Global Warming Hysteria (cooled)

Now how could I, a science 'expert', have been so wrong??A new comprehensive survey of peer-reviewed published climate research papers reveals less than half support alarmist Global Warming Theory.   This really is devastating stuff for the whole Leonardo di Gore bandwagon.

A forthcoming article, submitted and accepted for publication at the science journal Energy & Environment here and pre-viewed at Daily Tech, reveals that opinions among climate scientists moved steadily away from earlier alarmist Global Warming Theory post-2004. Here is a key passage:

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category  (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis.  This is no "consensus."  The figures are even more shocking when one remembers the watered-down definition of  consensus here.  Not only does it not require supporting that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn't require any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming.  In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly, research has shown us that -- whatever the cause may be -- the amount of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the planet itself.

Let joy be unconfined!! Jump into your SUV and spread the good news! The planet is saved (cos the 'experts' have changed their minds) - unless the environMENTALists get their hands on it, that is.  

 Tim Worstall at The Adam Smith Institute blog highlights an extremely important paper which casts serious doubt on the whole veracity of the IPCC papers on climate change - and by reviewers who know what they are talking about.  Here is his blog on the paper along with his key links.

That's the very interesting question being asked by Scott Armstrong and Keston Green in this paper. There's also more here. Now, no, the authors do not claim expertise in climate science. What they do claim is expertise in how to make scientific forecasts. Indeed, without exaggeration, they quite literally wrote the book on the subject.

The essential point is that to be valid, forecasts must be more than just the expression of the scientists' thoughts or hunches, however dressed up they are in mathematics. There are so many points in climate models where judgement must be used (for the details of many processes are as yet unknown) that it is arguable whether these models are in fact "scientific forecasts" rather than simply exceedingly complex expressions of the thoughts and hunches. Which, as James Surowiecki has repeatedly pointed out, are subject to groupthink reinforcement, most especially if each supposedly independent voice is in fact communicating with all of the others.

Running part of the IPCC report through their long developed 140 point checklist the authors find that:

 

Of the 89 forecasting principles that we were able to rate, the Chapter violated 72.

Their final conclusions are summed up in these two lines:

We asked, are these forecasts a good basis for developing public policy? Our answer is “no”.

And...

We have been unable to identify any scientific forecasts to support global warming. Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.

No, I have absolutely no idea whether the authors are right or not but it might be worth noting that Armstrong is backing his findings with a $20,000 bet on whether climate change will in fact happen or not. My real hope though is that someone actually does check and see whether they're right or not: after all, we're about to commit ourselves to spending trillions of dollars on the basis of the IPCC Report: shouldn't we actually find out if it is correct first?

 

With thanks to John Melboure for the above information.  

Global cooling is , once again, back on the agenda as evidence for a serious cooling period (as per the historic norm) is coming to light as we learn more about sunspot activity. Here is the closing section of an important article written by Professor Timothy Patterson, professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University.

 "The science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that 'the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases.' About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.

"Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.

"Meantime, we need to continue research into this, the most complex field of science ever tackled, and immediately halt wasted expenditures on the King Canute-like task of 'stopping climate change.'

Source: A 'must read' extract from important new article 'Read The Sunspots' in Canada's (excellent) National Post.

With thanks to Laura Curtis & Mitch Persaud for the information. 

Here is a super review of the skeptic writers and scientists entitled ' Global Warming: Witness for the Skeptical Perspective' by Gerald T. Westbrook over at the Energy Tribune site.  Here is the opening section of the piece:

Thomas Huxley stated that skepticism is the highest of duties and blind faith, the one unpardonable sin. Yet over the past decade, those skeptical of global warming have been attacked with increasing frequency, shrillness, and ugliness. The attacks tend to focus on the messengers. This article will review the skeptical perspective on global warming, and three categories of messengers will be cited:

1. Selected authors, primarily non-scientists, but with some unique perspective on this issue;
2. Distinguished veterans, mostly scientists, mostly retired;
3. Others, including active scientists, TV meteorologists, and state climatologists.

and here is the conclusion to this excellent piece:

The views of four non-scientist authors have been reviewed. These skeptics may be viewed as news reporters. This group of authors is competing with science reporters – from the New York Times, the Houston Chronicle, Nature magazine, etc. – over who can best tell the public the latest scientific news.

The views of 11 distinguished veterans have been noted. All are skeptical. Their lifetime publications, speeches, and comments give the nature of this group’s views on the global warming issue. Their views are more proof that a serious and valid debate exists on the global warming issue.

