The Day Global Warming Stood Still
The Day Global Warming Stood Still
The Science of Fraud
Climate Change: As scientists confirm the earth has not warmed at all in the past decade, others wonder how this could be and what it means for Copenhagen. Maybe Al Gore can Photoshop something before December.
It will be a very cold winter of discontent for the warm-mongers. The climate show-and-tell in Copenhagen next month will be nothing more than a meaningless carbon-emitting jaunt, unable to decide just whom to blame or how to divvy up the profitable spoils of climate change hysteria.
The collapse of the talks coupled with the decision by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to put off the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill, the Senate's version of Waxman-Markey, until the spring thaw has led Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the leading Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, to declare victory over Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and the triumph of observable fact over junk science.
"I proudly declare 2009 as the 'Year of the Skeptic,' the year in which scientists who question the so-called global warming consensus are being heard," Inhofe said to Boxer in a Senate speech. "Until this year, any scientist, reporter or politician who dared raise even the slightest suspicion about the science behind global warming was dismissed and repeatedly mocked."
Inhofe added: "Today I have been vindicated."
The Ada (Oklahoma) Evening News quotes Inhofe: "So when Barbara Boxer, John Kerry and all the left get up there and say, 'Yes. We're going to pass a global warming bill,' I will be able to stand up and say, 'No, it's over. Get a life. You lost. I won,'" Inhofe said.
Now we have the German publication Der Spiegel, which is rapidly becoming the house organ for climate hysteria, weighing in again with the sad news that the earth does not have a fever so we really don't have to throw out the baby with the rising bath water.
In an article titled, "Climatologists Baffled By Global Warming Time-Out," author Gerald Traufetter leads off with the observation: "Climatologists are baffled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years." They better figure it out, Der Spiegel warns, because "billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations."
We are told in sad tones that "not much is happening with global warming at the moment" and that "it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year." But how can it be that the earth isn't following all those computer models? Is the earth goddess Gaia herself a climate change "denier"?
The article gloomily notes that a few weeks ago Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research pointed out that the earth had in fact only warmed 0.07 degree Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degree Celsius predicted by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
An even more inconvenient truth, according to the British experts, is that when their figures are adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Nino and La Nina, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degree Celsius. No, that's not a typo.
As if that weren't enough, it seems hackers broke into the computer network run by the Hadley Climate Research Unit, removing 61 megabytes of e-mails and data.
While we don't condone theft, the hacked data and e-mails have spilled onto the Web and reveal something startling: The scientists at Hadley, one of the world's leading climate change study centers, aren't scientifically objective at all.
Indeed, in e-mails, they boast of twisting scientific data to suit their views and to "hide" the truth. At one point, a scientist actually gloats over the death of global warming skeptic John L. Daly, saying, "In an odd way, this is cheering news."
If true, this is massive scientific fraud.
To add to the warm-mongers' woes, patron saint Al Gore, the man who claimed to have invented the Internet, might also have claimed the discovery of Photoshop. Dr. Roy Spencer, of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, formerly with NASA, has taken a look at the pictures used to illustrate Gore's new book, "Our Choice: A Plan To Solve the Climate Crisis."
Gore Photoshopped NASA imagery of the earth for the fold-out cover photo, adding four hurricanes at once, including one spinning in the wrong direction next to Florida and, in a physical impossibility, one on the equator next to Peru. Somewhere in the process, the island of Cuba was deleted.
It is the warm-mongers who are spinning in the wrong direction. We win. You lose. Get a life.
Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out
Global Warming Research Exposed After Hack
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global ...
Hacked Emails Reveal: "Scientists" Faking Data to Establish Global ...
The Science of Fraud
Climate Change: As scientists confirm the earth has not warmed at all in the past decade, others wonder how this could be and what it means for Copenhagen. Maybe Al Gore can Photoshop something before December.
It will be a very cold winter of discontent for the warm-mongers. The climate show-and-tell in Copenhagen next month will be nothing more than a meaningless carbon-emitting jaunt, unable to decide just whom to blame or how to divvy up the profitable spoils of climate change hysteria.
The collapse of the talks coupled with the decision by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to put off the Kerry-Boxer cap-and-trade bill, the Senate's version of Waxman-Markey, until the spring thaw has led Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, the leading Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee, to declare victory over Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., and the triumph of observable fact over junk science.
"I proudly declare 2009 as the 'Year of the Skeptic,' the year in which scientists who question the so-called global warming consensus are being heard," Inhofe said to Boxer in a Senate speech. "Until this year, any scientist, reporter or politician who dared raise even the slightest suspicion about the science behind global warming was dismissed and repeatedly mocked."
Inhofe added: "Today I have been vindicated."
The Ada (Oklahoma) Evening News quotes Inhofe: "So when Barbara Boxer, John Kerry and all the left get up there and say, 'Yes. We're going to pass a global warming bill,' I will be able to stand up and say, 'No, it's over. Get a life. You lost. I won,'" Inhofe said.
Now we have the German publication Der Spiegel, which is rapidly becoming the house organ for climate hysteria, weighing in again with the sad news that the earth does not have a fever so we really don't have to throw out the baby with the rising bath water.
