There are government scientists and researchers who are skeptical of man-made global warming — they just won’t speak up about it, according to two seasoned climate scientists.
“There are skeptics in NASA and NOAA, a good number. But they are quiet. They know in this administration, they don’t speak out,” John Christy, a veteran climate scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, told AL.com.
“These guys in government are not unbiased and they have pressures from above,” echoed Roy Spencer, also a climate scientist at UAH. “Those organizations, NASA and NOAA, they are part of the executive branch. So the White House has some influence over what direction they go. The heads are political appointees so you have political influence from the top down on scientists. And that’s a problem.”
Christy and Spencer sat down with AL.com to discuss their 25 years of using satellites to measure global temperatures, a method of monitoring the climate the two scientists pioneered more than two decades ago.
Satellite temperature measures have been crucial to the global warming debate, showing that temperatures have not risen nearly as fast as most climate models predicted. Satellite data also shows that global temperatures have been flat for the last 15 to 20 years. Trumpeting such data, however, has upset politicians and environmental groups and earned Christy and Spencer the label of “climate deniers.”
Keep Reading…
Showing posts with label global warming hoax. Show all posts
Showing posts with label global warming hoax. Show all posts
Midknight Review has long objected to global warming commentary coming from the ranks of federal agencies and the military. Why? We all know of the crude thuggishness of Obama when "crossed" by his own members. Now, we have confimation of our suspicions:
Daily Caller:
Apparently "global warming" is now taking place in the form of record cold weather and snow fall. The sky is falling, the sky is fall !!!!
 |
| Click on image to greatly enlarge. |
As you well know, my position here, on this blog, is based on the undeniable fact that "global warming" is really "regional warming," and "cyclical" as well.
Here is the Bell report: Tuesday morning, America 'as a whole' awoke to the coldest it has been in November since 1976 -- 38 years ago. The Lower-48 or CONUS spatially average temperature plummeted overnight to only 19.4°F typical of mid-winter not November 18th! Data
An astounding 226-million Americans will experience at or below freezing temperatures (32°F) on Tuesday as well -- if you venture outdoors.
More than 85% of the surface area of the Lower-48 reached or fell below freezing Tuesday morning. All 50-states saw at or below freezing temperatures on Tuesday.
Record lows from Idaho to Nebraska and Iowa south to Texas and east through the Great Lakes, the eastern 2/3 of the US will shatter decades-long and in some cases, century-long records. Temperatures east of the Rockies will be 20-40°F below climate normals.
Compared to normal, temperatures over the past several days have dropped off a cliff -- to 10°C below climate normal -- more anomalous than even during the #polarvortex of early January. Anomaly Chart . November is shaping up to be a colder-than-normal month by a lot.
As you read, know that "polarvortex" is a creative explanation for the harsh weather we are experiencing, allowing the Cyclical Weather Deniers (CWD) to hang onto their fantasy crisis of "global warming." They have lost the populace debate. So, they are left with dictatorial rule and repressive EPA regulations.
Understand that RSS information (streaming Satellite information) gives us a 20 year, real-time, picture of an U.S. weather circumstance that is stable, if not cooling a bit. In other words, there has been no "warming" in the US for 20 years, predating the 9 year email scandal that found gross manipulation of weather information not in line with the suppositions and mathematical weather "models" of the Redistributionist Community.
Reality versus mathematical modeling, that is at the heart of the warming debate. Keep in mind, that our industrial complex has continued to pump "green house gases" into the atmosphere during the same 20 year period that our weather has recorded a stable-to-cooling trend.
More and more environmentalist are having to admit that earth's warming is not at alarming levels, proving the hoax of the Alarmist warming crowd, and validating true and objective science.
41 share
very strong reader interest
After you read the following "Conclusion," you won’t have a clue. So, let me simplify: the climate models used to sustain the Alarmists' Warming debate, do not match data collected from atmospheric observation. In fact, warming trends are “not statistically different from zero in either [atmospheric] . . . . layers.” So goes statements in the “Conclusion,” presented below. In the preface of the same article, we have this confirming statement: Model overestimation of warming is significant whether or not we account for a level shift, although null rejections are much stronger when the level shift is included. © 2014 The Authors. Environmetrics published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd."
