Global Warming ‘Greatest Scam in History’

May 9th, 2008, 07:34 AM

Scanty argument.

May 30th, 2008, 09:09 PM

Wile E. Coyote can't fix climate

By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN
fctAdTag("bigbox",MyGenericTagVar,1);
Whenever Canadian politicians talk about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, I'm reminded of the classic Looney Tunes cartoon character, Wile E. Coyote, in his mad and perpetually unsuccessful pursuit of the Road Runner.
In his forever doomed efforts to capture the Road Runner, Wile E. Coyote orders every conceivable device from the Acme Corporation, only to have them all malfunction on him in some spectacular way and blow up in his face.
Inevitably, the hapless Wile E. Coyote is left in an impossible predicament, such as running madly off a cliff into thin air, while frantically pumping his arms and legs in crazed pursuit of the Road Runner . . . until he looks down.
At that moment, a stricken look on his face, Wile E. Coyote plummets hundreds of feet to the canyon floor below, his impact eventually marked by a small puff of smoke.
But then, Wile E. Coyote, being a cartoon character and thus impervious to death, is back up on his feet in time for the next cartoon, whereupon he repeats the entire process, with the same result.
Forever unsuccessful in capturing the Road Runner, Wile E. Coyote is proof of the wise old saying that a good definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.
That's why, these days, I can't help but think of Wile E. Coyote whenever I hear Liberal Leader Stephane Dion touting a carbon tax, now that, as even the Globe and Mail finally reported yesterday on its front page, citizens in huge swatches of Europe and the United Kingdom are in open revolt against them, condemning them as nothing more than tax grabs by politicians.
It's why the same image came to mind when I heard NDP Leader Jack Layton yesterday praising a "cap and trade'' system for pricing carbon, even though Europe's three-year-old cap and trade system, known as the Emissions Trading Scheme, has become a playground for market speculators and hedge funds, while leading to skyrocketing electricity prices and doing next to nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
I think of Wile E. Coyote, when I see Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty madly racing over a cliff using another defective "Acme" product, ostensibly meant to fight global warming -- government subsidies for ethanol production -- now widely condemned as a contributing factor to global food shortages and skyrocketing food prices.
In many ways, the Kyoto Accord has become to the world's politicians what the Acme Corporation was to Wile E. Coyote, a supplier of perpetually flawed products that not only don't get the job done, but lead to unintended disasters.
Take Kyoto's so-called Clean Development Mechanism, by which developed countries can purchase the right to emit more greenhouse gases by investing in emission-reduction projects in developing nations, now facing widespread allegations of profiteering and corruption.
No doubt our Canadian politicians will argue their carbon tax, and their cap and trade system and their ethanol subsidies will be different, that they will not make the same mistakes other politicians around the world have made.
And it is, of course, in that painfully naive and foolish belief, that this time, they will finally get it right and avoid disaster, that they resemble Wile E. Coyote the most of all.

June 4th, 2008, 01:31 PM

Found an interesting comment in a blog:

It's really hard to imagine how this little ball of fire (the Sun) could have any impact on our climate at all. The little hottie only represent's 98% of the mass of our solar system, and is has atmospheric pressure silghtly higher than earth's: 1.3 million times more to be exact.
27,000,000 degrees Farenheight is not much more than lukewarm, so the only reasonable explaination for globall warming clearly is our conversion of .0000000000000001 percent of Earth's mass into fuel! The only solution, of course, is more taxes.

June 4th, 2008, 03:08 PM

Some nice little stats missing the point, but it's not the conversion of fuels into heat here on Earth that is the problem, it's the trapping of heat from that little ball of fire that is the problem. By the time the hot gases reach the photosphere, the energy has been reabsorbed and re-emitted at lower and lower temperatures, so that what's left is visible light, and the temperature at the photosphere is 5800°K.