In an article titled, "Climatologists Baffled By Global Warming Time-Out," author Gerald Traufetter leads off with the observation: "Climatologists are baffled as to why average global temperatures have stopped rising over the last 10 years." They better figure it out, Der Spiegel warns, because "billions of euros are at stake in the negotiations."
We are told in sad tones that "not much is happening with global warming at the moment" and that "it even looks as though global warming could come to a standstill this year." But how can it be that the earth isn't following all those computer models? Is the earth goddess Gaia herself a climate change "denier"?
The article gloomily notes that a few weeks ago Britain's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research pointed out that the earth had in fact only warmed 0.07 degree Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degree Celsius predicted by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
An even more inconvenient truth, according to the British experts, is that when their figures are adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Nino and La Nina, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degree Celsius. No, that's not a typo.
As if that weren't enough, it seems hackers broke into the computer network run by the Hadley Climate Research Unit, removing 61 megabytes of e-mails and data.
While we don't condone theft, the hacked data and e-mails have spilled onto the Web and reveal something startling: The scientists at Hadley, one of the world's leading climate change study centers, aren't scientifically objective at all.
Indeed, in e-mails, they boast of twisting scientific data to suit their views and to "hide" the truth. At one point, a scientist actually gloats over the death of global warming skeptic John L. Daly, saying, "In an odd way, this is cheering news."
If true, this is massive scientific fraud.
To add to the warm-mongers' woes, patron saint Al Gore, the man who claimed to have invented the Internet, might also have claimed the discovery of Photoshop. Dr. Roy Spencer, of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, formerly with NASA, has taken a look at the pictures used to illustrate Gore's new book, "Our Choice: A Plan To Solve the Climate Crisis."
Gore Photoshopped NASA imagery of the earth for the fold-out cover photo, adding four hurricanes at once, including one spinning in the wrong direction next to Florida and, in a physical impossibility, one on the equator next to Peru. Somewhere in the process, the island of Cuba was deleted.
It is the warm-mongers who are spinning in the wrong direction. We win. You lose. Get a life.
Climatologists Baffled by Global Warming Time-Out
Global Warming Research Exposed After Hack
Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global ...
Hacked Emails Reveal: "Scientists" Faking Data to Establish Global ...
Views: 12
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Fang1944 on -
And this comment from Scientific American:
Sadly for the potential fate of human civilization, rumors of the demise of climate change have been much exaggerated. The past decade recorded nine of the warmest years in recent history as well as the rapid dwindling of Arctic sea ice, surely the result of imminent global cooling if climate change contrarians are to be believed. After all, one of the most "damaging" emails in question from Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., is actually mourning the paucity of Earth observation systems and data in the past decade, such as satellites (gutted by a lack of funding and launch miscues in recent years) to monitor climate change in the midst of natural variability.
-
Permalink Reply by Hillbilly on -
That's funny. You don't understand the emails.
I suppose you mean this email?
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
Hi all
Well I have my own article on where the heck is global
warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have
broken records the past two days for the coldest days on
record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days
was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the
previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F
and also a record low, well below the previous record low.
This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game
was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below
freezing weather).
Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change
planning: tracking Earth's global energy. /Current Opinion in
Environmental Sustainability/, *1*, 19-27,
doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [PDF]
(A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.)
The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at
the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. The CERES data
published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there
should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong.
Our observing system is inadequate.
That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People
like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly
correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the
change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn't decadal. The
PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO
index became positive in September for first time since Sept
2007. see
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/glob...
Kevin
If that isn't it then please post the one you read (and I'm sure you read it and aren't repeating a point you found somewhere else).
When you say "monitor climate change in the midst of natural variability" it means that they can't detect warming. It means the "signal" to noise ratio is so low, they can't detect the warming signal.
-
Permalink Reply by Fang1944 on
-
They had a record cold in Colorado. Colorado is pretty far north and about a mile above sea level.
In Central Florida we just had the hottest October ever recorded.
In Ohio they're going around in their shirtsleeves; you used to see snow and ice in Columbus by late October. I remember being there in April of 1988, and the city was covered with ice.
If you just pick an odd case, you can prove just about anything.
What you're saying is not what Scientific American said at all.
-
Permalink Reply by Fang1944 on
-
Here's an email that follow up yours, and it seems to be from a fairly expert person.
