How the GW myth is perpetuated

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,847
96
48
Britain’s Channel 4 has produced a devastating documentary titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." It has apparently not been broadcast by any of the networks in the United States. But, fortunately, it is available on the Internet.

Distinguished scientists specializing in climate and climate-related fields talk in plain English and present readily understood graphs showing what a crock the current global warming hysteria is.

These include scientists from MIT and top-tier universities in a number of countries. Some of these are scientists whose names were paraded on some of the global warming publications that are being promoted in the media -- but who state plainly that they neither wrote those publications nor approved them.

One scientist threatened to sue unless his name was removed.

While the public has been led to believe that "all" the leading scientists buy the global warming hysteria and the political agenda that goes with it, in fact the official reports from the United Nations or the National Academy of Sciences are written by bureaucrats -- and then garnished with the names of leading scientists who were "consulted," but whose contrary conclusions have been ignored.

Complete article: http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idarticle=12297
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,847
96
48

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,847
96
48
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,847
96
48
Sheer hypocracy.

November 25, 2007


UN climate circus rolls in on CO2 cloud



Nicola Smith and Jonathan Leake


IT HAS been billed as the summit that could help save the planet, but the latest United Nations climate change conference on the paradise island of Bali has itself become a major contributor to global warming.
Calculations suggest flying the 15,000 politicians, civil servants, green campaigners and television crews into Indonesia will generate the equivalent of 100,000 tonnes of extra CO2. That is similar to the entire annual emissions of the African state of Chad.
When it was first conceived, only a few thousand politicians civil servants and environmentalists were expected to attend the conference — about normal for such an event.
The meeting, which runs from December 3-14, aims to create the framework for a successor to the Kyoto treaty on reducing global greenhouse gas emissions, which expires in 2012.
However, climate change’s growing political importance has led to a surge in interest in the conference, which is being held in the luxury holiday resort of Nusa Dua on Bali’s palm-fringed southern coast.
Attendees are expected to include celebrities such as Leonardo DiCaprio, the actor, as well as Arnold Schwarzenegger, governor of California, and Al Gore, the former US vice-president.
Many are merely “observers” who have no formal role to play in the talks, which largely involve government ministers and officials. Among these observers are 20 MEPs and 18 assistants whose itinerary includes a daytrip to the idyllic fishing and surfing village of Serangan.
The UN has also recently received thousands of new registrations from groups campaigning for the environment or fighting against poverty. WWF, one of the largest, is sending more than 32 staff to the meeting.
Thousands more are coming from businesses, especially the burgeoning carbon trading sector, which already carries out global transactions worth £12 billion a year and has an acute interest in the outcome of Bali.
Indonesian officials say the final tally could reach 20,000 — and fear it could stretch the resort’s infrastructure to the limit. About 90% of the emissions will be generated by delegates flying thousands of miles to Bali, with the rest coming from the facilities they will be using.
Chris Goodall, a carbon emissions expert who did the calculations for The Sunday Times, estimated that each person flying to Bali would, on average, generate the equivalent of 6.48 tonnes of CO2. If 15,000 people attend, this adds up to over 97,000 tonnes of CO2. To this must be added about 13,000 tonnes of CO2 from the conference venue and hotels — a total of 110,000 tonnes.
Goodall, author of How to Live a Low-Carbon Life, said: “One wonders how many people would have gone if the conference had been held in a wet October in Pittsburgh.”
The preparations are acquiring the feel of a huge party, with the Indonesian government seeing it as a chance to revive Bali as a tourist destination after terrorist bombings in 2002 and 2005 saw visitor numbers plummet.
Britain has tried to ensure its delegation is one of the smallest among the leading developed nations. Three ministers — Hilary Benn, the environment secretary, Phil Woolas, junior environment minister, and Gareth Thomas, junior minister for international development — will attend accompanied by about 40 civil servants.
Woolas, however, is still embarrassed by the increasing scale and opulence of such gatherings. “It’s like a circus,” he said. “It’s not just Bali. There are now more than 500 environmental treaties and conventions taking place around the world. It’s a morass of Byzantine proportions. The UN oversees world governance on these issues and we urgently need to streamline it.”
Three ministers in the British delegation are staying in £330-a-night suites at the Westin Resort Nusa Dua hotel, each with their own bedroom, living room and dining room. Such apparent luxury is justified, say aides, by their need for somewhere to hold private meetings.
One of the biggest delegations is being assembled by the European Union, which is expected to send Stavros Dimas, the environment commissioner, and 90 officials. In addition, all 27 EU countries are expected to send separate national delegations. Germany has one of the biggest, with around 70, and France follows close behind with 50. Even Latvia will be represented by four delegates, while Malta, an island populated by 400,000, will have two.
The emissions from Bali, although huge for such an event, remain small on a global scale. Britain, for example, emits the equivalent of 660m tonnes of CO2 a year. Achim Steiner, director of the UN Environment Programme, said such conferences could never be small. “If you want to tackle an unprecedented global challenge like climate change then people have to meet and talk. Bali remains the world’s best hope to minimise the effect of global warming.”

