collapse of the UN's Kyoto accord, with its absurd, unrealistic, centrally-mandated, carbon dioxide-reduction diktats, mindful of the old Soviet Union?  Does it never occur to you you've barked up the wrong tree rings?  What about the humiliation of Climategate?

This Man Wants to Convince You Global Warming Is a Hoax.  Marc Morano broke the Swift Boat story and effectively stalled John Kerry's presidential run.  Now he is working against an even bigger enemy:  belief in climate change.

The British press just can't believe that we can't believe it.
Climate change sceptics on your TV.  Winning over hearts and minds in the fight against climate change has run into a cold front:  America's television weather forecasters.  An academic survey of more than 500 US television meteorologists found that one in four of them say there is no global warming, and 27% agree with the statement "global warming is a scam".

Climate change 'exaggerated' in government adverts.  Two government press adverts which used nursery rhymes to raise awareness of climate change have been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA).  It said the advertisements went beyond mainstream scientific consensus in asserting that climate change would cause flooding and drought.  A total of 939 people complained to the ASA about the "Act on CO2" campaign.

Time to Turn Up the Heat on the Warmists.  At one time some would call them "deniers."  The more generous called them "skeptics."  But now, increasingly, it appears that they can be called something else:  sane.  Yes, the climate has certainly changed.  Even in the mainstream media, the less liberal organs are waking up.

Southern Company pulls out of carbon capture project at Barry Steam Plant.  Southern Company is dropping out of a high-profile project at Barry Steam Plant intended to test the possibility of storing large amounts of carbon dioxide underground, a spokesman said Monday [2/22/2010].

Time to get angry.  With honorable exceptions — such as UKIP and, on the environment at least, the BNP — our political class seem to have absolutely no understanding of the grotesque injustices being inflicted on their electorate in the name of the non-existent threat of "Climate Change."  What will it take, I wonder, for these imbeciles to wake up and smell the coffee?  Will a hung Parliament do?  Or will it have to be bloody revolution?

Nearly half of Americans believe climate change threat is exaggerated.  Public belief in climate science has seen a precipitous slide in the US, according to new polling that suggests fewer Americans are concerned about the threat posed by global warming.

Arizona Quits Climate Pact.  The Grand Canyon State avoids a big economic hole by suspending its participation in a multistate initiative to fight climate change.  As climate fraud is exposed, economic reality sets in.  Will California follow?

Accuweather's Bastardi Takes on Bill Nye & Global Warming on FNC.  On Monday's [2/22/2010] The O'Reilly Factor, FNC's Bill O'Reilly hosted a debate between global warming skeptic Joe Bastardi of Accuweather, and Bill Nye of PBS's Bill Nye the Science Guy, known for recently declaring that it was "unpatriotic" to dispute global warming.  Bastardi argued that recent winter weather patterns are connected to El Niño, not global warming.  He also linked sunspot activity to warming and cooling trends.

Climategate:  Inhofe Raises the Temperature.  [Senator James] Inhofe, a long-time critic of the evidence for anthropogenic global warming and of the "cap and trade" carbon exchange schemes, used his floor speech to point out to the Senate that the IPCC report included the infamous "2035" date for the disappearance of glaciers from the Himalayas — which the IPCC has now been forced to retract.

They're finally admitting the science isn't settled.  When was the last time you recall an alarmist such as Phil Jones admitting there was any doubt at all about warming in the last decade and a half?  Haven't we had it drummed into us ceaselessly that the past decade has been the warmest ever recorded?  Prof. Jones's admission to the BBC then is very significant.

Viscount Monckton Takes a Victory Lap.  For several months, the "Monthly CO2 Reports," compiled by me at www.scienceandpublicpolicy.org, have been pointing out that there has been no statistically significant "global warming" for 15 years.  Regular attacks on my calculations and graphs have appeared on blogs by the usual suspects — Gavin Schmidt of NASA being, as usual, the most venomously ad hominem and the least scientifically plausible.

ConocoPhillips bails out of climate coalition.  ConocoPhillips announced Tuesday [2/16/2010] that it is abandoning the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a major coalition of corporations and environmental groups that's pushing Congress to approve cap-and-trade legislation.

BP will leave USCAP too.  BP America is also leaving the U.S. Climate Action Partnership.  A spokesman said the oil company, like ConocoPhillips, will not renew its membership in the coalition of corporations and environmental groups pushing Congress to approve cap-and-trade legislation.

Conoco, BP, Caterpillar Drop Out Of Cap-And-Trade Alliance.  Here's another sign of the shifting political winds on global warming:  ConocoPhillips, BP and Caterpillar have decided not to renew their membership in the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a broad alliance of corporations and environmentalists supporting cap-and-trade legislation.

Xerox, Marsh Also Out Of USCAP Climate Alliance.  Looks like there's a stampede to exit the United States Climate Action Partnership.  Copier king Xerox and insurance broker Marsh apparently are no longer in the business-green alliance supporting cap-and-trade legislation, or so says Tom Borelli, director of the National Center for Public Policy Research's Free Enterprise Project.  On Tuesday, energy giants BP and ConocoPhillips, along with heavy equipment maker Caterpillar, said they were leaving the group.

Global warming advocates ignore the boulders.  Last week, BP America, ConocoPhillips and Caterpillar, three early members of the 31-member U.S. Climate Action Partnership ... withdrew from USCAP.  It is a coalition of corporations and global warming alarm groups that was formed in 2007 when carbon rationing legislation seemed inevitable and collaboration with the rationers seemed prudent.  A spokesman for Conoco said:  "We need to spend time addressing the issues that impact our shareholders and consumers."  What a concept.

World may not be warming, say scientists.  The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.  In its last assessment the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said the evidence that the world was warming was "unequivocal".  It warned that greenhouse gases had already heated the world by 0.7°C and that there could be 5°C-6°C more warming by 2100, with devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife.  However, new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims.  Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

Many meteorologists break with science of global warming.  After considerable persuasion last week, the Fox affiliate WDAF reluctantly allowed its chief meteorologist, Mike Thompson, to explain in an e-mail to The Kansas City Star why he breaks from the scholarly worldview of the causes of climate change.  "It has become completely political — it's not about science at all," he wrote in an e-mail.  "If science were the objective, then we would be seeing an entirely different debate.  But there are agendas at play, and it has undermined the credibility of climate science."  Others in his profession share that view.

The Shame of the American Meteorological Society.  Bill Gray, a professor emeritus at Colorado State, has been a member of the American Meteorological Society for more than 50 years.  In a lengthy post at Watts Up With That, he expresses his dismay at the manner in which AMS has sold out science in the interest of politics.

Meteorologists Reject U.N.'s Global Warming Claims.  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 oftrepeated assertion that a consensus of scientists believes humans are causing a global warming crisis.

Utah Legislature:  House formally questions global warming.  With most Democrats voting no, the Utah House approved a resolution Tuesday [2/9/2010] that questions global warming while asking the federal government not to proceed with "cap-and-trade" legislation or CO2 regulation.

Enviro-Marxists discover the real scourge of the planet:  human beings.  "Climate change," the scam formerly known as "global warming," has been exposed as the crypto-Marxist hoax many of us suspected for years that it was.  In Copenhagen, at the ridiculous charade of a "summit" on the dangers of carbon emissions producing record carbon emissions, the lofty rhetoric about saving the planet and the long-suffering polar bears has been ripped down like a sheet covering an unfinished masterpiece.

After Climategate, Pachaurigate and Glaciergate:  Amazongate.  I'm trying to write a Climategate book but the way things are going by the time I'm finished there won't be anything left to say:  the battle will already have been won and the only people left who still believe in Man Made Global Warming will be the eco-loon equivalents of those wartime Japanese soldiers left abandoned and forgotten on remote Pacific atolls.

Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri.  No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007.  Although Dr Pachauri is often presented as a scientist (he was even once described by the BBC as "the world's top climate scientist"), as a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all.

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

Physics Group Splinters Over Global Warming Review.  As the science scandal known as ClimateGate grows, the largest U.S. physicists' association is finding itself roiled by internal dissent and allegations of conflict of interest over a forthcoming review of its position statement on man-made global warming.

When Will Climateers Give Up?  While climateers grandly assert that all skeptics are mentally unbalanced, and they try their best to dismiss claims of fraud, reality has a way of coming to the fore.  It is now about time those who cling to the Copenhagen Summit realised the ship is sinking.

Here Comes The Sun.  Drip by drip, like a glacier melting in the sun, the claim that man is changing the climate is dissolving into irrelevance.  The recent findings of Swiss researchers expose another hole.  Former Vice President Al Gore has for years warned that man-made global warming is melting the world's glaciers — a tactic commonly used by alarmists who want to whip up hysteria.  Swiss researchers, however, have presented evidence that weakens the argument.

Hide the Decline.  Public confidence continues to fall on the global warming alarmism front.  But if the evidence of coming tragedy is as incontrovertible as we're told, taxpayers certainly should not have to beg those they pay to hand it over.

Chestnuts Roasting on a Copenhagen Fire.  Despite Rep. Ron Paul's call for members of Congress to consider the joint opinion of more than 32,000 U.S. scientists — including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s — who believe humans likely have little or no part in the creation of "global warming," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs justified the White House's position and waved away opposition by tritely retorting that most people believe in global warming.  A recent survey, however, found Americans' belief in global warming has declined and is at a 12-year low.

Republicans Plan to Form Counter-Delegation at Climate Conference.  A GOP counter-delegation is forming to undermine the Obama administration's work on an international climate change agreement in Copenhagen, warning that the president is poised to make commitments he can't keep and drawing heightened attention to controversial leaked e-mails.

Did someone mention ClimateGate?

Copenhagen climate summit:  global warming 'caused by sun's radiation'.  Global warming is caused by radiation from the sun, according to a leading scientist speaking out at an alternative "sceptics' conference" in Copenhagen.

Did someone mention Copenhagen?

Climategate:  Beyond the Sleazy Science, Rotten Economics.  The United Nations "climate" summit is upon us ... And here's the beauty of this grand scam.  Not only is it based on unsound "findings" with the UN claiming a "consensus" that never was, based on "science" that was something other than scientific.  Beyond that, if anyone cares to venture further, lie boundless vistas of bad economics.

Climategate and the Hamster Effect.  Witnessing the spectacle of climate warmists scampering hither and thither in the face of predatory evidence that they and their pet theories may be doomed, I'm put in mind of the behavior of hamsters who suddenly find themselves trapped in a cage with a hungry snake.

Climate change skeptics.  The scientific evidence for human-driven climate change may be widely accepted.  But those who gathered in the tiny parlor offered a variety of alternative explanations.  One presentation contended that volcanoes emitted far more carbon dioxide than human activities like the burning of fossil fuels.  Another presentation disputed data suggesting that sea levels were rising.  Still another asserted that solar activity caused climate shifts.  Speaking of the case made by scientists for global warming, S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, said:  "They have no evidence.  None."

Untrustworthy Data.  The U.N.'s World Meteorological Organization released Tuesday [12/8/2009] a preliminary report that claims the 10-year period from 2000 to 2009 is the warmest since records began in 1850.  We find the claim to be, well, a bit silly.  How, for instance, can serious scientists compare data from record keeping in 1850 to modern record-keeping?  The report says the data are culled "from networks of land-based weather and climate stations, ships and buoys, as well as satellites."  It might be rude to challenge the leaders of the faith, but we have to ask:  How many satellites, ships and buoys were used in 1850?

The Editor says...
First of all, it's not necessarily a bad thing if we're living in a climate that is one degree warmer than the world of 1850.  Even if such claims are true, people have been around much longer than thermometers.  There have been warmer and colder centuries, as well as lower or higher sea levels, and people have always adapted and survived.  The same is true of polar bears and whooping cranes and spotted owls.

The inconvenient truths Mr Gore and his fanatical friends DIDN'T tell you.  [Scroll down]  What you will find out is this.  That much of what passes for accepted truth is not.  Facts have been ruthlessly twisted, suppressed or invented.  Scientists are greatly divided on the subject.  Many people — and bodies — presented as experts actually have little or no knowledge of the science involved.  Gullible politicians and gullible media men and women have repeatedly fallen for it.  Hucksters, profiteers, world-government fanatics and, of course, the EU (always searching for an excuse to increase its power) have latched on to it.  Huge public subsidies, including the carbon-trading racket and the tragicomic building of hideous, worse-than-useless windfarms, now depend upon it.

China, India Cancel Out Copenhagen.  With less than two months to go before the big Copenhagen Conference on global warming, two major nations have said "no thanks" to the no-growth agenda.  For that reason alone, so should we.

The Puck Stops Here.  Unlike Al Gore, pulling numbers from wherever he's stuck his char-broiled thermometer, Stephen McIntyre of Climate Audit likes to look 'em over first. ... "The science is settled" means:  The politics is settled.  So the science has to follow.

The climate-change travesty.  With 20,000 delegates, advocates and journalists jetting to Copenhagen for planet Earth's last chance, the carbon footprint of the global warming summit will be the only impressive consequence of the climate-change meeting.  Its organizers had hoped that it would produce binding caps on emissions, global taxation to redistribute trillions of dollars, and micromanagement of everyone's choices.

Australians lead climate sceptic charge.  The leading role Australian climate sceptics are taking at Copenhagen comes as the opposition takes a more cautious line on global warming, ruling out support for an ETS [emissions trading scheme].  Climate sceptics worldwide have been buoyed by the release of leaked emails from an English university which appear to show some climate data had been massaged to remove indications the world was not warming.

Asian Cold Water On Global Warming.  If there's good news from Saturday's APEC summit, it's Asia's ninja blow to a global climate pact in Copenhagen.  The dynamic region recognized the economy-killer for what it was and refused to commit suicide.

Where's the skepticism?  [Bjorn] Lomborg deserves his reputation as The Skeptical Environmentalist — his books poke holes in many dogmas society holds dear, often through the use of statistics.  But I find he's not skeptical enough.

The Greatest Scam in History.  According to the perpetrators of the global warming scam, there is supposed to be a total consensus that what they call "global warming" is a major threat to earth's future.  [John] Coleman is one of many meteorlogists who disagree with some or all of their claims.  S. Fred Singer is another who questions such claims.  The two of them together have over 100 years of experience studying weather.  Coleman founded the Weather Channel.  Singer was the first head of the National Weather Satellite Service.

The end is near.  The great global warming scare is over — it is well past its peak, very much a spent force, sputtering in fits and starts to a whimpering end.  You may not know this yet.  Or rather, you may know it but don't want to acknowledge it until every one else does, and that won't happen until the press, much of which also knows it, formally acknowledges it.

New Scientific Study Could Destroy Global Warming Theory.  A newly released scientific study published by MIT climate scientist Richard Lindzen has the potential of destroying one of the fundamental underpinnings of global warming theorists.  The study collected 15-years of long wave radiation measurements from a satellite orbiting the earth.  The study correlates the change in the earth's surface temperature with the change in outgoing long wave radiation.  Lindzen's study shows that as the earth warms, the amount of radiation being bounced-back into outer space actually increases.

Climate Sensitivity Estimates:  Heading Down, Way Down?  MIT climate scientists Richard Lindzen and collaborator Yong-Sang Choi soon-to-be published paper (Geophysical Research Letters, American Geophysical Union) pegs the earth's "climate sensitivity" — the degree the earth's temperature responds to various forces of change — at a value that is about six times less than the "best estimate" put forth by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  The smaller the climate sensitivity, the less the impact that rising carbon dioxide levels will have on the earth's climate.  The less the impact that CO2 emissions will have on the earth's climate, the less the "problem" and ability to reverse the "problem."

Global warming hooey.  [Scroll down]  There are, however, an increasing number of peer-reviewed and intensely credible scientific minds who believe conventional thinking on global warming is nonsense.  One such being Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and a world-renowned scholar.

The Heretics:  Lord Christopher Monckton.  Lord Christopher Monckton, Third Viscount of Brenchley, is a legend within the global warming skeptic community.  The erudite Englishman was an advisor to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher when climate change theories were in their infancy.  In recent years, he has been one of the most eloquent and vocal critics of Al Gore and those who echo Gore's alarmist cries.

When Being Green Is Just Plain Yellow.  There are three types of environmentalists:  the good, the bad and the stupid.  I've met the good and the very good.  The bad can only be described as bordering on evil.  As for the stupid, some of my critics would put me in that category whenever I voice my skepticism about global warming being due to mankind.  I'll admit ignorance on the issue of climatology but I do know how to recognize truth versus deceit on the subject.

Scientist:  Carbon Dioxide Doesn't Cause Global Warming.  Leighton Steward is on Capitol Hill this week armed with studies and his book Fire, Ice and Paradise in a bid to show senators working on the energy bill that the carbon dioxide cap-and-trade scheme could actually hurt the environment by reducing CO2 levels.  "I'm trying to kill the whole thing," he says.  "We are tilting at windmills."  He is meeting with several GOP lawmakers and has plans to meet with some Democrats later this week.

The Branch Carbonian Cult.  [Scroll down slowly]  All that is needed to begin the collapse of this house-of-cards scam is yet another list of certifiable facts and truths -- one which will disprove much of the Cult's mission, tactics and alleged "solutions" -- namely,
  (a) the fact that while Arctic ice may (or may not, of late) be receding, Antarctic ice has been increasing for about 40 years,
  (b) the fact that global temperatures have been on a slightly decreasing trend since 1998,
  (c) the fact that Mars (which features no man-made factor at all) is experiencing "global warming," as well,
  (d) the fact that Antarctic "ice shelves" which occasionally break off, float away and melt at sea, do not raise ocean levels at all,
  (e) the fact that several of the "hottest years" on record were in the 1930s and 1940s, when CO2 levels were much lower than today's,
  (f) the fact that ever more scientists assert convincingly that atmospheric CO2 is a lagging consequence, rather than a triggering cause, of alleged global warming...

Global warming debunked by New Zealand Meteorologist.  Climate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton (New Zealand) this week.  Man's contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn't change the climate if we tried, he maintained.  "We're all going to survive this.  It's all going to be a joke in five years," he said.  A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it.  "It is time to attack the myth of global warming," he said.

Global Warming Blues:  A red flag in the global warming debate is the left-right split.  Generally people on the left tend to believe in global warming and those on the right tend to be skeptics.  The New York Times thinks global warming is settled science while the Wall Street Journal thinks it is greatly exaggerated.  If global warming is a science question, why should this be so?  The answer is that both the right and the left recognize that global warming has political consequences.  The left recognizes that global warming presents an opportunity to increase government revenue via carbon taxes and to justify the taxes as sin taxes.  The right recognizes the same thing.

Spiking the road to Copenhagen.  Three cheers for Jairam Ramesh! India at last has an environment minister who is willing and able to denounce the hypocrisy and immorality of the West in twisting the arms of India and China to curb their carbon emissions.  He is right to make it clear that India has no intention of signing the new 'climate change' treaty in Copenhagen in December, which would put curbs on the carbon emissions of the Third World.

Anthropogenic Global Warming?  Not So Fast.  Skepticism about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has engulfed the leadership of key scientific societies including the American Chemical Society (ACS), the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and the American Physical Society (APS).  Growing numbers of members of these prestigious organizations are clamoring for a reassessment of their societies' positions on climate change.

What we are up against, and what to do.  Most arguments about global warming boil down to science versus authority.  For much of the public, authority will generally win since they do not wish to deal with science.  For a basically political movement, as the global warming issue most certainly is, an important task is to coopt the sources of authority.  This, the global warming movement has done with great success. ... The American Association for the Advancement of Science has been headed by James McCarthy and John Holdren in recent years, and these have been public advocates for global warming alarm.  Holdren is now President Obama's nominee for science advisor.  There are numerous further examples.

Politicians shun facts, blow hot air on climate change.  Federal legislators are now poised to move forward with punitive anti-emissions schemes such as cap-and-trade that ignore important and highly relevant new studies.  These studies indicate that astronomical influences, not man-made emissions, may be largely to blame for any warming or cooling trends on Earth.  Moreover, the whole idea of "global warming" is now in serious doubt.  Don Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Wash., is among the many scientists who now think the planet has entered into a cooling cycle that could persist for decades.

Meet the man who has exposed the great climate change con.  Imagine how wonderful the world would be if man-made global warming were just a figment of Al Gore's imagination.  No more ugly wind farms to darken our sunlit uplands.  No more whopping electricity bills, artificially inflated by EU-imposed carbon taxes.  No longer any need to treat each warm, sunny day as though it were some terrible harbinger of ecological doom.  And definitely no need for the $7.4 trillion cap and trade (carbon-trading) bill — the largest tax in American history — which President Obama and his cohorts are so assiduously trying to impose on the US economy.  Imagine no more...

Palin got it right.  Waxman-Markey artificially creates competition between cheap, abundant energy and unreliable, expensive renewable forms, compelling utilities to use heavily subsidized, politically correct "renewable energy" while thousands who work producing traditional energy lose their jobs.  All the while, American industry will flee to other countries where they can power their assembly lines with cheaper energy.

All sides need voices in global warming debate.  I'm not funded by those evil oil companies and, sadly, I'm not the recipient of any of those multibillion dollar federal grants that pay people to find more reasons to alarm us.  What I am is a reasonable person who is growing more concerned daily about the simple liberties in life that I fear are being taken away by Washington politicians who seek greater control of my life and my wallet through larger taxes to pay for the initiatives that they claim to promote on my behalf.

Tropical rains dampen alarmist agenda.  The Obama carbon taxes will cost the U.S. trillions of dollars and may permanently cripple our economy.  They're meant to "save the planet" from excess greenhouse gases — but new evidence from tropical rain patterns seems to further refute the claims that recent global warming has been man-made.

Global warming is the new religion of First World urban elites.  Ian Plimer has outraged the ayatollahs of purist environmentalism, the Torquemadas of the doctrine of global warming, and he seems to relish the damnation they heap on him.  Plimer is a geologist, professor of mining geology at Adelaide University, and he may well be Australia's best-known and most notorious academic.  Plimer, you see, is an unremitting critic of "anthropogenic global warming" — man-made climate change to you and me — and the current environmental orthodoxy that if we change our polluting ways, global warming can be reversed.

Major Science Group 'Startled' By Scientists Rejecting Man-Made Climate Fears!  An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group's editor-in-chief — with some demanding he be removed — after an editorial appeared claiming "the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established."

The Climate Change Climate Change.  As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme.  Why?  A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming. ... It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers."  The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S. ... New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

Climate Change Conference Rebuts Alarmism .  The growing number of global warming skeptics around the world scored a major victory during the second International Conference on Climate Change, which confronted the issue, "Global warming: Was it every really a crisis?"  The answer, delivered over 2½ days to an audience of 700 attendees — the largest-ever gathering of global warming skeptics — was a resounding "No."

Talking Climate Change with Anthony Watts.  Anyone who regularly tunes into WattsUpWithThat.com, the popular climate-science blog operated by Anthony Watts, will never make fun of TV weathermen again.  Watts — who was a TV meteorologist for 25 years — provides a steady diet of smart, always interesting and sometimes deeply complex scientific information and opinion about global climate change.

The Next Ice Age:  Is the Earth warming?  Any professor who wants tenure will say, "Yes!" now.  Any bureaucrat who values his job will genuflect to this tenuous theory.  But we do not know if the planet is gradually warming or, if it is warming, why it is warming.  More fundamentally, we do not know the direction of any climate change:  is our planet growing warmer or growing cooler?

A Cooling Trend Toward Global Warming.  For two decades there has been an incessant drumbeat of propaganda attributing every weather-related event to an increase in carbon dioxide caused by the burning of fossil fuels.  With the election of a president who is solidly in the global-warming-alarmist camp — and with many high-level appointees who are bona fide climate change alarmists — coupled with a Democratic legislature anxious to please their environmentalist and media benefactors, the passage of legislation causing some form of economy-crippling energy taxation seemed to be a foregone conclusion.  But then came the unexpected.

ICCC Three Brings Climate Reality To Washington DC.  While both public opinion and the planet's climate have cooled these past three months, the Left's green fever has taken a desperate turn in the opposite direction.  In April, EPA chief Lisa Jackson made good on her promise to pursue endangerment status and subsequent pollutant regulation of CO2 and five other greenhouse gases, an act likely crafted to coerce accelerated legislative action.

Photo courtesy www.memphisflyer.com
'Global warming is baloney' signs put the heat on Burger King.  A row between the fast food giant Burger King and one of its major franchise owners has erupted over roadside signs proclaiming "global warming is baloney".  The franchisee, a Memphis-based company called the Mirabile Investment Corporation (MIC) that owns more than 40 Burger Kings across Tennessee, Arkansas and Mississippi, has described Burger King as acting "kinda like cockroaches" over the controversy.  MIC says it does not believe Burger King has the authority to make it take the signs down.

Obamamotive.  Today, "legitimate" (i.e. academic) science is to a large extent controlled by governments, either national or world governments like the UN.  You see, academic scientists (to keep from getting a real job) compete for grants and these grants largely come from governments.  These governments are not interested in scientific facts; they want conclusions that buttress their political positions.  Call global warming "political" science.

New Report Details Over-Looked Scientific Evidence Against Simplistic Climate Alarmism.  A 110-page report by an international team of climate experts published today by the independent Fraser Institute examines critically-important scientific evidence that has been overlooked or omitted in government reports that blame climate change on carbon dioxide emissions.

