*******Climategate II: Won’t Get Fooled Again?
Signing Global Warming’s Certificate of Death
America polls demonstrate that global warming is at the very bottom of their concerns these days. Wind and solar power, electric cars, biofuels, and other environmental delusions
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
The sixteen names of the scientists who jointly signed the article in The Wall Street Journal, “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” on January 27th are mostly unknown to the general public. Perhaps the best known would be Harrison H. Schmidt, a former Apollo 17 astronaut and U.S. Senator. Others might recognize Burt Rutan, an aerospace engineer and designer of Voyager and SpaceShip One.
Moreover, not only were the signers distinguished scientists, but they came from places like Paris, France and Cambridge, England, Jerusalem, Israel, and Geneva, Switzerland. Mostly climatologists and meteorologists, some were physicists and astrophysicists. Antonio Zichichi, one signer, is president of the World Federation of Scientists. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the combined credentials of these men represent some of the best minds on planet Earth in their respective fields.
What brought them together? On the surface it was just another of the countless articles that have been published over the years as scientists of real merit and courage took on the juggernaut of those for whom global warming had become a vast flow of government and foundation funding.
The effort was to “prove” that carbon dioxide (CO2) was building up in the atmosphere and would soon incinerate Earth by trapping the heat from the sun. It had not done that in the 5.4 billion years of the Earth’s existence, but the “warmists” claims came day after day and year after year. They permeated every aspect of society and you can go into any school in America and find textbooks still selling this garbage.
Until, that is, 2009 when thousands of emails between the small clique of scientists working for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were leaked on the Internet and it became clear that even they knew the Earth had entered a cooling cycle around 1998. The challenges to their bogus computer “models” were coming like cannon balls against their academic castles in America and England.
Starting in 2008, The Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based 27-year-old, non-profit research organization, sponsored four international conferences on climate change, attracting the top scientists and world leaders courageous enough to speak out against the global warming hoax. The momentum of opposition began to build against those who, from the late 1980s had warned that, in Al Gore’s words, “the world has caught a fever.”
The Wall Street Journal article said, in the plainest language, that candidates for public office “in any contemporary democracy…should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true.”
In fact, scientists had been signing petitions opposing the global warming hoax for a very long time. The problem was that the mainstream media either paid them no attention or dismissed them as “skeptics” and “deniers”.
With a light touch, the Wall Street Journal article noted that “Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over ten years now.” It wasn’t as if the warmists did not know it. It was more like they regarded it as a problem to be solved by changing references to global warming to “climate change.”
Their current dying gasps have to do with warnings about “extreme climate events” that have been occurring for eons; tornadoes, hurricanes, blizzards, floods and earthquakes; now all routinely attributed to too much carbon dioxide.
The article calmly said, “The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant.” Indeed, more CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing, aiding increasing crop growth and healthier forests and jungles worldwide.
Someone needs to tell that to the Environmental Protection Agency that is striving mightily to shut down coal-fired energy plants for emitting CO2. Add their efforts to do the same to a wide swatch of American industry and you get an agency that is in great need of being abolished.
“There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.
In time, historians may look back and conclude that the January 27th article was, in fact, global warming’s death certificate, signed by an international group of scientists who could not be disputed no matter how many times the warmists jump up and down and cry that the sky is falling.
It has taken a very long time for most of the public to come to the conclusion that they have been the object of an elaborate hoax. In America polls demonstrate that global warming is at the very bottom of their concerns these days. In time, wind and solar power, electric cars, biofuels, and other environmental delusions will join that list.
Alan has a daily blog called Warning Signs: http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/ .
Alan can be reached at email@example.com
Hide the decline, Professor Richard Muller, Professor Judith Curry
Peter C. Glover
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
“For the clueless or cynical diehards who deny global warming , it’s getting awfully cold out there.” So wrote Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson on October 24. Unfortunately for Robinson, he was right about it “getting awfully cold out there”, though not as he contended for climate sceptics.
Within days of Professor Richard Muller’s presentation of his Case Against Global Warming Skepticism in the Wall Street Journal (October 21) that his BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures) team had conclusively proved that “the climate science is settled” in favour of alarmism, one of Muller’s own colleagues, Professor Judith Curry, was accusing him of misusing the data to mislead the public and hide the truth. It’s an accusation given added substance in an assessment utilizing BEST’s own data by the UK Global Warming Policy Foundation and published in the UK’s Mail on Sunday (MoS, October 30).