(from the London Times)
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,847
96
48
How not to measure temperature, part 40



29 11 2007 Rounding out a review of California weather stations this week we visit Gilroy, CA, the garlic capital. This COOP station has an MMTS temperature sensor on a pole just a few feet from a concrete slab. We’ve seen a lot of that lately. But look closely - roasted garlic anyone?

Photo from NWS, San Franciso/Monterey CA
While it’s likely the BBQ grill is not used daily, one has to wonder just how much bias it’s proximity imparts into the temperature record. This station COOP number is 04-3417 as is part of NOAA’s “A” network which reports climate to NCDC. It is located at the Fire station in Gilroy, seen below. Notice that is is also near a large parking lot and major intersection downtown. So much for NOAA’s 100 foot rule for station siting.


The recently released paper from LaDochy et al. showed that “urban” stations warmed at a rate of 0.20°C per decade while the “non-urban” stations warmed only 0.08°C per decade, with the lack of attention to the measuring environment such as we see here, is it any wonder?
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Do we all remember Katrina? Another sign post as to Global Warming and how the increase of hurricanes and tropical storms is a sure sign of GW? How each year we have more and more hurricanes showing the fact that GW is real and man made? Well this year there were not that many at all.

So if there aren't many real hurricanes or tropical storm...just start naming tropical depressions and count them as tropical storms! We've got to keep the numbers high my Gorerelians!

Decisions to name storms draw concern
As season ends, some say center rushes to classify, which costs you


By ERIC BERGER
Copyright 2007 Houston Chronicle


With another hurricane season set to end this Friday, a controversy is brewing over decisions of the National Hurricane Center to designate several borderline systems as tropical storms.
Some meteorologists, including former hurricane center director Neil Frank, say as many as six of this year's 14 named tropical systems might have failed in earlier decades to earn "named storm" status.
"They seem to be naming storms a lot more than they used to," said Frank, who directed the hurricane center from 1974 to 1987 and is now chief meteorologist for KHOU-TV. "This year, I would put at least four storms in a very questionable category, and maybe even six."
Most of the storms in question briefly had tropical storm-force winds of at least 39 mph. But their central pressure — another measure of intensity — suggested they actually remained depressions or were non-tropical systems.
Any inconsistencies in the naming of tropical storms and hurricanes have significance far beyond semantics.
The number of a season's named storms forms the foundation of historical records used to determine trends in hurricane activity. Insurance companies use these trends to set homeowners' rates. And such information is vital to scientists trying to determine whether global warming has had a measurable impact on hurricane activity.
Forecasters at the hurricane center deny there's any inconsistency in the practice of naming tropical storms.
"For at least the last two decades, I am certain most, if not all, the storms named this year would have also been named," said Bill Read, deputy director of the Miami-based center.
What everyone agrees has changed is the ability of meteorologists to more accurately analyze tropical systems, thanks to an increased number of reconnaissance flights with sophisticated tools and the presence of more satellites to monitor storms from above.
Scientists generally agree that prior to the late 1970s and widespread satellite coverage, hurricane watchers annually missed one to three tropical storms that developed far from land or were short-lived.
But this season's large number of minimal tropical storms whose winds exceeded 39 mph for only a short period has ignited a separate debate: whether even more modern technology and a change in philosophy has artificially inflated the number of storms in recent years.

Launch of QuikSCAT

A case in point is Tropical Storm Chantal, a short-lived system that formed in late July south of Nova Scotia and moved toward the northeast, out to sea.