Here is the report mentioned above:
Critical Topics in Global Warming.  The issue of global warming is the subject of two parallel debates:  one scientific, focused on the analyses of complex and conflicting data; the other political, addressing what is the proper response of government to a hypothetical risk.  Proponents of an immediate and sweeping regulatory response insist that the scientific debate has long been settled.  But a fair reading of the science, as presented in the Fraser Institute's Independent Summary for Policymakers (ISPM), proves otherwise.

Planet doomsayers need a cold shower.  As a University of Adelaide geologist, Dr Ian Plimer, writes in his new book, Heaven And Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science, scientists are usually "anarchic, bow to no authority and construct conclusions based on evidence ... Science is not dogmatic and the science of any phenomenon is never settled."  His dense book, crammed with 2311 footnotes, is a comprehensive scientific refutation of the beliefs underpinning the idea of human-caused climate change.  "It is meant to be an overwhelming demolition job," said Plimer...

The climate sure is changing when doubt gets an airing.  Australia's pre-eminent academic geologist, Prof Ian Plimer, published Heaven and Earth, challenging the gospel that the world is warming dangerously and that human-caused gases are to blame.  In fact, says Plimer, what warming we saw until a decade ago was not unusual, not dangerous and most likely caused mainly by solar activity.  What's more, temperatures now seem to be falling.

Sceptic spells doom for alarmists.  I expect that when the history of global warming as a mass delusion comes to be written, Australia's leading geologist [Ian Plimer] will be recognised as a member of the international sceptical pantheon.  As far as the progress of what passes for national debate is concerned, in all likelihood 2009 will be seen as the turning point and divided into the pre and post-Plimer eras.  Mind you, I think this year would have been a turning point in any event because global recessions have a way of forcing the great powers to behave pragmatically.

Global Warming Doom and Gloom Haven't Occurred.  For more than 20 years, we have been hearing doomsday predictions about global warming's effects on Kansas and across the world.  Locally, during the hot Kansas summer of 2006, forecasts were issued and media articles written tying that hot, dry weather to global warming, and forecasting more extreme heat in the future.  According to one scientist with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, global warming in 2006 was already "kicking the heat up a notch."  But the weather has refused to cooperate with those forecasts.

With all due respect Mr. President, that is not true.  President Obama says that "few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than fighting climate change.  The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear."  In fact, many scientists disagree with the "facts," their certainty, and their interpretation.  Over 100 of them have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's newspaper ad.

Full text of the newspaper ad [PDF].

The sceptic's shadow of doubt.  Professor Ian Plimer isn't short on confidence.  Two weeks ago, Plimer, an award-winning geologist from the University of Adelaide, published Heaven + Earth, a 500-page argument against the idea that humans can dramatically affect climate.  "Very few people know that the planet changes all the time — that we have these massive cycles driven by forces far greater than human forces — and in many ways it is my job as an educator to say 'look at the big canvas'," he tells The Age.

Filmmaker vs. Hysterics: The economic consequences of Al Gore.  Irish documentary filmmakers Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney have stirred up trouble before by debunking smug liberal hypocrisy.  Their latest film, "Not Evil, Just Wrong" takes on the hysteria over global warming and warns that rushing to judgment in combating climate change would threaten the world's poor.  The film reminds us that environmentalists have been wrong in the past, as when they convinced the world to ban the pesticide DDT, costing the lives of countless malaria victims.

An inconvenient film:  Al Gore is about to feature in a new movie, but he's not going to like it very much.  Titled "Not Evil Just Wrong: The True Cost of Global Warming Hysteria," the film presents a devastating account of the shaky foundations and hefty price of Mr. Gore's brand of self-interested and hypocritical alarmism.  Created by the Irish film making duo of Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney — who made another excellent documentary about the "dark side of environmentalism" called "Mine Your Own Business" — "Not Evil" provides the perfect rebuttal to Mr. Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth."

New Documentary Challenges Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' on Global Warming.  Buoyed by [a British court] ruling, two Irish journalists — Phelim McAleer and Ann McElhinney — released a documentary in which they gather evidence outlining the damage of global warming hysteria.  In "Not Evil Just Wrong," they challenge the claims made in Gore's film and conclude that the film is not worth screening in schools because it is shown there as "an article of science, not faith."

Watch the trailer for Not Evil, Just Wrong.

Cool to the warming idea.  Willie Soon, a physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, and David Legates, an associate professor of climatology at the University of Delaware, don't buy into the prevailing hypothesis that all the carbon dioxide we're adding to the atmosphere will in just a few decades warm the earth and cause drastic changes in the weather.  For the first 14 of his 19 years in science, Soon said he conducted research on the sun without thinking about the role of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, quietly publishing scientific papers that opposed mainstream thought on global warming.  In the last five years, he said, his conscience drove him to start speaking out.

CORE Leader Blasts Global-warming Alarmists.  While most civil rights organizations are marching in lock-step with the leftist climate catastrophe alarmists, Roy Innis, leader of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) for 35 years, has broken ranks and is urging the poor and black communities to rebel against purveyors of global-warming gloom and doom and other radical environmentalists.

Messing with Mother Nature:  I'm not even sure what the term "climate change" means.  The climate is changing all the time.  Most of us out here in Flyover Land call it "the weather."  I have often posed the follow question to my global warming alarmist friends.  Let's just say for a minute that you are right and that the slight increase in the average temperature worldwide is caused by man and not a natural variation as seen throughout geological time.  Why is this bad?

Keep the lights on!  While I am all in favour of preserving the environment, the Eco-movement, with its religious fervour, no longer deserves to be taken seriously.  Assertions about imminent catastrophic global climate change are being questioned by thousands of reputable scientists, proving that the climate hysterics' claims of a "scientific consensus" are laughable.  What's more, for every assertion of pending ecological catastrophe there is a voice of reason that offers a counterview and debunks much of the "science" used to promote the hysteria.

The Myth Of Global Warming:  When Al Gore screams out in Senate testimony:  "The Earth Has A Fever" he is not so much developing a scientific theory as he is seeking to use fear to drive a political agenda.  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued four reports and in each one they have become more convinced that man is the chief cause of global warming, and that this warming is and will be seriously destructive to life as we know it.  We are told that "the science is settled" and that there is "a consensus" of scientists who believe we are headed for disaster if we do not stop burning fossil fuels.  Yet, there is a growing number of scientists who disagree.  Over 32,000 scientists have signed "The Petition Project" over 9,000 of them with PhDs proclaiming that man is not the chief cause of warming and that this warming will not be disastrous.

That Famous Consensus:  Yet another example of the 'research' masquerading as science that is used to reinforce the man-made global warming fraud.  One of the difficulties the green zealots have had is that Antarctica has been not warming but cooling, with the extent of its ice reaching record levels.

The Age of Anti-Carbonism:  Anti-carbonism rests on three foundational assumptions, all essentially in the realm of science:  First, warming is the result of man-made CO2.  Second, such warming is harmful, even catastrophic.  Third, a program of policies and actions can prevent these harms.  So far, despite more than $9 billion in research by the U.S. alone, none of these assumptions have been proven.

Yet more mind-boggling figures on global warming.  Last October the House of Commons passed, by 463 votes to three, the most expensive piece of legislation ever put through Parliament.  The only MP to question the cost of the Climate Change Act, requiring Britain to cut its CO2 emissions by 80 percent within 40 years, was Peter Lilley.  It was also Mr Lilley who, just before the MPs voted to stop runaway global warming, drew the House's attention to the fact that, outside, London was experiencing its first October snow for 74 years.

Scientist:  Global Warming Evidence, Claims Exaggerated.  Claims about the allegedly dire effects of global warming may be exaggerated, Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, said during a Thursday lecture at the Rockefeller Center at Dartmouth College in Hanover, N.H.  Michaels, who is also a state climatologist and professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, discussed the research published in his new book, "Climate of Extremes:  Global Warming Science They Don't Want You to Know."

Japan's boffins:  Global warming isn't man-made.  Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the UN and Western-backed hypothesis of climate change in a new report from its Energy Commission.  Three of the five researchers disagree with the UN's IPCC view that recent warming is primarily the consequence of man-made industrial emissions of greenhouse gases.  Remarkably, the subtle and nuanced language typical in such reports has been set aside.  One of the five contributors compares computer climate modelling to ancient astrology.  Others castigate the paucity of the US ground temperature data set used to support the hypothesis, and declare that the unambiguous warming trend from the mid-part of the 20th Century has ceased.

'Consensus' on global warming collapsing.  Prominent Japanese scientists have made a "dramatic break" with the IPCC findings.

Politics in the Guise of Pure Science.  Why, since President Obama promised to "restore science to its rightful place" in Washington, do some things feel not quite right?  First there was Steven Chu, the physicist and new energy secretary, warning The Los Angeles Times that climate change could make water so scarce by century's end that "there's no more agriculture in California" and no way to keep the state's cities going, either.  Then there was the hearing in the Senate to confirm another physicist, John Holdren, to be the president's science adviser.  Dr. Holdren was asked about some of his gloomy neo-Malthusian warnings in the past, like his calculation in the 1980s that famines due to climate change could leave a billion people dead by 2020.

California Legislator Wants to Halt Global Warming Act.  Citing devastating economic consequences and a lack of real-world environmental impact, California Assemblyman Dan Logue has introduced legislation to suspend AB 32, the state's Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006.  AB 32 directs the California Air Resources Board to impose numerous economic restrictions on the state with a goal of reducing California's greenhouse gas emissions by 25 percent by 2020.




The general public is becoming more skeptical

Less than Half of Americans Say Humans Causing Global Warming.  A newly released poll by the Pew Research Center reveals a majority of Americans believe either there is no solid evidence of recent global warming or recent global warming is caused by nature rather than human activity.

More Americans believe in God than man-made global warming.  More Americans believe in God than in man-made global warming, claims a new survey.  Some will seize on this as proof that Americans are credulous and anti-scientific, but I'd draw the opposite conclusion.  The survey — insofar as it can be taken seriously:  only just over 1000 people were consulted — suggests how remarkably resilient Americans are in the face of relentless environmental brainwashing.

Warming Plateau? Climatologists Face Inconvenient Truth.  For a quarter of a century now, environmental activists have been issuing predictions in the vein of the Catholic Church, warning people of the coming greenhouse effect armageddon.  Environmentalists bleakly predict global warming will usher in plagues of biblical dimensions — perpetual droughts, deluge-like floods and hurricanes of unprecedented force.  The number of people who believe in such a coming apocalypse, however, has considerably decreased.

An Inconvenient' Untruth.  In a New York Times op-ed today, physicist Adam Frank bemoans what he sees, not implausibly, as a decline in public respect for science.  One of his observations is worthy of Fox Butterfield:  "In 1989, when 'climate change' had just entered the public lexicon, 63 percent of Americans understood it was a problem.  Almost 25 years later, that proportion is actually a bit lower, at 58 percent."  After a quarter-century of wildly alarmist predictions that have failed to pan out — often with specific dates now in the past — we'd say the five-point decline [physicist Adam] Frank cites is dismayingly low.  And while Al Gore isn't a scientist, the Climategate scandal showed that some scientists are no more scrupulous than he is.

The Climate Circus Leaves Town.  If you had told environmentalists on Election Day 2008 that four years later there'd be no successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol, that a Democratic Congress would not have enacted any meaningful climate legislation, that domestic oil production would be soaring even after a catastrophic offshore oil spill, and that the environmental community would be having a lively internal debate about whether it should support reviving nuclear power, most might have marched into the ocean to drown themselves.

Green fatigue sets in: the world cools on global warming.  Fewer people now consider issues such as CO2 emissions, air and water pollution, animal species loss, and water shortages to be "very serious" than at any time in the last two decades, according to the poll of 22,812 people in 22 countries including Britain and the US.  Despite years of studies showing the impact of global warming on the planet, only 49 percent of people now consider climate change a very serious issue — far fewer than at the beginning of the worldwide financial crisis in 2009.

Most people no longer consider global warming a serious issue in a recession.  Concerns about the environment have reached a two-decade low since the start of the financial crisis, a global survey has revealed.  Fewer people now consider pollution, species loss and fresh water shortages to be 'very serious' problems than at any time since tracking began 20 years ago.  Fears over global warming are far lower than they were between 20003 and 2008, with less than one person in two regarding it as 'very serious'.

Voters Abandon Global Warming Fears.  The [Obama] administration has become famous for the billions wasted on so-called green jobs, green energy, and controlling greenhouse gases.  It is essential to understand that CO2 has never caused any of the warming cycles the Earth has been through over 4.5 billion years.  It shows up after climate cycle change occurs.  Moreover, the oceans that cover 71% of the Earth surface both stores and releases CO2.  Prior to Earth Day in 2011, a Gallup poll revealed just how Americans felt about various environmental issues.  Asked about a variety of concerns, the respondents rated global warming dead last with 48% saying they were either not much or not at all concerned about it.

Al Gore Goes on a Tirade.  According to a Harris poll in July, only 44 percent of us now believe carbon dioxide emissions are warming the Earth, down from 51 percent in 2009 and 71 percent in 2007.  Global temperatures peaked in 1998.  People have noticed winters are getting colder.  When evidence emerged in 2009 that scientists affiliated with the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Britain were "hiding the decline" by fudging data, few journalists paid much attention.  But a lot of Americans did, apparently.

Climate talks, then climate tax.  [Scroll down]  Meanwhile, back in America, the warmist arguments increasingly are facing challenge.  Today's temperature changes are indistinguishable from historic climate cycles, and the public is beginning to notice that renewable-energy schemes are unaffordable luxuries.

Global warming runs out of gas.  Perhaps Climategate gave a too-souring glimpse into the mixture of science and advocacy that has, to some extent, corrupted both. Perhaps, finally, the unctuousness, sanctimony and sputtering righteousness of the high profile environmentalists signal to most observers that they aren't really as certain of all this "science" as they pretend to be.  Either way this long green game has lost its fundamental energies.  The celebrities will find another wristband; the politicians will find a new vague distraction.

Perry says he doesn't believe in global warming.  GOP presidential candidate Rick Perry told New Hampshire voters Wednesday that he does not believe in manmade global warming, calling it a scientific theory that has not been proven.

69% Say It's Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research.  The debate over global warming has intensified in recent weeks after a new NASA study was interpreted by skeptics to reveal that global warming is not man-made.  While a majority of Americans nationwide continue to acknowledge significant disagreement about global warming in the scientific community, most go even further to say some scientists falsify data to support their own beliefs.

Cooling on global warming.  The fight against climate change has fizzled, with much of the public not believing or not caring.  That's why Obama tries to change the subject to jobs when he talk about energy policy.

A Flood of Bad Analysis.  Notably missing — so far — from the media coverage of the Mississippi River flooding is the usual hand-wringing about how this is surely another sign of global warming.  Oh, it's out there, you just have to look for it in some of the obscure green news sites and blogs.  I've been predicting for a while now that the mainstream media would grow tired of the climate issue, and it looks as though that time may have arrived.

Global Warming Alarmism Continues To Backfire.  A new Gallup poll is delivering bad news to global warming alarmists, showing Americans are becoming more and more skeptical of hysterical global warming claims. ... The Gallup poll shows only 32% of Americans believe global warming will pose a serious threat in their lifetimes.  Moreover, only 50% — the smallest number since Gallup began polling on the question in 2003 -- believe increases in the earth's temperature over the last century are due more to human activities than to natural causes.

Global Warming Alarmism's Long March through State and Local Institutions:  It's tempting to be complacent about the progress made against global warming alarmism.  Climate legislation seems to be stalled in the U.S. Congress.  A recent Gallup poll shows that concern about global warming among the American public is at historic lows; a mere 32% of Americans believe that global warming will affect them during their lifetimes.  We must keep in mind however that true believers don't give up simply because theirs is a minority opinion.  They just try in other ways.

Poll: Global warming fears cooling.  In a Gallup Poll released Monday [3/14/2011], 51 percent of respondents said they "worry a great deal or fair amount" about global warming, down from 66 percent in 2008.  Forty-one percent of respondents also said that the seriousness of global warming is "exaggerated" — the highest amount of skepticism in the survey since it was first conducted in 1997.

The UN has Become a Clear Danger to Our Energy Future and National Sovereignty.  [Christiana] Figueres is not blind to the fact that at least in the western world people are becoming more skeptical of the threat posed by global warming.  The vast majority of people do not understand the science that disputes and crushes man-made global warming theory but they can tell when they're being hoodwinked.  In 2006 a Gallup poll showed 30 percent of Americans thought that global warming in the news was "generally exaggerated."  Today that number has increased significantly to 48 percent and shows signs of continuing an upward trend.  To combat this kind of thinking the UN and particularly Ms. Figueres are making more and more alarming statements about how global warming is destroying the world now, and not some time in the distant future.

Global warming skeptic flattens Big Green's insulting Jim Oberstar.  Political novice Chip Cravaack came out of nowhere and beat one of the most powerful Democrats in the congressional Big Green machine:  Minnesota's longest serving, 18-term Rep. Jim Oberstar, chairman of an important committee and an influential global warming believer.

Dems ready for big push on global warming.  Democratic leaders are pushing legislation aimed at fighting global warming, despite significant opposition in both parties to any proposal that puts a price or a cap on carbon emissions.

Opponents of California global warming law turn in signatures for November measure.  Setting up what is expected to be a multimillion-dollar political battle between oil companies and Silicon Valley tech leaders, opponents of California's landmark global warming law turned in about 800,000 signatures Monday [5/3/2010] for a November ballot measure to suspend the law.

You Don't Need to Be a Weatherman but It May Help.  The [New York] Times reports that a study released this week by George Mason University and the University of Texas reveals that "only about half of the 571 television weathercasters surveyed believed that global warming was occurring and fewer than a third believed that climate change was caused mostly by human activities."  This is very bad news for environmental extremists, since the public seems to trust the weather guys more than Al Gore.

Liberals think you're stupid.
Congressman Says Climate Science Should Be Simplified to 'Sixth Grade Level'.  Americans are growing skeptical about the threat of global warming because "they don't get" the complex information that scientists deliver, according to Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.).  Unless scientists can simplify their arguments to the level of newspapers that "print at the sixth grade level," Cleaver said, the public is "going to get a headache and bail out."

Global warming challenge:  The possibility of suspending California's Global Warming Solutions Act, a law unlikely to change temperatures but certain to wreak economic havoc, appears to have increased dramatically.  Two large Texas-based refineries have pledged as much as $2 million to pay for signature-gathering to place an initiative on the November ballot that would suspend the global warming law if passed by voters, the Los Angeles Times reported, citing Sacramento sources.

Why Newsweek is the Punch Line.  [Scroll down]  This eco-alarmism from Newsweek is truly fascinating, considering the fact that as of October 26, 2009, according to statistics from the Pew Research Center, more Americans believe in haunted houses than believe in manmade global warming.

Understanding the Global Warming Delusion.  During the past year, the theory of man-made global warming took some serious hits.  More than a few people are now saying the whole thing was a lie or an elaborate hoax, and that someday we'll be laughing at how foolish we were to "fall for it." ... Despite wall-to-wall promotion of global warming alarmism by the media and businesses seeking to cash in on public concerns, only 36 percent of Americans believe global warming is man-made, according to a Pew Research Center poll released in October.  That's down from 47 percent the year before.

Public Opinion About Global Warming:  Americans Growing Increasingly Skeptical.  Polling data reveals Americans are growing increasingly skeptical about man-made global warming fears and claims.  Voters are rejecting so-called "solutions" like cap-and-trade as well. ... [A] Gallup survey found global warming ranked dead last in the U.S. among environmental issues — 8th out of 8 environmental issues — March 2009.

Poll finds nearly 2 in 3 Americans are Manmade Global Warming 'Deniers'.  According to a Pew Research Poll released today, the number of Americans believing there to be "solid evidence that the earth is warming" has dropped 14% since last year.  And the biggest drop — 22% — was among those identifying themselves as independents.

Bad climate for global worriers.  Although the political and media drumbeat of alarm is incessant, a Pew poll shows that only 57 percent of Americans think there is solid evidence of global warming, down 20 points in three years.  Gallup shows that only 1 percent of Americans rank the environment as their biggest worry.

Polls Show Americans Growing Increasingly Skeptical.  Polling data reveals Americans are growing increasingly skeptical about man-made global warming fears and claims  Voters are rejecting so-called "solutions" like cap-and-trade as well.

Fewer Americans See Solid Evidence of Global Warming.  There has been a sharp decline over the past year in the percentage of Americans who say there is solid evidence that global temperatures are rising.  And fewer also see global warming as a very serious problem — 35% say that today, down from 44% in April 2008.

It's Alternative Media That's Cooling Global Warming Hysteria.  The latest Rasmussen poll reports that the lowest number of voters ever polled —one-in-three —believe that global warming is caused by human activity.  That's an astonishing figure, especially considering the all-out green propaganda assault the mainstream media (MSM) exposes the public to on a daily basis. ... So despite a MSM that spoon feeds its audience the latest alarmist [nonsense] about how manmade CO2 kills polar bears, threatens coastal cities and islands, incubates all manner of pestilence and so on and so on, the number of people actually buying into their still-unsubstantiated carbo-chondria continues to shrink.

Just another myth used to steal your taxes.  The reality is that folks are catching on to the fact that man-made global warming is a hoax, an inconvenient truth attested to by more and more scientists.  Like any good con man, Obama wants to hurry the shakedown before his mark figures out his game.  Democrats actually said that "if we do not act now, the climate will soon be out of our control."  This, of course, raises the question:  Just when was the climate ever under our control?

Study Finds Even Climate 'Alarmed' Americans Don't Want Cap-and-Trade.  According to an MIT study, Waxman-Markey "could cost the average household more than $3,900 per year."  A similar Heritage Foundation study predicted "cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses of at least $1.7 trillion that could reach $4.8 trillion by 2030 (in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars)."  Others predict between 3 million and 7 million manufacturing jobs either driven overseas or lost entirely.  And I'd certainly be remiss were I to neglect to add my usual reminder that it's all for naught as warming stopped in 1998 and there's absolutely no proof whatsoever that any actions of mankind might influence global temperatures 1°C — in either direction.

Green nonsense.  An unusually cold winter (it snowed in Saudi Arabia and Iraq; temperatures fell to minus 80 degrees in Siberia) has been followed by an unusually cool spring (it snowed in North Dakota in June for the first time in 60 years).  This may be why only 42 percent of respondents in a June Rasmussen poll published think human activity is causing global warming, and many who do don't see it as a serious problem.  In a Gallup poll in March, warming ranked last among eight environmental concerns.

The hot one from the Democrats.  You can't blame the Democrats for hurrying to enact their hot-air legislation.  The public is finally paying attention, recognizing the global warming crisis for what it is, a giant scam that will cost every American plenty.  The globe isn't warming — it's actually cooling, in fact — and there's no crisis.

Sins Of Emission.  The public has grown skeptical of the global warming threat.  Polls show a growing number of Americans think the risks are inflated and consider many other issues to be in greater need of attention.  Pew Research found that the public ranks global warming dead last out of 20 concerns facing the country.

Increased Number Think Global Warming Is "Exaggerated".  Although a majority of Americans believe the seriousness of global warming is either correctly portrayed in the news or underestimated, a record-high 41% now say it is exaggerated.  This represents the highest level of public skepticism about mainstream reporting on global warming seen in more than a decade of Gallup polling on the subject.

Rasmussen:  Only 41 Percent of Americans Believe in Man-Made Global Warming.  John Kerry is pushing for a costly global emissions treaty and Hillary Clinton testified at her confirmation hearing that "climate change" an "unambiguous security threat."  But it appears a majority of Americans don't buy the theory of anthropogenic global warming.

59% Don't Believe Man Is Warming the Planet.  The number of people who believe that long-term planetary trends are responsible for the relatively small increase in temperatures in recent decades rose ten percent since last April while those viewing it as a man-made problem has decreased by six percent.  Talk about your inconvenient truths!

Warm At The Bottom.  Global warmongers have been hectoring the public for years about the dangers of Earth overheating due to man's emissions of carbon dioxide.  Through it all, the public has evaluated the warnings — and found them wanting.

Global Warming is So Yesterday.  The brilliant stroke claiming that any weather at all is evidence that something is very wrong works on idiots, ideologues, and children too young to remember every year it gets hot in the summer and cold in the winter.  But evidence is accumulating that most normal people are fed up with being lectured about the need to conserve energy by people who fly in private jets and own multiple mansions.  Fifty-six percent of the British public, for instance, believes that global warming fears are "exaggerated."

What Green Means.  The environmental left is conceding that its effort to "fight" global warming is in trouble because the public has tuned out the message.  So the plan is to obscure the agenda even more.

Sorry, Al Gore, but Public Cares About the Economy, Not Global Warming.  He admits that it's counterintuitive, but Gallup Poll Editor Frank Newport says he sees no evidence that Al Gore's campaign against global warming is winning.  "It's just not caught on," says Newport.  "They have failed."  Or, more bluntly:  "Any measure that we look at shows Al Gore's losing at the moment.  The public is just not that concerned."  What the public is worried about:  the economy.  Newport says the economy trumps the environment right now, a strong indicator that President Obama's bid to put a cap-and-trade pollution regime into operation isn't likely to be politically popular.

