Climate Change / Global Warming & Investing Implications (CLIMATE)

[temp luvs amy]

To not do anything could be the stupid approach.

If we all had psychic skills, we wouldn't have to wear tinfoil hats.

Eventually, a volcano will replace the iron, and the planet will survive. We might actually have to burn coal, and warm up.

I think I know where some is.

[Bruce A Thompson]

Yup

There is a difference between courage and stupidity. I just had that conversation with my 9 yr old grandson a couple days ago.

If I do nothing, then maybe it will work out OK without my influence. Maybe not. To do something which appears courageous but may be profoundly stupid, just because I can, is betting the future of the entire planet when the outcome is unknown.

Doesn't even matter if you are actually correct in your theory. You, or 1,000 other scientists or even a million scientists who might agree with you don't have the right to make that decision for humanity.

OOPS! doesn't seem enough if you are wrong.

[temp luvs amy]

A closed environment would be preferable. All we would need is time, money, and unemployed people. I got the time, and I can find the unemployed. You got a few billion to toss at it?

[temp luvs amy]

"I am not willing to bet the entire planet on your opinion being correct or not."

But you are willing to bet it on inaction, which is what you would be doing.

[Bruce A Thompson]

While your research may be just fine

I would say, that since it is a closed environment, that it is really no better than the computer programs that make climate predictions for today's warmist scientists. That is not to say that you may not be correct but.....

I am not willing to bet the entire planet on your opinion being correct or not. When you get down to it, that is what we would be doing.

[temp luvs amy]

Totally, dude.

Wouldn't be nice if the nutrients had been managed beforehand?

At least you would have a government official to throw under the bus.

[temp luvs amy]

There is a happy medium, where I live, 50 miles from the ocean.

My studies are done in tanks, and I use synthetic seawater.

The exact amount of Iron to add can be quantified by experimentation.

[Bruce A Thompson]

Everyone has stopped fishing the Florida Big Bend area

Millions of dead fish floating in the water is such a bummer.

[temp luvs amy]

First do no harm?

Alright everyone, stop fishing.

Yeah. It's like that.

[Bruce A Thompson]

And,

If you are wrong, how do you go about stopping the damage the iron might cause?

How does the iron differentiate between good algae and bad algae?

I bring to mind Caulerpa algae in the Med or lion fish in Florida from fish tanks. Or pythons in the Everglades. Cats in Hawaii. Rabbits in Australia.

Mother Nature does like being messed with.

As the "Settled" scientists are finding their predictions are being proved wrong every day, what would the next Ice age look like with artificially induced iron dust in the oceans?

First do no harm.

[temp luvs amy]

Our studies seem to indicate that adding Iron has no deleterious effect, and rapidly sequesters the nutrients which cause harmful blooms.

Further study is merited, and of course the macronutrients should be controlled.

[temp luvs amy]

Primum non nocere

Study first, act later.

I've been working on it for several years.

[Bruce A Thompson]

Be careful what you wish for

http://www.myfwc.com/redtidestatus

[temp luvs amy]

I try to use carbon sequestration to cover my footprints.

If you follow my footprints, the trail ends.

Ocean Fertilization covers the footprints.

According to the Bamboo Growers Association, A Bamboo stand the size of Texas would sequester the entire carbon footprint of the United States.

Ocean fertilization could grow algae over 74% of the earth's surface.

[extelecom]

Carbon Footprints: Good, Bad, and Ugly
By Viv Forbes

Australians are supposed to feel guilty because some bureaucrat in the climate industry has calculated that we have a very high per capita “carbon footprint”.

By “carbon footprint”, they mean the amount of carbon dioxide gas produced by whatever we do. Every human activity contributes to our carbon footprint -- even just lying on the beach breathing gently produces carbon dioxide.

Producing carbon dioxide is not bad -- it an essential gas in the cycle of life, and beneficial for all life. There is no proof whatsoever that human emissions cause dangerous global warming.

Moreover, it is not per capita emissions that could affect the climate -- it is total emissions, and on that measure Australia’s small contribution is largely irrelevant. This is just another PR weapon in the extreme green alarmist arsenal.

Even if carbon footprints were important, not all footprints are environmentally equal -- some are good, some are bad and some are just plain ugly.