Some meteorologists say the storm was never a tropical system at all, because it formed well out of the tropics. Others say it wouldn't have been named before the 1999 launch of the QuikSCAT satellite, which measures surface winds and alerted forecasters to Chantal's organization.
"Without QuikSCAT, Chantal might never have gotten named," said Jeff Masters, a meteorologist and founder of The Weather Underground Web site, a popular resource for tracking hurricanes.
As the technology to observe storms has grown better, the definition of a tropical storm has remained unchanged. Such systems have a center of low pressure with a closed circulation, organized bands of thunderstorms and winds of at least 39 mph. Storms are upgraded to hurricanes when their winds reach 74 mph.
In earlier years before widespread satellite coverage, the hurricane center placed more emphasis on measurements of central pressure than wind speeds in designating tropical storms and giving those systems names, Frank said. Central pressures and wind speed are related, but the relationship isn't absolute.
Frank said he prefers using central pressure, because it can be directly measured by aircraft dropping an instrument into a tropical system.
If a reconnaissance plane had measured a wind speed above 39 mph during Frank's tenure, the system would not automatically have been named. His forecasters might have waited a day to see if the central pressure fell, he said, to ensure that the system really was a tropical storm.
That practice probably would have prevented some systems, such as Tropical Storm Jerry, from getting named this year, Frank said. After being upgraded, Jerry remained a tropical storm for less than a day in the northern Atlantic.
"In the past, we would have waited to see if another observation supported naming the system," Frank said. "We would have been a little more conservative."

Data inconsistencies

The apparent change in the philosophy of naming systems has rankled some longtime hurricane watchers. Jill Hasling, president of Houston's Weather Research Center, said comparing the number of tropical storms and hurricanes today with the historical record is almost impossible.

But Read, of the hurricane center, believes wind speeds are the true indicator of a tropical system's status. Now that more accurate wind measurements are available, it only makes sense to use the best technology to quickly determine if a system has reached tropical storm strength, he said.
"An oncologist today would use the latest technology for determining and assessing one's cancer," Read said. "Would you use a doctor who only used X-rays instead of the latest MRI?"
Inconsistencies with the data have plagued scientists trying to determine whether global warming has increased the number or intensity of hurricanes.
In fact, there are reasons to believe that historical storms have been overcounted as well as undercounted, said Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Before satellites, scientists had few ways to tell the difference between tropical systems and non-tropical storms. As a result, some non-tropical storms probably were named.
"The bottom line is that, yes, we do have errors in tropical cyclone counts," said Curry. "But it is not clear whether this adds a net negative or positive bias to any trend."
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,847
96
48
IPCC Falsifies Sea Level Data

Posted by ReasonMcLucus at 07:39 on 05 Dec 2007

The IPCC falsified data showing a sea level rise from 1992-2002 according to Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, former head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. In an interview by George Murphy, Morner cites various examples of falsification of evidence claiming sea level rises.

"Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC's] publications, in their website, was a straight line - suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn't look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn't recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a 'correction factor,' which they took from the tide gauge" in an area of Hong Kong that had been subsiding, or sinking.
Morner says that the claim that salt water invasion of a fresh water aquifer indicated a sea level rise ignores the more likely cause due to draining the aquifer for the pineapple industry.
Sea level in the Maldives actually fell during the 70's according to Morner, but the area is cited as evidence of a sea level rise. He accuses Australian global warming advocates of knocking down a tree on one island to attempt to prove sea levels were rising.
Morner is particularly critical of the overemphasis on computer modeling by IPCC "experts" instead of doing actual field research like geologists do.
" Again, it was a computer issue. This is the typical thing: The meteorological community works with computers, simple computers. Geologists don't do that! We go out in the field and observe, and then we can try to make a model with computerization; but it's not the first thing."
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,847
96
48
U.N. chief: Human race faces 'oblivion' from climate change

By JOSEPH COLEMAN
The Associated Press


BALI, Indonesia — Delegates at the U.N. climate conference struggled to agree Tuesday on whether they will call on rich nations to cut greenhouse gas emissions by specific amounts, and the U.N. chief warned that the human race faces oblivion if it fails to confront global warming.
Ban Ki-moon, who is presiding over the final days of a conference aimed at setting an agenda and deadline for talks on a pact to replace the Kyoto Protocol in 2012, urged quick action as negotiators haggled over wording that would be acceptable to all.
A version of the revised text obtained by The Associated Press included guidelines for industrialized countries to cut emissions by between 25 percent and 40 percent overall by 2020 — a range that is sure to anger the United States, which has repeatedly said it opposes specific target ranges.
The document also contained a new mention of "quantified national emission limitation and reduction commitments" for industrialized countries.
Ban said the time to act was now.
"The situation is so desperately serious that any delay could push us past the tipping point, beyond which the ecological, financial and human costs would increase dramatically," the U.N. secretary-general told delegates.
"We are at a crossroad," he added. "One path leads to a comprehensive climate change agreement, the other to oblivion. The choice is clear."