June 7th, 2008, 07:53 AM

Carbon Chastity
The First Commandment of the Church of the Environment


By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, May 30, 2008; A13

I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I'm a global warming agnostic who believes instinctively that it can't be very good to pump lots of CO2into the atmosphere but is equally convinced that those who presume to know exactly where that leads are talking through their hats.
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.
Yet on the basis of this speculation, environmental activists, attended by compliant scientists and opportunistic politicians, are advocating radical economic and social regulation. "The largest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity," warns Czech President Vaclav Klaus, "is no longer socialism. It is, instead, the ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous ideology of environmentalism."
If you doubt the arrogance, you haven't seen that Newsweek cover story that declared the global warming debate over. Consider: If Newton's laws of motion could, after 200 years of unfailing experimental and experiential confirmation, be overthrown, it requires religious fervor to believe that global warming -- infinitely more untested, complex and speculative -- is a closed issue.
But declaring it closed has its rewards. It not only dismisses skeptics as the running dogs of reaction, i.e., of Exxon, Cheney and now Klaus. By fiat, it also hugely re-empowers the intellectual left.
For a century, an ambitious, arrogant, unscrupulous knowledge class -- social planners, scientists, intellectuals, experts and their left-wing political allies -- arrogated to themselves the right to rule either in the name of the oppressed working class (communism) or, in its more benign form, by virtue of their superior expertise in achieving the highest social progress by means of state planning (socialism).
Two decades ago, however, socialism and communism died rudely, then were buried forever by the empirical demonstration of the superiority of market capitalism everywhere from Thatcher's England to Deng's China, where just the partial abolition of socialism lifted more people out of poverty more rapidly than ever in human history.
Just as the ash heap of history beckoned, the intellectual left was handed the ultimate salvation: environmentalism. Now the experts will regulate your life not in the name of the proletariat or Fabian socialism but -- even better -- in the name of Earth itself.
Environmentalists are Gaia's priests, instructing us in her proper service and casting out those who refuse to genuflect. (See Newsweek above.) And having proclaimed the ultimate commandment -- carbon chastity -- they are preparing the supporting canonical legislation that will tell you how much you can travel, what kind of light you will read by, and at what temperature you may set your bedroom thermostat.
Only Monday, a British parliamentary committee proposed that every citizen be required to carry a carbon card that must be presented, under penalty of law, when buying gasoline, taking an airplane or using electricity. The card contains your yearly carbon ration to be drawn down with every purchase, every trip, every swipe.
There's no greater social power than the power to ration. And, other than rationing food, there is no greater instrument of social control than rationing energy, the currency of just about everything one does and uses in an advanced society.
So what does the global warming agnostic propose as an alternative? First, more research -- untainted and reliable -- to determine (a) whether the carbon footprint of man is or is not lost among the massive natural forces (from sunspot activity to ocean currents) that affect climate, and (b) if the human effect is indeed significant, whether the planetary climate system has the homeostatic mechanisms (like the feedback loops in the human body, for example) with which to compensate.
Second, reduce our carbon footprint in the interim by doing the doable, rather than the economically ruinous and socially destructive. The most obvious step is a major move to nuclear power, which to the atmosphere is the cleanest of the clean.
But your would-be masters have foreseen this contingency. The Church of the Environment promulgates secondary dogmas as well. One of these is a strict nuclear taboo.
Rather convenient, is it not? Take this major coal-substituting fix off the table, and we will be rationing all the more. Guess who does the rationing.

June 10th, 2008, 05:55 AM

In praise of CO2

With less heat and less carbon dioxide, the planet could become less hospitable and less green
Lawrence Solomon, Financial Post Published: Saturday, June 07, 2008
According to a growing number of scientists, the period of global warming that we have experienced over the past few centuries as Earth climbed out of the Little Ice Age is about to end.