“Good” carbon footprints are the result of producing unsubsidised things for the benefit of others. An example is a grazier in outback Australia whose family lives frugally and works hard but has a high carbon footprint producing wool, mutton and beef from sustainable native grasslands and may use quad bikes, diesel pumps, electricity, tractors, trucks, trains, planes and ships to supply distant consumers. Many productive Australians with good carbon footprints produce food and fibres, seafood and timber, minerals and energy for grateful consumers all over the world. Activities like this create a large “per capita carbon footprint” for Australia. That so few people can produce so much is an achievement to be proud of.

A “bad” carbon footprint is produced when government subsidies, grants, hand-outs, tax breaks or mandates keep unproductive or unsustainable activities alive, leaving their footprint, but producing little useful in return. The prime examples are subsidised green energy and the government climate industry, but there are examples in all nationalised or subsidised industries and activities. (Russia and East Germany easily met their initial Kyoto targets by closing decrepit Soviet-era nationalised industries.)

An “ugly” carbon footprint is produced by green hypocrites who preach barefoot frugalism to us peasants while they live the opulent life style.

Examples are the mansions, yachts and jet-setting of prominent green extremists such as Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio.

The ultimate ugly carbon hypocrites are those who organise and attend the regular meetings, conferences and street protests, drawing thousands of globe-trotting alarmists and “environmentalists” from all over the world by plane, yacht, car, bus, train and taxi to eat, drink, chant and dance while they protest about over-population, excessive consumption and heavy carbon footprints of “all those other people”.

Maybe they should lead by example and stop travelling, eating, drinking, and breathing.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/10/carbon_footprints__good_bad_and_ugly.html

[extelecom]

The AP claims those cute walruses you see on TV are in danger due to global warming7


This Associated Press story is bound to strike fear in the hearts of all who love walruses or any of the other cute polar animals on “Animal Planet,” unless of course one looks more deeply into their claim:

An estimated 35,000 walrus were photographed Saturday about 5 miles north of Point Lay, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Point Lay is an Inupiat Eskimo village 300 miles southwest of Barrow and 700 miles northwest of Anchorage.

The AP interviewed global warming advocates World Wildlife Fund (WWF), asking them to provide a reason for the gathering of walruses.

The World Wildlife Fund said walrus have also been gathering in large groups on the Russian side of the Chukchi Sea.

“It’s another remarkable sign of the dramatic environmental conditions changing as the result of sea ice loss,” said Margaret Williams, managing director of the group’s Arctic program, by phone from Washington, D.C. “The walruses are telling us what the polar bears have told us and what many indigenous people have told us in the high Arctic, and that is that the Arctic environment is changing extremely rapidly and it is time for the rest of the world to take notice and also to take action to address the root causes of climate change.”

The WWF is not the best source for the AP to ask about the walruses. After all, the organization’s three biggest accomplishments are embarrassing the IPCC by providing bogus information which was included in the UN group’s previous climate change report, distributing tote bags with drawings of cute panda bears, and forcing the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) to change its name to World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE) because it trademarked those particular letters of the alphabet.

Personally, while I believe that Hulk Hogan has done more for the world than tote bags with cute panda bears, it was important to investigate the [panda bear tote bag] WWF walrus claim anyway.

The blog Polar Bear Science had the best explanation. It was kind of like a walrus convention. Just like America’s two major political parties, walruses get together like that every few years.

At least two documented incidents like this have occurred in the recent past: one in 1978, on St. Lawrence Island and the associated Punuk Islands and the other in 1972, on Wrangell Island (Fay and Kelly 1980)

If a global warming created ice melt was indeed happening, the total population of walruses would shrink because their little flippers would get tired and they would drown. But Polar Bear Science adds:

Walrus numbers are up considerably from the 1960s, although they are notoriously difficult to count (Garlich-Miller et al. 2011)

Population sizes may fluctuate for a number of reasons that have little to do with the low ice levels: note these very recent incidents of large walrus herds and associated mortality events (2009, 2011 and 2014) have not coincided with the lowest levels of summer sea ice in the area, which occurred in 2007 and 2012.

As for the melting arctic ice cap, that is part of the normal fluctuations of the Earth’s climate. The most recent report from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is co-funded by NASA reveals that August 2014 levels are the highest recorded since 2006 and represent an increase of 1.71 million square kilometers over the past two years, “an impressive 43 per cent.”

Finally October 1, 2014 marks an important date in “global warming” history. It marked 18 full years since the Earth last warmed.