________________
CONCLUSIONS (taken from this Wiley Online Library, here, as it reproduces an critical article from Environmetrics, the official journal of the International
Environmetrics Society. This is as authoritarian a
climate science document as there is. In
the article, we find the authors are
forced to admit certain “matrix estimators” do not support the more drastic
warming trends of the Alarmists. I do
not use the word, “disprove” because
such is not included in the referenced article,
but, of course, that is what is
being suggested. ~ blog editor.
Heteroskedasticity
and autocorrelation robust (HAC) covariance matrix estimators have been adapted
to the linear trend model, permitting robust inferences about trend
significance and trend comparisons in data sets with complex and unknown
autocorrelation characteristics. Here, we extend the multivariate HAC approach
of Vogelsang and Franses (2005) to allow more general deterministic
regressors in the model. We show that the asymptotic (approximating) critical
values of the test statistics of Vogelsang and Franses (2005) are nonstandard and depend on
the specific deterministic regressors included in the model. These critical values
can be simulated directly. Alternatively, a simple bootstrap method is
available for obtaining valid critical values and p-values.
The empirical focus of the
paper is a comparison of trends in climate model-generated temperature data and
corresponding observed temperature data in the tropical troposphere. Our
empirical innovation is to make the trend model robust to the possibility of a
level shift in the observed data corresponding to the PCS that occurred around
1978. With respect to the Vogelsang and Franses (2005) approach, this amounts to
adding a level shift dummy to the model that requires a new set of critical
values that we provide.
As our empirical findings
show, the detection of a trend in the tropical lower troposphere and
mid-troposphere data over the 1958–2012 interval is contingent on the decision
of whether or not to control for a level shift coinciding with the PCS. If the term is included, a time trend regression with
autocorrelation-robust error terms indicates that the trend is small and not
statistically different from zero in either the LT or MT layers. Also, most climate models predict a significantly
larger trend over this interval than is observed in either layer. We find a
statistically significant discrepancy between the average climate model trend
and observational trends whether or not the mean-shift term is included.
However, with the shift term included, the null hypothesis of trend equivalence
is rejected much more strongly (at much smaller significance levels).
Regarding the question of
preferred specification (that is, whether to include a shift or not), where the
researcher suspects a break has occurred, results ought to be robust to
controlling for the possibility. In the multivariate tests, when we fix the
break at 1977:12, the shift terms are not significant in either level, but when
we use the grid search method, the shift is significant at 10% in the LT layer
and at 5% in the MT layer. Because breaks are harder to identify than trends,
these findings indicate the importance of controlling for the possibility that
one is present.
The testing method used
herein is both powerful and relatively robust to over-rejections under the null
hypothesis caused by strong serial correlation. The power of the test is
indicated by the span of test scores in Table 8 in which relatively small changes in modeled
trends translate into smaller p-values. Using the data-mining method
provides a check on the extent to which the results depend on the assumption of
a known shift date.
As such, our empirical
approach has many other potential applications on climatic and other data sets
in which level shifts are believed to have occurred. Examples could include
stratospheric temperature trends that are subject to level shifts coinciding
with major volcanic eruptions and land surface trends where it is believed that
the measuring equipment has changed or was moved. Generalizing the approach to
allow more than one unknown break point is left for subsequent work.
It is possible that we on Mother Earth, have entered a cooling cycle that will last for decades to come. Here is why:
23 share in first 24
strong interest
<<<< Decreasing solar activity over the course of the past three decades may suggest reasons for the cooling trend of the past 16 years and well into the future. This explains the increased push for Warming Legislation. The Lefties know that time is not their friend, when it comes to warming/cooling trends.
. . . . .
. if history is a guide, it is safe to say that
weak solar activity for a prolonged period of time can have a negative impact
on global temperatures in the troposphere which is the bottom-most layer of
Earth’s atmosphere – and where we all live. There have been two notable
historical periods with decades-long episodes of low solar activity. The first
period is known as the “Maunder Minimum”, named after the solar astronomer
Edward Maunder, and it lasted from around 1645 to 1715. The second one is referred
to as the “Dalton Minimum”, named for the English meteorologist John Dalton,
and it lasted from about 1790 to 1830. Both of these historical periods
coincided with below-normal global temperatures in an era now referred to by
many as the “Little Ice Age”. In addition, research studies in just the past
couple of decades have found a complicated relationship between solar activity,
cosmic rays, and clouds on Earth. This research suggests that in times of low
solar activity where solar winds are typically weak; more cosmic rays reach the
Earth’s atmosphere which, in turn, has been found to lead to an increase in
certain types of clouds that can act to cool the Earth. (text from Climate Depot.com, here).