The views of active scientists have been noted via petitions. The views of TV meteorological and state climatological communities have been scrutinized. There surely is no consensus in favor of the global warming issue. There may be a consensus against it. The claim that “all scientists agree” is ridiculous.

The four key assumptions on global warming have been assessed. None have been definitively confirmed. Hence it is premature to find CO2 guilty. The very best one can say about the global warming issue and the KP is that it is premature. The very worst is that it is a hoax or a fraud.

Westbrook, formerly a hydrocarbons and energy economist for Dow Chemical, is an associate at the Center for Energy Economics, Bureau of Economic Geology, at the University of Texas at Austin.

Ed. For the record, I have a piece on the EU's Climate Challenge to the World coming up in the June issue of Energy Tribune magazine (and possibly on their website).

Gravity: it’s the law. Having built a house or two and having been around many who did, I have heard many times how important it is to construct a really good, strong foundation. It’s absolutely crucial. I am sure many of you have heard the same. If you don’t, the house won’t stay standing for long. Gravity will see to that.

 But I never heard anyone mentioning to me that there was a scientific ‘consensus’ among experts for the existence of gravity, as though that is why I should pay attention. The existence of gravity wasn’t just an opinion; it was a scientific fact. Gravity is the law. People are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts.

Struck by today’s media and the Oscar blitz of just how dangerous climate warming is, I became fascinated by the fervor with which the media and senior officials clung to the statement that ‘global warming’ obviously was the truth because there was a ‘consensus’ among scientists. However, science does not arrive at conclusions based on ‘consensus’ but rather derives its outcomes based on a proven methodology of the study of facts. ‘Consensus’ is simply a political and a sociological tool, not a scientific one.

Source: David Morgan, The Ashville Tribune, for the full article (well worth reading!) go here.

Following the U.S. Senate's vote last week on a global warming measure (see AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics.  The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming. 

The list below is just the tip of the iceberg.  A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.

In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007.  Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon” )

The media's climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 article: Not the End of the World as We Know It ) It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears )

Source: Senator James Inhofe's US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works site.

Craig James, an affiliate Meteorologist with NBC TV, shows how the IPCC's claim that heatwaves are increasing is bunkem.here, at Wood TV's site, James produces a definitive chart of high temperatures across 50 US states going back to the nineteenth century.

James says: “The chart shows there were 25 extreme high temperature records set in 1934 and 29 in 1936 but there weren’t any set in 2001, 2003, 2004 or 2005. There is certainly no evidence, in the United States at least, that extreme high temperatures are on the increase.”

For the complete article go here.  

Glenn Beck's US TV special 'Global Warming Exposed: Climate of Fear' can be viewed here at YouTube in its entirety.

With thanks to James Buell, USA for the link.

Full marks to Peter Bronson, staff writer at the Cincinatti Enquirer for this summing up of the Global Warming Cultists:

According to a press release from something called Earthjustice, "Scientific evidence of global warming has continued to mount -- so much so that the scientific debate is over."

But according to something called Earthreality, "Sayin' don't make it so."

In fact, I'll bet some beachfront property in Arizona that the debate will still be going strong 200 years from now. It will sound like this:

Theology professors in 2207 will argue that global warming was a secular religion. It had its own pope, Al Gore, a video Bible called "An Inconvenient Truth," and dozens of Hollywood apostles who were fundamentalist, "turn or burn" evangelists.

It had heretics ("deniers"), sinners (in SUVs) and saints (driving hybrids). It even had an elaborate system to buy indulgences by purchasing carbon credits, the same way the church once let sinners reserve a window table in heaven by tipping the priest at the door.

Anthropologists will say no, global warming was more like a purple Kool-Aid Jonestown cult. Members were willing to commit mass economic suicide to prove fanatic devotion to their apocalyptic vision.

Do read the whole thing here, it is the best assessment I have yet seen of the current sleepwalking, cerebrally-challenged, Western liberal-induced, anti-science, anti-intellectual global idiocy that it GW Alarmism.  

The new film rebuttal to Al Gore's 'Apocalypse-Some-Time-In-The-Future (maybe)' - also also known as An Inconvenient Truth - debuted in the Green and liberal heartland of San Francisco on Friday. 