The Earth’s temperature has “plateaued” and there has been no global warming for at least the last 18 years, says Dr. John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center (ESSC) at the University of Alabama/Huntsville.

“That’s basically a fact. There’s not much to comment on,” Christy said when CNSNews.com asked him to remark on the lack of global warming for nearly two decades as of October 1st.

The “plateau” is evident in the climate record Christy and former NASA scientist Roy Spencer compiled using actual raw temperature data collected from 14 instruments aboard various weather satellites.

If the the Associated Press had done some homework instead of listening to everything said by the organization that forced the World Wrestling Federation to change its stationary, it would have known that walruses congregate like this every few years, the Arctic ice is growing, and there has been no global warming for 18 years, the combination of which destroys their argument regarding walruses and global warming.
http://hotair.com/archives/2014/10/05/the-ap-claims-those-cute-walruses-you-see-on-tv-are-in-danger-due-to-global-warming/

[temp luvs amy]

I think the main difference between Science and Alchemy is the logical pursuit of all possible answers.

An Alchemist would conclude that it is "man caused" because Gorillas, chimpanzees, and Baboons didn't cause it.

A Scientist would "prove" the concept by conducting "experiments" that would raise the CO2 over the whole globe until he proved the case.

Correlation is not proof of causation.

[extelecom]

California drought and climate warming: Studies find no clear link

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-climate-change-california-drought-20140929-story.html

[temp luvs amy]

Even when you try to fix it, the Liberals object.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/10/18/canadian-firm-hopes-to-save-salmon-by-spiking-ocean-with-fertilizer-but-even-greenpeace-condemns-rogue-science/

2013 Salmon catch quadrupled.

2014 is on track to be a record year.

[extelecom]

McKitrick paper: no warming for 19 years


The Guardian in 2009 predicted five years of rapid warming:

The world faces record-breaking temperatures as the sun’s activity increases, leading the planet to heat up significantly faster than scientists had predicted for the next five years, according to a study.

The hottest year on record was 1998, and the relatively cool years since have led to some global warming sceptics claiming that temperatures have levelled off or started to decline. But new research firmly rejects that argument.

The research, to be published in Geophysical Research Letters, was carried out by Judith Lean, of the US Naval Research Laboratory, and David Rind, of Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

Fail. Five more years of no warming followed.

Professsor Ross McKitrick says in a new paper that the warming pause has now lasted an astonishing 19 years at the surface and 16-26 years in the lower troposphere:



The IPCC has drawn attention to an apparent leveling-off of globally-averaged temperatures over the past 15 years or so.... Here, I propose a method for estimating the duration of the hiatus that is robust to unknown forms of heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation (HAC) in the temperature series and to cherry-picking of endpoints… Application of the method shows that there is now a trendless interval of 19 years duration at the end of the HadCRUT4 surface temperature series, and of 16 – 26 years in the lower troposphere. Use of a simple AR1 trend model suggests a shorter hiatus of 14 – 20 years but is likely unreliable…

While the HadCRUT4 record clearly shows numerous pauses and dips amid the overall upward trend, the ending hiatus is of particular note because climate models project continuing warming over the period. Since 1990, atmospheric carbon dioxide levels rose from 354 ppm to just under 400 ppm, a 13% increase…

In the surface data we compute a hiatus length of 19 years, and in the lower tropospheric data we compute a hiatus length of 16 years in the UAH series and 26 years in the RSS series.

This is “the science”. Why do warmists keep ignoring it?

(Via the ever-excellent Watts Up With That.)

UPDATE

With the science against the faith it has so frantically promoted, the UN searches for someone who will turn the debate. Note well: it’s looking for someone who isn’t a scientist but who can play on guilt, racial politics, gender politics and victimhood:

The United Nations is looking for a young woman to, as BBC put it, be the ‘Malala’ of the climate change movement, serving as a voice that will energize this September’s climate change conference.

The organization has put out a call for a woman under 30 to speak at the opening session of the 2014 Climate Summit, which is being held on September 23 in New York City. The woman has to be from a developing country and must have a background that includes advocacy on climate change or work on implementing climate mitigation or adaptation solutions. So far, the call for applicants has drawn 544 women, who emailed short videos of themselves persuading world leaders to act on climate change to the Secretary-General’s office.