Planet Earth is on a roll! GPP is way up. NPP is way up. To the surprise of those who have been bearish on the planet, the data shows global production has been steadily climbing to record levels, ones not seen since these measurements began.
GPP is Gross Primary Production, a measure of the daily output of the global biosphere -- the amount of new plant matter on land. NPP is Net Primary Production, an annual tally of the globe's production. Biomass is booming. The planet is the greenest it's been in decades, perhaps in centuries.
Until the 1980s, ecologists had no way to systematically track growth in plant matter in every corner of the Earth -- the best they could do was analyze small plots of one-tenth of a hectare or less. The notion of continuously tracking global production to discover the true state of the globe's biota was not even considered.
Then, in the 1980s, ecologists realized that satellites could track production, and enlisted NASA to collect the data. For the first time, ecologists did not need to rely on rough estimates or anecdotal evidence of the health of the ecology: They could objectively measure the land's output and soon did -- on a daily basis and down to the last kilometre.
More from FP Oil Watch
The results surprised Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA, scientists involved in analyzing the NASA data. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth's vegetated landmass -- almost 110 million square kilometres -- enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year.
Why the increase? Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, a gas indispensable to plant life. CO2 is nature's fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients. Plants take the carbon from CO2 to bulk themselves up -- carbon is the building block of life -- and release the oxygen, which along with the plants, then sustain animal life. As summarized in a report last month, released along with a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists who vouched for the benefits of CO2: "Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century."
Lush as the planet may now be, it is as nothing compared to earlier times, when levels of CO2 and Earth temperatures were far higher. In the age of the dinosaur, for example, CO2 levels may have been five to 10 times higher than today, spurring a luxuriantly fertile planet whose plant life sated the immense animals of that era. Planet Earth is also much cooler today than during the hothouse era of the dinosaur, and cooler than it was 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warming Period, when the Vikings colonized a verdant Greenland. Greenland lost its colonies and its farmland during the Little Ice Age that followed, and only recently started to become green again.
This blossoming Earth could now be in jeopardy, for reasons both natural and man-made. According to a growing number of scientists, the period of global warming that we have experienced over the past few centuries as Earth climbed out of the Little Ice Age is about to end. The oceans, which have been releasing their vast store of carbon dioxide as the planet has warmed -- CO2 is released from oceans as they warm and dissolves in them when they cool -- will start to take the carbon dioxide back. With less heat and less carbon dioxide, the planet could become less hospitable and less green, especially in areas such as Canada's Boreal forests, which have been major beneficiaries of the increase in GPP and NPP.
Doubling the jeopardy for Earth is man. Unlike the many scientists who welcome CO2 for its benefits, many other scientists and most governments believe carbon dioxide to be a dangerous pollutant that must be removed from the atmosphere at all costs. Governments around the world are now enacting massive programs in an effort to remove as much as 80% of the carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere.
If these governments are right, they will have done us all a service. If they are wrong, the service could be all ill, with food production dropping world wide, and the countless ecological niches on which living creatures depend stressed. The second order effects could be dire, too. To bolster food production, humans will likely turn to energy intensive manufactured fertilizers, depleting our store of non-renewable resources. Techniques to remove carbon from the atmosphere also sound alarms. Carbon sequestration, a darling of many who would mitigate climate change, could become a top inducer of earthquakes, according to Christian Klose, a geohazards researcher at Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Because the carbon sequestration schemes tend to be located near cities, he notes, carbon-sequestration-caused earthquakes could exact an unusually high toll.
Amazingly, although the risks of action are arguably at least as real as the risks of inaction, Canada and other countries are rushing into Earth-altering carbon schemes with nary a doubt. Environmentalists, who ordinarily would demand a full-fledged environmental assessment before a highway or a power plant can be built, are silent on the need to question proponents or examine alternatives.
Earth is on a roll. Governments are too. We will know soon enough if we're rolled off a cliff.

June 10th, 2008, 06:22 AM

June 09, 2008, 8:30 a.m.

Bad Science
A grand tradition.

By Roy Spencer


With the failure of the Lieberman-Warner global-warming bill in the Senate last Friday, I am reminded of the long and grand tradition the scientific community has had in promoting “bad science.” (It is mere coincidence that the acronym for this term is “BS.”)While the failure of the carbon cap-and-trade legislation was largely a result of economic concerns over what it would cost the country, its proponents will no doubt return next year with claims that no price is too great to save us from planetary destruction. But I believe that the huge cost of “doing something” substantial about global warming will inevitably cause us to reexamine the science. Just how certain are we that recent warming really has been caused by SUVs spewing carbon dioxide and cows belching methane? After all, the greater the cost of the advertised fixes, the more certain we must be that the scientific consensus really is more than just a political statement.And why should the science of global warming be so uncertain? Mostly because it is a whole lot easier to make scientific measurements than it is to figure out what those measurements are telling us about how the natural world works. The famous humorist and writer Mark Twain once said, “Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.”I consider the theory that global warming is caused by mankind to be just one more example of the continuing tradition scientists have of extrapolating well beyond what they think they know. In his 1883 book Life on the Mississippi, Mark Twain also expressed perfectly the proclivity of scientists for turning observations of the natural world into long range predictions which were clearly outlandish.