On Guns and Climate, the Elites Are Out of Touch.  Over the past decade, the Gallup organization has been asking Americans whether the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated or generally correct.  From 1998 to 2007, except for the run-up to the 2004 election, they said it was generally serious by roughly a 2-1 margin — 66 to 30 percent in 2006, for example.  But in March 2009, that margin slipped to only 57 to 41 percent, with two-thirds of Republicans and nearly half of independents saying concern is exaggerated.

Don't waste time cutting emissions.  We are often told that tackling global warming should be the defining task of our age — that we must cut emissions immediately and drastically.  But people are not buying the idea that, unless we act, the planet is doomed.  Several recent polls have revealed Americans' growing skepticism.

Uncertain climate.  A person needn't be a buffoon or political hack to be skeptical of global warming.  That would be news to The Washington Post's news desk, however.  A Post article on May 19 falsely reported that there is a "consensus" among scientists and a growing portion of the American public that human carbon emissions are causing a dangerous, long-term increase in worldwide temperatures.  The facts, overwhelmingly, show no such consensus.

Global Warming Consensus Melts.  Although mainstream reporting continues to exaggerate the consensus among the scientific community, the tide is indeed turning.  In a recent Gallup Poll, a record high 41% say that the seriousness of global warming is exaggerated.  That is a 6% increase from the 2008 poll.

Report on Conference on Climate Change.  Recent Gallup polling indicates that 41% of Americans now believe global warming is overhyped (a record high) and other polling by Rasmussen reveals that a majority of voters believe mankind is not the principle cause of any climate change.

Science Museum's climate change poll backfires.  The museum's Prove It! website, which is designed to influence politicians at the Copenhagen climate summit in December, allows members of the public to pledge their support, or lack of it, to the environmentalist cause. ... By Saturday [10/24/2009], 2,385 people who took the poll said "count me out" compared to just 415 who said "count me in", after being asked whether they agreed with the statement:  "I've seen the evidence.  And I want the government to prove they're serious about climate change by negotiating a strong, effective, fair deal at Copenhagen."

Poll:  Just 37% Call Global Warming High Priority.  With world leaders debating how to address climate change in Copenhagen and the U.S. Senate poised to take up a climate bill in the coming months, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds that just 37 percent of Americans believe the issue should be a priority for government leaders.  That's a significant drop from April of 2007, when 52 percent of those surveyed said the issue should be a high priority.

Climate scepticism 'on the rise', BBC poll shows.  There has been an increase in the number of British people who are sceptical about climate change, a poll commissioned by BBC News has suggested.  It showed that 25% of those questioned did not think global warming was happening, an increase of 10% since a similar poll was conducted in November.

Effort underway to suspend California's global-warming law.  Republican politicians and conservative activists are launching a ballot campaign to suspend California's landmark global-warming law, in what they hope will serve as a showcase for a national backlash against climate regulations.  Supporters say they have "solid commitments" of nearly $600,000 to pay signature gatherers for a November initiative aimed at delaying curbs on the greenhouse gas emissions of power plants and factories until the state's unemployment rate drops.

It's Getting Harder to Scare the American People.  The climate alarmists dominate the media and run the government.  But the American people still aren't buying the alarmist propaganda.

Report says claims of livestock causing global warming are false.  [Scroll down slowly]  Week by week the AGW collapse intensifies. Himalayan glaciers, polar bears, Arctic ice, Amazon rainforests, all discredited.  Now it turns out the great cow-burp scare is bovine excrement too.  The global warming scam is, to the majority of people, an object of derision.  The scientific community has also at last wakened up.  They are smelling the coffee in more and more institutions these days.

NYT:  56% Trust Weathercasters More Than Gore On Global Warming.  "A study released this year by researchers at Yale and George Mason found that 56 percent of Americans trusted weathercasters to tell them about global warming far more than they trusted other news media or public figures like former Vice President Al Gore."  So wrote the New York Times's Leslie Kaufman in a rather surprising piece published Tuesday [3/30/2010].

Americans Not Inclined To Pay More To Fight Global Warming.  Democratic Senators John Kerry and Joe Lieberman declared yesterday [6/15/2010] that a new EPA study shows their new global warming legislation won't cost Americans much after all.  But so far most Americans don't show an inclination to pay anything for such legislation.

Global-warming Alarmism Dying a Slow Death.  The climate alarmists were already doing poorly in the United States before the Copenhagen failure.  An October 2009 Pew poll showed that only 36 percent of Americans even believed in man-made global warming.  The issue consistently ranked last among public priorities.  Commentators referred to the movement as a "cult," and critics ridiculed the theories and dangerous "solutions" all over the Internet.  And that was before the proverbial hitting of the fan late last year.  In November 2009, a scandal now known as Climategate changed everything.

Changing The Climate In California.  An initiative to suspend California's draconian climate law has qualified for the November ballot.  The people can now choose between jobs and junk science and fight hot air at the ballot box.




The International Conference on Climate Change

Heartland is keeping the lights on.  I'm heading to New York tomorrow (at my own expense) for a conference organized by the Heartland Institute and billed as "The world's largest-ever gathering of global warming skeptics." ... This second such annual event will feature dozens of presentations by a class of people claimed not to exist by environmental extremists:  top scientists and other researchers who question the conclusions of the United Nations' highly-politicized Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Natural Global Warmings Have Become More Moderate.  This week, at the 2nd international conference of man-made warming skeptics sponsored by the Heartland Institute in New York, I'll predict the earth's warming/cooling trends for the 21st century.  I will be among splendid company such as John Coleman, founder of the weather channel, Ross McKitrick, who debunked the "hockey stick" study, physicist Willie Soon, and many other presenters with brilliant credentials.  A thousand scientists, economists, and skeptics from every walk of life will meet to discuss the current climate indicators.

Bucking the media trend on global warming 'crisis'.  Speakers at a conference on climate change are making the case that the alarmism behind the global-warming bandwagon is politically motivated, has nothing to do with science, and could affect the sovereignty of the U.S.

The Orwellian Presidential Bully Pulpit.  The president brazenly sermonizes against scientifically challenged conservatives while triggering federal funding of research that is scientifically controversial and preparing to impose cap and trade penalties on corporate America in deference to global warming junk science.  While you won't hear much about this in the mainstream media, there is a meeting currently taking place in New York City that serves as an ironic backdrop for Obama's embryonic stem cell order.

Voters should ask politicians one simple question:  'Why do you want to raise my energy prices?'
The crumbling case for global warming.  The conference — titled "Global Warming:  Was it ever really a crisis?" — attracted close to 700 participants.  Most of those I met displayed almost joy at being among people who dared to stand up to the mindless climate "consensus" and the refusal to debate, or even look at, the facts ... President Obama is considering a cap-and-trade system with which Canada would be forced to co-ordinate its own policies.  The conference made clear how damaging and pointless such a policy would be.

2009 International Conference on Climate Change: Update #2.  Former Vice President Al Gore, the most prominent proponent of global warming alarmism, was the target of biting humor and ridicule Monday at the second International Conference on Climate Change.  U.S. Congressman Tom McClintock (R-Calif.) and scientist Arthur Robinson, who has assembled a list of more than 31,000 U.S. scientists skeptical of global warming alarmism, in separate speeches ripped what they saw as Gore's hypocrisy in urging energy conservation while expanding his own carbon footprint and with inconsistencies in Gore's popular movie "An Inconvenient Truth."

2009 International Conference on Climate Change: Update #3.  Willie Soon, a Harvard University astrophysicist and geophysicist with scores of peer-reviewed papers and books to his credit, said he is "embarrassed and puzzled" by the shallow science in papers that undergird the proposition that the Earth faces a climate crisis caused by global warming.  Soon told the second International Conference on Climate Change here, "We have a system (of peer reviewing scientific literature) that is truly, truly appalling."

Green Child Abuse:  Has it occurred to you that constantly telling children and teens that "global warming" is real and that the Earth is in deadly peril constitutes child abuse?  That thought came to me as I enjoyed some of the excellent seminars and speeches during the March 8-10 second annual Conference on Climate Change.  Here were some of the nation's leading climatologists and others spelling out in detail precisely why there is no global warming and, indeed, why the Earth is now into a decade-old cooling trend.  The experts believe that the Earth will stay in this trend for easily another decade or two, maybe three.

NYT Writer Deceitfully Claims Climate Conference Disharmony.  You'd expect a gathering of over 700 reputable scientists, economists, and policy makers tackling an issue as topical and media-hyped as global warming to be big news.  And you know it would be, had the goal of their discussions and presentations been to parrot and propagate the conclusions of the alarmist mainstream.  But instead, attendees of the International Conference on Climate Change arrived on Sunday prepared to put anthropogenic warming claims to the test, and for their sins the publicity they received ranged from none to insulting.

Nobody listens to the real climate change experts.  [Scroll down]  What a striking contrast this was to the second conference, which I attended with 700 others in New York, organised by the Heartland Institute under the title Global Warming: Was It Ever Really A Crisis?.  In Britain this received no coverage at all, apart from a sneering mention by the Guardian, although it was addressed by dozens of expert scientists, not a few of world rank, who for professional standing put those in Copenhagen in the shade.  Led off with stirring speeches from the Czech President Vaclav Klaus, the acting head of the European Union, and Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, perhaps the most distinguished climatologist in the world, the message of this gathering was that the scare over global warming has been deliberately stoked up for political reasons and has long since parted company with proper scientific evidence.

The Clear and Cohesive Message of the International Conference on Climate Change.  They came to talk a wide range of subjects, from climatology to energy policy, from computer climate models to cap-and-trade, from greenhouse gas (GHG) effects to solar irradiation.  But most of all they came to help spread the word that the answer to the question posed by this year's theme — Global warming:  Was it ever really a crisis? — is a resounding NO.  Sunday's keynote speakers wasted no time making that point.

You've Got to Have Heartland.  All scientists, both the alarmist warm-mongers and the pacifist cooler heads, agree that this temperature pattern would result if man were causing global warming, reflecting the pattern of CO2 and other greenhouse gases that would prevail in the atmosphere.  Warming due to solar variations or other natural causes would not leave such a fingerprint pattern.  Higher quality temperature data from weather balloons and satellites now enable us to settle the man-made global warming debate definitively.  The observed result is just the opposite of the modeled global warming fingerprint pattern.  The data from weather balloons shows no increasing warming with altitude, but rather a slight cooling, with no hotspot.  The satellite data confirms this result, no increasing temperature with altitude, no hotspot, no fingerprint.

Physicist counters climate-change models.  'The global warming hypothesis is dead, scientifically' Ed Berry is making some noise about climate change, and he's singing a different tune than former Vice President Al Gore and his "Inconvenient Truth."  Berry, 73, an accomplished atmospheric physicist who recently moved to the Flathead Valley from Sacramento, Calif., was among about 700 scientists who attended the International Conference on Climate Change in New York City March 7-10.

Global Warming Skeptics Gather in NYC.  One of the presenters, Don Easterbrook, professor of geology at Western Washington University in Bellingham, Washington, said before the conference, "The most recent global warming that began in 1977 is over, and the Earth has entered a new phase of global cooling."  Based on data he was scheduled to present in New York, Easterbrook said a switch in Pacific Ocean currents "assures about three decades of global cooling. New solar data showing unusual absence of sun spots and changes in the sun's magnetic field suggest ... the present episode of global cooling may be more severe than the cooling of 1945 to 1977."

Global warming? Not so fast, skeptics say at meeting.  U.S. Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (sic) was in a froth, and his audience loved it.  The California Republican was talking about global warming and could barely contain his disgust.  "Al Gore has been wrong all along!" Rohrabacher yelled into the microphone.  "This is outrageous!  All of this is wrong!  The people who have stifled this debate have an agenda that is just frightening!"  Welcome to the third annual International Conference on Climate Change, a daylong session of speeches and scientific presentations that took place Tuesday just blocks from the U.S. Capitol.  Almost no media covered the event.

The Editor says...
Congreeman Rohrbacher was in a froth?  The article above exhibits a few telltale signs of bias and ignorance, like misspelling the Congressman's name, but it is worth including here anyway.

This is an original compilation, Copyright © 2013 by Andrew K. Dart



The Doomsday Bias:  In his inaugural address, President Barack Obama took a dig at his backward predecessor by promising to "restore science to its rightful place" in America.  So why, days before he was sworn in, did Obama choose a failed prophet of the apocalypse to become his most influential scientist? ... [Dr. John P.] Holdren's particular brand of science is infected by what we can only call a doomsday bias.  Over the past 40 years, he has warned of population-growth induced "ecocide," "global cooling," global warming due to heat dissipation from power plants, nuclear Armageddon, and — this week — "climate disruption" caused by increased concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases.

Just the Facts on Global Warming Alarmism.  [Columnist George Will recently] took a stroll down memory lane, through the debris of 1970s predictions about the near certainty of calamitous global cooling.  Concerning those predictions, The New York Times was — as it is today in a contrary crusade — a megaphone for the alarmed, as when (May 21, 1975) it reported that "a major cooling of the climate" was "widely considered inevitable" because it was "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."  Now the Times, a trumpet that never sounds retreat in today's war against warming, has afforded this column an opportunity to revisit another facet of this subject — meretricious journalism in the service of dubious certitudes.

George Will Q&A on his recent column.  Bill Steigerwald of the Pittsburgh Tribune Review decided to ask George Will a few questions about his recent column. ... Will was recently villified for his column and for his printing of his interpretation on arctic sea ice in particular.

Physicist Compares Global Warming Craze to Aztec Human Sacrifices.  A leading "climate skeptic" met with the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment on February 25th.  Dr. William Happer holds an endowed chair in physics at Princeton, served as the senior scientist at the Department of Energy — and was reportedly fired by then-Vice President Al Gore for disagreeing with Gore's belief in man-made global warming.

Clear Thinking on Global Warming:  [Professor William] Happer is the Cyrus Fogg Bracket Professor of Physics at Princeton University.  He was also the Director of Energy Research at DOE from 1990-93, where he supervised all of DOE's work on climate change.  He says this:  "The climate is warming and CO2 is increasing. Doesn't this prove that CO2 is causing global warming through the greenhouse effect?  No, the current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO2.  There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age.  These earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels.  The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide.  Over the past ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling.  This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC models."

'Apocalyptic climate predictions' mislead the public, say experts.  In an article published on the Guardian website, Dr Vicky Pope ... writes:  "Having to rein in extraordinary claims that the latest extreme [event] is all due to climate change is at best hugely frustrating and at worse enormously distracting  Overplaying natural variations in the weather as climate change is just as much a distortion of science as underplaying them to claim that climate change has stopped or is not happening."

Former astronaut speaks out on global warming.  Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt, who walked on the moon and once served New Mexico in the U.S. Senate, doesn't believe that humans are causing global warming.  "I don't think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect," said Schmitt, who is among 70 skeptics scheduled to speak next month at the International Conference on Climate Change in New York.

Former astronaut scoffs at global warming.  Harrison "Jack" Schmitt, one of the last men to walk on the moon and a former U.S. senator from New Mexico, doesn't buy the idea that humans are causing global warming.  "I don't think the human effect is significant compared to the natural effect," he said. ... Scientists who disagree with this scenario "are being intimidated," Schmitt said.  "They've seen too many of their colleagues lose grant funding when they haven't gone along with the so-called political consensus that we're in a human-caused global warming."

The Incurious Case of the Carbon Alarmists.  Question global warming theory by commenting on an alarmist-based site and a reply will likely direct you to the writings of blogger Coby Beck.  A self-described software developer specializing in "artificial intelligence," Mr. Beck is the author of "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic" -- a series of phenomenally popular blog posts seen as unassailable dogma among his fellow believers.  Had it been his intent, Beck could not possibly have forwarded more solid grounds for delegitimizing his movement.  "Climate Skeptic" is a mash of remarkably cursory, blinkered responses, leaving unanswered questions readily apparent to the cold, scientific observer.

Cold Hard Facts and the 'Big-Boned Climate' Theory.  I'm curious to see how the alarmists try to spin this.  They are beginning to sound like little children caught with their hands in the cookie jar, desperate to find a better explanation than that they were stealing cookies.

We're Not Going to Melt.  Don't invest your life's savings in windmills and solar-powered air conditioners just yet.  While the earth does seem to have warmed slightly over the past century, the causes and implications are anything but clear.  Moreover, the last ten years have seen a global plateau in temperature change.  Those who claim that we're racing towards a fiery apocalypse are simply not basing their views on science.  In fact, some scientists are now hypothesizing that we'll see a cooling period in the near future, as we saw from 1940 to 1975.

'Global Warming Is Lies' Claims Documentary.  Accepted theories about man causing global warming are "lies" claims a controversial new TV documentary.  'The Great Global Warming Swindle' — backed by eminent scientists — is set to rock the accepted consensus that climate change is being driven by humans.  The programme ... will see a series of respected scientists attack the "propaganda" that they claim is killing the world's poor.

Obama Drops Warming Hype for News Conference.  Last night, Barack Obama promised the nation that the so-called "stimulus package" would "create or protect" 4 million jobs that "America desperately needs," and offered a few examples.  But there was a curious omission on his part when so-called "green jobs" were incorporated.  In promoting the building of wind turbines, solar panels, and fuel-efficient cars, the only benefit he attributed was lowering "our dependence on foreign oil."  Not a single word about "global warming" or its intellectually dishonest surrogate, "climate change." ... Perchance he and his advisors have finally grasped the significance of 59% of Americans who don't believe that warmists have met their burden of proof that manmade emissions are cooking the planet?

Facts Leave Global Warming Proponents Out In The Cold.  When dealing with the latest hysterical claims about global warming, it's essential to keep in mind a fundamental principle of science:  Theories must be testable.  A scientific theory describes a predicted outcome and one or more means by which the theory can be tested.  Far from supporting a sound scientific theory that humans are creating a global warming crisis, last week's assertion by prominent global warming alarmists that Antarctica is getting warmer illustrates the unscientific, flip-flopping nature of global warming predictions.

Even the left is now laughing at Global Warming.  So-called "global warming" has shrunk from problem to punch line.  And now, Leftists are laughing, too.  It's hard not to chuckle at the idea of Earth boiling in a carbon cauldron when the news won't cooperate.

California Board Approves Anti-Global Warming Plan.  The plan was preceded by an 18-month-long public process with scores of workshops and public meetings and hundreds of people testifying before the board. ... Almost every participant — from business to community leaders — had something critical to say.  Perhaps most interesting is the unanimous condemnation of the board's economic analysis by its own selected peer reviewers.  All six economists selected by CARB to peer review the analysis found it deeply flawed.

War Over The Climate Heats Up Even As Climate Itself Cools Down.  [Scroll down]  Even Al Gore no longer claims that there are only one or two climate skeptics.  Their number has been growing steadily.  Last year, 100 prominent climate scientists signed a letter to the U.N. secretary general, warning against accepting the IPCC results.  So far, 650 climate scientists have expressed their skepticism about anthropogenic global warming.  And 31,000 scientists, about one-third of them with Ph.D degrees, have signed the Oregon Petition against the Kyoto Protocol.

The End Is Not Nigh.  Asked [in February 2006] if the world had seven years to implement measures on climate change before the problem reached a "tipping point," [Prime Minister Tony] Blair answered:  "Yes."  This is the most recent and perhaps most dramatic in a long series [of] statements by prominent politicians about the putative threat of man-made global warming.  On what did Tony Blair base his alarming view?  New scientific insights?  Or on an unshakable secular faith, which seems to fill the vacuum left by the demise of traditional religion?  I surmise the latter.  Because in the field of science there seems to be some shift towards a more sober look at the climate issue, witness the numerous studies which appear in peer-reviewed journals, which are either explicitly critical of, or implicitly inconsistent with the man-made global warming hypothesis.

Despite the hot air, the Antarctic is not warming up.  The measures being proposed to meet what President Obama last week called the need to "roll back the spectre of a warming planet" threaten to land us with the most colossal bill mankind has ever faced.  It might therefore seem peculiarly important that we can trust the science on which all the alarm over global warming is based, But nothing has been more disconcerting in this respect than the methods used by promoters of the warming cause over the years to plug some of the glaring holes in their scientific argument.

The Real Climate Deniers.  What you should do, Messrs. Obama, Gore and McCain, is realize the debate is over — there is no global warming.  Yes, between 1970 and 1998 there was a minor warming of a mere .34°F, as verified by the NASA satellite records.  However, there has been no notable increase in the global temperature since 1998, (humiliatingly confirmed even by the United Nations).  Furthermore, your designer greenhouse gas — carbon dioxide — is neither a pollutant nor a problem.

Cooling global warming hysteria just one story of 2008.  This is an ethical or political problem, not a problem in climate science.  The crux of it is that major research grants and, in this country, prestigious Canada Research Chairs, have been awarded on the assumption something must be done to stop CO2 from destroying the world.  Those scientists who are the current beneficiaries of a moral panic they help sustain are squirming not because of their ethical transgressions but because of scientific facts.

Prominent Scientist Fired By Gore Says Warming Alarm "Mistaken".  Award winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer, who was reportedly fired by former Vice President Al Gore in 1993 for failing to adhere to Gore's scientific views, has now declared man-made global warming fears "mistaken."  "I am convinced that the current alarm over carbon dioxide is mistaken," Happer, who has published over 200 scientific papers, told EPW on December 22, 2008.

Climate Crisis = Logic Crisis.  The debate over "climate change" is no longer a matter of science.  In the past forty years, the proponents of "climate change" have written and rewritten their hypotheses to fit the empirical facts.  In logic this is sometimes called "The fallacy of saving the hypothesis."  There is no honest discussion when the topic of a debate is constantly controlled, and occasionally altered, by the proponents of one side of the argument.  Climate change proponents have been doing this for years.

The ETS:  Completely unnecessary.  The signature of an increased greenhouse effect consists of two features: a hotspot about 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics, and a combination of broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric warming.  The signature of ozone depletion consists just of the second feature. ... The radiosonde measurements for 1979-1999 show broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric warming, but they show no tropical hotspot.  Not even a small one.  Empirically, we therefore know that an increased greenhouse effect was not a significant cause of the recent global warming.

Pre-industrial CO2 levels were about the same as today.  Why we are told otherwise?  Proponents of human induced warming and climate change told us that an increase in CO2 precedes and causes temperature increases.  They were wrong.  They told us the late 20th century was the warmest on record.  They were wrong.  They told us, using the infamous "hockey stick" graph, the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) did not exist.  They were wrong.  They told us global temperatures would increase through 2008 as CO2 increased.  They were wrong.  They told us Arctic ice would continue to decrease in area through 2008.  They were wrong.  They told us October 2008 was the second warmest on record.  They were wrong.

New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears.  An abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months has prompted scientists to declare that fear of catastrophic man-made global warming "bites the dust" and the scientific underpinnings for alarm may be "falling apart."

Fanaticism vs. science.  I don't recall a single analyst who predicted that the price for a barrel of crude oil would triple within two years, then drop back to previous levels in less than two months. ... At the least, the inability to predict the price of gas two months from now or who will play in this year's Super Bowl should make us somewhat leery of predictions regarding the end of civilization as we know it in a century or so due to global warming.

Truth, Economics, and Politics.  As global warming pathologists insist that increasing carbon dioxide drives planetary meltdown, scientists who actually watch the climate trends — as well as all the forces that affect it — see something different.  They observe unchanging (if not declining) temperatures over the last dozen years despite increased global CO2 emissions during the same time period.  They see Antarctic ice swells despite a greater media emphasis on Arctic ice loss.  They see a current warming bias across temperature monitoring stations; a cooling pattern since 1997; and a valid theory that solar cycles affect climate change more than any other phenomena.

The Climate-Change Reformation.  Al Gore — outdone only by L. Ron Hubbard in his ability to weave science fiction into a religion — is reforming the climate change faith, and turning it toward the discussion of energy independence and American financial viability.  The truth, alas, has proved too inconvenient to ignore.  Among non-partisan researchers, there is now little doubt that human-generated carbon dioxide makes only an insignificant contribution to climate change.

Dangerous human-caused warming can neither be demonstrated nor measured.  There is no evidence, neither empirical nor theoretical, that carbon dioxide emissions from industrial and other human activities can have any effect on global climate.  In addition, the claims so often made that there is a consensus among climate scientists that global warming is the result of increased man-made emissions of CO2, has no basis in fact.  The results of accurate measurements of global temperatures continue to be analysed by the international laboratories, now with 30 years experience in this process while a large number of scientists continue to perform high quality research.  The results of these activities clearly demonstrate a wide range of errors in the IPCC projections.

Illusions of Climate Science.  How have we come to a situation where, as some polls suggest, most Australians are so concerned about dangerous climate change that they will put aside the very tools and technologies that have sustained clean air, clean water, nutritious food and long life?  More importantly, is the perceived danger real and will the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions avert the perceived danger?  Although there are many uncertainties to be resolved, it is clear that the community has been the subject of more than two decades of heavily biased propaganda.

The Nonsense of Global Warming:  The idea that human beings have changed and are changing the basic climate system of the Earth through their industrial activities and burning of fossil fuels — the essence of the Greens' theory of global warming — has about as much basis in science as Marxism and Freudianism.  Global warming, like Marxism, is a political theory of actions, demanding compliance with its rules.  Those who buy in to global warming wish to drastically curb human economic and industrial activities, regardless of the consequences for people, especially the poor.