Steven F. Hayward's film An Inconvenient Truth - or Conveneient Fiction?, majoring as it did on down-to-earth facts and not apocalyptic visions and propaganda,  is unlikely to produce the seismic news and public response of its Gore nemesis, but then science fiction blockbusters and Hollywood style reportage have always captured the ratings above realistic documentaries.

The NYT covering the shindig concluded thus:

Not everyone, however, was thrilled by the movie. Judith Anderson, 46, a local artist and self-described “free-market fan” who had come to see the film because she was “interested in the rebuttal” to Mr. Gore’s movie, gave the flick the ultimate thumbs-down.

“It was terribly boring,” Ms. Anderson said. “I didn’t get his point.”

An artist? Living in San Francisco? Now how would she not get the point, I wonder?

Considering the media hype that suggests man-made global warming is a science-fact the 'its-a-natural-phenomeon movement' is burgeoning at a precipitous rate. 

First here is the Weekend Meteorologist for Fox 29 TV weather David Aldrich nailing his colours (whose language is this boys?)  to the mast and David in turn draws our attention to a brand new 'skeptic' (I hate that word) site just launched by the former director & co-founder of The Weather Channel, Dr James D'Aleo. The site rejoices in the  marvellously titled name: Icecap.

The more the better, the more the better...

For the record: I do propose to keep this site going albeit many scientists are now coming 'out of the closet' so to speak. I have long taken the view that science - because of the faith 'predictive' element and ideological worldview attached to all scientists - can never be left to the scientists alone.  It was 'scientists' who started this GW hype, before the media took it to a new level, because of their own -usually wrong - predictive arrogance.  This is all too often the equation that results:

Science-fact + (too much) science faith = science-fiction. PCG.

The excellent New Zealand Climate Science Alliance has issued its "Seven Pillars of Wisdom" on global warming aimed at bringing better balance to the climate debate. Here, via this article, they are (use them!):

1. Over the past few thousand years, the climate in many parts of the world has been warmer and cooler than it is now. Civilisations and cultures flourished in the warmer periods.

2. A major driver of climate change is variability in solar effects, such as sunspot cycles, the sun's magnetic field and solar particles.

These may account in great part for climate change during the past century. Evidence suggests warming involving increased carbon dioxide exerts only a minor influence.

3. Since 1998, global temperature has not increased. Projection of solar cycles suggests that cooling could set in and continue to about 2030.

4. Most recent climate and weather events are not unusual; they occur regularly.

For example, in the 1930s the Arctic experienced higher temperatures and had less ice than now.

5. Stories of impending climate disaster are based almost entirely on global climate models.

Not one of these models has shown that it can reliably predict future climate.

6. The Kyoto Protocol, if fully implemented, would make no measurable difference to world temperatures.

The trillions of dollars that it will cost would be far better spent on solving known problems such as the provision of clean water, reducing air pollution and fighting malaria and Aids.

7. Climate is constantly changing and the future will include coolings, warmings, floods, droughts and storms.

The best policy is to make sure we have in place disaster response plans that can deal with weather extremes and can react adaptively to longer-term climate cooling and warming trends.

Watch these two great new DVD/videos to get a reasoned insight into the real issues surrounding global warming - and get yourself a far better insight into this key issue of our age!

 States of Fear: Science or Politics a new DVD featuring science writer Michael Crichton with leading scientists:  "In discussing not just environmental issues but the increasing politicization of science itself, best-selling author Michael Crichton examines the intersection of media, politics, and science, inspiring viewers to challenge old assumptions and to search beneath the surface of issues as they seek to discover the truth." (Now added to the GWH.com 'Great Materials!" page)

The Great Global Warming Swindle - the much talked about British Channel 4 TV documentary is available to download  free from YouTube.  

ED.  For the eco-cynics (incl. Leo di Caprio) - I did not receive a single 'oil industry check' to advertise these materials  (more's the pity).

CSI Miami's Hummer (background) is greener than the PriusEvery year CNW independent consumer analysts test the greenest of most leading cars. No contest you would think? Wrong. Very wrong. For two years running the Hummer (the US-made vehicle you see driven by Lt Horatio Caine and his team in CSI Miami) when holistic testing (like with like) is taken into account turns out to be more green than the Toyota Prius - the eco-caring symbol of Brad Pitt and all self-respecting Hollywood celebs. And it's not just the Prius either, its all hybrid cars.

Find it hard to believe? Here is an article on the subject and here's the original data its based on.  Fed up with hearing your moralistic pious Prius-driving friends on how green they are? Send them this posting by email.