More evidence of the conspiratorial climate hoax, from the Redistributionist Left,
40 share
high reader interest
<<<< How consensus science differs from the the facts of experimental science (the only true scientific process). Update: Note to readership: if you click on the tag or hyperlink below, "global warming hoax," you will have access to the 28 articles written onto this blog, over the years. Some of the debate/comments are revealing. All of the posted information is sourced in established science.
Dr.
Christy is an outlier on what the vast majority of his colleagues
consider to be a matter of consensus: that global warming is both settled
science and a dire threat. He regards it as neither. Not that the earth is not
heating up. It is, he says, and carbon dioxide spewed from power plants,
automobiles and other sources is at least partly responsible.
But in
speeches, congressional testimony and peer-reviewed articles in scientific
journals, he argues that predictions of future warming have been greatly
overstated and that humans have weathered warmer stretches without perishing.
Dr. Christy’s willingness to publicize his views, often strongly, has also hurt
his standing among scientists who tend to be suspicious of those with high
profiles. His frequent appearances on Capitol Hill have almost always been at
the request of Republican legislators opposed to addressing climate change.
“I detest
words like ‘contrarian’ and ‘denier,’ ” he said. “I’m a data-driven
climate scientist. Every time I hear that phrase, ‘The science is settled,’ I
say I can easily demonstrate that that is false, because this is the climate —
right here. The science is not settled.”
Dr.
Christy was pointing to a chart comparing seven computer projections of global
atmospheric temperatures based on measurements taken by satellites and weather
balloons. The projections traced a sharp upward slope; the actual measurements,
however, ticked up only slightly.
Such
charts — there are others, sometimes less dramatic but more or less accepted by
the large majority of climate scientists — are the essence of the divide
between that group on one side and Dr. Christy and a handful of other respected
scientists on the other.
“Almost
anyone would say the temperature rise seen over the last 35 years is less than
the latest round of models suggests should have happened,” said Carl Mears,
the senior research scientist at Remote Sensing Systems, a California
________________
After notes:
You may not know this, but the 9th rule in the book, Rules for Radicals, reads: "The threat is usually more terrifying that the thing itself" (p 129 in Alinsky's book, republished in 1989 as a Vintage Book Edition) . . . . never more true than in the case of environmental crisis (the hunger bomb, acid rain, the mini-ice age, the ozone crisis, pollution by auto (no longer a problem and etc.), over the years. Understand that "global warming" is a more serious problem (but not critical), north of the Equator and, then, only in given regions. Remember: it ain't global if it ain't global.
________________
After notes:
You may not know this, but the 9th rule in the book, Rules for Radicals, reads: "The threat is usually more terrifying that the thing itself" (p 129 in Alinsky's book, republished in 1989 as a Vintage Book Edition) . . . . never more true than in the case of environmental crisis (the hunger bomb, acid rain, the mini-ice age, the ozone crisis, pollution by auto (no longer a problem and etc.), over the years. Understand that "global warming" is a more serious problem (but not critical), north of the Equator and, then, only in given regions. Remember: it ain't global if it ain't global.
Problems for the Alarmist Warming Crowd: (1) "They" keep changing the numbers in the interest of "accurate" reporting. (2) Stable to cooling temps have been the case for a decade and a half.
18 share
Before you get too confused with all the numbers in this post, here is the straight forward summary of what you are about to read: (a) The warming crowd keeps changing their numbers (July-'36 v July-'12), and (b), we have been in a stable to cooling cycle for a decade and a half, and counting. FYI: I am pushing against the Warming Alarmists, because they have gone back to their Alarmist agenda, in recent weeks, and you need to know the facts.
And, off into the weeds we go:
Know that for the past two years, there has been a debate as to which "July" was the hottest July of all time: July of 1936 or July of 2012.
Every spike on the first chart (below) is "July" for a particular year, beginning with 1895. This is an official chart from NOAA (i.e. "progressive governmental weather agency") .