The UN has outed itself with this stunt. Its criteria ensure no leading climate scientists need apply. See, this is no longer about science at all.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/no_warming_for_19_years?nk=d8b38750efae280425416b9fc4a305be

[extelecom]

Declining Relative Humidity Is Defying Global Warming Models
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/08/20/declining-relative-humidity-is-defying-global-warming-models/

[MisterEC]

Good place too:
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Climate-change-is-natural/313827422002524?fref=nf

[Lotto123]

Boardmarked...

[Lotto123]

Nice find.....Facts really piss off those Warmists...

[extelecom]

Climate Science Does Not Support IPCC Conclusions
http://americanthinker.com/2014/08/climate_science_does_not_support_ipcc_conclusions.html

[MisterEC]

Receding Swiss glaciers reveal 4000 year old forests - Warmists try to suppress findings.

This finding indicated that the Alps were pretty nearly glacier-free at that time, disproving accepted theories that they only began retreating after the end of the little ice age in the mid-19th century. As he concluded, the region had once been much warmer than today, with "a wild landscape and wide flowing river."

http://www.sott.net/article/280759-Receding-Swiss-glaciers-reveal-4000-year-old-forests-Warmists-try-to-suppress-findings

[Bruce A Thompson]

How Inconvenient

[extelecom]

NOAA – 28,504 Low Max Records Set in Last 365 Days
Filed under: Cold Kills,NOAA,USA — sunshinehours1 @ 2:58 PM
Tags: Cold, Cold Kills, Cooling, NOAA, USA

28,504 Low Max Records were set in last 365 days according to the NOAA.

A “Low Max” means that the maximum temperatures for the day was the lowest it has ever been.

This indicates daytime cooling.

Only 13205 High Max records were set. That is over a 2:1 ratio. Brrr.
http://sunshinehours.wordpress.com/2014/07/24/noaa-28504-low-max-records-set-in-last-365-days/

[Bruce A Thompson]

Coldest Antarctic June Ever Recorded
Posted on July 12, 2014 by Anthony Watts
Story submitted by Eric Worrall

Antarctica continues to defy the global warming script, with a report from Meteo France, that June this year was the coldest Antarctic June ever recorded, at the French Antarctic Dumont d’Urville Station.

According to the press release, during June this year, the average temperature was -22.4c (-8.3F), 6.6c (11.9F) lower than normal. This is the coldest June ever recorded at the station, and almost the coldest monthly average ever – only September 1953 was colder, with a recorded average temperature of -23.5c (-10.3F).

June this year also broke the June daily minimum temperature record, with a new record low of -34.9c (-30.8F).

Other unusual features of the June temperature record are an unusual excess of sunlight hours (11.8 hours rather than the normal 7.4 hours), and unusually light wind conditions.

Dumont d’Urville Station has experienced ongoing activity since 1956. According to the Meteo France record, there is no other weather station for 1000km in any direction.

http://www.meteofrance.fr/web/comprendre-la-meteo/actualites?articleId=8990197

h/t IceAgeNow

Translated version of the Meteo France page:-

https://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.meteofrance.fr%2Fweb%2Fcomprendre-la-meteo%2Factualites%3FarticleId%3D8990197

About these ads

[extelecom]

Hot Times in the City?


Climate Central has an interactive feature at the Huffington Post allowing Americans to determine "How Hot Will Summer Be In Your City In 2100?"

Here is how Climate Central came up with their apocalyptic summer heat projections for the end of this century:

Summer high temperatures (average of daily maximum temperatures for June, July, and August) were calculated for 1,001 U.S. cities with 1986-2005 data from PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University. The projected summer high temperatures were calculated for these cities for the period 2081-2099, based on the RCP8.5 emissions scenario (and the other scenarios in a subsequent analysis), which is the high emissions scenario used in the IPCC's 5th Assessment Report. This is essentially a continuation of our current emissions trends through the end of the century.

According to Climate Central, "warming in coastal San Diego will make it feel like Lexington, Ky., – and represents more than a 6°F temperature increase." Well, that is fascinating. Here are the summer high temperatures (average of daily maximum temperatures for June, July, and August) in the San Diego area using data from the NOAA National Weather Service database.

These results are inconvenient for the alarmists. Since 1970, there has been a highly statistically significant declining – not increasing – trend in summer high temperatures for San Diego. And remember, according to the National Climate Assessment, we should see the most pronounced increase – not decrease – in temperatures since 1970. Yet, somehow, summer high temperatures in San Diego will increase by more than 6°F by the late 21st century.