Twain humorously extrapolated an observed change in the length of the Mississippi River forward and back in time by millions of years to demonstrate the absurdity of the conclusions one can reach when one assumes something currently observed will continue to happen at the same rate, indefinitely.

Twain famously concluded, “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture from such a trifling investment of fact.” Possibly the most prolific purveyor of failed environmental predictions is the MacArthur Foundation “genius grant” recipient, Stanford biologist Paul Ehrlich. Beginning in the 1960s, Dr. Ehrlich embarked on a series of premonitions that included dead oceans by 1979, hundreds of thousands of smog deaths in cities, pesticide-related cancers reducing average life expectancy to 42 years by 1980, and such an abuse of pesticides that would cause other countries to launch a nuclear attack on the U.S. out of fear of global poisoning.For some strange reason, the more dire the prediction, the better chance of receiving a prestigious award for scaring the rest of humanity with it — Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize comes to mind.Now, I am assuming that your local newspaper has already kept you sufficiently warned concerning the many different ways that you will suffer a premature death, most of which are now ultimately the result of manmade global warming. But one you might not have heard about is the recent decline in Great Lakes water levels which is (of course) also due to global warming. For instance, Lake Superior water levels in 2007 reached near-record lows. I say “near-record” because a similar decline was observed in the early 1920s which culminated in the record low lake level of 1926. From reading media reports of the 1926 event, one can see the continuing tradition of experts to predict events that non-experts (the public) recognize to be foolish. A Duluth Herald editorial at the time gave the common sense explanation for low lake levels:

The weather bureau has issued a report on low lake levels…the Great Lakes watershed is in a cycle of light precipitation…levels will come back when…the dry cycle is succeeded by a wet one. There have been dry cycles before….and for every dry cycle there has been a wet one to follow…

But the “experts” had a very different take on the issue, as reported in the May 27, 1926 issue of Daily Mining Journal:

Ultimate extinction of the American side of the falls at Niagara is mathematically certain unless water levels in the Great Lakes are raised.

I have a difficult time reading that statement without laughing. But I suspect it wasn’t meant to be a joke.

The silliness of such statements isn’t a failure of the scientific method, but a reflection of the fact that scientists are — believe it or not — human. I have personally heard scientists in leadership positions express the opinion that we need to stop producing carbon dioxide, no matter what the science says. These are the anointed ones who keep us informed on the “scientific consensus” on global warming, and who proclaim that “the debate is over.”

While the global-warming debate will probably slow down for some number of months, it will likely return with a vengeance sometime after the fall elections. This is, of course, unless our eight-year stretch of no warming continues. Since January of 2006 when Al Gore announced we have only ten years left to save ourselves, the globally averaged satellite measured temperature of the lower atmosphere has fallen by one degree Farenheit. Last month was the fifth-coolest month in the 30-year satellite record.

If global warming doesn’t get its act together pretty soon, there will be a lot of scientists (and more than a few politicians) who will look pretty foolish — but only to those who remember the foolish predictions. Since we still remember a few scientists in the 1970s who were announcing the arrival of a new ice age, I am hopeful that we will also be reminded of the catastrophic warming forecasts when they also fail.

But by then we will have moved on to new kinds of environmental catastrophes to predict and wring our hands over. After all, we scientists are human, too, and we must preserve our traditions.

June 10th, 2008, 05:00 PM

Why Did 32,000 Scientists Sign a Petition Dissenting From Global-Warming Consensus?
Why Did 32,000 Scientists Sign a Petition Dissenting From Global-Warming Consensus?...
Posted Jun 10, 2008 01:54 PM PST
Category: SCIENCE/HEALTH
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/ar...aspx?source=nl

June 10th, 2008, 10:40 PM

Heres a good financial right wing incentive against allowing carbon pollution.