And, for the record, it doesn't stop there either. You find similar things when it comes to 'Green' light bulbs (did you know they are made with toxins?), the real cost of wind turbine power and other allegedly 'Green' consumer goods. More on this in due course. I will also be putting together some articles for publication elsewhere on each of these subjects.

The film 'The Day After Tomorrow' spread alarm about the mythical threat to the gulf streamNature magazine, which famously published an article claiming global warming was causing the "disappearance of the gulf stream", has been shown in this excellent The First Post article not to have read the science data correctly.

I don't know how many times I have heard this issue raised purely on the basis of this single, well-publicized, article. And this is the problem, is it not?  The media takes a spurious science scare story. It headlines the story. People are shocked by the earth-shattering drama of what they hear. It sticks in the mind.  Now it proves terribly difficult to publicize the truth because no one, not least the irresponsible in the media,  wants to admit they were wrong.

And so the media and cultural myth lives on in the public memory - while the truth struggles to get heard.   That's why this site exists - and why I, as a writer who believe in integrity and truth in the public square of reason and real debate, struggle to get published (aimed at correcting these faults) in the MSM.  And so it goes.

Last night's first mainstream media TV expose on the UK's Channel 4 'The Great Global Warming Swindle' said it all - and well!

I can only hope this programme gets to be seen in America and elsewhere soon. Refusing to fall for the usual MSM nonsense of 'presenting both sides of the argument' (why the hell should they, the alarmists don't!) they made it plain that scientifically, economically and intellectually there is NO other side to the argument.

Richard Lindzen, Dr Tim Ball, S. Fred Singer, Roy Spencer (NASA), John Christy,  Phillip Stott and countless others. They were all given a voice, finally! And isn't that a terrible indictment of our current mass media that it took so long?  It even showed the gross fraud perpetrated by the UN in compiling the IPCC reports - and including names who did not agree with the findings as presented by the administrators, not the scientists!

You can actually buy videos direct from Channel 4 but I imagine a DVD will be out commercially directly. I will keep you informed. But how about badgering your TV networks to show it?  It literally does contains everything you will need to blow away all the feeble arguments the alarmists can put up.

One up in the MSM (finally) for the good guys, I think. 

The sheer weight of evidence of warming via solar activity across the solar system is becoming impressive.

Photographs of the merging of two red spots (see photo left - specific evidence of temperature rise) on Jupiter, evidence of warming on Neptune's largest moon Triton, warming on Pluto that is "puzzling scientists" and, of course, the already documented warming trend on Mars all add up to convincing evidence for increased solar activity across the entire solar system.

Of course, the one exception to this solar system trend is...the earth...which alone among the planets, according to the Greens, is warming for a quite different reason (source: Planet Gore).

In addition the evidence from ice cores for a distinct correlation in the past between solar activity and warmer temperatures is outstanding (see below).
 

NB. This is of course is real science and empirical evidence so it will be of no interest whatsoever to environmentalists, who have an entirely different agenda.  (You are welcome to try informing the Planet Gorians about this evidence, but I think you might find they are teflon-coated 'anti-fact' beings. But you could try those who just want to know the truth.)

Hat tip: to Senator James Inhofe's Office & to the Strata-Sphere blog for the above. 

A message that is at the heart of this site is the fact that modern environmentalism is the new religion of choice, as Michael Crichton puts it "for urban atheists".  Today a new book stating exactly why that is so: Nine Facts About Climate Change by Ray Evans is being launched in Canberra, Australia as antipodean sceptics gather for a major conference.

Evans' book claims there is nothing new about climate change and says in the new publication "Environmentalism has largely superseded Christianity as the religion of the upper classes in Europe and to a lesser extent in the United States."

"It is a form of religious belief which fosters a sense of moral superiority in the belieiver, but which places no importance on telling the truth.," he says.

"The global warming scam has been, arguably, the most extraordinary example of scientific fraud in the postwar period."

The function was organized by the Lavoisier Group (see link on this site), founded in 2000 by Ray Evans and Hugh Morgan to trst claims that global warming is the result of human activity.  Friends of this site will be there including Chris de Freitas who will address the conference.  Other sceptic guests include Liberal MP Dr Dennis Jensen, a nuclear physicist.

Just to top things off it turns out that Mr Evans is also a movie reviewer. In a recent interview he described Al Gore's film as "bullshit from beginning to end." I'd say that was the pithiest yet fairest review I've read so far.