As Bugs Bunny would say, "What a maroon."
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,847
96
48



Lone Voice of Dissent Censored by United Nations


CHICAGO, Dec. 13 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- For the second time this week, the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) was kicked off the press schedule for the United Nations' climate conference in Bali, Indonesia.


The ICSC is a group of scientists from Africa, Australia, Europe, India, New Zealand, and the U.S. who contend sound science does not support the outrageous claims and draconian regulations proposed in Bali.


The ICSC team leader, Bryan Leyland, an expert in carbon and energy trading, reported, "This morning I confirmed we had the main conference hall for 9:00 AM tomorrow. At 4:30 PM today, I found that Barbara Black bumped us off the schedule and closed further bookings. I'm fuming."


Black is NGO liaison officer for the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Bali.


Earlier in the week, UN officials in Bali closed down the ICSC's first press conference there. Black interrupted the press conference and demanded the scientists immediately cease. She threatened to have the police physically remove them from the premises.

Black's efforts are part of the United Nations' ongoing censorship of dissenting voices at Bali. ICSC scientists have been prevented from participating in panel discussions, side events, and exhibits.
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,847
96
48
Climate Skeptics Say Debate Stifled
Thursday December 13, 1:36 pm ET
By Karl Ritter, Associated Press Dissenters Say They Are Demonized in Debate Over Global Warming Science and Policies

COPENHAGEN, Denmark (AP) -- The head of the U.N. panel on climate change compared him to Hitler. Another leading scientist called him a parasite. A third described his latest book as a "stealth attack" on mankind.
The list of allegations against Bjoern Lomborg, one of the world's leading climate change skeptics, almost reads like an indictment for war crimes. As Al Gore shows off his Nobel Peace Prize and world policy-makers hammer out a new strategy for saving the planet, climate change contrarians say they have been elbowed out of the debate. They say mainstream scientists have stifled healthy intellectual discourse by demonizing dissenters as oil industry lobbyists or lunatics.

Complete article: http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/071213/climate_naysayers.html?.v=1
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,847
96
48
body { background-color: #FFFFFF; }





December 17, 2007, 1:07 p.m.

“A Solemn and Prolonged Farce”

By The Editors

Winston Churchill’s famous description of disarmament negotiations — “a solemn and prolonged farce” — now applies equally well to the U.N.’s endless climate-change talks. The not-so-hidden agenda of the U.N. climate conference in Bali was clear for months — beat the United States into submission — and the long run-up to Bali was carefully choreographed, with no fewer than four major reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). All of them said the same thing: Doom awaits unless we take drastic action now. The climate campaigners’ goal is a 25 to 40 percent reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020. Having failed to come anywhere near the more modest Kyoto targets, they apparently feel that now is the time for an even less realistic goal.

It was always in the cards that the conference would be deadlocked until the eleventh hour, at which time the U.S. would capitulate and accept some kind of pro-forma agreement, allowing climate campaigners to proclaim that salvation was at hand. Bali followed this script faithfully, with the U.S. coming in for boos, catcalls, and threats — and then cheers and congratulations when it gave in to the “consensus” at the end.

The actual result is inconclusive and kicks the can down the road, where much mischief will need to be fought off again. While the U.S. agreed to participate in framing a successor treaty to Kyoto that will include “measurable, verifiable steps” toward reducing GHG emissions, the desired 25–40 percent reduction was conspicuously left out, to the anger of many greens. “This deal is very disappointing,” the head of Friends of the Earth told the London Times. “This conference has failed to give us a clear destination.” Opposition to the numerical target apparently came from Russia as well as key developing nations such as China and India. The Washington Post called the Bali agreement a “road map,” and it is likely to prove no more successful than that other, more famous “road map” for Middle East peace.