You are disposing of your waste into the air and expecting me to pay for the consequences of your actions.

Carbon, regardless of heating effects, does damage other peoples private property. Perhaps not alot, but why should they pay for your careless efforts.

Others do not exists to support you in a welfare state and pay the true cost of your lifestyle choices.

June 12th, 2008, 10:59 AM

Temperature Stock Report

12 06 2008
Interesting quote of the week:

If Global Warming were a stock, and you bought it in 1979 at zero (par) and decided to sell it this month to buy a house, 29 years later you aren’t very happy with your investment. At it’s peak in 1998, the temperature only went to a 0.8 increase, and in April it dipped to very nearly unchanged. (From Charles Noland, Blue Skies)

I never thought of it that way. Sell!

June 12th, 2008, 11:08 AM

Here is a very basic set of overview information related to global warming. This page has been compiled by Texas A&M University's Laboratory for Applied Biotelemetry & Biotechnology.
This data is compiled from a variety of online sources. For a detailed introduction to this issue, check out Common Questions about Climate Change (United Nations Environment Programme & World Meteorological Organization).
See also: Statement on the Status of Global Climate in 2000 (1.3 Mb pdf) by the World Meteorological Organization (U.N.)


Is Global Warming happening?
Yes:

The above graph shows the departure from the long-term average, of average global temperatures, in degrees Farenheit, since 1880. (Source: EPA)
The figure below shows average global temperatures from 1860 onwards, in degrees Celsius and Farenheit. (Source: United Nations Environment Programme World Meteorological Organization)


Are there observable effects that may be tied to Global Warming?
Yes:

To give one example, the graph above shows the percentage of US area (excluding Alaska and Hawaii) with an unusually large amount of the total annual precipitation originating from extreme precipitation events. (Source: United Nations Environment Programme World Meteorological Organization).
In another example, the figure below shows anomalies in Arctic sea ice extent since 1970. (Source: Statement on the Status of Global Climate in 2000 (1.3 Mb pdf) by the World Meteorological Organization, U.N.)

What emissions have an effect on global temperatures?
Many different emissions have an effect on global temperatures:

The figure above shows the relative importance to global warming and cooling of various gases and particulate matter in the atmosphere. (Source: United Nations Environment Programme World Meteorological Organization)
Have CO2 emissions increased?
Yes, since the industrial revolution:

The figure above shows total fossil CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) emissions for three regions, from 1860 through present. Since 1860, global CO2 emissions have increased by more than 1000%. (Source: United Nations Environment Programme World Meteorological Organization)
How about CO2 emissions prior to the industrial revolution?

The graph above shows CO2 (Carbon Dioxide) concentrations as measured in the atmoshpere and in ice cores. (Source: United Nations Environment Programme World Meteorological Organization)
Who are the biggest contributors to global CO2 emissions?
The single biggest contributor are the United States of America:


How might this be related to population size and affluence?
Generally speaking, richer countries and more affluent life styles contribute more to CO2 production, but there are notable exceptions that proove that affluent living does not automatically result in high CO2 production:
The figure below shows the per capita production of carbon dioxide (in metric tons of carbon per inhabitant emitted per year) in 1997, for all the 31 countries that contributed more than 0.5% to the total global production of fossil CO2. North American countries (U.S. and Canada) average about 5 tons of CO2 carbon per person, most countries in the European Union average less than half that (around 2.2 tons per person), and some of the most highly populated countries (and thus big CO2 producers) including the Peoples Republic of China, India, and Brazil are all below the global average of 1.13 metric tons of CO2 carbon per person.
Two notable countries not listed in the figure below are:
The U.S. Virgin Islands as the country with the highest rate of any on the planet (33.22 metric tons of CO2 carbon per inhabitant, corresponding to 0.05% of global fossil CO2 production in 1997).
Switzerland as the most affluent nation on the planet (based on per capita median income and GDP values for 1997). Switzerland in 1997 produced 1.52 metric tons of CO2 carbon per inhabitant (corresponding to 0.18% of total global production). The example of Switzerland shows that it is possible to maintain an affluent community at per capita CO2 production rates near the global average, or about 28% of the U.S per capita CO2 production rate.