Truly inconvenient truths about climate change being ignored.  [Professor Richard] Lindzen believes another problem with climate science is that in America and Europe it is heavily colonised by environmental activists.  Here are just two examples that indicate the scale of the problem:  the spokesman for the American Meteorological Society is a former staffer for Al Gore, and realclimate.org, probably the world's most authoritative alarmist web site, was started by a public relations firm serving environmental causes.  None of this is necessarily sinister, but the next time you hear a scientist or scientific organisation warning of climate doom, you might want to follow the money trail.

So much for 'settled science'.  You may have heard earlier this month that global warming is now likely to take break for a decade or more.  There will be no more warming until 2015, perhaps later. … There may have been the odd global-warming scientist in the past decade who allowed that warming would pause periodically in its otherwise relentless upward march, but he or she was a rarity.  If anything, the opposite is true:  Almost no climate scientist who backed the alarmism ever expected warming would take anything like a 10 or 15-year hiatus.

Scientists urge caution on global warming.  Climate change skeptics on Capitol Hill are quietly watching a growing accumulation of global cooling science and other findings that could signal that the science behind global warming may still be too shaky to warrant cap-and-trade legislation.

A Change in Climate for Climate Change Policy.  Come what dramatic political and economic changes may occur, a refrain persists within the media, industry, and the U.S. Congress that onerous federal mandates to regulate carbon dioxide (CO2) are inevitable.  I don't think so.  In less than a year, many unanticipated developments have complicated the political dynamics of "ending the era of fossil fuels" through the enactment of carbon reduction mandates.

Carbon tax is just tilting at windmills.  The one certainty of climate change (anthropogenic or not) is that it is unstoppable.  Government advertisements suggest worst-case scenarios but they do not concede that these are no less likely should Australia cut its carbon dioxide output.  Whether or not you believe in man-made climate change, it's out of our control.  More significantly, it is out of the control of every political leader. ... At some point ... the electorate will realise they are being asked to pay for something they cannot have: a guarantee against climate change.

A Spotless Sun.  There's a wonderful irony in the fact that, back in the 1970s, the Greens were issuing warnings and even writing books about the coming Ice Age.  They would abandon this issue, based in well-known and accepted solar science, in favor of a vast international hoax alleging man-made global warming.  As the global warming hoax begins to lose its power to influence public opinion and policy, the Greens are not likely to be heeded for a long time to come because they were right about an Ice Age and lying through their teeth about global warming.

Climate hysterics v heretics in an age of unreason.  It has been a tough year for the high priests of global warming in the US.  First, NASA had to correct its earlier claim that the hottest year on record in the contiguous US had been 1998, which seemed to prove that global warming was on the march.  It was actually 1934.  Then it turned out the world's oceans have been growing steadily cooler, not hotter, since 2003.  Meanwhile, the winter of 2007 was the coldest in the US in decades, after Al Gore warned us that we were about to see the end of winter as we know it.

N.J. Legislator Says Global-Warming Regs Blown Away by New Scientific Data.  New Jersey Assemblyman Michael Doherty today [8/15/2008] said new scientific data justify repealing the state's wide-ranging list of regulations aimed at reducing global warming.  The Republican urged Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine to hold off on proposing any new regulations associated with New Jersey's Global Warming Response Act as skepticism grows among scientists about the cause and severity of global warming.  He specifically called for the legislature to repeal the law when it returns to business after Labor Day.

A warming theory that has melted away.  I was clearly wrong when I said that [oLIVER] Tickell's claim for 70-80 metres of sea level rise had maxed out campaigners' scare potential because that means all ice is melted.  Showing an amazing ability to raise the stakes none the less, Tickell now talks about sea level going 100m higher.

Wilson row over green 'alarmists'.  The Environment Minister Sammy Wilson has angered green campaigners by describing their view on climate change as a "hysterical psuedo-religion".  In an article in the News Letter, Mr Wilson said he believed it occurred naturally and was not man-made.

Garnaut scenario 'simply wrong'.  Climate change sceptics have attacked the Garnaut orthodoxy that without immediate action to slash greenhouse gas emissions, Australia will suffer "diabolical" consequences.  Rejecting predictions that the Great Barrier Reef would be destroyed and rainfall patterns radically altered without immediate moves to cut carbon emissions, climatologist Stewart Franks said scenarios set out by Ross Garnaut were simply wrong.

Second Global Warming Skeptics Conference Announced.  The organizers of a March 2008 conference that brought together more than 500 scientists, economists, and other experts on global warming today unveiled plans to hold a second conference on March 8-10, 2009, once again in New York City.  The 2009 International Conference on Climate Change will serve as a platform for scientists and policy analysts from around the world who question the theory of man-made climate change.

Scientists sign petition denying man-made global warming.  More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition denying that man is responsible for global warming.  The academics, including 9,000 with PhDs, claim that greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane are actually beneficial for the environment.  The petition was created in 1998 by an American physicist, the late Frederick Seitz, in response to the Kyoto Protocol a year earlier.

Global Warming Follies:  Ranking Minority Member Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) said the Lieberman-Warner bill doesn't, in any way, stay out of American's pocketbooks. … Yet, while Congress waits to pass or veto acts such as Lieberman-Warner, which many believe will affect the lives of Americans negatively, a study released by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM) in 2007 concludes after its 12 pages of charts and calculations that there is no such thing as global warming.

Inhofe on 'enemies' list.  In a cover story on global warming titled "You Idiots!" Rolling Stone named U.S. Sen. Jim Inhofe as one of the "planet's worst enemies."  The Oklahoma Republican took issue.  "My first response was I should have been No. 1, not No. 7," said Inhofe, perhaps the most vocal global-warming skeptic in Congress.  "I am serious about that.  I have spent now literally years on this thing, and it has been a long, involved thing."

Let the data speak for itself.  Have you noticed how environmental campaigners almost inevitably say that not only is global warming happening and bad, but also that what we are seeing is even worse than expected?  This is odd, because any reasonable understanding of how science proceeds would expect that, as we refine our knowledge, we find that things are sometimes worse and sometimes better than we expected, and that the most likely distribution would be about 50-50.  Environmental campaigners, however, almost invariably see it as 100-0.

John Coleman vs Al Gore:  Regular readers of this website are well aware of the Global Warming scam.  Poking holes in the AGW theory is becoming child's play.  But we have to keep at it because the general public and major presidential candidates are not so well informed.  A large percentage of the public still get their news from the mainstream media.  And of course the MSM is in the tank with Al Gore and the global warming believers.

Climate realist declaration tops 1,100 endorsers.  "The hundreds of well qualified endorsers to the Manhattan Declaration should end, once and for all, the highly flawed notion that only a tiny number of so-called 'skeptics' dispute the science underlying the Kyoto Protocol", said Carleton University Earth Sciences Professor and ICSC Chairman, Dr. Tim Patterson.  "Millions of Canadians are coming to understand that the only constant about climate IS change — it changes continually.

Gore getting desperate proof public cooling on GW hoax.  Comments and reports about global warming are getting silly and even ridiculous.  Al Gore says we have ten years left.  We're told cooling is due to warming.  More rain and flooding and less rain and drought are both due to warming.  More hurricanes are predicted while fewer occur.  Global temperatures declined as much in the first few months of 2008 as they increased in the previous 100 plus years due to warming.

The Big Chill:  Does the world's climate change from time to time?  Of course it does.  Sometimes it warms, and sometimes it cools.  Is it rapidly warming now, threatening our way of life?  No.  It is neither warming nor cooling.  The average of four recent climate temperature studies show that over the past 10 years, the planet has warmed only 0.047 degree Celsius, less than 1/20th of a degree.  Recent studies suggest there will be no significant warming until after 2020.

Feelgood fades.  Unfortunately, it is becoming clear that Rudd's climate change policies were a welter of half-truths and platitudes dipped in soaring rhetoric to make them saleable.  But now that the glossy pre-election promises are being analysed, probed and costed, the Rudd Government's carefully constructed appeal to environmental morality is unravelling.  We now know, for example, that the mandatory renewable energy target of 20 percent of power generation is very likely to be an expensive waste of time and money.

Scientists doubt climate change.  More than 400 scientists challenge claims by former Vice President Al Gore and the United Nations about the threat of man-made global warming, a new Senate minority report says. … "I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number — entirely without merit," said Dutch atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, one of the researchers quoted in the report by Republican staff of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

Scientists Doubt Climate Change.  A new Senate minority report, issued by the office of Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, notes more than 400 scientists have challenged claims of catastrophic man-made global warming.

Global Warming Heresy:  Manmade carbon dioxide emissions are roughly 5 percent of the total; the rest are from natural sources such as volcanoes, dying vegetation and animals.  Annually, volcanoes alone produce more carbon dioxide than all of mankind's activities.  Oceans are responsible for most greenhouse gases. ... The bottom line is, the bulk of scientific evidence shows that what we've been told by environmentalists is pure bunk.

How to get to the bottom of the global warming debate.  Physicist and meteorologist Craig Bohren, distinguished professor emeritus at the Pennsylvania State University … has no horse in the climate change debate:  As a retired professor, he is not worried about losing or gaining funding based on his opinions.

Partial List of Skeptical Scientists:  Names of some scientists who are questioning the global warming hysteria.

Global warming skeptics score a few points.  The first was scored by a Canadian.  Timothy Patterson, director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre at Carleton University in Ottawa, published an article conclusively demonstrating climate change is a permanent condition, that the Earth's climate has never been stable.  What the sun does, rather than what man does with his carbon dioxide emissions, is what chiefly causes climate change, said Patterson.

Hot Air Study Melts Global Warming Theory.  Global warming alarmists may want to expedite their efforts to hamstring the global economy with greenhouse gas regulation.  A new study touted as showing that we're not sufficiently panicky about manmade carbon dioxide emissions actually supports the exact opposite conclusion.

Cooler assessment of climate obsession.  Over the past half-century we have become used to planetary scares of one kind or another.  But the latest such scare — global warming — has engaged the political and opinion-forming classes to a greater extent than anything since, a little over 200 years ago, Malthus warned that, unless radical measures were taken to limit population growth, the world would run up against the limits of subsistence, leading inevitably to war, pestilence and famine.

Going Green = $4 per Gallon.  [Scroll down]  Global warming is quickly proving to be little more than a natural phenomenon, having virtually nothing to do with man.  Science has now shown that human caused CO2 emissions amounts to no more than .017% — virtually insignificant.  More and more scientists — by the thousands — are now expressing their skepticism about the whole global warming theory.  But that hasn't stopped the "go green" mindset in Congress.  Again, that's because the real goal is a reorder of society and the economy — not the environment.

Why the Sky is Not Falling.  Holly Fretwell, an economist by training, has done her best to bring some needed critical thinking to the global-warming debate by writing "The Sky's Not Falling! — Why It's OK to Chill About Global Warming."  Aimed at 8- to 12-year-olds and their parents, it is a good, reasoned, 115-page antidote to the Chicken Little hysteria and propaganda found in the mainstream media and in places like Laurie David's kids book "The Down-to-Earth Guide to Global Warming."

Warming theories not carved in stone.  Global warming has occurred in past periods when human activity involving industrial type CO2 emissions did not occur and temperature levels were almost certainly higher.  Experts, including scientists, have a history of unrealised doom and gloom predictions.  Since the last IPCC report, new authoritative research shows about half the temperature increase since 1980 reflects normal heating effects from urban areas.  Also, the absence of any increase since 2001, and the fall of 0.6°C. between January 2007 and January 2008, raises further doubts about the claimed correlation between increases in temperatures and CO2 emissions.

Global Warming Delusions:  Global warming doesn't matter except to the extent that it will affect life — ours and that of all living things on Earth.  And contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin.  Most evidence suggests the contrary.

Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears.  A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. … Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention.

Global warming debate 'irrational':  scientists.  The current debate about global warming is "completely irrational," and people need to start taking a different approach, say two Ottawa scientists.  Carleton University science professor Tim Patterson said global warming will not bring about the downfall of life on the planet.  Patterson said much of the up-to-date research indicates that "changes in the brightness of the sun" are almost certainly the primary cause of the warming trend since the end of the "Little Ice Age" in the late 19th century.  Human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the gas of concern in most plans to curb climate change, appear to have little effect on global climate, he said.

Chill Out.  [Bjorn Lomborg] believes that global warming is happening, that man has caused it, and that national governments need to act.  Yet he also believes that Al Gore is bordering on hysteria, that some global-warming science has been distorted and hyped, and that the Kyoto Protocol and other carbon-reduction schemes are a terrible waste of money.

The Pope condemns the climate change prophets.  Pope Benedict XVI has launched a surprise attack on climate change prophets of doom, warning them that any solutions to global warming must be based on firm evidence and not on dubious ideology.

NASA's Top Official Questions Global Warming.  NASA administrator Michael Griffin is drawing the ire of his agency's preeminent climate scientists after apparently downplaying the need to combat global warming.

The Collapsing Scientific Cornerstones of Global Warming Theory.  While the theory of global warming still may be correct, new evidence chipping away at its cornerstones should preclude precipitous, costly and perhaps unnecessary government actions.

Global warming?  The words "global warming" provoke a sharp retort from Colorado State University meteorology professor emeritus William Gray:  "It's a big scam."  And the name of climate researcher Kevin Trenberth elicits a sputtered "opportunist."  At the National Center for Atmospheric Research, where Trenberth works, Gray's name prompts dismay.  "Bill Gray is completely unreasonable," Trenberth says.  "He has a mind block on this."  Only 55 miles separate NCAR's headquarters, nestled in the Front Range foothills, from CSU in Fort Collins.  But when it comes to climate change, the gap is as big as any in the scientific community.

Panelist Who Dissents on Climate Change Quits.  A scientist who has long disagreed with the dominant view that global warming stems mainly from human activity has resigned from a panel that is completing a report for the Bush administration on temperature trends in the atmosphere.

"Global warming," also known as "enhanced greenhouse" will not cause catastrophe.  In this document we find climate models and long-term climate data unhelpful in determining the planet's thermal response to elevated greenhouse gas levels.  Annual temperature change and a modern and well-documented event provide evidence against greenhouse "feedback mechanisms" leading to uncontrolled and catastrophic warming, indicating Earth is not at a critical temperature threshold.

Alarmist "consensus" does not exist.
Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming.  A survey of climatologists from more than 20 nations has revealed scientists are evenly split on whether humans are responsible for changes in global climate.

Michael Crichton Is Right!  Michael Crichton's new book, State of Fear, is a surprising book.  Tucked inside a lively and entertaining tale of a philanthropist, a scientist, a lawyer, and two remarkable women who travel around the world trying to foil the plots of evil-doers is a detailed exposé of the flawed science and exaggerations at the base of the global warming scare.  It is also a devastating critique of mainstream environmentalism today and an eloquent call for change.


Science Has Spoken:  Global Warming Is a Myth.  There is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures.  What's more, carbon dioxide emissions have actually been a boon for the environment.

GOP disputes global-warming cause:  "This research begs an obvious question:  If the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages than the age of coal-fired power plants and SUVs, what role do man-made emissions play in influencing climate?" asked Chairman James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma.

Global Warming Speculation vs. Science:  Just Ask the Experts:  On the facts of human-made global warming, should one believe television or the experts?

Hot Air.  A study purporting to show man-made global warming affecting atmospheric circulation is dubious.




Czech President Vaclav Klaus

Warm and Fuzzy Global Regulation:  Václav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, told a Competitive Enterprise Institute audience last week that he believes climate change is the ideal political issue because its dogma cannot be disproven.  "Now I am afraid it will take centuries to come up with a convincing proof that the planet has not been destroyed, or does not find itself on the brink of destruction and that's the trick of the current environmentalism," Klaus said at the Competitive Enterprise Institute annual dinner.  "The ambitious politicians who try to mastermind the world and their fellow citizens have been dreaming for decades to to find such a marvelous, from reality immunized doctrine," he said.

Czech President Klaus ready to debate Gore on climate change.  Czech President Vaclav Klaus said Tuesday [5/27/2008] he is ready to debate Al Gore about global warming, as he presented the English version of his latest book that argues environmentalism poses a threat to basic human freedoms. … Klaus was speaking a the National Press Building in Washington to present his new book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles — What Is Endangered:  Climate or Freedom?, before meeting with Vice President Dick Cheney Wednesday.

Blue Planet in Green Shackles:  I do not … live in the past and do not see the future threats to free society coming from the old and old-fashioned communist ideology. … I see the current danger in environmentalism and especially in its strongest version, climate alarmism.  Feeling very strongly about it and trying to oppose it was the main reason for putting my book together, originally in Czech language, in the spring of 2007.

Climate concern ripped as 'religion'.  Environmentalism, says Czech President Vaclav Klaus, is the new communism, a system of elite command-and-control that kills prosperity and should similarly be condemned to the ash heap of history.  The provocative Mr. Klaus, an economist by training and former prime minister, said in an interview that today's global warming activists are the direct descendants of the old Marxists who trampled on individual freedoms and undermined free markets in pursuit of a greater good.

The Carbon Curtain:  Having lived much of his life in a nation once ruled by communists, Klaus recognizes a tyrannical ideology where elites trample on individual freedoms for the greater good when he sees one.  Speaking Tuesday [5/27/2008] at the National Press Club to introduce the English version of his book, "Blue Planet, Green Shackles," Klaus said that global warming is being used as a means to erode our freedoms.  Klaus called alarms about man-made climate change a "quasi-noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of something above him" and that it is being exploited by a new elite "certain they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their idea a reality."

The New Communism:  Like former President Ronald Reagan, who developed his understanding of the communist menace by fighting the communists in Hollywood, [Vaclav] Klaus suffered under them during the communist era in Czechoslovakia. … His book, Blue Planet in Green Shackles, published by the Competitive Enterprise Institute, charges that the movement to "save" the environment has been taken over by ideologues who favor total government control over our lives.

Klaus Against the Greens.  [Scroll down]  "I am frustrated by the fact that many people, including some leading politicians who privately express similar views to my own, are publicly silent," [Vaclav] Klaus began.  He believes the global warming issue "is not being debated in a rational way, but is being thrust into the public consciousness as one-sided propaganda."  He invokes the term "silent majority" to describe rationally thinking people who do not speak out against global warming propagandists.

'Santa' Klaus Takes on Global Warming.  [Good King] Wenceslas  — Saint Vaclav in the original Czech — was a legendary Santa Claus figure, a holy bringer of hope and cheer in the darkness of the European winter.  Well, we have our own Vaclav to cheer us up this holiday season; but this one is Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, and a dangerous skeptic on the crusading faith of global warming.

We Cannot Worship Nature and Remain Free.  [Vaclav] Klaus knows firsthand that dictators, progressives, and "socialists have been very effectively destroying human freedom under humane and compassionate slogans, such as caring for man, ensuring social equality, and fostering social welfare."  And all such slogans are an outgrowth of the attempted upheaval of Christianity through the systematic implementation of the worship of nature.  Ultimately, Klaus says this environmental approach "is utopian and [will] lead to results completely different from the intended ones.

EU's most outspoken global warming doubter.  Czech President Vaclav Klaus, one of the most prominent climate change doubters, is about to get a new platform:  the European Union presidency.  Klaus has called man-made global warming a myth and questioned sanity of Al Gore, the former US vice president who received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for turning a spotlight on climate change.

Beware the church of climate alarm.  As the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, an economist, anti-totalitarian and climate change sceptic, prepares to take up the rotating presidency of the European Union next year, climate alarmists are doing their best to traduce him.

Vaclav Klaus, Straight-Up.  Klaus said, "I am a 'denier,' even if I dislike that term.  I don't think there is any global warming.  I don't see the statistical data for that."  (Klaus, incidentally, is a professional economist and statistician.)  "I don't believe in the results of the IPCC" (the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

Czech president attacks Al Gore's climate campaign.  Czech President Vaclav Klaus took aim at climate change campaigner Al Gore on Saturday in Davos in a frontal attack on the science of global warming.  "I don't think that there is any global warming," said the 67-year-old liberal, whose country holds the rotating presidency of the European Union.  "I don't see the statistical data for that."  Referring to the former US vice president, who attended Davos this year, he added:  "I'm very sorry that some people like Al Gore are not ready to listen to the competing theories.  I do listen to them.

Czech, please! &c.  What is it about the Czech Republic and straight talk?  The country's president, Václav Klaus, is pretty much the number-one straight-talker in the world (for example, on global warming, and on the financial crisis now engulfing us).  But the Czech prime minister, Mirek Topolánek, isn't bad either.



What consensus?

Obama's '97 Percent' Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart.  "Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree:  #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous."  Remember that statement, a while back, from some bloke on Twitter?  What we now know with more than 97 percent certainty that this guy — or whoever is in charge of running his Twitter account — is either wilfully dishonest or woefully ill-informed.  The "97 percent" claim is an utter nonsense.  [A] report released today [9/8/2014] by the Global Warming Policy Foundation explains exactly why.

Fraud, Bias And Public Relations: The 97% 'consensus' and its critics.  Recent reports that 97% of published scientific papers support the so-called consensus on man-made global warming are based on a paper by John Cook et al. [...] Numerous critiques of the paper have been published, some by supporters of mainstream views on climate science.  These have demonstrated substantial biases in the methodology.  Cook has certainly misrepresented what his research shows.  More importantly, one researcher has made an allegation of scientific fraud, at this point unrebutted by Cook and his colleagues.

The Big Lie of the "Consensus View" on Global Warming.  How often do you read or hear the claim that a "scientific consensus" exists that global warming is directly affected by mankind's actions?  This influence is called "anthropogenic global warming," or AGW.  Further, how often do you hear how people who fail to agree with this AGW consensus are "deniers," akin to someone who believes the Earth is flat.  The informed critics of AGW deniers will cite a scholarly review of the climatology literature that reveals how 97% of the climate science community supports the AGW theory.  But, if you read the paper for yourself (it is only six pages long, with some simple graphs), you will see that these critics are lying.

What 97 Percent of Climate Scientists Do.  The fiction that most scientists believe climate change is "man-made and dangerous" can be traced to a handful of surveys and abstract-counting exercises that have been repeatedly debunked and contradicted by more reliable research.  Yet the myth lives on in the minds of liberal activists.  So let's settle this once and for all.

Dr. Arthur Robinson Explodes Bogus Global Warming Consensus.  In 1998, Dr. Arthur Robinson was one of the principal organizers of the Petition Project, an effort to demonstrate that the claimed "consensus" of science in favor of the belief that humans are causing catastrophic global warming does not exist.  The event that precipitated the project was the United Nations-sponsored meeting in Kyoto, Japan, which produced the Kyoto Protocol, demanding global rationing of energy, ostensibly to save the world from the non-crisis of warming supposedly caused by burning hydrocarbon fuels.

Presidential snow job on global warming.  Dear Mr. President: [...] When one of your top EPA administrators came before the Science, Space and Technology Committee, I asked her about the much-heralded claim that "97 percent" of scientists form a global-warming "consensus" — consensus being historically antithetical to scientific inquiry itself.  Her stammered answer would have made any U.C. Irvine student blush, as would any such feeble research.  Did anyone ever ask 97 percent of the world's scientists?  Seriously?  It turns out, the sampling that led to this preposterous 97 percent claim was a questionnaire of scientists predisposed to agree.  Tautologies are commonplace in politics, but this kind of methodology has no place in academia.  And those charged with regulating us should be disqualified when they resort to them.

Apollo Astronaut: Climate Alarmism Is the 'Biggest Fraud in the Field of Science.  Climate alarmism is "the biggest fraud in the field of science" and the 97% consensus claim is nonsensical, Apollo 7 astronaut Walter Cunningham tells MRCTV in a preview of his presentation at the upcoming Heartland Institute climate conference, July 7-9.  "Since about 2000, I looked farther and farther into it," Col. Cunningham (USMC, Ret.) tells MRCTV in an exclusive interview.  "I found that not one of the claims that the alarmists were making out there had any bearings, whatsoever.  And, so, it was kind of a no-brainer to come to the conclusion."

Where Did '97 Percent' Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From?  The University of Queensland in Australia is taking legal action to block the release of data used by one of its scientists to come up with the oft-quoted statistic that 97 percent of climate scientists agree that mankind is causing global warming.  Since coming out with this figure last year, climate scientist John Cook of the University of Queensland's Global Change Institute has been under fire for the methodology he used.

Leading Climate Scientist Defects: No Longer Believes in the 'Consensus'.  One of the world's most eminent climate scientists — for several decades a warmist — has defected to the climate sceptic camp.  Lennart Bengtsson — a Swedish climatologist, meteorologist, former director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg and winner, in 2006, of the 51st IMO Prize of the World Meteorological Organization for his pioneering work in numerical weather prediction — is by some margin the most distinguished scientist to change sides.

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus' Claims.  Global warming alarmists and their allies in the liberal media have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97-percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming.  After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors' claims of a 97-pecent consensus relied on the authors misclassifying the papers of some of the world's most prominent global warming skeptics.  At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question so they could twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

Climate Consensus Con Game.  At the outset, let's be quite clear:  There is no consensus about dangerous anthropogenic global warming (DAGW) — and there never was.  There is not even a consensus on whether human activities, such as burning fossil fuels to produce useful energy, affect global climate significantly.  So what's all this fuss about?  Let's also be quite clear that science does not work by way of consensus.  Science does not progress by appeal to authority; in fact, major scientific advances usually come from outside the consensus; one can cite many classic examples, from Galileo to Einstein.  [Another way to phrase this issue:  Scientific veracity does not depend on fashionable thinking.]  In other words, the very notion of a scientific consensus is unscientific.