Up until 2012, the hottest month of all time was July of 1936. But in 2012, NOAA recalibrated its 1936 findings, and, Sha Zam !!, July of 2012 was, suddenly, hotter than '36.
BUT !!! . . . . . As of two weeks ago, another calibration was posted, finding July of '36, once again, taking over the top spot by three hundredths of a percent as NOAA continues to fantasize about global warming in the context of the past 16 years (chart #2).
Understand that the rapidly rising, annual, heat index, came to a screeching halt in 1999 with 12 of the past 16 years being being at or below 1998 levels, a major problem for the Alarmist crowd.
You would expect that NOAA* numbers would be "written in stone," but, in fact - and embarrassingly for the Alarmist Crowd - its numbers are, too often, transitory. The NOAA chart (#1) below is proof of that claim with NOAA unable to finally decide which is the hotter month. But that might not be their only problem. If July of '36 can be changed and then re-instated, what about all those other numbers? Seriously, 1936 is the only temperature not written in stone??? !!! Well, that and 2012 ??
And note the heat/cooling cycles for historic "July." Major heat in or near July of 1900 followed by cooler Julies. Again, hotter Julies in the 1930's followed by cooler July records. Finally, a July warming tread in the 2000's in the context of a level to cooling trend during that same period of time.
 |
| #1 |
Confused? Let's back up for an editorial moment. In the above, I talk about July and "July in context." Understand that the Warming Crowd needs, or, at least, wants 2012-July to be warmer than 1936-July because it fits their alarmist narrative.
"Context" has to do with the fact that, while 2012-July ranks as either the hottest or second hottest July on record, July is just one month of the year. In the chart below (#2), you can see that since 1998, there have been only 4 years as warm or warmer than 1998, with 2006 being the hottest year on record and 2011 being one of the coolest in two decades. That 2012-July? It was recorded in a very hot year, but within the larger context of a stable or cooling trend (since 1998).
Point of post: (a) The warming crowd keeps changing their numbers, and (b), we have been in a stable to cooling cycle for a decade and a half, and counting.
 |
| #2 |
_________________________
* NOAA = National Oceanic Atmospheric Administration
You won't believe what they are calling "global warming," now.
33 share
<<<< Antarctica this winter. Niagara Falls froze SOLID this winter; Mid West just had coldest winters in decades and Antarctica has record ice flow - according the intellectuals in the Commie Camp of Crony Comrades, this proves "globull warming." And, to think, they have no clue why they are loosing the bebate in the public arena. Geeeeesh.
Newsmax:
The sea ice coverage around Antarctica over the weekend marked a record high, with the ice surrounding the continent measuring at 2.07 million square kilometers, according to an environmentalist and author who says the ice there has actually been increasing since 1979 despite continued warnings of global warming.The new record was posted for the first time by the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign’s online record, The Cryosphere Today, early Sunday morning.It’s not apparent if the record actually occurred on Friday or Saturday, says Harold Ambler on his blog, Talking About the Weather.Ambler is a journalist and author of the book “Don’t Sell Your Coat: Surprising Truths About Climate Change.”
Global Warming as a crisis that man can prevent or reverse? Here is a summary as you practice a little "critical thinking" for the first time (?) in your lives. The conclusions are yours. The summary is mine.
60 share
very high reader interest
<<<< One of the most recognized Alarmist picture, depicting a lone polar bear (as if close to extinction - he is not), clinging to his last hope for life, as if he forgot how to swim. The picture is as much a scam as is the anti-intellectual Alarmist Movement. After all, they are the ones who push this picture.
Here is a summation of the
arguments I see as germane to the issue of global warming as a crisis that we
can control or reverse. I ask the reader
to challenge what I briefly state, then
follow that challenge with a second challenge,
in essence, debating with
yourselves. Whichever argument you
cannot defeat is your truth.