What can you do?
That's actually very simple: reduce the amount of fossil fuels you use:

• Drive less and/or use more efficient cars. These days, it is absolutely not a problem to use cars that obtain at the very least 40 miles-per-gallon efficiency in city driving, and 50 mpg on the highway. Cars with at least that much mileage are made by Toyota, Honda, and Volkswagen, amongst others. The world record for a production car is currently held by the VW Lupo 3L TDI, the first production 3-litre car (a car that uses less than 3 litres of fuel per 100 km, or about 75 mpg, on average). Volkswagen recently accomplished the first "Around the world in 80 days on 1000 litres" trip at an average consumption of only 2.38 l/100 km with a production Lupo (that is 94 mpg, at an average speed of 50 mph).
• Use energy efficient lighting, including fluorescent and compact fluorescent light bulbs.
• Lower your thermostats in winter time, raise them in summer time to reduce heating and air conditioning usage.

June 12th, 2008, 11:12 AM

Per Capita is a ridiculous way to measure emissions.

The earth doesn't react to "per capita" emmissions.

Its Emissions versus the amout of the earths surface it represents.

High population density nations do not magically get to pollute more because they can't make the most important ecological friendly decision to have fewer kids.

June 12th, 2008, 11:29 AM

No Zzarchov, it is not ridiculous. It is just a measurement. Useful to some. Not to others.

High population density nations pollute more than low population density nations of the same size.

June 24th, 2008, 05:35 AM

Monday, June 23, 2008
Hansen’s Anniversary Testimony
By Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow
On June 23, 1988 James Hansen, Astronomer by degree but climatologist by self appointment testified in front of congress. It was an orchestrated testimony coordinated by Senator Al Gore and a Senator from Colorado, Tim Wirth (now running Ted Turner’s UN Foundation) who admitted they picked the day after calling the National Weather Service to ensure it was a hot day. He admitted proudly later they opened all the windows the night before, making air conditioning ineffective and making sure all involved including Hansen would be seen mopping their brow for maximum effect. Hansen testified “Number one, the earth is warmer in 1988 than at any time in the history of instrumental measurements. Number two, the global warming is now large enough that we can ascribe, with a high degree of confidence, a cause-and-effect relationship to the greenhouse effect.”
See in the story below how hard Hansen has worked to try and make his prognostication verify by manipulating data. By his own comments to the UK Guardian “When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that’s a crime.” Well the disinformation that comprises the GISS data then by his own words is a crime, and in his own words he “should be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature”.
Here is the plot of actual NASA global satellite monthly temperatures since June 1988. Note the anomaly in May 2008 was lower than in June 1988 by nearly 0.3C. Of course, we don’t have June 2008 numbers yet. Please note I am not saying that cooling began in 1988. Satellites show clearly that since 1979 there was a moderate warming which peaked in 1998. A cooling has taken place the last 6 to 7 years. Global station and ocean data with all its warts shows the warming from the early 1900s to the 1930s, cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s then warming again peaking in 1998. I am just making an observation that it is ironic that 20 years after his first testimony about global warming, it is half a degree F oooler globally, not supporting the drastic measure he advocates. Also we can explain not only the trends but each spike or dip with some natural phenomena as we have shown in recent posts.

See larger image here
His testimony will no doubt include reference to upcoming or ongoing dangerous rises in sea level and ignore the data. His radio interview today on the Diane Rehm show this AM on WAMU in Washington DC, (audio links here) provides a preview of what he will tell congress.


See larger image here
He will also no doubt repeat his claim he is being muzzled. He confuses a muzzle with a megaphone as shown by this table of actual Hansen media references by year (thanks to Roger Pielke Jr. on Prometheus).

See larger image here.
Today unlike in June 1988, temperatures will be near normal in DC with temperatures in the 70s and 80s with thunderstorms. The last two weeks have averaged 2 degrees below normal.