On Oct 12, 2009, at 2:32 AM, Stephen H Schneider wrote:
Hi all. Any of you want to explain decadal natural variability and signal to noise and
sampling errors to this new "IPCC Lead Author" from the BBC? As we enter an El Nino year
and as soon, as the sunspots get over their temporary--presumed--vacation worth a few
tenths of a Watt per meter squared reduced forcing, there will likely be another dramatic
upward spike like 1992-2000. I heard someone--Mike Schlesinger maybe??--was willing to bet
alot of money on it happening in next 5 years?? Meanwhile the past 10 years of global mean
temperature trend stasis still saw what, 9 of the warmest in reconstructed 1000 year record
and Greenland and the sea ice of the North in big retreat?? Some of you observational folks
probably do need to straighten this out as my student suggests below. Such "fun", Cheers,
Steve
Stephen H. Schneider
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies,
Professor, Department of Biology and
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
Mailing address:
Yang & Yamazaki Environment & Energy Building - MC 4205
473 Via Ortega
Ph: 650 725 9978
F: 650 725 4387
Websites: climatechange.net
patientfromhell.org
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "Narasimha D. Rao" <[3]ndrao@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: "Stephen H Schneider" <[4]shs@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:25:53 AM GMT -08:00 US/Canada Pacific
Subject: BBC U-turn on climate
Steve,
You may be aware of this already. Paul Hudson, BBC's reporter on climate change, on Friday
wrote that there's been no warming since 1998, and that pacific oscillations will force
cooling for the next 20-30 years. It is not outrageously biased in presentation as are
other skeptics' views.
-
Permalink Reply by Hillbilly on
-
Wow. You get better and better.
Here is the emailed response to the emails you quoted.
Kevin,
I didn't mean to offend you. But what you said was "we can't account
for the lack of warming at the moment". Now you say "we are no where
close to knowing where energy is going". In my eyes these are two
different things -- the second relates to our level of understanding,
and I agree that this is still lacking.
Tom.
++++++++++++++++++
Kevin Trenberth wrote:
> Hi Tom
> How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where
> close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to
> make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy
> budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the
> climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless
> as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a
> travesty!
> Kevin
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1056&filename=12...
When "Tom" says "geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not!," it means they can't tell the difference between natural variability (noise) and the effect limiting carbon dioxide would have (signal).
When "Kevin" says "our level of understanding..... is still lacking," it means their models can't describe the natural variability.
Frankly it's all quite simple. All you have to do is read. Just read. Make up your own mind. Don't parrot other people. Be a human being. Exist.
-
Permalink Reply by Fang1944 on
-
And here we have an example of conservatives and their poor reading skills.
-
Permalink Reply by Teresa Colegrove on -
Here's the interview and comment in question where Al Gore stated 'I took the initiative in creating the internet' Make whatever you want from his comments. But those clearly are his words.
-
Permalink Reply by Fang1944 on
-
Saying "I took the initiative" is nothing like saying "I created it." Vint Cerf (see my earlier post) gives Gore large credit for supporting the creation of the Internet.
-
Permalink Reply by GodHatesTrash on -
Thank you for the clip.
Any moron except the most brain-dead tea-bagger can see that Al Gore did NOT say he invented the internet. Anyone with the reading comprehension of the average third-grader (from a northern elementary school) can see that he said he that he took the initiative, which he did.
Now, would there be an internet without Al Gore?
Yes.
Would it be as ubiquitous as it is now without him?
No. Gore was around the internet when it was in its infancy, and it needed funding to grow. He made that happen.
-
Permalink Reply by Fang1944 on
-
James Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute, gives his opinion at http://www.newsweek.com/id/224178
Hansen is all for solar and wind power but opines that India and China will need to go nuclear to get off fossil fuels.
-
Permalink Reply by Hillbilly on
-
One of the interesting things about all of this is the lack of coverage in US media. Here is what is being written overseas:
A week after my colleague James Delingpole, on his Telegraph blog, coined the term "Climategate" to describe the scandal revealed by the leaked emails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, Google was showing that the word now appears across the internet more than nine million times. But in all these acres of electronic coverage, one hugely relevant point about these thousands of documents has largely been missed.
The reason why even the Guardian's George Monbiot has expressed total shock and dismay at the picture revealed by the documents is that their authors are not just any old bunch of academics. Their importance cannot be overestimated, What we are looking at here is the small group of scientists who have for years been more influential in driving the worldwide alarm over global warming than any others, not least through the role they play at the heart of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Professor Philip Jones, the CRU's director, is in charge of the two key sets of data used by the IPCC to draw up its reports. Through its link to the Hadley Centre, part of the UK Met Office, which selects most of the IPCC's key scientific contributors, his global temperature record is the most important of the four sets of temperature data on which the IPCC and governments rely – not least for their predictions that the world will warm to catastrophic levels unless trillions of dollars are spent to avert it.
Dr Jones is also a key part of the closely knit group of American and British scientists responsible for promoting that picture of world temperatures conveyed by Michael Mann's "hockey stick" graph which 10 years ago turned climate history on its head by showing that, after 1,000 years of decline, global temperatures have recently shot up to their highest level in recorded history.
Given star billing by the IPCC, not least for the way it appeared to eliminate the long-accepted Mediaeval Warm Period when temperatures were higher they are today, the graph became the central icon of the entire man-made global warming movement.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/667...
Follow Red State Update
Badge
Groups
-
Aleister Crowley 2012 Su…
3 members
-
Illegals Immigrants
8 members
-
Proud Confederates
16 members
-
Does Charlie Daniels pla…
9 members
-
musicians for R.S.U.
14 members
Music
© 2012 Created by Red State Update.
Powered by