Breaking the story of Professor Curry’s accusation, the MoS reports professor Curry as being “horrified” by her colleague, Professor Muller’s, public statements suggested BEST had ended what were “good reasons for doubt until now”. As chair of the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and the second named co-author of the BEST projects four research papers, Professor Curry told the MoS, “This is nowhere near what the climate models were predicting. Whatever is going on here, it doesn’t look like it is being dominated by CO2.” Curry added, “Of course this isn’t the end of scepticism. To say that is the biggest mistake he [Professor Muller] has made.”
Professor Curry’s accusations have been borne out by an assessment made by the UK’s Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). Using BEST’s own data, the GWPF has published a very different take on the data backed with their own graph, also published in the Mail on Sunday article. Far from depicting data in the form of a hockey-stick mark II, it effectively depicts a plain old ‘stick’—and one that again confirms the flat-lining of global temperatures since the ‘90s, even as levels of CO2 continued to rise.
Speaking to BBC Radio 4’s Today news program, Professor Muller claimed that the BEST team’s data showed no evidence of a global slowdown in temperature rises. Muller said, “In our data, which is only on the land we see no evidence of its having slowed down. Now the evidence that shows that it has been stopped is a combination of land and ocean data. The oceans do not heat as much as the land because it absorbs more of the heat and when the data are combined with the land data the as other groups have shown it does seem to be leveling off. We have not seen that in the land data.”
In assessing the BEST data or themselves, however, the GWPF’s Dr David Whitehouse concludes, “The global temperature standstill of the past decade is obvious in the HadCrut3 data, which is a combination of land and sea surface data. BEST is only land data from nearly 40,000 weather stations.” When Dr Whitehouse plotted a graph using all of the relevant land and sea data using BEST’s own archives however, it revealed “a statistically straight line of zero gradient. Indeed most of the variations within it can be attributed to ENSO [El Nino Southern Oscillation] and la Nina effects.”
Dr Whitehouse adds, “t is impossible to reconcile this with Professor Muller’s statement. Could it really be the case that Professor Muller has not looked at the data in an appropriate way to see the last ten years clearly? Indeed, BEST seems to have worked really hard to obscure it.” Dr Whitehouse goes on to explain in greater detail just the data was utilized or “stretched” to “accentuate the increase”, an illusory rise in temperatures.
*******Churchill is attributed with the quote, “A lie gets halfway around the world before truth has a chance to get its pants on.” Nowhere is the adage more apt than when it comes to climate alarmist statements, it seems. Professor Muller’s version made headlines around the world. One wonders to what extent The Washington Post, the BBC, The Australian and papers like Nature will now qualify their uncritical coverage of Muller’s findings comments? We shouldn’t hold our breath. Alarmism ‘sells’, pedantic facts and nuanced assessment doesn’t.
We can see this starkly if we juxtapose two very different views of BEST’s report. First, the bizarrely uncritical and partisan take by that doyen of science, Nature magazine:
Global warming is really happening—really. There was no conspiracy or cover-up. Peer review did not fail and the scientists who have spent decades working out the best way to handle and process data turned out to know how to handle and process data after all. Thank you Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) study.
What then do we make of Professor Curry’s—a key BEST author—telling the MoS that two of the papers were not even ready to be published as they did not properly assess the arguments of climate sceptics? “To say this is the end of scepticism is misleading, as is the statement that warming hasn’t paused”, stated an exasperated Curry. Clearly she felt she has no alternative but to state the case plainly: “This is ‘hide the decline’ stuff. Our data show the pause, just as other sets do. Muller is hiding the decline.”
The UK’s GWPF’s scientists spotted this for themselves. And we might have assumed that the editors of Nature along with countless science correspondents, having already been fooled by one hockey-stick ‘manufacturer’, would not so easily be fooled again.
It seems we’d be wrong.
Carbon Tax & the Global Warming Hoax
18 June 2010
Global cooling: Global warming myth-makers must now switch to "climate change"
16 January 2010
Cap and Trade Carbon Emissions Bill, Global Warming - Who Benefits?
07 July 2009
Global Warming - Fact or Fiction?
07 May 2007