I begin with this claim: The Alarmists’ view of global warming is man made (the opinion is man-made or invented). I do
not believe in consensus science, nor do
I believe in a theory that cannot consistently predict outcomes. I know that consensus science has been wrong
in the past, in my lifetime, on many occasions, in matters of the environment (acid rain, the hunger bomb, the ozone whatever, the mini ice age), health, economics and social/domestic
structure. I know that alarmists padded
the books for more than a decade, with
that story breaking in 2009. I expect
government generated warming charts to say the exact same thing when dealing
with warming rates and historical evaluations,
and they do not I know that 30%
of climate scientists do not believe in the alarmists' views (there is more than one) of warming while
believing, at the same time, that warming is happening. I
do not believe that warming has occurred in 12 of the past 16 years. I believe that the current warming rates
began near the turn of the 1900's, back
in the day before we became an industrialized nation. I believe that warming is occurring
throughout our solar system giving posit to the claim that the Sun is the primary cause of our excessive warming trends. I believe that warming, on our planet, is regional,
not global. I believe that Al
Gore, is a moron, with no moral
core. I believe that Central Planning
pays its supporters and punishes its detractors, that the 70 percenters, those climate
scientists who are Alarmists, are not
free to challenge and are more motivated by the funding they receive than
truth. And I believe that the 97% figure
used to frame faux unanimity within the warming community is a totally fabricated
number, I believe that Alarmist Warming
is a potential money pit for the Socialist Pigs who are running the
industrialized world. And I believe that Millennial and Xer generations have
lost the ability to think critically,
i.e., to criticize their own positions in the name of a search for
truth; they have no sense for the dialectic*
pursuit of truth, they (too often) gobble up
what they read and do so without bothering to question their sources or “the
facts.” Instead,
they pretend that this process of intellectual compliance is, somehow, related to "critical
thinking." Their problem? They are lazy, intellectually.
My readers are typical to the
national population, and have made their
feelings clear. Warming as a preventable
event is in the hands of Mother Earth,
not man; warming as a political
priority is at the bottom of every list I seen over the course of the past five
years, at least, in our country. Australia Spain
Make note that his particular post is an ongoing project for today, Saturday, June 28. I will be adding Google links and more commentary (perhaps), throughout the course of the morning. ~ Editor.
History - Earth's history - is problematic to the Utopian Science of global warming hysteria; here is why:
59 share
reader interest - high
During
the last 2.6 million years or so in the Quaternary period,
ice ages, also called glacial ages, were times of extreme cooling of the
Earth's climate where
ice sheets and other types of glacier expanded
to cover large areas of land. Between ice ages there
were warmer interglacial periods and we are now living during such a time.reader interest - high
There
have been many ice ages during the last
2.6 million years but when people talk about the Ice Age, they are
often referring to the most recent glacial period, which peaked about 21,000
years ago and ended about 11,500 years ago.
What
causes ice ages is not completely understood. The composition of the atmosphere,
changes in the position of our planet around the Sun,
and changes in ocean currents are
some of the important factors that control the climate. Source of quote: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/earth/water_and_ice/ice_age
NASA tells us there have been \7 warming/cooling (as in "ice age") cycles in the past 650,000 year alone, the last ending some "7,000 year ago." I assume this coincides with the 11,000 number mentioned in the BBC article. Just know that climate data is all over the map - very few issues involved with charting data, include seriously consistent presentations.
NASA tells us there have been \7 warming/cooling (as in "ice age") cycles in the past 650,000 year alone, the last ending some "7,000 year ago." I assume this coincides with the 11,000 number mentioned in the BBC article. Just know that climate data is all over the map - very few issues involved with charting data, include seriously consistent presentations.
Editor’s notes:
And none of the related causes referenced above, include man to any significant degree, with the possible except of present time . . . .
and there is no reason to believe that this cycle is the last in Earth’s
history.
You
should understand that when the author(s) states, “What causes ice ages is not completely understood,” it is meant to imply that causation for these
epic warming/cooling periods, does not fit into any of the mathematical models of today’s
Utopian/Hysterical Scientific theories
- and there is more than one
model for disaster.
Also, no one is talking about the fact that the same warming trends are occurring elsewhere in our solar system. Why? Because this information complicates the issue, not to mention the hysterical claims of the Alarmists. Nor, do they mention that "global warming" is actually, regional warming. Not all 7 of the world's geo-regions are warming or cooling at the same rates, if at all.
Look, if 5 of the 7 regions in this world hold normal averages for a particular year, a 6th shows a 1 degree drop in mean temp average, and the 7th shows a 3 degree increase in mean temps, if you average them together, you come up with "global warming," when, in fact, only one region is actually problematic.
 |
| #1 |
Am I saying that this is the case? Not at all, but I am saying, this is how easily "averages" can be used to deceive.
