Reasonable Doubt

about Global Warming

Don't let anyone tell you that "the science is settled" and "the debate is over" 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.  (First of all, 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. 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. 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. 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? Sarkozy in climate row over reshuffle.  President Nicolas Sarkozy's desire to appoint an outspoken climate-change sceptic to a new French super-ministry of industry and innovation has drawn strong protests from party colleagues and environmentalists.  Claude Allégre argues that global warming is not necessarily caused by human activity. 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. '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." 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 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. 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." 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. 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. 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? 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. Inaccurate measurements 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. 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. NASA has been cookin' the books! 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. Hansen Still Embarrassing NASA After Two Decades.  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, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, announced 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 Sen. 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." Flawed computer models 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. Would Galileo buy global warming?  Today, the Church of Manmade Global Warming holds that man's sin of materialism is causing the Earth to burn up. ... The adherents to the theory of manmade global warming have computer models and everything that take into account all sorts of factors, except the one that may matter most — solar activity.  Still, some of us heretics believe the Sun, not the Earth, determines the Earth's temperature.  After all, in any other religion, the notion that man is more powerful than the Sun would be cause for ridicule. 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. Back to the Environmental Issues Page Back to the Global Warming Index Page Back to the Home page

Document location http://www.akdart.com/warming17.html Updated November 19, 2009. Page design by Andrew K. Dart  ©2009