We could try using the NOAA National Climatic Data Center database for San Diego's maximum temperatures during the summer, but there seems to be a problem.

That's hot. An average maximum summertime temperature of 224°F! And look at that warming between 1939 and 1940. That there is some serious greenhouse gas forcing, all concentrated on a single year in southern California. Still, there is some good news for San Diego residents. According to the NOAA-NCDC database, these blistering summer temperatures have been declining since 1980, and it is looks like the trend might dip below the boiling point of water sometime in the next few decades.

What about this prediction for Sin City?

In some cases, summers will warm so dramatically that their best comparison is to cities in the Middle East. Take Las Vegas, for example. Summer highs there are projected to average a scorching 111°F, which is what summer temperatures are like today in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Right. And here are the summer highs since records begin in 1937 for the Las Vegas area.

That's not convenient, either. There has been absolutely no significant trend in summer high temperatures for the Las Vegas area since the start of the climate record. Indeed, the correlation is actually negative. And no significant trend since 1970 either, or since 1980, 1990, or 2000. Looks like not only does Vegas not have the oil resources of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, but it won't have the climate, either.

How about this prediction?

By the end of the century, assuming the current emissions trends, Boston's average summer high temperatures will be more than 10°F hotter than they are now, making it feel as balmy as North Miami Beach is today.

Uh-huh. And here are Boston's summer high temperatures since 1970.

That would be no significant trend since 1970. Again, the correlation is actually negative, not positive.

We could play this game all day and night, going through all the 1,001 U.S. cities that Climate Central did and comparing the predictions to historical trends, but the point has been made. There seem to be some major problems with the coming summer heat apocalypse Climate Central is projecting.

Climate Central has an interactive feature at the Huffington Post allowing Americans to determine "How Hot Will Summer Be In Your City In 2100?"

Here is how Climate Central came up with their apocalyptic summer heat projections for the end of this century:

Summer high temperatures (average of daily maximum temperatures for June, July, and August) were calculated for 1,001 U.S. cities with 1986-2005 data from PRISM Climate Group, Oregon State University. The projected summer high temperatures were calculated for these cities for the period 2081-2099, based on the RCP8.5 emissions scenario (and the other scenarios in a subsequent analysis), which is the high emissions scenario used in the IPCC's 5th Assessment Report. This is essentially a continuation of our current emissions trends through the end of the century.

According to Climate Central, "warming in coastal San Diego will make it feel like Lexington, Ky., – and represents more than a 6°F temperature increase." Well, that is fascinating. Here are the summer high temperatures (average of daily maximum temperatures for June, July, and August) in the San Diego area using data from the NOAA National Weather Service database.

These results are inconvenient for the alarmists. Since 1970, there has been a highly statistically significant declining – not increasing – trend in summer high temperatures for San Diego. And remember, according to the National Climate Assessment, we should see the most pronounced increase – not decrease – in temperatures since 1970. Yet, somehow, summer high temperatures in San Diego will increase by more than 6°F by the late 21st century.

We could try using the NOAA National Climatic Data Center database for San Diego's maximum temperatures during the summer, but there seems to be a problem.

That's hot. An average maximum summertime temperature of 224°F! And look at that warming between 1939 and 1940. That there is some serious greenhouse gas forcing, all concentrated on a single year in southern California. Still, there is some good news for San Diego residents. According to the NOAA-NCDC database, these blistering summer temperatures have been declining since 1980, and it is looks like the trend might dip below the boiling point of water sometime in the next few decades.

What about this prediction for Sin City?

In some cases, summers will warm so dramatically that their best comparison is to cities in the Middle East. Take Las Vegas, for example. Summer highs there are projected to average a scorching 111°F, which is what summer temperatures are like today in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.

Right. And here are the summer highs since records begin in 1937 for the Las Vegas area.

That's not convenient, either. There has been absolutely no significant trend in summer high temperatures for the Las Vegas area since the start of the climate record. Indeed, the correlation is actually negative. And no significant trend since 1970 either, or since 1980, 1990, or 2000. Looks like not only does Vegas not have the oil resources of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, but it won't have the climate, either.

How about this prediction?

By the end of the century, assuming the current emissions trends, Boston's average summer high temperatures will be more than 10°F hotter than they are now, making it feel as balmy as North Miami Beach is today.

Uh-huh. And here are Boston's summer high temperatures since 1970.