I give you three charts: #1 shows warming/cooling trends as charted our weather satellite data -
And the second (#2) shows the annual temps for the years before and after 1998. As you can see with only two years of warming since 1998.
The third (#3) chart, includes the same period of time in #2, but with no averages as high as 1998, proving that there is not the consistency of data, the Alarmist would have us believe - both #2 and 3 come from the Alarmist camp.
Note: Click on images to enlarge.
 |
| #2 |
 |
| #3 |
The third (#3) chart, includes the same period of time in #2, but with no averages as high as 1998, proving that there is not the consistency of data, the Alarmist would have us believe - both #2 and 3 come from the Alarmist camp.
Note: Click on images to enlarge.
Special Report dealing with the myth of consensus science - beginning with a list of climate deniers and ending with a consensus survey of those who see no need for alarm.
49 share - reader interest = high
I am
beginning a list of climate experts opposing the Alarmists’ version of warming
trends. Here is my first installment:
Craig
Idso, Willie Soon, Marc Morano, Dr. Roy
Spencer, principal research scientist for the University of Alabama, Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov, Space Research
Sector of the Pulkovo Observatory, Joe Bastardi, chief forecaster at Weatherbell
Analytics, Hon. George Christensen,
member of the Australian Parliament, Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, editor of Energy
& Environment, a peer-reviewed science journal, Dr. Patrick Michaels, director of the Center
for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute,
John Coleman, founder of The
Weather Channel (now taken over by NBC News and elements who want to
criminalize opposition speech on the subject), Dr. Craig Idso, founder and former president
of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Dr. Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric
science, University of Missouri, Dr. S.
Fred Singer, emeritus professor of environmental sciences - University
of Virginia, William Kininmonth,
climatologist, Australasian Climate Research Institute, Dr. Jennifer Marohasy,
biologist - Centre for Plant and Water Science, Central Queensland University, Lord Christopher Monckton, former science
advisor to Margaret Thatcher and chief policy advisor to the Science and Public
Policy Institute, Dr. Hal Doiron, a
retired NASA rocket scientist who worked in the Apollo Program, and, Anthony Watts, chief meteorologist for KPAY-AM
radio and publisher of “Watts Up With That,” the most-read climate blog in the
world.
Note: Willie Soon has been discredited (Feb 2015) for having accepted funding from oil related companies. The article is here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/23/armageddon-for-climate-change-deniers.html. Sadly, cheats and liars exist on both sides of this question. To my knowledge, Soon's science is or was not the issue, however, only that he accepted funding from those related to the fossil fuel industry. Whether this actually disqualifies the man, is to be seen.
Note: Willie Soon has been discredited (Feb 2015) for having accepted funding from oil related companies. The article is here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/23/armageddon-for-climate-change-deniers.html. Sadly, cheats and liars exist on both sides of this question. To my knowledge, Soon's science is or was not the issue, however, only that he accepted funding from those related to the fossil fuel industry. Whether this actually disqualifies the man, is to be seen.
Understand
that there are more than 3,000 other scientists, with specific academic qualifications as climate scientists, who agree with those named above. Further,
there is a big difference between warming and “alarming warming trends.” A full 30% of climate scientists do not
believe the trends are alarming or foretell of doom and gloom --
making the claim of “consensus science”
a fantasy fact and the entire issue, open to continued debate.
Also, understand that more than 70% of scientists supporting global warming hysteria, are recipients of federal grants and funding - a requirement for which, is their position on global warming. The Left simply does not believe in objective science or open debate, and that is the sad truth of all this. They do not want to have a discussion, they want to control the discussion.
_______________
Related articles:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence - a pro- warming site with some objective numbers.
http://www.petitionproject.org/ - a partisan site, admittedly, but a site in which more than 9000 academics hold PhD's and are quite qualified in the supposed art of critical thinking. More than this, 3,000 of the total 31,000 signees, are qualified climate scientists.
SPECIAL REPORT: More Than 1000 International Scientists ...
www.climatedepot.com/.../special-report-more-than-1000-...