June 28th, 2008, 08:33 PM

Lawrence Solomon: What I told the Petroleum Club
On a tour earlier this week for his new book on global warming, The Deniers, Lawrence Solomon made a presentation at the Petroleum Club in Calgary. His remarks, adapted, appear below.

I’m surprised to see so many of you here today. I thought you might be at trial, for your global warming crimes.
James Hansen — he’s one of the leaders in the climate change movement in the U.S. — wants you in court. “CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing,” he stated yesterday. “...they should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”
Come to think of it, David Suzuki also sees those who abet CO2 emissions as criminals.
And you know what, I bet some of you see yourselves as criminals — or something close to it — because there’s something in human nature that makes us feel guilty, even for crimes we didn’t commit, let alone for non-crimes. And I bet some of your friends and associates might look at you sideways. And your children may be teased and made to feel guilty about what their dad does for a living.
Even more, you’ve been cowed into silence. Instead of making your case to the public, instead of defending yourselves and your industry, you’ve thrown in the towel, or tried to be greener than green, hoping to avoid recrimination.
As many of you know, I and Energy Probe, my organization, have long been critics of the energy industry. We have opposed Arctic pipelines and tar sands that we considered to be ill-advised. We have opposed nuclear plants and big dams.
We favour conservation and renewable energy. We like clean and economic energy, something we have had too little of in Canada. For this, some of you in this room bear some responsibility.
But on the global warming issues, based on the evidence to date, you have nothing to feel guilty about. Albertans have nothing to feel guilty about either. No crime has been committed. No known harm has occurred.
You’ve been had.
The fears of cataclysm over global warming are unfounded. There is no consensus on climate change, despite what Al Gore and the UN’s Panel on Climate Change would have you believe.
Let me tell you why most people think that global warming is a serious problem. It comes down to one number: 2500. That’s the number of scientists associated with the UN’s Panel on Climate Change that the press reports has endorsed the UN Panel’s conclusions. These are the conclusions that get released in the UN’s mammoth reports every six years or so, and that then dominate the media airwaves for weeks.
“2500 scientists can’t be wrong,” the press always says, explicitly or implicitly. Without that number, it would have no basis for the claim that they repeat over and over again — that there’s a consensus on climate change.
2500 is an impressive number of scientists. To find out who, exactly, they were, I contacted the Secretariat of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and asked for their names. The Secretariat replied that the names were not public, so I couldn’t have them. And I learned that the 2500 scientists were reviewers, not endorsers.
Those scientists hadn’t endorsed anything. They had merely reviewed one or more of the literally hundreds of background studies, some important and some not, that were part of this immense United Nations bureaucratic process. They did not review the final report or endorse it.
Their reviews weren’t even all favorable. I know that from many sources, including from among some of the scientists that I profiled — several of the deniers in my book are among those 2500. And those deniers, and others, generally consider the UN’s work a travesty.
There is no endorsement by 2500 top UN scientists. The press has been taken. And so the public has been taken.
The extent to which the public has been taken may surprise you. Not only is there no consensus, the scientists who are skeptics — the deniers — have extraordinary credentials, people at the very top echelons of the scientific establishment. They are the Who’s Who of Science.
Not only do they disagree with the UN conclusions, they often value CO2 for the benefits it provides the planet — satellite data shows the planet is now the greenest it has been in decades. Until recently, after all, CO2 was universally viewed as Nature’s fertilizer.
If these top scientists are right, you are being attacked without justification. You are being painted as criminals and your children are being made to feel ashamed of what you do. You are being victimized, in a modern form of shunning.
Your present strategy of lying low and hoping all this will pass has gotten you nowhere. You need to make your case, factually and frankly. The public will be skeptical of your arguments, as it should be. But if your critics can’t counter your factual arguments, it is your critics who will fail.
You need to decide. Do you want to go on being attacked for something that may be laudable, for producing CO2 may well be laudable? Do you want to go on feeling guilty out of public ignorance of where scientists truly stand on the global warming issue?
On global warming, the science is not settled. You have the facts on your side. But facts will count for naught as long as you see the battle as lost.