Debunking the 97% 'consensus' on global warming.  The main pillar of the warmist argument is the contention that a "consensus" exists among scientists that global warming is caused by man and threatens catastrophe.  But a Canada-based group calling itself Friends of Science has just completed a review of the four main studies used to document the alleged consensus and found that only 1 [to] 3% of respondents "explicitly stated agreement with the IPCC declarations on global warming," and that there was "no agreement with a catastrophic view."

The Latest Meteorologist Survey Destroys The Global Warming Climate 'Consensus'.  Barely half of American Meteorological Society meteorologists believe global warming is occurring and humans are the primary cause, a newly released study reveals.  The survey results comprise the latest in a long line of evidence indicating the often asserted global warming consensus does not exist.

'Consensus' on Climate Change just PR Campaign .  [Scroll down]  ["]Basically, we hope to establish that not only is there a consensus, there is a strengthening consensus."  These comments strongly suggest the project was not a scientific investigation to determine the extent of agreement on global warming but a public relations exercise.  If that is what it was, then it was successful, but its headline-grabbing impact was possible only by drawing a veil over the precise methodology used.

Climate Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97 Percent Consensus' Claims.  Global warming alarmists have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97 percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming.  After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors' claims of a 97 percent consensus relied on them misclassifying the papers of some of the world's most prominent global warming skeptics.  At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question that allowed them to twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

Obama Launches New Global Warming Video as Phony "Consensus" Crumbles.  President Obama's White House website recently unveiled a one-and-a-half-minute video, "Addressing the threat of Climate Change," in which he underscores his commitment to enact energy policies that he says will help stem the damage to the planet that, supposedly, is being caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide and other green house gases (GHGs).  A big problem for the president and others in the global warming choir is that even many of the most faithful voices in that choir are dropping out and starting to sing another tune.

Climate Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97 Percent Consensus' Claims.  Global warming alarmists have been caught doctoring the results of a widely cited paper asserting there is a 97 percent scientific consensus regarding human-caused global warming.  After taking a closer look at the paper, investigative journalists report the authors' claims of a 97 percent consensus relied on them misclassifying the papers of some of the world's most prominent global warming skeptics.  At the same time, the authors deliberately presented a meaningless survey question that allowed them to twist the responses to fit their own preconceived global warming alarmism.

Climate consensus in free-fall.  The trenches of anthropogenic global warming are now mostly left populated by green ideologues, a left-dominated media, and bureaucrats who are usually the last to grasp reality.

Climate consensus in free-fall.  [Scroll down]  As it turns out, even what we have been sold as a climate science "consensus" per se is a myth.  In truth, public-money-grubbing researchers, green social engineers, politicized UN bureaucrats and corrupt data fiddlers apart, it has always been thus.  Just as the 28-Gate scandal eventually revealed the 28 'experts' that advised the BBC to pin its AGW colours to the alarmist mast was nothing but a green lobby group, so the alleged climate consensus looks increasingly, er... 'fracked'.

Global Warming Consensus Looking More Like A Myth.  Yes, many climate scientists believe that emissions of greenhouse gases are heating the earth.  Of course there are some who don't.  But when confining the question to geoscientists and engineers, it turns out that only 36% believe that human activities are causing Earth's climate to warm.

Global warming 'scientific consensus' debunked.  A peer-reviewed survey of 1077 geoscientists and engineers finds that "only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis," according to James Taylor, writing at Forbes.com.  As he points out, if there is a scientific consensus at all, it would have to be skepticism toward anthropogenic global warming.

Settled Science? No Such Thing.  Scientific knowledge is always in a state of flux; there is simply no such thing as "settled science", peer reviewed or otherwise.

Man-made global warming:  Even the IPCC admits the jig is up.  [A] leaked draft of the IPCC's latest report AR5 admits what some of us have suspected for a very long time:  that the case for man-made global warming is looking weaker by the day and that the sun plays a much more significant role in "climate change" than the scientific "consensus" has previously been prepared to concede.

The Climate Humpty-Dumpty: All the King's Horses....  The so-called "climate consensus" continues to fall apart.  Fritz Vahrenholt, a prominent German green energy investor and formerly full-throated climateer, has announced his defection. [...] The other notable defector is James Lovelock, the originator of the much-beloved (by the greens) "Gaia-hypothesis," which in general terms means the entire Earth should be conceived as one big closely interconnected ecosystem.

Monckton's Schenectady showdown.  [Scroll down]  The Versailles consensus of 1918 imposed reparations on the defeated Germany, so that the conference that ended the First World War (15 million dead) sowed the seeds of the Second.  The eugenics consensus of the 1920s that led directly to the dismal rail-yards of Oswiecim and Treblinka (6 million dead).  The appeasement consensus of the 1930s that provoked Hitler to start World War II (60 million dead).  The Lysenko consensus of the 1940s that wrecked 20 successive harvests in the then Soviet Union (20 million dead).  The ban-DDT consensus of the 1960s that led to a fatal resurgence of malaria worldwide (40 million children dead and counting, 1.25 million of them last year alone).  You could have heard a pin drop.  For the first time, the largely hostile audience (for most of those who attended were environmentalists) realized that the mere fact of a consensus does not in any way inform us of whether the assertion about which there is said to be a consensus is true.

The Global Warming Cult and the Death of Science.  The journey from hypothesis to rock solid consensus is a long one, and it doesn't end just because Al Gore makes a documentary or a few ads show crying polar bears.  Positions are argued, minds change and then a century later the graduate students have fun mocking the ignorance of both sides.  That's science.  Unfortunately, the Cult of Warm doesn't accept that there is a debate.  As far as they are concerned, the debate never happened because it never needed to happen because they were always right.  They can't intelligently address dissent, because their science is not based on discovering the evidence needed to lead to a consensus, but on insisting that there is a consensus and that accordingly there is no need to debate the evidence.

The New Deniers.  The recent publication of a report by the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academy of Sciences prompted a number of editorial pieces that repeated this "consensus of scientists" argument.  Typically, the pieces presented or summarized no data in support of the catastrophic predictions, nor did they even acknowledge alternative explanations for whatever warming the earth may be experiencing.

New Global Warming Scandal:  'Consensus' on Sun is One Expert.  A staggering new finding seems to mire the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in global warming scandal every bit as devastating as Climategate.  The news broke June 24, 2010 on a Czech climate skeptic blog, Klimaskeptik.cz, that calls the latest global warming scandal, "Judithgate."

IPCC "Consensus" on Solar Influence was Only One Solar Physicist who Agreed with Her Own Paper.  Klimaskeptik.cz, a Czech climate skeptic blog, has posted today an interesting article "Judithgate:  The IPCC was only one Solar Physicist".  Her name is Judith Lean.  On the basis of this "consensus of one" solar physicist, the IPCC proclaimed solar influences upon the climate to be minimal.  Objection to this was raised by the Norwegian government as shown in the AR4 second draft comments...

Leading experts rapidly endorsing 'Climate Scientists' Register'.  By allowing their names to be added to the signatory list, these scientists are endorsing the following physical science statement:  "We, the undersigned, having assessed the relevant scientific evidence, do not find convincing support for the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing, or will in the foreseeable future cause, dangerous global warming."

Global Warming's New 'Consensus':  The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine this week announced that 31,072 U.S. scientists signed a petition stating that "... There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane or other greenhouse gases is causing, or will cause in the future, catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate..."  Eminent theoretical physicist Freeman Dyson is among the many distinguished signatories.

Calling out warmist bullies.  [A Baltimore Sun] editorial claims that there is a consensus among scientists that man-made carbon dioxide is causing global climate change; however, consensus in science is an oxymoron.  From Galileo to Einstein, one scientist with proof is more convincing than thousands of other scientists who believe something to be true.

Financial meltdown defrocks deceit of man-made global warming.  Frequently after a presentation someone will ask me the rhetorical question, "So, you are telling us the majority of scientists, the IPCC, and National Academies of Science are all wrong."  It is more than the usual consensus argument, which says you must be wrong because the majority disagrees.  It implies it is not credible to believe so many people are deceived.  The consensus argument is counteracted by the point that consensus is not a scientific fact.

Senate Report Debunks "Consensus".  Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called "consensus" on man-made global warming.  These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore. … Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists.

The 'consensus' on climate change is a catastrophe in itself.  The idea that the IPCC represents any kind of genuine scientific "consensus" is a complete fiction.  Again and again there have been examples of how evidence has been manipulated to promote the official line, the most glaring instance being the notorious "hockey stick".  Initially the advocates of global warming had one huge problem.  Evidence from all over the world indicated that the earth was hotter 1,000 years ago than it is today. … This blew a mighty hole in the thesis that warming was caused only by recent man-made CO2.

'Consensus' On Man-Made Global Warming Collapses in 2008.  Former Vice-President Al Gore came to Washington on July 17, 2008, to deliver yet another speech warning of the "climate crisis."  "The leading experts predict that we have less than 10 years to make dramatic changes in our global warming pollution lest we lose our ability to ever recover from this environmental crisis," Gore stated.  But the former Vice President, who has been warning of a 10-year "tipping point" for several years now, appears to be unaware that the United Nations already started the 10-year countdown — in 1989!

Myth of Consensus Explodes:  APS Opens Global Warming Debate.  The American Physical Society, an organization representing nearly 50,000 physicists, has reversed its stance on climate change and is now proclaiming that many of its members disbelieve in human-induced global warming.  The APS is also sponsoring public debate on the validity of global warming science.  The leadership of the society had previously called the evidence for global warming "incontrovertible."

Poll:  Humans Don't Cause Global Warming.  Fewer than half of Americans polled by the Pew Research Center believe humans are causing global warming, and a declining number even believe the Earth is experiencing a warming trend.  The survey, conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, finds "roughly half, or 47 percent, of Americans say the Earth is warming because of human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels."  Nearly as many, 45 percent of respondents, contend the higher Earth temperatures are due to "natural environment patterns," that no global warming exists, or that causes cannot be scientifically determined.

A bad day for the red-hots.  Al Gore picked a bad day to tout his global-warming scam.  Just as he was telling an easily conned columnist for the Associated Press that Earthlings have just 10 years to get in line behind him to save the world from the frying pan, a consortium of 50,000 physicists conceded that maybe Al's evidence of man-made warming isn't so hot, after all.

Science by intimidation:  Truth may enter the world by many doors, but she is never escorted by force.  I thought that was a lesson learned long ago, and learned by none more tellingly than scientists.  Real scientists, actually, have learned it.  A new amalgam has emerged however, the scientist-activist, and for that specimen it's a lesson passed by.

Scientists question climate change consensus.  Like so many other expensive green intiatives mooted here and elsewhere in the West, [green taxes] are firmly rooted in the single premise that man-made CO2 emissions are scientifically proven to be the root of all climate evil.  And the most acceptable source of that scientific proof is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

No consensus, and no warming, either.  The American Physical Society reports:  "There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution."

A scientific consensus has been reached about global warming?  More than 400 scientists are challenging claims by Al gore and the United Nations about the threat from man-made global warming.  A report by Republican James Inhofe of the Senate Environment Committee lists among the skeptics many current or former members of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Chill out on global warming.  Al Gore's cinematic sermons on inconvenient truths to the contrary notwithstanding, it is becoming clearer by the day that major cracks are appearing in the supposed consensus among scientists that global warming caused by carbon emissions is an urgent problem that government must address with drastic measures.  Among the most significant cracks are these...

Scientist Calls Global Warming Theories 'Bunk,' Cites Errors of Logic.  Just as Galileo and Einstein transcended the "consensus" of their day, so too will a growing body of scientific evidence eventually vindicate non-alarmist views on global warming, predicts environmental scientist Fred Singer.  The very notion of consensus on global warming is a "laughable" proposition, Singer said during a talk at the Heritage Foundation this week.

Will Media Expose Global Warming Con Job?.  In the past several months, a new "crisis" has heated up the controversy over man-made global warming.  A few major-media writers and TV personalities are actually reporting statements by credible scientists who are challenging the assumption that carbon dioxide is the primary force causing global warming.  There's a real possibility that big-name journalists will break ranks and pursue their next Pulitzer Prize by exposing the lack of scientific consensus on CO2 as a planet-heating pollutant.

Galileo Denied Consensus.  Galileo was forced to recant and confess his error; he thereby escaped being burnt at the stake and was instead sentenced to house-arrest for the rest of his life.  Science and history have of course proven him right.  Ever since, the notion of enforced "consensus" has been anathema to scientists.  Until now.  The dawn of the 21st century sees relentless strident attempts to enforce consensus about global warming theory.

Survey Shows Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory.  [Scroll down] Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus.  If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%.  However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.  This is no "consensus."

Climate Scientist Survey Reveals Little Consensus.  A new survey of American members of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggests that there is not firm scientific consensus on global warming, as proponents of swift action to curb carbon emissions have suggested.

Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming -- Now Skeptics.  Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure, it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science.  Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics.  The names included [in this article] are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Experts question theory on global warming.  Believe it or not.  There are only about a dozen scientists working on 9,575 glaciers in India under the aegis of the Geological Society of India.  Is the available data enough to believe that the glaciers are retreating due to global warming?  Some experts have questioned the alarmists theory on global warming leading to shrinkage of Himalayan glaciers.  VK Raina, a leading glaciologist and former ADG of GSI is one among them.

Global warming is a theory, not scientific fact.  Talk of "consensus" in science is nonsense.  Consensus is not truth, nor proof, it is compromise.  In science, everything should be tested and becomes either true or false, or undecided.  Whether Earth is round or flat is not a matter of "consensus."  Ask Galileo.  Consensus at Salem in 1692 was that witches took over childrens' bodies.

Global Warming:  Unfinished Business.  Climate science is not "settled;" it is both uncertain and incomplete.  The available observations do not support the mathematical models that predict a substantial global warming and form the basis for a control policy on greenhouse gas emissions.

Scientific 'consensus' on global warming doesn't exist.  The recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summary, released Feb. 2, states that it is "very likely" that changes in climate are due to human influence.  More recent comments in various media outlets have focused on a scientific consensus which supports the panel's conclusions.  Those who question this consensus have been compared to Holocaust deniers, and some have been threatened with job dismissal.  This is no longer science, but scientific socialism.  I do not agree with all of the IPCC conclusions and know through peer discussions that the idea of a consensus in the meteorological community is false.

The Sun Also Sets.  Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus."  Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.

The Global Warming Hypothesis.  Despite claims of a "consensus" in the scientific community about the reality of global warming, climate scientists who deal with hard temperature data can find little evidence of rising temperatures, and almost no real evidence linking what people do with any alleged climate change.  Despite these facts, the federal government has embarked on what could be an economically devastating path to severely restrict Americans' use of energy and fuel.

The Scientist Trap:  The National Academy of Sciences report does not provide a valid scientific basis for global warming, nor does it show a scientific consensus on the issue.

Climate consensus and the end of science.  It is now firmly established, repeated ad nauseam in the media and elsewhere, that the debate over global warming has been settled by scientific consensus.  The subject is closed. ... Back when modern science was born, the battle between consensus and new science worked the other way around.

That famous consensus:  Yet another example of the ?research? masquerading as science that is used to reinforce the man-made global warming fraud.  One of the difficulties the green zealots have had is that Antarctica has been not warming but cooling, with the extent of its ice reaching record levels.  A few weeks ago, a study led by Professor Eric Steig caused some excitement by claiming that actually West Antarctica was warming so much that it more than made up for the cooling in East Antarctica.  Warning bells should have sounded when Steig said, "What we did is interpolate carefully instead of just using the back of an envelope."

"'Unequivocal' 'Consensus' on 'Global Warming'":  Science is not, repeat not, done by "consensus", though politics is.  The IPCC process, which aims at and then falsely claims "consensus", is an explicitly political process, and not a scientific one. ... The IPCC's conclusion that it is 90% likely that human activities caused most of the warming of the past century is not only unscientific, in that it is not possible to place a quantitative estimate on such a proposition, but is also by no means universally shared among the scientific community.

Eight Fallacies about Global Warming:  [#5] Funding for scientific research has moved towards being determined by consensus, because where public monies are concerned the issue ultimately comes back to an opinion as to whether the research is likely to be fruitful.  Prior to the last 20 or 30 years, research was driven principally by scientific curiosity.  That science research funding has now become results-oriented has had a dramatic, negative impact on the usefulness of many scientific results.  For, ironically, pursuing science that is thought by politician to be "important" or "in the public interest" often results in science accomplishments that are conformist and fashionable rather than independent and truly useful.

Scientific "Consensus".  [Scroll down]  It seems reasonable to ask, therefore, how can a seriously flawed — if not actually fraudulent — mathematical model linking production of the relatively minuscule amount of an atmospheric trace gas be used to blame mankind for major planetary climate change?  The answer lies in the intense public relations campaign launched by environmentalists worldwide following publication of the 1997 IPCC report.  The entire debate has been framed by presenting only one side to the maximum extent possible while demeaning any skeptics.  The worldwide distribution in 2006 of the Al Gore movie An Inconvenient Truth added to the simplistic polarization and politicization of debate.  One cannot ignore how the IPCC report initiated within the United Nations played into an anti-Capitalism agenda.

When scientists behave like bullies.  For years, I've read global warming activists cite the work of UC San Diego science historian Naomi Oreskes, who looked at 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed articles from 1993 and 2003 and found, "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position" in favor of man-made global warming.  No surprise, her unbelievable claim was wrong.

What climategate really tells us.  The hockey stick was one of the pillars of the mantra that there is a rocksolid consensus of leading scientists — even though numerous critics, ultimately including the US National Academy of Sciences, noted serious deficiencies in the hockey stick.  One of the several scandalous revelations of the Climategate e-mails is that this claim of consensus is a lie.  Never mind the skeptics:  It turns out many of the scientists in the CRU inner circle had doubts and disagreements about their data, methodology and conclusions, and often bickered with one another about defects in their project.

Consensus or Con?  As we've written on various occasions, we didn't know enough about the substance of the underlying science to make a judgment about it.  But we know enough about science itself to recognize that the popular rendition of global warmism — dogmatic, doctrinaire and scornful of skepticism — is not the least bit scientific.  The revelations in the Climategate emails show that these attitudes were common among actual scientists, not just the popularizers of their work.

Global Warming Debate Pits Facts Against Faith.  Claims that there is a "scientific consensus" on the causes, extent, or consequences of climate change are simply false.  While climate scientists may agree that the Earth's temperature is always changing, there is tremendous disagreement and debate over whether humans are responsible for those changes.  Climatology is a new science and there is great uncertainty about fundamental scientific questions, preventing scientists from knowing for certain what is causing current climate trends and accurately predicting future climate conditions.

30,000 Anti-Global Warming Scientists Can't Be Wrong.  In the report U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg was quoted as saying "It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming."  In the largest effort to date to document global warming dissent in the scientific community, 31,486 Americans with university degrees in science — including 9,029 PhD, 7,157 MS, 2,586 MD and DVM, and 12,714 BS or equivalent — have signed on with the Global Warming Petition Project to state "the humancaused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity."

The Renewable Electricity Standard is a Hoax, a Fraud, and a Rip-Off.  The U.S. Senate's proposed Renewable Electricity Standard (RES) would force electric utilities to generate a large and increasing percentage of their power from wind and solar — rising to 15% by 2021. ... The hoax part of the RES is that "clean electricity" is being advertised as a way to save the earth from the "dreadful fate" of anthropogenic global warming (AGW).  To accept this outlandish proposition, one would have to believe that the carbon dioxide generated in the burning of fossil fuels has a noticeable influence on climate.  The data argue against it.  The constantly advertised "scientific consensus" is phony; it does not exist.



Inaccurate measurements

Australian Bureau of Meteorology accused of Criminally Adjusted Global Warming.  The Australian Bureau of Meteorology has been caught red-handed manipulating temperature data to show "global warming" where none actually exists.  At Amberley, Queensland, for example, the data at a weather station showing 1 degree Celsius cooling per century was "homogenized" (adjusted) by the Bureau so that it instead showed a 2.5 degrees warming per century.  At Rutherglen, Victoria, a cooling trend of -0.35 degrees C per century was magically transformed at the stroke of an Australian meteorologist's pen into a warming trend of 1.73 degrees C per century.

United States Undergoing Decade-Long Cooling.  Responding to widespread criticism that its temperature station readings were corrupted by poor siting and suspect adjustments, NOAA established a network of 114 pristinely sited temperature stations spread out fairly uniformly throughout the United States.  Because the network, known as the U.S. Climate Reference Network (USCRN), is so uniformly and pristinely situated, the temperature data require no adjustments to provide an accurate nationwide temperature record.  USCRN began compiling temperature data in January 2005.  Now, nearly a decade later, NOAA has finally made the USCRN temperature readings available.  According to the USCRN temperature readings, U.S. temperatures are not rising at all, at least not since the network became operational 10 years ago.

NASA's Arctic Fudge Factory: "More Than Half" Of Claimed Arctic Warming Stems From "Data Adjustments".  [Scroll down]  Again, these are just the "adjustments" or "corrections" that GISS has applied in the last three years and nine months to the 19 Arctic stations.  I have no way of knowing what they did before August of 2010.

Global Warming Claims Are Primarily And Deliberately A Product Of Bureaucratic Political Activity.  Environment Canada has failed to implement a strategic plan to improve its internal scientific research in areas ranging from managing air and water pollution to toxic chemicals.  Billions are spent on useless computers and climate change while not dealing with real problems.  They're not alone, it's happening in national weather agencies round the world.  To cover these wastes EC took money from other programs that now make chances of any science virtually impossible.  There are fewer weather stations in Canada now than in 1960, and many were replaced with unreliable Automatic Weather Observing Stations (AWOS).  Important activities and data collection practices were abandoned.

Was 2012 the Hottest Year On Record In the US?  The historical data sets published by NCDC and NOAA lack integrity.

How Bad Data Contribute to Global Warming Hysteria:  Have you ever wondered, when you see an assertion along the lines of "The Earth has warmed by 1.62 degrees over the last 100 years," how anyone could know that?  The literature of global warming alarmism is littered with faux precision; the truth, as you might imagine, is that it is very difficult to get reliable data for the whole Earth over a period of decades if not centuries.  Climate realists are generally willing to assume, for the sake of argument, that the Earth has warmed somewhat in recent decades.  In fact, though, it is not obvious that even this modest claim is true.  Satellite data show no net warming for as long as such data have been collected, i.e., back to 1979.  Ocean measurements show no net warming over that period, either; the evidence for warming is based on land measurements.

Global Warming? Yeah, right.  [The chart in this article] tells you pretty much all you need to know about the much-anticipated scoop by Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That?  What it means, in a nutshell, is that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) — the US government body in charge of America's temperature record, has systematically exaggerated the extent of late 20th century global warming.  In fact, it has doubled it.

U.S. Temperature trends show a spurious doubling due to NOAA station siting problems and post measurement adjustments.  [Scroll down]  Using Leroy 2010 methods, the Watts et al 2012 paper, which studies several aspects of USHCN siting issues and data adjustments, concludes that:  ["]These factors, combined with station siting issues, have led to a spurious doubling of U.S. mean temperature trends in the 30 year data period covered by the study from 1979 - 2008.["]

New paper blames about half of global warming on weather station data homogenization.  From the told ya so department, comes this recently presented paper at the European Geosciences Union meeting.  Authors Steirou and Koutsoyiannis, after taking homogenization errors into account find global warming over the past century was only about one-half [0.42 C] of that claimed by the IPCC [0.7-0.8 C].

The debunking of global warming continues.  The Cult of Global Warming still has a huge amount of money and political influence, so no landmark on the steady unraveling of their con job should go unremarked.  A big one arrived in the form of a study conducted by Anthony Watts and an army of volunteer assistants:  the data assembled by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and commonly cited for years in support of the global warming scare, is wildly inaccurate.  It literally doubled the amount of actual warming that took place over the past half-century.

Here's the real warming blockbuster.  If new techniques endorsed by the World Meteorological Organisation are applied to official figures, over half of the global warming reported by US land-based thermometers between 1979 and 2008 simply disappears, researchers have found.  The new study used the same raw temperature measurements as US government federal scientific agencies, but the team deployed a revised metric that was better at taking into account the quality of the weather stations that housed the thermometers.

Study Shows Half Of US Warming Is Fake.  Anthony Watts, Evan Jones, Steve McIntyre, and Dr. John Christy have a new study up that highlights what most who are interested in science thought:  that the temperature record for the United States is artificially inflated, releasing it for crowd sourcing the day before the supposed BEST study was supposed to be released.

Half the trend is due to badly placed thermometers and erroneous adjustments.  We always knew thermometers were never meant to be stuck next to air-conditioners.  Now we know they shouldn't be recording global warming near airports either. [...] This is one of those blockbuster moments when the pieces come together.  For Anthony it's five years work, and overturns so many studies all at once.

Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!  What the BEST result shows is that surface thermometers from the land area of the globe (about 29% of the earth's surface) show a warming trend.  But this is not global warming.  And BEST director Professor Rich Muller explicitly disclaims that his trend results indicate a human cause.  He also correctly points out that many of the weather stations used are badly distributed, mostly in the U.S. and western Europe, and possibly subject to local heating effects, such as urban heat islands.  He cautions that a third of his monitoring stations show a cooling, not a warming.