Climate DepotDec 8, 2010 - This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun. ... There is no believable evidence to support [the IPCC] claims. .... “The great climate science centers around the world are more than .... “startled” by an outpouring of scientists rejecting man-made climate ... - Also, consider this article out of Forbes.com:
www.forbes.com/.../the-overwhelming-judgment-of-science-reject...
Forbes
Jan 24, 2013 - The overall case for global warming alarmism is exceptionally flimsy. ... The Overwhelming Judgment of Science Rejects Obama's Global Warming Claims ... seen the fewest major hurricane strikes since at least the mid-1800s ...- http://globalwarminginperspective.wordpress.com/global-warming-myth-vs-reality/ The media is responsible for popularizing the fear that increases in carbon dioxide emissions will lead to a catastrophic upset in the global climate structure. The truth of the situation is: some parts of this new climate pattern are not completely understood and scientists are still researching. There are some myths about Global Warming that have been repeated and magnified so many times by so many people that most people accept them on blind faith without thinking to question them or listen to the other point of view. Here are some of the main myths and assumptions Global Warming followers support and why they are just plain untrue.
Dozens of climate scientists caught falsifying climate data for 15 years: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
Charles Krauthammer: The myth of 'settled science' - The ...
www.washingtonpost.com/...the-myth.../c1f8d994-...
The Washington PostFeb 20, 2014 - Irepeat: I'm not a global warming believer. I'm not a global warming denier. I've long believed that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing ...
The Left believes that the ends always justify the means. In this case, the end is "global warming" and the means is "manipulation."
62 share - a hit with the readers
When a person or a political party institutionalizes deception for the sake of the greater good, they are not to be trusted at any level. ~ J Smithson, editor. 
Now, from Breitbart: Scientists
at two of the world’s leading climate centres - NASA and NOAA - have been
caught . . . . manipulating temperature
data to overstate the extent of the 20th century "global warming".
The
evidence of their tinkering can clearly be seen at Real
Science, where blogger Steven Goddard has posted a series of graphs
which show "climate change" before and after the adjustments. . . . .
. Before 2000, it was generally accepted
- even by climate activists like NASA's James Hansen - that the hottest decade
in the US
As Hansen
himself said in a 1989 report:
In the U.S. US US
More proof of the utter hoax that is "globull" warming
44 share
Figure 1.
RSS monthly global mean lower-troposphere temperature anomalies (dark blue) and
trend (thick bright blue line), September 1996 to May 2014, showing no trend
for 17 years 9 months.
The
hiatus period of 17 years 9 months (showing little or no global warming -
editor) is the farthest back one can go in the RSS satellite temperature record
and still show a zero trend. But the length of the pause in global warming,
significant though it now is, is of less importance than the ever-growing
discrepancy between the temperature trends predicted by models and the less exciting
real-world temperature change that has been observed . . . text taken from Watts Up With That.
Editor’s notes:
In order words, using satellite
records going back as far as those records exist, there has been no rise in the global averages
for temperature.
This is
not the conclusion of a right-wing nutjob.
No, not at all, unless,
of course, one thinks the
satellite date is the handiwork of a vast,
Rightwing conspiracy.
Question: How bad is Globull Warming? Answer: What warming?
37 share
Preface: Most "alarmist" articles on the "depletion of sea ice in Antarctica" are written and published in our winter months - almost never in our summer months. Why? Because the One Worlders use the normal, summer cycle of life in the Antarctic, when they decide to push another global fear cycle, in their attempt to scare us all into believing Globull Warming as a "scientific fact." Theirs is the policy of " the ends justify the means" as applied to the warming issue. They KNOW the ice melt during our winter (here in America) is only cyclical, but they push the "alarming melt of sea ice in the Antarctica" as if it was the result of a systemic, man-made, issue, and not the direct result of the annual summer "melt cycle" native to the Antarctic. They tell a lie to further their agenda, and this lie is a part of how these people "do business." With the Progressive camp, a lie is always good if it further the "cause."
Understand that the Antarctic sea ice circumstance is cyclical in its very nature. In the Antarctic winter, some 6 million square miles of
______________________________________________________________
(Related Fact: The US is some 3.6 million square miles, by comparison)
______________________________________________________________
Remember that fact,
the next time the Redistributionists manufacture a globull warming
crisis out of the seasonal, Antarctic, summer melt. While there are years when the summer coverage is closer to 700,000 square
miles., an "alarming" number, the winter months erase that deficit . . . . . all of which is a normal annual cycle for the region.