While it might have been better for the U.S. simply to walk out of Bali, the shifting political landscape arguably made it prudent to hang in. The next president is likely (certain if he is a Democrat) to participate in any future climate agreement, and a “stubborn” U.S. position today would give a Democratic president a free shot at ingratiating himself with Europe by ostentatiously repudiating the Bush administration. Meanwhile, the grim economic realities of greenhouse-gas emission reductions continue to loom in the background. If Congress enacts a modest emission-reductions plan in 2008 or 2009 (either an emission-trading scheme or a carbon tax), it is unlikely the U.S. will want to commit to a more ambitious U.N. emissions target subsequently, for the same reason the Senate voted 95–0 in 1997 to reject Kyoto.

So the high-stakes climate poker game will go on to the next hand, where the U.S. still has some decent cards to play. If hypocrisy were a clean energy source, the U.N. could solve the problem of climate change instantly. While the climate warriors heap scorn on the U.S. for its supposed “lack of leadership,” no one is taking note of the fact that the U.S. is probably the only industrialized nation whose greenhouse-gas emissions went down in 2006. (Figures for Europe are not available yet.) The Department of Energy reports that U.S. emissions declined 1.5 percent. This is significant because it has never before happened in a non-recessionary year. That it happened now is a sign of the increasing energy efficiency and superior innovation of the U.S. economy. In fact, the U.S. has had the best GHG-emissions record in the industrialized world for most of the last decade.

On the science front, get ready for the rash of year-end headlines about 2007’s being yet again among the hottest years on record. What these headlines will conceal is that 2007 was roughly the same temperature as 2006, 2005, 2004, and so forth, back to 2000. After rising steadily and noticeably between 1980 and 1998, global temperatures have flattened out for the last decade, even though the climate models say they should be continuing to increase. Curious. The headlines could just as accurately read, “Scientists Confirm Global Warming Standstill.” A few more years of flat temperatures will cause a crisis among the climate campaigners and confound the scientists. This might, however, be one crisis that the greens can’t turn into a panic.


National Review Online - http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NTk3YzAyMDNmMmE2MmE1MjAwMTcxNTFlZTE4NjBjYmM=
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,847
96
48
However virtuous, virtual science is no substitute for the real thing

Michael Duffy
December 22, 2007
Advertisement

When I was a member of Greenpeace in the 1980s I received a request for money supported by the claim that about 30,000 species each year were becoming extinct. Until then I'd been an unsceptical environmentalist, but this sounded like an awful lot, so I called Greenpeace to ask how they knew. I made several queries but they didn't seem very interested. Finally they told me they didn't know where the figure came from, and I resigned from the organisation.
I later found the figure almost certainly came from the work of the biologist Edward Wilson, originally an expert on ants. Wilson made his name in the area of conservation biology in the 1960s when he proposed a mathematical model that could be used to calculate species loss due to habitat destruction.
Based on this and his invention of the concept of "biodiversity", he later announced the world was experiencing "one of the great extinction spasms of geological history" and losing up to 100,000 species a year. Wilson's claims are one of the mainstays of the modern environmental movement, and a foundation of government environmental policies around the globe.
This experience with Greenpeace gave me a long-running interest in the way much environmental science involves mathematical formulas or computer models. The most famous recent examples of these are the "general circulation models" used to produce predictions of future climatic conditions. An important book has just been published by an Australian academic that raises the question of whether this should be regarded as science at all.

Complete article: http://www.smh.com.au/cgi-bin/commo...?path=/articles/2007/12/21/1198175338154.html
 

Walter

Hall of Fame Member
Jan 28, 2007
34,847
96
48
Scientific evidence builds to counter global warming - Heads of state, government bureaucrats, environmental activists, and the news media -- 15,000 strong -- have just completed a global warming conference in Bali, Indonesia. They intended to force mandated reductions in man-made carbon dioxide emissions (CO2 ) in order to avert the catastrophic consequences of global warming.

But respected and skeptical climate scientists were banned from panel discussions, censored, silenced, and threatened with removal by the police if they tried to present peer-reviewed evidence contradicting the ''prevailing wisdom.'' The message was that, ''the debate is over; don't confuse the issue with facts; it's time to move ahead.''

But, the nations of the world refused to commit to CO2 reductions because the consequences to their economies would have been truly disastrous. Perhaps the scientific evidence that man-made global warming does not exist somehow sneaked into the conference, and caused doubt about the conventional wisdom, the so-called ''scientific consensus'' that humankind causes global warming. Albert Einstein once said that a scientific consensus is undone by one fact. (Morning Call)