Green Energy Skepticism.  Did you know that the number of global weather tracking stations has been reduced, and disproportionately, the eliminated stations are in colder regions?  Global warming alarmists have continued to report data showing global temperatures rising despite the fact that colder locations have been taken out of the data set, and they haven't bothered to divulge that fact.  If you take cold readings out of the data set, average temperatures rise, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the climate.

Surface Stations:  Adjustments have been made to account for measurable and predictable data biases, such as Time of Observation and station moves, but the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) and NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Flight (GISS) who are the main collectors, analyzers, and modelers of climatic data have not done a site by site hands on photographic survey to account for microsite influences near the thermometer.  To date all such studies conducted have been data analysis and data manipulations used to spot and/or minimize data inconsistencies.

Surface Temperature Records: Policy-Driven Deception?  Instrumental temperature data for the pre-satellite era (1850-1980) have been so widely, systematically, and uni-directionally tampered with that it cannot be credibly asserted there has been any significant "global warming" in the 20th century.  All terrestrial surface-temperature databases exhibit signs of urban heat pollution and post measurement adjustments that render them unreliable for determining accurate long-term temperature trends.  All of the problems have skewed the data so as greatly to overstate observed warming both regionally and globally.  Global terrestrial temperature data are compromised because more than three-quarters of the 6,000 stations that once reported are no longer being used in data trend analyses.

Five Reasons the Planet May Not Be Its Hottest Ever.  On Thursday [1/20/2011] the U.N.'s weather agency announced that 2010 was a milestone, the warmest year on record, in a three-way tie with 2005 and 1998.  "The 2010 data confirm the Earth's significant long-term warming trend," said Michel Jarraud, the World Meteorological Organization's top official.  He added that the ten warmest years after records began in 1854 have all occurred since 1998.  But how reliable is the data? ... [Anthony] Watts recently graded 61% of the stations used to measure temperature with a D — for being located less than 10 meters from an artificial heating source.

Thermometer Magic.  Most temperatures readings made prior to 1950 have been lowered ex post facto, and most years after 1950 have been raised successively higher.  In fact, all temperature readings taken after 1990 have more than 0.5 degrees F added on to what was actually measured by the thermometers!

Climategate Stunner:  NASA Heads Knew NASA Data Was Poor, Then Used Data from CRU.  These three datasets — from NASA GISS, NCDC GHCN, and CRU — are the basis of essentially all climate study supporting anthropogenic global warming.

Three of the Four Temperature Datasets Now Irrevocably Tainted.  The warmist response to Climategate — the discovery of the thoroughly corrupt practices of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) — was that the tainted CRU dataset was just one of four independent data sets.  You know.  So really there's no big deal.  Thanks to a FOIA request, the document production of which I am presently plowing through ... we know that NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) passed no one's test for credibility.  Not even NASA's.

More errors in temperature data:  As the frigid winter days pass and the scandals mount, it becomes clear that claims of man-made global warming aren't based on scientific methods at all.  The hysteria is based on fraud.

Data Control.  Science must have accurate and adequate data.  It's the basis for producing or testing theories; without it results are meaningless.  Inadequate data seriously limits climate research, but scientists and governments who manipulate it for political goals make it impossible.  This occurs because most government weather and climate agencies work to create and confirm results of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

What's Wrong with this Picture?  [Scroll down]  But in another graphic in the 2007 IPCC report Antarctica is missing.  What happened to Antarctica?  How clever to leave out the coldest place on Earth when trying to make the case for AGW.  Temperature data from two other continents is problematic; the first regular temperature reports from the interior of Africa and South America do not begin until 1949 which is why those lines are dashed prior to 1949.  The first regular temperature records from Antarctica do not even exist until 1957 when the international community agreed on the International Geophysical Year (IGY).  The data from the other five continents is problematic as well prior to the IGY.

Climatology:  A Generalist Study In a Specialized World.  [Scroll down]  In a historical twist most people knew about meteorology before they knew about climatology.  It's odd because meteorology is a specific part of climatology, the study of physics of the atmosphere.  Momentum came from attempts to measure and understand the atmosphere and how the interactions that create weather.  Meteorology continued ascendancy during World War I as pilots needed accurate forecasts.  It's why most weather stations are at airports and now suffer from interference from growing urban centers.

Weather Stations Giving Bad Global Warming Data — MSM MIA.  A few months ago, the blogosphere and talk radio were abuzz with the story of how the nation's various weather stations and temperature reading devices have been improperly located or badly constructed and how the data received from these improper devices must be suspected as inaccurate.  The MSM briefly mentioned this story but quickly dropped it like the proverbial hot rock. … Do the researchers who turn this inaccurate data into justifications for global warming theories really want to have proper data?

A Primer on Global Warming.  U.S. climate monitoring stations on the planet's surface show less cooling, but most of the 1,221 temperature stations are located near human sources of heat (exhaust fans, air conditioning units, hot rooftops, asphalt parking lots, and so forth).  The land-based temperature record is unreliable.

Surface Stations:  This website was created in response to the realization that very little physical site survey data exists for the entire United States Historical Climatological Network (USHCN) and Global Historical Climatological Network (GHCN) surface station records worldwide. ... There have been instances recorded of air conditioners being located directly adjacent to the thermometer, vehicles parked next to thermometers head-in, heat generating electronics and electrical components being placed in the thermometer shelters within inches of the sensor, and sensors being located in the middle of large areas of asphalt/concrete and directly attached to buildings all in violation of standard published NOAA practices for temperature measurement.  None of these things witnessed by observers and captured by photography are known or accounted for by climate researchers.

Climate scientists blow hot and cold.  Just about every major outlet has jumped on the news:  Antarctica is warming up.  Most previous science had indicated that, despite a warming of global temperatures, readings from Antarctica were either staying the same or even going down.  The problem with Antarctic temperature measurement is that all but three longstanding weather stations are on or very near the coast.  Antarctica is a big place, about one-anda-half times the size of the US.  Imagine trying to infer our national temperature only with stations along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, plus three others in the interior.

Those Pesky Russkie UHIs.  [Scroll down slowly]  But the real fun ensued later as the bloggers at Climate Audit* and Watts Up With That* started taking a look at the Siberian stations in question with help from Google Earth.  The little Siberian towns where the temperature stations are located all have district heating systems, where steam is distributed from a central power station to heat the buildings in the town.  What about the urban heat island effect from all that?

How not to measure temperature, part 74.  Sometimes, words fail me in describing the absolute disregard of the placement of NOAA official climate monitoring sites.  For example, this one in Clarinda, Iowa submitted by surfacestations volunteer Eric Gamberg.

How not to measure temperature, part 75.  Like tornados and trailer parks, USHCN temperature sensors and barbecues seem to have mutual attraction.  This is the official NOAA USHCN climate station of record in Fairbury, Nebraska.  [The temperature sensor is right beside a barbecue grill.]

Meteorologist Documents Warming Bias in U.S. Temperature Stations.  New research suggests the temperature stations used to calculate statistics on temperatures in the United States are wrong and show more warming than has actually occurred. … Unfortunately, the scientists who compute the nation's average annual temperature seem to have little interest in obtaining accurate information.

1997 Global Temperature Review:  Sorry, No Global Warming.  Surface temperature stations are not global; they are overwhelmingly in the northern hemisphere (United States and western Europe).  Surface data are not only skewed by the urban heat island effect and by climate events like El Niño, but the myriad and often low-tech ways in which the data are collected — particularly sea surface data — give a result that can only be described as fruit salad.

Weather Stations Giving Bad Global Warming Data, A Problem Ignored.  A few months ago, the blogosphere and talk radio were abuzz with the story of how the nation's various weather stations and temperature reading devices have been improperly located or badly constructed and how the data received from these improper devices must be suspected as inaccurate.  Since global warming research often uses this suspect data that is gotten from these failed stations, it must therefore call into question the accuracy of the entire theory as its conclusions are derived from likely false data.

Blogger Finds Y2K Bug in NASA Climate Data.  Years of bad data corrected; 1998 no longer the warmest year on record.

Urban weather stations give the wrong impression of actual temperature.  At the end of September [2002], Arthur DeGaetano, a Cornell University climatologist, reported that Americans suffer ten more hot summer nights than they did 40 years ago, but only "if they live in or near a major city."  In rural areas, the average increase has been only two or three more hot nights.

Thermometers are doing the talking.  Global warming alarmists bring us to the brink of world food shortage and economic collapse — using words and computer models, not higher temperatures.  As a result, more wildlife species are threatened by palm oil plantations growing biodiesel than by climate change.  Heavy sea ice just trapped a big Russian ice-breaker for seven days in the Arctic's Northwest Passage, which the alarmists told us last year would soon be open sailing. … The blue collar world sees no warming, but they surely see economic ruin staring them in the face.  Finally, the workers of the world are crying, "Enough of this man-made warming hype without warming!"

Wartime global temperature anomaly kicks the bucket.  What happened in 1945 was that as Britain's Royal Navy returned to peacetime duties, they had more time to report sea temperatures!  So suddenly there were *more* of their measurements in comparison to those taken by the US Navy.  And why did that matter?  Because the seawater that the Americans actually measured was drawn from engine cooling-system intakes, while the British dipped a bucket into the sea.  One method reads high, the other low.

Contaminated data:  In a new article just published in the Journal of Geophysical Research — Atmospheres, a co-author and I have concluded that the manipulations for the steep post-1980 period are inadequate, and the [graph shown in this article] is an exaggeration.  Along the way, I have also found that the United Nations agency promoting the global temperature graph has made false claims about the quality of its data.

Chicago Temperature Station Riddled with Problems.  An analysis of the official temperature station at Chicago's O'Hare International Airport illustrates many of the problems that lead to false indications of global warming. … According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) database, O'Hare's Automated Surface Observation Station (ASOS) is currently located at the Air National Guard Base there.  But that database must be wrong because, according to the Illinois National Guard, they moved from O'Hare in 1993.  This isn't surprising.  The NOAA/ National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) database is riddled with such errors.

Science Puts the Chill to California's Global Warming Hot Air.  Lee Gerhard, senior scientist with the Kansas Geological Society, … dismisses the notion that human emissions of carbon dioxide are a significant driver of climate and refutes the idea that climate change rates and today's slight global warming are unprecedented. … "Depending on the period in earth's history that is chosen," he said, "the climate will either be warming or cooling.  Choosing whether earth is warming or cooling is simply a matter of picking end points."

Tree Ring Circus:  Is it really possible to determine the change in global temperatures over the last 1,000 years by examining tree rings? We may finally learn the answer, thanks to the efforts of Congressman Joe Barton, R-Texas — who has had everything but the kitchen sink thrown at him by the global warming lobby in its fierce opposition to his recent inquiry.

Treemometers:  A new scientific scandal.  At issue is the use of tree rings as a temperature proxy, or dendrochronology.  Using statistical techniques, researchers take the ring data to create a "reconstruction" of historical temperature anomalies.  But trees are a highly controversial indicator of temperature, since the rings principally record CO2, and also record humidity, rainfall, nutrient intake and other local factors.  Picking a temperature signal out of all this noise is problematic, and a dendrochronology can differ significantly from instrumented data.

Confessions of an 'Exx-Con':  There's a debate over whether recent global data is biased upward by the fact that many measuring stations are located in or near cities around the world that have grown rapidly over the past half-century.  Anyone who's ever crossed the George Washington Bridge can understand the concept of the urban "heat island" effect.

Documenting the Global Warming Fraud.  The scientific fraud underlying global warming theory is starting to be exposed, as data manipulations have been discovered, and now, news of the placement of temperature measuring devices in locations designed to yield artificially high readings, such as next door to a crematorium.  The excellent site Watts Up With That exposes the data-gathering scandal.

The warmaholics' fantasy.  The warmaholics are fond of using the phrase "official records going back to 1850", but the simple facts are that prior to the 1970s, surface-based temperatures from a few indiscriminate, mostly backyard locations in Europe and the US are fatally corrupted and not in any sense a real record.  They are then further doctored by a secret algorithm to account for heat-island effects.

Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated for Weeks Due to Faulty Sensor.  A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California-size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said.  The error, due to a problem called "sensor drift," began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February.  That's when "puzzled readers" alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site.

Less Fire, More Ice.  The claim that man's activities are heating the planet was weakened when it was learned that a glitch caused satellites to undermeasure the volume of Arctic ice.  Doom has been overdone.

Recent trends
Global Warming [Nonsense] Sprouting Up Everywhere.  Fact:  the global rise in temperature over the last 100 years has been less than a degree — if that.  The truth is we cannot yet measure a global temperature to a degree yet, and we surely couldn't 100 years ago.  Fact:  temperatures have been dropping for the last decade eliminating much of the warming that occurred from 1940 through 2000, as shown [here].

World's airports continue to run warmer than ROW.  As noted in the previous post, GISS has released their monthly global temperature summary for June, 2009.  This month's whopping anomaly of 0.63°C is once again much higher than that of RSS, UAH, and even NOAA, which is the source of the GISS temperature data.  Not only is the anomaly higher than the other metrics, but it is trending in the opposite direction.  Temperature data from 1079 stations worldwide contributed to the analysis, 134 of them being located in the 50 US states.  Data from essentially the same few stations have been used for the past twenty-four months.  Many, many hundreds of stations that have historically been included in the record and still collect data today continue to be ignored by GISS in global temperature calculations.

Nearly 90% of Temperature Stations Show Extreme Heat Bias, Study Says.  Eighty-nine percent of official U.S. temperature measurement stations are corrupted by poor site selection that gives false warming signals, according to a new study by meteorologist Anthony Watts.  According to the federal government's own siting criteria, the corrupting influences at those stations create a margin of error larger than the entire asserted warming of the twentieth century.

None Dare Call It Fraud.  Highly accurate satellite measurements show no significant global warming, whereas ground-based temperature stations show warming since 1978.  However, half of the surface monitoring stations are located close to concrete and asphalt parking lots, window or industrial-size air conditioning exhausts, highways, airport tarmac and even jetliner engines — all of which skew the data upward.  The White House, EPA, IPCC and Congress use the deceptive data anyway, to promote their agenda.

What's the temperature, Kenneth?  The story is that the world is heating up — fast.  Prominent people at NASA warn us that unless we change our carbon producing ways, civilisation as we know it will come to an end.  At the same time, there are new scientific studies showing that the earth is in a 20 year long cooling period.  Which view is correct?  Temperature data should be simple enough to record and analyze.  We all know how to read a thermometer — it is not rocket science.

U.S. Temperatures Inflated.  In the U.S. nearly "9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited" according to a recently published study by KPAY-AM investigative weather journalist Anthony Watts.  Watts and over 650 volunteers have been conducting an extensive examination of U.S. weather stations to determine if they produce reliable temperatures and posting the results of the examinations on his blog Watts Up With That.

Test message
The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero.  [Scroll down slowly]  What on earth justifies that adjustment?  How can they do that?  We have five different records covering Darwin from 1941 on.  They all agree almost exactly.  Why adjust them at all?  They've just added a huge artificial totally imaginary trend to the last half of the raw data!  Now it looks like the IPCC diagram in Figure 1, all right ... but a six degree per century trend?  And in the shape of a regular stepped pyramid climbing to heaven?  What's up with that?  Those, dear friends, are the clumsy fingerprints of someone messing with the data Egyptian style ... they are indisputable evidence that the "homogenized" data has been changed to fit someone's preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.

ClimateGate Just Got Much, Much Bigger.  The long and the short of it is best summarized by the Telegraph's James Dellingpole:  "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." ... Around the world temperature stations have been widely decommissioned in rural and higher elevations, and we see an over-emphasis on increasingly urbanized (and therefore warmer) stations in the curious selection process as to what temperatures should count, and how much.

Global Warming as Climastrology.  The Australians have caught on to the global scam and are in an uproar.  In New Zealand they made the mistake of actually releasing their raw temperature records, and within days the blogosphere had nailed the fraud.  This wasn't complicated.  It was the audacity of dopes.  They just padded the numbers with elementary arithmetic.

Global Warming Update:  During the 1960s and into the 1980s, the number of stations used for calculating global surface temperatures was about 6,000.  By 1990, the number of stations dropped rapidly to about 1,500.  Most of the stations lost were in the colder regions of the Earth.  Not adjusting for their lost made temperatures appear to be higher than was in fact the case.  According to Science & Environmental Policy Project, Russia reported that CRU was ignoring data from colder regions of Russia, even though these stations were still reporting data.

What to say to a 'warmer':  An investigation by the U.K.'s left-leaning Guardian newspaper found evidence that Chinese weather station measurements not only were seriously flawed, but couldn't be located.  "Where exactly are 42 weather monitoring stations in remote parts of rural China?" the paper asked. ... The Guardian contends that researchers covered up the missing data for years.

UN global warming data skewed by heat from planes and buildings.  Weather stations which produced data pointing towards man-made global warming may have been compromised by local conditions, a new report suggests.  The findings are set to cast further doubt on evidence put forward by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which claims the science supporting rising temperatures is unequivocal.

A Pending American Temperaturegate:  NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) informs us, based on their "Adjusted Data" for the period from the last decade of the 19th century to 2006, that the temperature for the contiguous U.S. has increased at a rate of 0.69°C/century.  NCDC arrives at this conclusion by massaging raw data from a set of meteorological stations located in the contiguous U.S. which they selected on the basis of a 2.5-degree latitude- and 3.5-degree-longitude grid. ... The most-asked question, most recently by D'Aleo and Watts, is whether the NCDC's reported increase is correct.

The Great Dying of Thermometers.  It's like watching the lights go out over the West.  Sinan Unur has mapped the surface stations into a beautiful animation.  His is 4 minutes long and spans from 1701-2010.  I've taken some of his snapshots and strung them into a 10 second animation.  You can see as development spreads across the world that more and more places are reporting temperatures.  It's obvious how well documented temperatures were (once) in the US.  The decay of the system in the last 20 years is stark.



NASA has been cookin' the books!

NASA Bureaucrats Caught Doctoring Data to Make Warming Seem More Rapid.  NASA's Goddard Institute, run by prominent global warming alarmist James Hansen, secretly doctored the historical temperature record again, reports Randall Hoven in the American Thinker.  The new changes continue an ongoing pattern of government bureaucrats making post-hoc alterations to the historical temperature record to make recent warming seem more rapid than the raw temperature data reflect.

NASA's Rubber Ruler Scandal.  It turns out that there is no way to reliably compare current global temperatures to historical data using NASA's database.  It is a scientific scandal.  I wrote recently about NASA changing its entire temperature record database, just from July to September.  That is, in 2012, NASA changed temperatures going back to 1880.  And it did that without telling anyone or explaining it.  The net effect was to make the 130-year warming trend steeper, by lowering older (pre-1963) temperatures and slightly raising recent ones.

CEI Files Brief, Seeking NASA Records.  Last night [11/3/2010], the Competitive Enterprise Institute — through its outside counsel Gibson Dunn — filed its brief arguing against NASA's rather scattershot and contradictory effort to dismiss our lawsuit requesting certain documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). ... Despite NASA stonewalling, CEI has already learned, for example, that NASA does not, contrary to widespread media and pressure group claims, have an independent temperature data set.

Pop Went the Climate Bubble.  [Scroll down]  The still ongoing NASA-gate involves the systematic distortion of global temperature readings by the U.S. government.  As revealed by a team of skeptics riding the Climategate wave, NASA researchers were exposed as improperly manipulating temperature data to produce claims such as "2005 was the warmest year on record."  The researchers showed how NASA had been gradually trimming the number of temperature stations (from about 6,000 in the 1970s to about 1,000 now) and then averaging temperature data in such a way as to produce synthetically warmer temperatures.  The 2005-warmest-temperature-claim was, in fact, based on a temperature "data base" that had no original temperature data.

Senators Demand Explanation of NASA's Flawed Climate Data.  Senators John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) and David Vitter (R-La.) have written a letter to NASA chief Charles Bolden demanding answers to questions surrounding newly uncovered irregularities in the space agency's climate data.

GISS Caught Doctoring More Data.  Nobody outside of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies knows for sure why the organization so often reports warming trends not reflected in the actual temperature measurements.  That's because the organization's director, astronomer James Hansen, refuses to disclose how and why he makes his temperature adjustments.  Hansen is one of the world's most prominent and vocal advocates of an impending global warming crisis, going so far as to call for putting global warming skeptics through Nuremburg-style trials for crimes against humanity.

Warm-mongers and cheeseburger imperialists.  Something rather odd happened the other day.  If you go to NASA's Web site and look at the "U.S. surface air temperature" rankings for the lower 48 states, you might notice that something has changed.  Then again, you might not.  They're not issuing any press releases about it.  But they have quietly revised their All-Time Hit Parade for U.S. temperatures.  The "hottest year on record" is no longer 1998, but 1934.

Spaced out view of controversy.  Besides sending up rickety 1970s-era space shuttles and doing damage control for drunk astronauts, NASA's focus these days is promoting global warming hype.  It's smart politics — a media-savvy attempt by a bureaucratic dinosaur to stay fashionable.  But NASA made an inconvenient admission last week:  It has been publishing inaccurate data about the Earth's temperature.  The world is not as hot as NASA has been saying it is.

James Hansen's Hacks:  In retrospect, you knew there would be trouble when you put the people responsible for the Space Shuttle program in charge of tracking U.S. temperatures.  So perhaps it shouldn't have come as a big surprise when it was revealed that NASA committed a bit of an oopsie regarding data constantly used by the mainstream media and other global warming proponents.

NASA's Backtrack on Warmest Year Is Being Ignored, Critic Says.  NASA scientists this month corrected an error that resulted in 1934 replacing 1998 as the warmest year on record in the U.S., thus challenging some key global warming arguments, but the correction is being ignored, a conservative climate expert charged Wednesday [8/15/2007].  Yet at the same time, announcements that support global warming are considered "front-page news," said H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the conservative National Center for Policy Analysis.

Global warming?  Look at the numbers.  In his enviro-propaganda flick, An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore claims nine of the 10 hottest years on record have occurred in the last decade.  That's been a common refrain for environmentalists, too, and one of the centrepieces of global warming hysteria:  It's been really hot lately — abnormally hot — so we all need to be afraid, very afraid.  The trouble is, it's no longer true.

Global Warming Bureaucrat Hansen Lashes Out at Critics.  Will the global warming game be over if the scrutiny goes too deep?  Last week, Hansen, NASA's lead scientist on global warming, penned a rather strange ad hominem attack against critics that questioned the validity of his work in the wake of corrections prompted by Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit.

The Warmist Shamans.  Shaman James Hansen has proclaimed that we only have four years left before the world falls into climate catastrophy.  The oceans will rise, species will die, the gates of hell will open, and general wailing and gnashing of teeth will prevail over mankind.  Dr. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, is the world's leading witch doctor crusading against manmade global warming.  He has taken this title away from Bigfoot Al, who is increasingly reticent in discussing his own giant carbon footprint in public.

James Hansen's former boss, on James Hansen.  James Hansen of NASA's GISS has been the single-most influential scientist in the world in promoting the view that global warming represents a catastrophic risk to the planet.  His former supervisor at NASA, Dr. John S. Theon, now publicly disagrees with Hansen's work.

James Hansen's Former Boss Takes Him To Task Over Climahysteria.  Via Watts Up With That?, a press release from Retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon, who calls himself a skeptic now.

NASA's Chief Climate Scientist Stirs Controversy With Call for Civil Disobedience.  NASA's chief climate scientist is in hot water with colleagues and at least one lawmaker after calling on citizens to engage in civil disobedience at what is being billed as the largest public protest of global warming ever in the United States.  In a video on capitolclimateaction.org, Dr. James Hansen is seen urging Americans to "take a stand on global warming" during the March 2 protest at the Capitol Power Plant in Southeast Washington, D.C.

The High Price of Climate Lies.  The global warming hoax didn't happen over night.  It is generally dated from an appearance before Congress by Dr. James E. Hansen in 1988 predicting a dramatic rise in the Earth's temperature based on the increase of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere.  At that time, Dr. Hansen, Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, warned that steps had to be taken quickly to reduce CO2 emissions.  Ever since then, Hansen has been active in his effort to convince everyone that he's right and condemning anyone an opposing point of view.

NASA Chief Questions Urgency of Global Warming.  "Nowhere in NASA's authorization, which of course governs what we do, is there anything at all telling us that we should take actions to affect climate change in either one way or another.  We study global climate change, that is in our authorization, we think we do it rather well.  I'm proud of that, but NASA is not an agency chartered to, quote, battle climate change."

NASA Blocked Climate Change Blogger from Data.  Despite the fact that NASA tried to block him from accessing U.S. temperature data, persistent efforts by a climate change blogger forced the government to amend U.S. temperature data.  Because of the blogger's efforts, NASA now recognizes 1934 as the hottest year in U.S. history, not 1998.

Global climate models fail yet another reality check.  Once again, computer-driven climate simulations have fallen short when measured against real-world scientific observations.  That's right — the very same climate models, on which warming "experts" the likes of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and NASA's GISS base their catastrophic projections, have proven utterly unreliable once more.