Winter in
This year,
the growing winter ice increase is at record high levels, for the month
of April, near the beginning of the
Antarctic Winter. Couple this fact with record ice coverage in the Great Lakes, and the severity of this past winter in Middle and Eastern American, and you have winter circumstance that does not fit the [mathematical] models used to scare the world and fund the redistributionists' bank roll. All of this goes to the confirmation of the fact that North America has been in a stable to cooling cycle for the past 20 years.
Point of post: All is well in the Antarctic and "its cycle of life," despite the doom and gloom reports of the past several years.
________________________
Related:
Antarctic Sea Ice At All-Time Levels (for April)
Antarctica Hit Record Low Level (Huffington Post)
Global Warming News From Special Report for Tuesday, the 6th: Krauthammer attacks the junk science of regional warming, also called "global" warming.
39 share
Krauthammer:
“The science is unstable. Because in the case of climate, the models are changeable because climate is so complicated. The idea that we who have trouble forecasting what’s going to happen on Saturday in the climate, could pretend to be predicting what’s going to happen in 30 to 40 years is absurd.
And, you always see that no matter what happens, whether it’s a flood or it’s a drought, whether it’s warming or cooling, it’s always a result in what we are ultimately talking about here – human sin with pollution of carbon. It’s the oldest superstition around. It was in the Old Testament. It’s in the rain dance of native Americans. If you sin the skies will not cooperate.
The purveyors of wealth transference are losing the Alarmist Warming Debate, and for good reason:
18 shares
<<< Not exactly accurate of the Greenie's model, but, it just may be close to their model when put into effect in the real world. Note: if the trade involves a compliant U.S. company and an international "violator," CO2 emissions remain the same while related job growth moves out of country, to the violators who have, now, be validated by the Greenies. Genius !!!!
While the article was excellent, I found many of the "comments" to be just as informational. Here are a few examples:
Comment from Bill Yader:
You haven’t been paying attention. Use a 60 year sine curve (30 warming, 30 cooling) and superimpose a 0.6C/century positive trend and you will reproduce 80+% of the temperature fluctuations over the past 160 years. You don’t need CO2 concentrations. You need solar cycles and ocean cycles (ENSO, PDO, AMO, etc) to explain why a 60 year sine curver is so representative of Earth’s temperatures. The positive linear trend is due to the warming from the end of the LIA.
Beyond the last 160 years, you have to factor in some of the 200 and 1,000 year fluctuations identified in geologic and ice core records. Those still need to be better understood.
Skeptics do not deny that the Earth has warmed since the LIA ended 160 years ago, we challenge the theory that CO2 has anything to do with that warming.
- See more at: http://www.masterresource.org/2012/04/earth-day-2012-top-10-positives/#sthash.w8zVmgWV.dpuf
Climate models have proved, at least now and for the foreseeable future, that future climates cannot be predicted. Real scientific research is needed, at a reduced level from global warming research, to advance our understanding of the physical sustems controlling climate. The recent era of conspiracy, fighting transparancy, and “science” by press release has done imeasurable harm to all science. Therefore, this article [the positives of global warming ~ editor] is entirely justifiable and a much, much truer statement of the past, present, and probable future climate that all the alarmist Lysinkoism. Thank you.
CO2 economics is all about getting consumers to pay the cost of closing factories in the industrialized west where costs are high and moving them to the 3rd world where costs are low. Carbon trading [as in "cap and trade" ~ editor] doesn’t reduce carbon, it only moves where it is produced. Along with it goes the jobs. However, the carbon returns on the wind. The jobs do not.
I would like to thank everyone for these comments.
It really helps the debate to have David Appell and Dan Kirk-Davidoff provide links to research that Chip can then review. Thank you in particular.
On the ‘skeptic model,’ I have been told that the microphysics of climate is far too complex to model period. So we can’t have ‘our’ model beat ‘their’ model. Their oversimplified model must be exposed by theoretical disputes and by empirical anomolies.
This (imperfect) analogy may have flaws, but today, and perhaps for more decades, the climate can no more be modeled than the economy can be modeled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)