Cloudy outlook for climate models.  [Scroll down] On their analysis, does the uncertainty in the observations overlap with the results of the models?  If yes, then the models are supported by the observations of the last 30 years, and they could be useful predictors of future temperature and climate trends.  Unfortunately, the answer according to the study is no.

A tale of two thermometers:  A paper published in scientific journal Nature this week has reignited the debate about Global Warming, by predicting that the earth won't be getting any warmer until 2015.  Researchers at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences have factored in cyclical oceanic into their climate model, and produced a different forecast to the "consensus" models which don't.  But how will we know whether the earth is warming or cooling?  Today, it all depends on the data source.

Painting by numbers:  NASA's peculiar thermometer.  Prominent people at NASA warn us that unless we change our carbon producing ways, civilisation as we know it will come to an end.  At the same time, there are new scientific studies showing that the earth is in a 20 year long cooling period.  Which view is correct?  Temperature data should be simple enough to record and analyze.  We all know how to read a thermometer — it is not rocket science.

Maximum Temperature Trends:  Faulty HO-83 thermometers installed in U.S. weather stations in the 1990s make recent climate history appear warmer.  Remove their errors and -- surprise!

Our Climate Numbers Are a Big Old Mess.  [Scroll down]  Another check for quality control in 2005 created further warming, doubling the initial overall rate.  Then it was discovered that our orbiting satellites have a few faults.  The sensors don't last very long and are continually being supplanted by replacement orbiters.  The instruments are calibrated against each other, so if one is off, so is the whole record.

Why Would Anyone Trust NASA's Climate Data Now?  Last week's disclosure of a critical temperature data revision by NASA climate experts under cover-of-darkness poses as many questions as it answers.  With worried alarmists scurrying to either dismiss the restatement's relevance or ignore it altogether, and NASA itself descending to CYOA tactics, the paramount issue remains that of credibility — both the agency's and the big green scare machine's.

The Editor says...
It is my opinion that NASA should be scrapped.  It is nothing more than a huge pork barrel project that accomplishes nothing.

'Warmest October' Claim Was Wrong, NASA Admits.  NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies — known as GISS — was forced to admit it committed an egregious error when it publicly claimed October 2008 was the warmest October in history.  It turns out October 2008 was nowhere near a record.  Global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere by NASA satellite instruments show it was fairly typical compared to temperatures over the past 30 years and significantly cooler than average temperatures over the past seven years.

Dissing Hansen:  In November 2008, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), run by Dr James Hansen, and one of the four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that October 2008 was the "hottest on record".  Which must have come as something of a shock to the countless millions who trudged through the heavy snow and ice in what they had been told was an unseasonally cold October.  But then Hansen should know.  He is, after all, climate alarmism's 'Mr Big'.  But then this is far from the first time Hansen has been caught 'fiddling' the climate figures.

On The Hijacking of the American Meteorological Society:  I am appalled at the selection of James Hansen as this year's recipient of the AMS's highest award — the Rossby Research Medal.  James Hansen has not been trained as a meteorologist.  His formal education has been in astronomy.  His long records of faulty global climate predictions and alarmist public pronouncements have become increasingly hollow and at odds with reality.  Hansen has exploited the general public's lack of knowledge of how the globe's climate system functions for his own benefit.  His global warming predictions, going back to 1988 are not being verified.  Why have we allowed him go on for all these years with his faulty and alarmist prognostications?  And why would the AMS give him its highest award?

An example of irrational fear-mongering -- James Hansen in his own words:
Coal-fired power stations are death factories. Close them.  Coal is the single greatest threat to civilisation and all life on our planet.  The climate is nearing tipping points.  Changes are beginning to appear and there is a potential for explosive changes, effects that would be irreversible, if we do not rapidly slow fossil-fuel emissions over the next few decades.  As Arctic sea ice melts, the darker ocean absorbs more sunlight and speeds melting.

Has NASA's Hansen Finally Lost His Mind?  Even the realization of Al Gore's dream of "capping" carbon emissions from coal-fired power plants wouldn't satisfy NASA's James Hansen.  He wants to shut them all down, despite the untold human misery such hysterical action would inevitably bring.  And toward that preposterously unattainable end he is now pushing panic buttons with the alacrity of a man truly possessed.

James Hansen's Political Science:  NASA's James Hansen leads a protest against a District of Columbia power plant in the middle of a snowstorm.  Meanwhile, a scientist fired by Al Gore says we need to emit more carbon dioxide, not less.

Outside The Law:  James Hansen, the NASA scientist primarily responsible for the global warming scare, has grown weary of trying to change the world through the legislative order outlined in our Constitution.  "The democratic process doesn't quite seem to be working," Hansen told the British Guardian newspaper Wednesday.  "I think that peaceful demonstration is not out of order, because we're running out of time."

The Man Who Cried Doom.  It's been more than 20 years since James Hansen first warned America of impending doom.  On a hot summer day in June 1988, Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, came to Washington to announce before a Senate committee that "the greenhouse effect has been detected and it is changing our climate now."  The greenhouse effect would have looked obvious enough to anyone watching on television.  The senators conducting the hearing, including Al Gore, had turned the committee room into an oven.  That day it was a balmy 98 degrees, and as former Colorado senator Timothy Wirth later revealed, the committee members "went in the night before and opened all the windows.  And so when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and [high ratings], but it was really hot."  Hansen has been a star ever since.

Global warming controversy hits NASA climate data.  The fight over climate science is about to cross the Atlantic with a U.S. researcher poised to sue NASA, demanding the release of the same kind of information that landed a leading British center in hot water over charges that it skewed its data.

NASA-Gate.  For two years, our space agency has refused Freedom of Information requests on why it has repeatedly corrected its climate figures.  A leading researcher threatens to sue to find more inconvenient truths.  What's become known as "Climate-Gate" may be about to explode on this side of the pond as well.

A U.S. ClimateGate?  Climate researchers and the Weather Channel's founder accuse NASA of the same data manipulation as Britain's Climate Research Unit.  Were weather stations cherry-picked to hide the temperature drop?

Distortion of Temperature Data.  Both the satellite results and the proxy data tell us that the claimed rise of surface temperature between 1979 and 1997, shown by IPCC, is probably much smaller or even non-existent.

NOAA and NASA Complicit in Data Manipulation.  We don't dispute the fact that there has been some cyclical warming in recent decades — most notably from 1979 to 1998 — but cooling took place from the 1940s to the late 1970s, again after 1998, and especially after 2001, all while CO2 rose.  This fact alone questions the primary role in climate change attributed to CO2 by the IPCC, environmental groups, and others.

A Remarkable Lie, from Your Taxpayer-Funded NOAA.  NOAA's network for measuring temperature in the United States has become corrupted by artificial heat sources and other issues.  These problems introduce warm biases into the temperature measurements that are then used by the government and others to support manmade global warming.  So as a reaction to criticism about these problems ... NOAA now claims that the accuracy of the measured temperature no longer matters!

Do You Believe In Magic Numbers?  How much credence can we give any claim that average global temperatures have risen or fallen X degrees over a certain period, or that this year or decade is "the warmest ever," or "since record-keeping began" — especially when the alleged difference is measured in tenths or hundredths of a degree?  The answer:  Not much.  The truth is, we cannot trust the hype and numbers that routinely come out of the IPCC, NOAA, NASA, CRU, White House and other branches of the climate crisis industry.

It's 'the hottest year on record', as long as you don't take its temperature.  We have lately heard much of the claim that 2010 will turn out to have been "the hottest year on record".  No one has done more to promote this belief than Dr James Hansen, head of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), responsible for one of the four main official global temperature records.  As reported by the US blogs Real Science and Watts Up With That, in a post headed "GISS temperatures out of line with the rest of the world", the GISS record has in recent months been diverging wildly from the others.

The Tom Friedman of Climatology.  One of the striking features of our political era is that increasing numbers of liberals are coming out of the closet as enemies of the Constitution and of democracy.  The latest is James Hansen, who heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.  Hansen is, to be blunt, an awful human being and one of the worst of the global warming fraudsters.  Under his guidance, NASA's data have become so unreliable as to be an embarrassment to any scientists who may still be in the picture.

Why Is NASA Hiding James Hansen's Ethics Records?  The climate change fanatic has plenty of outside income.  Did he obtain the proper waivers from NASA as he must according to the law?

NASA Gets Caught Faking Climate Change Data — AGAIN!  The climate change hoaxers use computer models to predict that sea levels would rise anywhere from 15 inches to 20 feet because of global warming in the 21st century (the consensus number is closer to 3 feet).  But Mother Nature was never good at computer science.  Satellite data proved that the first decade of the 21st century sea level grew by only 0.83 inches (a pace of just 8 inches for the entire century).  What's even worse (for the global warming hoaxers) there has been no rise since 2006.

Did climate scientist James Hansen personally benefit from public office?  The American Tradition Institute's (ATI) Environmental Law Center filed a lawsuit Tuesday [6/21/2011] to force the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to make public ethics records for global warming activist and chief climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies James Hansen — to ensure that he did not use his public position for personal gain.  According to ATI, over the past four years Hansen has earned an estimated $1.2 million from outside opportunities.

NASA Scientist Accused of Using Celeb Status to Enrich Himself.  The NASA scientist who once claimed the Bush administration tried to "silence" his global warming claims is now accused of receiving more than $1.2 million from the very environmental organizations whose agenda he advocated.

Climate Scientist, Political Advocate.  Dr. Hansen has been an employee of the federal government for 30 years, at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, where he is now director, making $180,000 per year (plus lavish benefits) courtesy of the US taxpayer.  One of his projects is to have the CEOs of large fossil fuel companies put on trial "for high crimes against humanity and nature."  Is this a great system or what, where public "servants" get paid, handsomely, to advocate for political policies?

NASA Activists Caught Claiming Fictitious Warming.  Government employees overseeing "official" temperature datasets are adding nonexistent warming to recent temperature records, Steven Goddard documents on his Real Science website.  The revelation is not new. Goddard and others have for many years documented how global warming activists at NASA's Goddard Institute and elsewhere consistently adjust the raw temperature data reported by actual thermometers to lower past temperatures and inflate recent temperature data to create a fictitious pronounced warming trend.  The adjustments are so substantial that NASA's Goddard Institute reports a very large 0.5 degree Celsius warming of the United States since the 1930s even though the actual thermometer data show approximately 0.5 degrees of cooling.



Flawed computer models

Global Warming has Temporarily 'Paused' due to Climate Fluctuations and Weaker Solar Irradiance.  Global warming has been temporarily 'paused' according to a group of scientists, who attribute this interlude to climate fluctuations and a more restrained sun.  Researchers at ETH Zurich have explained the two reasons behind the warming hiatus in their study published in the latest issue of the journal Nature Geoscience.  The first is that global temperatures, which rose significantly in the 1990s, have only risen very slightly since 1998 — which has been used by sceptics to question climate change and the models used to measure it.  However, climate fluctuations such as El Niওo and its counter-phenomenon La Niওa have been shown to have caused the high in 1998 and following cooler years respectively.  Climate models cannot predict when exactly these fluctuations will happen.
[Emphasis added.]

Confessions of a Computer Modeler.  The climate debate is heating up again as business leaders, politicians and academics bombard us with the results of computer models that predict costly and dramatic changes in the years ahead.  I can offer some insight into the use of computer models for public-policy debates, and a recommendation for the general public.

German Geologist: IPCC Models A Failure, Sees Possible 0.2°C Of Cooling By 2020.  [Geologist Dr. Sebastian] Lüning says that there is clearly a solar signal in climate over the millenniums, and therefore says the IPCC models have no chance of ever successfully modeling the climate.  He says that the IPCC models have gotten worse, and not better.

The EPA is Putting Environmental Politics Before Policy.  The Obama administration placed its crosshairs right on the coal industry by mandating a 30 percent cut in carbon emissions at fossil fuel-burning power plants by 2030. [...] The Administration's position on the ever-changing climate is based only on un-validated, man-made computer models that have yet to produce climate forecasts that are accurate for periods as short as a decade.  The scientific test of the man-made climate change hypothesis cannot be done with un-validated, constantly failing computer models but only by comparing the hypothesis to real, empirical observations of current and past CO2 and temperature relationships.  This time-honored test indicates that "CO2 is the major cause of climate change" is false.

Why Global Warming Alarmism Isn't Science.  Science is not a set of dogmas, and it is not a pronouncement by a committee.  It is a method. [...] The catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory is based entirely on models, which are programmed by their creators to predict disaster.  But we know for a fact that the models are wrong, because they disagree with reality.  When the facts collide with a theory, the facts win.

Climate Change Is Real. Too Bad Accurate Climate Models Aren't.  Unfortunately, climate models — ones that can accurately and consistently predict global temperatures in the not-so-distant future — simply don't exist in the present.  Indeed, for a group that so nakedly appeals to the authority of "consensus," the faith-based global warming alarmist movement is shockingly impervious to the consensus of actual data.

Common Sense and Climate Change.  We see the power of Earth with every hurricane, tsunami, tornado, earthquake, and volcano.  Man has yet to defeat any of these singular events.  Our batting average is .000.  Earth is pitching a perfect game against us.  This is a commonsense analysis of climate change.  It is based on the history of Earth's climate, not on a computer model trying to predict the future.  Climate-predicting computer models are man-made, and their outcomes are self-serving for the men who designed them, while actual changes to the climate are the result of natural, cyclical forces, far beyond the control of man.

Sad Track Record of Alarmist Climate Models Becoming Evident.  The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) uses 117 mathematical models to predict man's future impact on Earth's climate.  The models do not agree with one another to any reasonable extent, and real-world temperatures continue to run lower than the models' predictions.  That being the case, there is certainly no sound basis for using the climate models as a justification for economy-destroying restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions.  If a single climate model could accurately predict the future climate with a high confidence level, the United Nations would need only one such model.  The U.N.'s reliance on 117 self-contradictory models clearly disputes the assertion "the science is settled."

How Leftists (Badly) Explain Climate Stability.  Much of the controversy about the question of man-caused global warming really has to do with the black box emulations that climatologists have created.  It is important to recognize that such computer models are tautologies.  They tell us the consequences of the assumptions that are built into them — nothing more.  If a model's prediction diverges from measured reality, we know that something is wrong with one, or more, of its assumptions.  This divergence does not tell us which assumptions are wrong — simply that at least one of them is wrong.  That is all one needs to know to judge climate models.  As it happens, these models have failed to predict today's temperature hiatus.  They also fail to account for past temperature oscillations in the climate.

Obama's Executive Order on Climate.  On the surface, it might seem to make sense for the President to want to "do something" about climate events such as hurricanes, but there have always been hurricanes and blaming them and everything from droughts to wildfires on "climate change" is not just absurd, it is a deliberate lie that blames a rise in the amount of carbon dioxide, a so-called but incorrectly named "greenhouse gas", as the cause of these natural events.  The President has issued an Executive Order to ramp up efforts to address "climate change."  At the heart of the global warming hoax has been this carbon dioxide lie, but there has been no warming for over 17 years and the many computer models that predicted it were wrong; many were deliberately false.

Computer Games and Global Warming.  [Scroll down]  Not only do the models disagree with each other, but they disagree with the Earth.  Top climate scientist Kevin Trenberth says that "the state of the oceans, sea ice, and soil moisture has no relationship to the observed state at any recent time in any of the IPCC models."  An objective observer would conclude that climate models are interesting laboratory curiosities that need a lot more work.  But these models are the basis of predictions of global warming doom.  We are supposed to believe that the science is solid, and that practically every scientist agrees that unless we quickly switch to solar and wind energy, terrible things will happen.  It's all pathetic nonsense.  The scientists who believe in the computerized predictions of doom have suspended their critical facilities in favor of the thrill of participating in a crusade.

Climate change theories based on 'computer error'... Lord Lawson orders Met Office review.  The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF), chaired by former Chancellor Lord Lawson, published a report today which argues the UK's official climate projections, known as UKCP09, are incorrect.  Using research conducted by independent climate scientist Nic Lewis, the GWPF argues a flaw in the Met Office's computer climate model means it is bound to predict fairly high warming in the UK whatever observational data is used.

Man Made Climate Change Arguments Don't Survive Scrutiny.  As an example, in 2006 NASA predicted sunspot cycle 24, the current cycle we're in now, would be the strongest in 300 years.  The reality is that it will be the weakest in 100 years.  They could not have been more wrong.  Computer models from the 1990s predicted that global average surface temperature would continue to increase after the year 2000.  They were wrong.  There has been no measured temperature increase since 1998.

It Was a Dark and Stormy Climate Study.  The same people who have spent two decades lobbying for multi-trillion-dollar global efforts to combat climate change on the basis of these computer models have responded to the good-news story by tut-tutting that atmospheric trends may be too complicated to be fully captured in any computer simulation.  Now they tell us.

Rise In Violence Linked To Poor Statistics. Or Climate Change.  Problem with computers is that they are irredeemably stupid.  The computer doesn't know anything:  it can only do what it is told.  And if it is told to take this set of numbers and that set of numbers and to mix them in a certain way, it will do it, creating pretty pictures of the result.  And as computers get better, it can do these blind operations faster and produce prettier pictures.  That's where the trouble starts.

Computer modelling.  Computers allow us to optimise designs in ways that were unavailable in times past.  Nevertheless, the very flexibility of a computer program, the ease with which a glib algorithm can be implemented with a few lines of code and the difficulty of fully understanding its implications can pave the path to Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Another uncertainty: different results on different computers using the same code.  New peer reviewed paper finds the same global forecast model produces different results when run on different computers.

Killing Giggles.  Computer models have long predicted nasty effects from our production of greenhouse gasses.  But the nasty effects have not appeared.  As far as hurricanes, more hit the United States in the 1880s than recently.  Why do people believe that global warming has already created bigger storms?  Because when "experts" repeatedly tell us that global warming will wreck the Earth, we start to fit each bad storm into the disaster narrative that's already in our heads.

IPCC Lead Author Says Climate Models Are Failing.  United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change lead author Hans von Storch told Der Spiegel that climate models are having a difficult time replicating the lack of global warming during the past 15 years.  "So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break," said Storch.  Storch said the models say the planet should be warming much more than it has.

Global Warming: There's Nothing To Fight Against.  The junkyard of failed green energy efforts is stacked high with the carcasses of Solyndra, A123 Systems Inc., Ener1, Abound Solar, Beacon Power, Evergreen Solar, SpectraWatt and AES subsidiary Eastern Energy, to name some of the many defeats.  Making the losses sting even more is the fact there has been no reason to hurry the development of green energy.  The feared warming predicted by models simply hasn't materialized.

12 Reasons Why The Met Office Is Alarmed.  The Met Office's temperature forecasts issued in 12 out of the last 13 years have been too warm.  None of the forecasts issued ended up too cold.  That makes the errors systemic and significant.

12 good reasons to scrap the Met Office.  Whenever it's criticised, the Met Office like nothing better than to have its extensive PR operation (funded with the help of the £200 million we pay the Met Office each year out of our taxes) go into extreme denial mode, knowing that its mendacious, straw-man-filled defence will be reported uncritically everywhere from the BBC and the Guardian to the New Statesman.

Global-warming Computer Models Fail as Temps Remain Stable.  "If climate scientists were credit-rating agencies," the environment editor for Australia's largest newspaper quipped March 30, "then climate sensitivity — the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels — would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded."  The Australian for March 30 concluded that "the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted."

Predictions are now proven wrong
Request for Correction of Serious Inaccuracy.  As a result of the inaccuracy, one of the report's central conclusions was inappropriately drawn.  The inaccuracy could have been avoided in the context of the information available at the time the report was written.  It does not reflect new knowledge, scientific information, additional sources or a mere difference of opinion.

Bad Science and Bad Journalism are a Bad Combination.  Predictions such as appeared in Science are utterly bogus.  They are based on rigged computer models which have been constantly exposed for their lies.  Both the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the U.S. government engage in this fraud.

Climate seers as blind guides.  The science of forecasting is complex.  After 50 years spent studying the issue, I have found there is plenty of experimental evidence that in complex, uncertain situations, experts cannot forecast better than those with little expertise.

Climate Change Models Got It Wrong, Say Researchers.  The global warming models, as we have said repeatedly, are hopelessly flawed.  Earth is not going to heat up as they have projected.  Scientific research out of Norway confirms this.

Leaked IPCC Graph Shows Models Predicting Too Much Warming.  United Nations officials have repeatedly predicted more warming than has occurred in the real world, according to a leaked copy of a draft United Nations climate report. [...] IPCC officials "have way over-estimated the extent of Global Warming since the IPCC first started issuing Assessment Reports in 1990, and continuing through the fourth report issued in 2007," Ph.D. scientist Ira Glickstein wrote in a guest post on meteorologist Anthony Watt's Web site, Watts Up With That?

Climate Computer Models Are Proven Wrong.  Global warming hysteria is based on climate computer models that don't work.  If outgoing radiation from the atmosphere is reduced to less than the incoming radiation from the Sun, heat energy will accumulate in the climate system causing rising temperatures.  The models assume CO2 emissions will cause water vapour, the strongest greenhouse gas, to increase in the upper atmosphere, trapping the radiation.  They also assume clouds will trap more radiation.  But satellite and weather balloon data shows just the opposite of the climate model predictions.

Climate Change Draft Undermines U.N.'s Claims.  [Scroll down]  While the IPCC works overtime to spin the Rawls leak, another headache has emerged for the group.  Figure 1.4 from the draft shows that the models used to predict warming have projected temperatures higher than the observed temperatures we've seen.  The chart also shows that observed temperatures, rather than climbing ever upward, are where they were 15 years ago.  Skeptic Anthony Watts calls the chart a bombshell.  The media have yawned.

Earths Energy Balance measured — models are wrong.  For all the data we can scrape out of rocks, shells and cylinders of ice, what we really need to know, in detail on a planetary scale, is how much energy comes in and how much goes out.  That can only be measured (even roughly) with satellites.  This paper rattles the whole table of key numbers, with empirical results.  It puts core numbers into a new perspective, numbers like the 3.7 Watts per square meter that a doubling of CO2 is supposed to add to the surface budget.

Govt Funded Climate Models Continue Abysmal Performance.  Government bureaucrat-scientists and their expert "global warming" climate models, based on levels of atmospheric CO2, continue to prove an astounding incompetence — billions of taxpayer monies wasted on failed computer simulations that can't predict global temperatures.

Models, Not Climate, Are Hypersensitive to Carbon Dioxide.  The Kyoto Protocol is expiring this year, having accomplished what climate skeptics expected — nothing.  Manmade greenhouse gas emissions and atmospheric greenhouse are up while global temperature have gone nowhere, the latter a trend that started years before Kyoto went into effect.  But before the international climate kleptocracy descends en masse to its next exotic location (Doha, Qatar in November 2012) to try breathing life into the Kyoto Protocol, someone should check under the hood to review what is trying to be achieved and why.

Don't be mean to climate models — they're hypersensitive!  We conclude Earth's fully equilibrated surface response to 2xCO2 is expected to be less than 0.4°C.  A state of climate emergency from enhanced greenhouse does not exist.

New paper finds clouds act as a negative feedback and cause significant cooling.  A paper published today [7/5/2012] in the Journal of Geophysical Research finds that a natural atmospheric oscillation, the Southern Annular Mode, is correlated to significant increases in cloud cover resulting in "large scale" local cooling of approximately -2.5°C.  All climate models falsely assume clouds result in net positive feedback and increased temperatures, however this new paper and several others show clouds instead result in net negative feedback and cooling.

Plants flower faster than climate change models predict.  Scientific models are failing to accurately predict the impact of global warming on plants, says a new report.  Researchers found in long-term studies that some are flowering up to eight times faster than models anticipate.  The authors say that poor study design and a lack of investment in experiments partly account for the difference.

Global Warming Dogma and the New Iron Triangle.  [Scroll down]  The scientific approach to solving this problem has been to create computer models of the Earth's atmosphere.  These computer models don't work very well.  The twenty or so laboratories around the world that do climate models are not eager to be candid about the shortcomings of their models.  If you have been receiving large government grants for ten or twenty years to create climate models, you would surely be inclined to paint a pretty picture of your work.  If your computer model is still lousy after ten years, the government might terminate your grant.

Omitted variable fraud.  [Scroll down]  So the 50% driver of global temperature according to mountains of temperature correlation data is assumed to have 1/40th the warming effect of something whose warming effect is not even discernable in the temperature record.  This is on the input side of the GCM's.  The models aren't using gigaflops of computing power to find that CO2 has that much larger a warming effect.  The warming ratio is fixed at the outset.  Garbage in, garbage out.

Reality vs alarm Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming.  These projections were based on IPCC computer models of how increased atmospheric CO2 should warm the earth.  Some of the models predict higher or lower rates of warming, but the projections shown in the graph and their extensions into the distant future are the basis of most studies of environmental effects and mitigation policy options.  Year-to-year fluctuations and discrepancies are unimportant; longer-term trends are significant.  From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth's temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011.  Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.

Climate Change Believers Agree — Their Models Don't.  Much of the alarmism about alleged climate change is predicated on computer models purporting to demonstrate that global surface temperatures are rising at an alarming rate and are certain to cause all manner of disaster, from droughts and frigid winters to floods and scorching summers.  But how reliable are these models and their forecasts?

Climate Witchcraft and Post-Normal Science.  There are more than 20 climate modeling groups around the world.  These groups each spend millions on programmers and supercomputers, searching for the value of climate sensitivity.  They all get different answers, differing by a ratio of more than two to one.  This failure of consensus would normally be considered a sign that the approach is not working. ... The climate models make predictions that cannot be tested because you would have to wait 50 or 100 years to see if the predictions are correct.

Breaking News: The Climate Actually Changes!  Cyclical, abrupt and dramatic global and regional temperature fluctuations have occurred over millions of years, long before humans invented agriculture, industries, internal combustion engines or carbon-trading schemes.  Many natural factors are known to contribute to these changes, although even the most sophisticated climate models and theories cannot even begin to predict the timing, scale (either up or down) or future impacts — much less the marginal contributions of various human influences.

The Politics of Global Warming.  In 1989/1990 the Global Climate Models were being run on computers very much less powerful than those now available.  Models were relatively primitive.  They had virtually no inclusion of ocean/atmospheric interactions.  When the alarmists came to see Allan Bromley and me, I asked how they could believe results if they were modeling climate without including, in any effective way, the ocean/air heat and mass transfer.  That shortcoming was required of the models because of time step limitations imposed by the model elements and characteristics.  They tried to argue the ocean wasn't that significant because the culprit was airborne CO2.  I pointed out that the top couple of meters of the ocean had a thermal capacity greater than the entire atmosphere, and that the top 100 meters of ocean were generally well mixed and that the heat and mass transfer coupling at the interface was truly significant.

Climate Debate Rejects Science For Ideology.  Predictions of catastrophe depend on models.  Models depend on assumptions about complex planetary systems — from ocean currents to cloud formation — that no one fully understands.  Which is why the models are inherently flawed and forever changing.  The doomsday scenarios posit a cascade of events, each with a certain probability.  The multiple improbability of their simultaneous occurrence renders all such predictions entirely speculative.

Warmist 'hockey stick' smashed up.  Willis Eschenbach of climateaudit.org did some statistical analysis of his own.  He asked:  which of the Mannian temperature proxies actually carry the "hockey-stick" signal?  The answer was devastating.  Out of the 95 data series in the latest Mann paper that covered the entire last 1,000 years, only 25 carried the "hockey stick" signal.  Three of these series are lake sediments in Finland which are corrupted by recent urban development and the rest are from bristle-cone pine trees in the US Southwest that have been challenged by other researchers.

How the global warming industry is based on one MASSIVE lie.  Those of you who saw An Inconvenient Truth may remember, if you weren't asleep by that stage, the key scene where big green Al deploys his terrifying graph to show how totally screwed we all are by man-made global warming.  This graph — known as the Hockey Stick Curve — purports to show rising global temperatures through the ages.  In the part representing the late twentieth century it shoots up almost vertically. ... [But] the graph — devised in 1998 by a US climatologist called Dr Michael Mann — is based on a huge lie, as Sceptics have been saying for quite some time.

Study of Gravity Exposes Weakness of Alarmist Global Warming Theories.  The amazing history of our understanding of gravity, which still remains quite incomplete, cannot help but make one recognize the total absurdity of the flawed mathematical models claiming to understand all-but-unknowable relationships between various complex physical aspects of our planet and, at the same time, predict global temperatures decades away when we have not mastered local temperatures a week away.

The inconvenient lies of the IPCC:  World leaders consistently cite the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) as the basis for their policies on energy and environment. … which is unfortunate because the IPCC position is based on an unproven theory tested with a computer model designed to prove the theory, but which consistently produces results that don't match reality.  Ironically, it is their definitive positions and statements that provide the evidence for their tangled web.

Has Global Warming Research Misinterpreted Cloud Behavior?  When researchers observe natural changes in clouds and temperature, they have traditionally assumed that the temperature change caused the clouds to change, and not the other way around.  To the extent that the cloud changes actually cause temperature change, this can ultimately lead to overestimates of how sensitive Earth's climate is to our greenhouse gas emissions.  This seemingly simple mix-up between cause and effect is the basis of a new paper that will appear in the "Journal of Climate."

Sacrifices to the Climate Gods:  Since we now have the scientific method, we rely on computer models to predict these future catastrophes rather than on our fears and prejudices.  While this gives the illusion of modern objective precision, the truth is that all we have done is enlisted one of our modern idols — the computer — to justify what we want to believe anyway.  And that fundamental belief is that anything mankind does to nature is inherently evil.

The New Math on Global Warming:  The eco-movement and Al Gore have been repeating the mantra that "the earth has warmed 0.6°C. in the last century."  They claim this has been due to more human-emitted CO2, and project Big Warming on that basis.  When we plug in the 1,500-year cycle, however, we have to take away from the scary computer models the 0.5° of warming that occurred before 1940 — and thus before much human-emitted CO2.  The earth has warmed only a net 0.2°C. of net warming since 1940.  Human-emitted CO2 gets the blame for only half of that — or 0.1°C. of warming over 65 years!  We've had no warming at all since 1998.

Numerical Models, Integrated Circuits and Global Warming Theory.  Global warming theory is a prediction based on complex mathematical models developed to explain the dynamics of the atmosphere.  These models must account for a myriad of factors, and the resultant equations are so complex they cannot be solved explicitly or "analytically" but rather their solutions must be approximated "numerically" with computers.

Over 31,000 U.S. Scientists Deny Man-Made Global Warming.  The forecasts of desperate temperature increases all come from computer climate models, notes [Dr. Arthur] Robinson.  But the computer models keep forecasting more warming than we get.  In fact, 70 percent of the earth's recent warming occurred before 1940, while virtually all of humanity's greenhouse gas emission has occurred since that date.  The Earth's net warming since 1940 is a tiny 0.2°C.

Global Warming Myths vs Facts:  The computer models assume that CO2 is the primary climate driver, and that the Sun has an insignificant effect on climate.  You cannot use the output of a model to verify or prove its initial assumption — that is circular reasoning and is illogical.  Computer models can be made to roughly match the 20th century temperature rise by adjusting many input parameters and using strong positive feedbacks.  They do not "prove" anything.  Also, computer models predicting global warming are incapable of properly including the effects of the sun, cosmic rays and the clouds.  The sun is a major cause of temperature variation on the earth surface as its received radiation changes all the time.

The Real 'Global Warming' Cause.  Some scientists believe more than one million variables influence global climate.  Water vapor (97%) is typically ignored because the climate models can't include clouds, and only 2% of all greenhouse gases are from human activity.

Global Warming.  It is true that global temperatures have risen over the past century, and ice sheets have been melting at the poles.  But correlating these events with a cataclysmic disaster unleashed by man is a far more difficult stretch.  The scariest predictions are based on computer models or simulations of future climate trend.  Real world data, however, do not corroborate these nightmare scenarios.  Real temperature records from satellites and weather balloons show no increasing temperatures in recent years.  In fact, most of the modest increase that has occurred took place before 1940 and before the increase in manmade emissions of carbon dioxide.  Similarly, scientists are skeptical of linking melting ice shelves or increased disease to global warming.

The National Academy of Dubious Science.  "Highly sophisticated computer models" means a really complicated guess.  The computer models are programmed with simplified assumptions about how the climate works, then asked to project results 100 years into the future.  These models are notorious for leaving out important factors — like clouds — and failing to predict today's actual weather.  The target of the global warming theory, "greenhouse gas emissions," means coal, oil, natural gas, and just about everything else that we use to generate power.

Key Global Warming Study Found Flawed.  One of the most influential scientific studies supporting the case for man-made global warming has just been publicly condemned for "poor data handling, selective use of sources, reliance on obsolete versions of source data and erroneous statistical calculations."  The disputed study's authors, led by Dr. Michael Mann of the University of Virginia, claimed the historically documented Medieval Climate Warming and Little Ice Age never happened.

NASA Scientist Declares Climate Prediction Impossible.  Dr. James Hansen — the same scientist who alarmed Americans in 1988 with claims that global warming would bring catastrophic temperature increases — has declared before the scientific community in a prestigious journal of the National Academy of Sciences that predicting global temperature with climate models is all but impossible.

The end of the fake consensus on global warming:  The IPCC claimed the hockey stick "proved" unique 20th century global warming.  But it didn't.  [Edward] Wegman, who drew on the initial skepticism of two Canadians who questioned [Michael] Mann's statistical handling, found that Mann's "hockey stick" was the result of a statistical error — the statistical model actually mined data to produce the hockey stick and excluded contrary data.

The 'consensus' on climate change is a catastrophe in itself.  [Scroll down slowly]  But then two Canadian computer analysts, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, got to work on how [Michael] Mann had arrived at his graph.  When, with great difficulty, they eventually persuaded Mann to hand over his data, it turned out he had built into his programme an algorithm which would produce a hockey stick shape whatever data were fed into it.  Even numbers from the phonebook would come out looking like a hockey stick.

Garbage In, Garbage Out:  On July 25, at a hearing of the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee (the same folks who grill corporate executives), the nation found out how little real science there is about global warming.  The hearing was prompted by the discovery that federal scientists were using computer models that they knew could not replicate U.S. temperatures.  They appeared in two landmark documents that have served as the basis for very expensive and intrusive energy legislation.

Science slows global warming!  According to credulous journalist extraordinaire Katharine Sanderson (who has no degree in climatology), we are supposed to believe that "sophisticated climate chemistry models have shown that the (Montreal) Protocol has done much more than rescue the planet from sunburn."  For all you great unwashed, the Montreal Protocol prohibited CFC's, which used to keep our refrigerators cold.  Now we find out that not only has Montreal saved the world's ozone layer, but it has even postponed the dreaded catastrophe of Global Warming!

Climate case built on thin foundation.  Perhaps the increase in the processing power of [the IPCC's] computers has increased their confidence in the software they have been nurturing for years.  Imagine, though, the consequences were they to imply that the accuracy of the models had not improved despite the extra funding.  These models are said to require a human component to reasonably match historical temperatures and the modellers claim that this proves a human influence on climate, but the human factor is an input so a corresponding output is no surprise.  A more plausible reason for the mismatch without this influence is that the models are incomplete and contain errors, but of course chapter nine could never admit this.

United Nations Deceptions.  The British newspaper, The Observer, had an article about the views of Dr. Rajendra Patchauri, the chair of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  "UN says eat less meat to curb global warming" was the headline.  Dr. Patchauri — surprise, surprise — is a vegetarian.  He also heads a UN agency whose "science" has been completely discredited, based as it is on computer models that conveniently massage their data to arrive at predetermined conclusions.  That same data in the hands of other scientists tends to produce the opposite conclusion.

Climate Data Disagree with Climate Models.  A key problem is to establish the extent of the human contribution to climate change, especially in the past 25 years.  This task involves the careful comparison of observations of surface (from land and oceans) and troposphere (from radiosondes and satellites) temperatures with climate models that incorporate all relevant forcings, including those from rising levels of greenhouse gases.  Unfortunately, uncertainties are still very large.

Human sacrifices to global warming god.  [Scroll down]  Here is the latest on President Obama's plan — it could cost industry almost $2 trillion over an eight-year period.  That hefty sum to be paid out to a cap-and-trade carbon tax would snatch money from the pockets of consumers far more than rising oil prices did, hinder economic growth and in still other ways generate human misery, and all in the name of what?  Computer models that can't get anything right, that's what.

Bogeymen of the CO2 hoax losing ground.  The entire claim of human caused CO2 global warming is based on computer models that simply can't work.  It's not surprising [James] Hansen and [Andrew] Weaver are computer modelers; they have the most invested in these claims and the most to lose professionally and politically.  I watched over the years as computer modelers took over and dominated climate science, particularly through the IPCC.  But as Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics at Princeton, said in the May 1999 issue of the American Physical Society and still valid today, "They are not yet adequate tools for predicting climate."

It's the Climate Warming Models, Stupid!  Unfortunately, unlike many other forms of modeling, climate models have yet to prove their wanted accuracy.  For the most part, the reasons for their ongoing failure have everything to do with climate complexity.  The climate is such an extraordinarily difficult dynamic system to be approximated by mathematical equations.  There are literally thousands of components, all interacting in ways that we don't fully understand.

Global Warmists' Sly Polar Disorder.  If there's one thing climate alarmists have become quite good at, it's retrofitting both their computer models and the climate phenomena those models predict whenever they fail to do so correctly.  And whether projecting increases in temperature, sea levels or atmospheric carbon dioxide — that means often.  But some of the most brazen intellectual corruption warmists have committed under fire concerns the sometimes polar opposite trends of Arctic and Antarctic sea ice.

Will the Pentagon Fight Global Warming?  In the 1970s, for instance, CIA analysts warned about massive migration and starvation that would be caused by the impending ice age.  Moreover, these "findings" are based entirely on the predictions of highly speculative computer models that aim to predict global weather patterns up to 100 years into the future.  It is important to note that none of these models predicted the slight cooling the planet has experienced over the last decade.

New 'hockey stick' graph on climate change under fire.  US Congressional inquiries on 'hockey stick' graph claim it is fundamentally flawed, writes Christopher Booker.  A number of readers wrote in to express surprise at the recent letter from the US scientist Dr Michael Mann claiming that his famous "hockey stick" graph, showing temperatures having suddenly soared at the end of the 20th century to unprecedented levels, had been endorsed by the US National Academy of Sciences.  Neither of the two Congressional inquiries involving the NAS did anything of the kind.  Both found that the computer model used to create Dr Mann's "hockey stick", completely rewriting climate history, was fundamentally flawed.

Only in Climate Science Can You Play With a Broken Hockey Stick.  Facts proving humans are not causing global warming are not enough to stop the political juggernaut.  Perhaps exposure of collusion among a small group of self-proclaimed climate scientists who continue to play with a broken stick will stop the madness forcing destructive economic policies.

Garbage In, Gospel Out.  Today, computer models predict everything from the stock market to virus outbreaks.  And the sole basis for calls to pass cap-and-trade legislation, to drastically curb greenhouse-gas emissions, and to fundamentally reorient the world's energy economy are projections from the computer models employed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  Unlike the Club of Rome's calculations, which tried to divine the relatively near future (2000), today's considerably more complicated climate models purport to tell us how the world will look nearly a century out.

Evaluating the IPCC Model.  [Scroll down]  As political hysteria over "man-made" or anthropogenic global warming (AGW) increased, other scientists began checking the mathematical analysis and measurements behind the hockey stick chart because it did not correlate with other known historical temperature data.  In 2003 Professor McKitrick teamed with a Canadian engineer, Steve McIntyre, in attempting to replicate the chart and finally debunked it as statistical nonsense.  They revealed how the chart was derived from "collation errors, unjustified truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, incorrect principal component calculations, geographical mislocations and other serious defects" — substantially affecting the temperature index.

None Dare Call It Fraud.  With virtually no actual evidence to link CO2 and global warming, the climate chaos community has to rely increasingly on computer models.  However, the models do a poor job of portraying an incredibly complex global climate system that scientists are only beginning to understand; assume carbon dioxide is a principle driving force; inadequately handle cloud, solar, precipitation and other critical factors; and incorporate assumptions and data that many experts say are inadequate or falsified.  The models crank out (worst-case) climate change scenarios that often conflict with one another.  Not one correctly forecast the planetary cooling that began earlier this century, as CO2 levels continued to climb.

Climategate's Perry Mason Moment.  [Scroll down]  First, by admitting that we "are nowhere close" to understanding atmospheric energy flows, the much-vaunted [Kevin] Trenberth has trashed all the climate models on which the gloom-and-doom IPCC forecasts are based.  If energy flows in the climate system cannot be accounted for, then they cannot be modeled — and there can be no basis upon which to make predictions of future temperatures.  That's case closed, right there.  But there's more.

The Mathematics of Global Warming.  The forecasts of global warming are based on mathematical solutions for equations of weather models.  But all of these solutions are inaccurate.  Therefore, no valid scientific conclusions can be made concerning global warming.  The false claim for the effectiveness of mathematics is an unreported scandal at least as important as the recent climate data fraud.

Media Will Ignore Climategate Until They Hear "I Was Wrong".  Consider the case of Roger Revelle, the "grandfather of global warming."  He didn't say "I was wrong" during all the years he was heading up the Scripps Institute of Oceanography or the Center for Population Studies at Harvard.  He waited until he was in a retirement job back at UC San Diego — a mere professor without any research or grant monies coming in — to admit he was wrong about CO2 being an important greenhouse gas.  But to his credit, he did say it in his final years.

Did someone mention ClimateGate?

The Supporting Cast — Thought Police Anyone?  The big change came when computer modelers took over climate science.  I knew modeling global climate was impossible; apart from the inadequate surface and upper atmosphere database computer capacity was and is still inadequate.  At conference after conference I watched modelers bully everybody.  Models are the most corrupt part of the CRU and IPCC fiasco, an exposure yet to emerge.  They produced the ridiculous 'predictions' of disaster used to promote control through fear.

And Just Like That, the Warming's Gone.  [Scroll down]  There was indeed a global warming period from 1979 to 1998, thanks to the natural cycles of the oceans and sun — which had produced a similar warming from around 1920 to 1940, and a cooling from the 1940s to the late 1970s.  In the adjustments made by all the data centers, they cooled off the 1930s and 1940s warm blip by adjusting land and ocean temperatures down, and elevated the late 20th century and this decade.

Understanding the Global Warming Delusion.  Computer models are practically the only "proof" that global warming alarmists have to support their theory and forecasts.  How can scientists know that global warming is man-made and will be a crisis, while at the same time express deep skepticism towards the computer models that might support such beliefs?  The answer is that they don't actually "know" global warming is man-made or will be a disaster; they "believe" this to be true.

Climategate:  The Perils of Global Warming Models.  If a model has not been proven to fully reflect reality, then it has very limited use and should be treated like a horoscope.

Warming Is Just Latest Misuse Of Science.  Nothing is easier than coming up with computer models that prove almost anything.  Back during the 1970s, there were computer models predicting mass starvation and global cooling.  The utter failure of those predictions ought to make us at least skeptical of computer models, especially computer models based on data that advocates want to keep from public view or even "lose" when investigators start closing in.

Global Cooling, Global Warming and Climate Change Weekly Report.  [Scroll down]  New Zealand's long time IPCC reviewer and critic, Vincent Gray issued a newsletter describing what he considers to be a significant weakness in the computer models predicting the warming of the planet Briefly, the models over simplify the planet, creating a flat earth that does not rotate.  It is assumed that there is a balance of the input of energy and the output everywhere, including no difference between day and night.  This leads to potentially significant errors in calculation that cannot be resolved.

CSIRO corrupted by Carbonerra.  It's time to de-politicise the Australian government science industry.  The once great CSIRO has abandoned objective climate research in favour of global warming activism.  This started with its selective promotion of extreme drought scenarios.  With a portfolio of unproven climate models to choose from, CSIRO chose the extreme ones to support the alarmist Garnaut report.

Global Warming Theory:  False in Parts, False in Totality.  There are so many variables ignored, underreported or simply not understood in climate science and especially in the computer models that purport to simulate global climate, that they destroy any pretence we know or understand weather and climate. ... Perhaps the most forgotten variable, yet critical to weather and climate, is wind speed.

The Settled Climate Science is Unsettled — Again.  In conversations with a physicist involved in studying the effect of nuclear explosions on the upper atmosphere I was amazed to learn he did not know the tropopause was at different altitudes between the poles and the equator.  This is so fundamental that it is impossible to imagine him finding out anything meaningful about radiation distribution in the atmosphere.  Some have a better understanding of the structure of the atmosphere, but it is still inadequate to draw any conclusions about what is happening to temperatures, gases, energy distributions or anything else fundamental to understanding climate change.  It is also inadequate as the basis for building computer models used to predict future climate.

National Weather Agencies Are The Trojan Horses.  [Scroll down]  Bureaucratic scientists immediately confronted any politician that challenged the science.  It was easy to produce global threatening requests for internal funding stamped with the authority of the IPCC Reports.  Besides, politicians were eager to don the cloak of green.  As a result, almost all funding went to one side of a theory.  Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate.  Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite.

Computer Models And Atmospheric Circulation: A Major Failure.  We still don't understand how the atmosphere circulation works so it is incredible that the computer modelers imagined it could be simulated. ... The Greenhouse Effect compares the atmosphere to a greenhouse but they don't compare in a multitude of ways.  The atmosphere is mostly heated by circulation that doesn't occur in a greenhouse.  More important, transfer of most of the heat is by evaporation and wind.

The Great 'Climate Change' Taxpayer Rip-Off of 2011.  The entire global warming hoax was and is based on "climate modeling", all of which consistently found that the Earth was warming at an alarming rate.  Except that the Earth is NOT warming.  It has been cooling since 1998.  And DOE intends to waste $627 million on more modeling.  It is worth noting that the most sophisticated models of the National Weather Bureau still cannot predict with any confidence what the weather — not the climate — will be next week.

Was 2010 the Hottest Year Ever?  The current temperature data collection system is horribly rigged.  Government temperature gurus are using significantly less data — or even estimating data — from cold places like Canada and Siberia.  They're also relying on more temperatures from thermometers placed in highly urbanized (artificially warmer) locations, as well as taking more readings from the oceans.  Thus, overall global temperatures are being skewed upward.  That's exactly what NASA did again this year.  If they relied solely on satellite data, which accurately covers the entire planet, 2010 would not top the list.  Why NASA of all places, refuses to use space age technology to measure the global temperature is absurd.

Are climate models lying about food too?  Computer models at Stanford University have just "told" us that man-made global warming has already sapped some of the yield potential from our food crops.  They say wheat yields would have been 5.5 percent higher since 1980 without the earthly warming; corn yields would have been 3.8 percent higher.  Stanford's computers apparently didn't tell their programmers that U.S. corn yields have actually risen by more than 60 percent since 1980 -- during a period when they were supposedly hampered by too much heat.

On Being Governed By Scientific Frauds.  Nothing is as toxic as a really bad idea.  Hundreds of millions of dollars are still being spent in "scientific" pursuit of disaster scenarios about the earth, fiddling with infinitely variable computer models.  This isn't science; the burden of proof has flipped to the skeptics, which does not happen in real science. ... As aeronautics engineer Burt Rutan has pointed out, so-called "climate modeling" is a computer game with too many unknowns.  Real scientists keep discovering unexpected climate factors; but if you don't even know your biggest variables, how can you build a model at all?

Media Claims Antarctic Ice Crisis, Yet Ice Continues to Grow.  Reuters and other media outlets are publishing claims this morning that global warming is threatening Antarctic ice shelves.  The rash of media stories perfectly illustrates the strengths and weaknesses of each side in the global warming debate.  Computer models, programmed by global warming alarmists to assume that carbon dioxide causes substantial global warming, keep predicting rapidly warming Antarctic temperatures and melting ice sheets.  In the real world, however, Antarctica is not warming at all and the Antarctic ice sheet is in a long-term expansion.

Globull Warming Still Stalled.  Warmists are attempting to spin:  "We are investigating why the temperature rise at the surface has slowed in recent years, including how ocean heat content changes and the effects of aerosols from atmospheric pollution may have influenced global climate."  In other words, they have no idea why Nature has decided to blow up the computer model prognostication.

Trampling on People, Environment, Science & Ethics.  The activist groups and government agencies certainly talk a good game.  They've certainly got the "mainstream" media and a lot of legislators and regulators on their side, while many who question their claims and agendas lack the greens' money, influence, connections and firepower — or the courage.  All that notwithstanding, these supposed "white hats" are often all hat and no cattle — or worse.  In truth, the very foundation for many of their policies is built on sand, worthless computer models or outright deception.

Mystery black-box method used to make *all new* Australian "hottest" ever records.  This summer the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) invented a whole new metric to measure average national heat, which might be all very well except no one (other than the BOM) seems to know what it is.  On January 7th the BOM claimed Australia set a new "average maximum daily temperature record".  Now the headlines are about the "hottest" Australian summer.  With both records, no one outside the BOM team has access to the methods or data.

How the Hockey Stick Crumbled: A Post Mortem.  [Scroll down]  But when real scientists — that is, those who apply a skeptical, scientific approach rather than a religious attitude of fervor — studied the Marcott paper, it quickly fell apart.  We wrote about the Marcott fiasco here and here.  It turned out that Marcott and his colleagues had created the 20th century warming spike — which was, in reality, the sole purpose of their exercise — by changing the dates on some of the samples they used as proxies.

Anti-information in climate models.  A model can't do worse than explaining nothing, right?  Not these models!  The differences between their predictions and the observed temperatures were significantly greater (by a factor of two) than what one would get just applying random numbers.

Climate Models Predict Heat That Hasn't Occurred.  The [New York] Times reported Monday [6/10/2013] that "The rise in the surface temperature of earth has been markedly slower over the last 15 years than in the 20 years before that.  And that lull in warming has occurred even as greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere at a record pace."  The reporter admits the break in temperature increases "highlights important gaps in our knowledge of the climate system" and says the lack of warming "is a bit of a mystery to climate scientists."  It shouldn't be.  As many of us have known for some time, the models that have been forecasting doom are deeply flawed.


Back to the Environmental Issues Page
New page:  Evidence of a conspiracy to suppress the facts  about global warming.
Back to the Global Warming Index Page
Back to the Home page

Bookmark and Share

Custom counter developed in-house

Document location http://www.akdart.com/warming17.html
Updated September 15, 2014.

©2014 by Andrew K. Dart