That would be no significant trend since 1970. Again, the correlation is actually negative, not positive.

We could play this game all day and night, going through all the 1,001 U.S. cities that Climate Central did and comparing the predictions to historical trends, but the point has been made. There seem to be some major problems with the coming summer heat apocalypse Climate Central is projecting.
Xhttp://www.printfriendly.com/print?url=http%3A%2F%2Famericanthinker.com%2Fblog%2F2014%2F07%2Fhot_times_in_the_city.html%23.U7_DgPgmA0A.printfriendly&title=Blog%3A+Hot+Times+in+the+City%3F

[MisterEC]

While the CO2 remains as always. Therefore it is not the cause of warming. The alarmists will spin it somehow.

[extelecom]

Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s most accurate, up-to-date temperature data confirm the United States has been cooling for at least the past decade. The NOAA temperature data are driving a stake through the heart of alarmists claiming accelerating global warming.
More.......


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/06/25/government-data-show-u-s-in-decade-long-cooling/

[Bruce A Thompson]

Global warming data FAKED by government to fit climate change fictions



(NaturalNews) When drug companies are caught faking clinical trial data, no one is surprised anymore. When vaccine manufacturers spike their human trial samples with animal antibodies to make sure their vaccines appear to work, we all just figure that's how they do business: lying, cheating, deceiving and violating the law.

Now, in what might be the largest scientific fraud ever uncovered, NASA and the NOAA have been caught red-handed altering historical temperature data to produce a "climate change narrative" that defies reality. This finding, originally documented on the Real Science website, is detailed here.

We now know that historical temperature data for the continental United States were deliberately altered by NASA and NOAA scientists in a politically-motivated attempt to rewrite history and claim global warming is causing U.S. temperatures to trend upward. The data actually show that we are in a cooling trend, not a warming trend (see charts below).

This story is starting to break worldwide right now across the media, with The Telegraph now reporting (1), "NOAA's US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been 'adjusting' its record by replacing real temperatures with data 'fabricated' by computer models."

Because the actual historical temperature record doesn't fit the frenzied, doomsday narrative of global warming being fronted today on the political stage, the data were simply altered using "computer models" and then published as fact.


Here's the proof of the climate change fraud

Here's the chart of U.S. temperatures published by NASA in 1999. It shows the highest temperatures actually occurred in the 1930's, followed by a cooling trend ramping downward to the year 2000:



The authenticity of this chart is not in question. It is published by James Hansen on NASA's website. (2) On that page, Hansen even wrote, "Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought."

After the Obama administration took office, however, and started pushing the global warming narrative for political purposes, NASA was directed to alter its historical data in order to reverse the cooling trend and show a warming trend instead. This was accomplished using climate-modeling computers that simply fabricated the data the researchers wished to see instead of what was actually happening in the real world.

Using the exact same data found in the chart shown above (with a few years of additional data after 2000), NASA managed to misleadingly distort the chart to depict the appearance of global warming:



The authenticity of this chart is also not in question. It can be found right now on NASA's servers. (4)

This new, altered chart shows that historical data -- especially the severe heat and droughts experienced in the 1930's -- are now systematically suppressed to make them appear cooler than they really were. At the same time, temperature data from the 1970's to 2010 are strongly exaggerated to make them appear warmer than they really were.

This is a clear case of scientific fraud being carried out on a grand scale in order to deceive the entire world about global warming.

EPA data also confirm the global warming hoax

What's even more interesting is that even the EPA's "Heat Wave Index" data further support the notion that the U.S. was far hotter in the 1930's than it is today.

The following chart, published on the EPA.gov website (4), clearly shows modern-day heat waves are far smaller and less severe than those of the 1930's. In fact, the seemingly "extreme" heat waves of the last few years were no worse than those of the early 1900's or 1950's.



Sources for this article include:
(1) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment...

(2) http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/han...

(3) http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/...

(4) http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/ind...

(5) http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/2...

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/045695_global_warming_fabricated_data_scientific_fraud.html##ixzz35Z8wpzol

[extelecom]

The scandal of fiddled global warming data
The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/10916086/The-scandal-of-fiddled-global-warming-data.html

[extelecom]

False Alarms in the Frigid Zone.
Viv Forbes
Alarmists see a man-made calamity in every change in the Antarctic ice cap.

There is nothing unusual about ice caps melting, ice sheets splitting, icebergs calving or glaciers advancing or retreating. This has been happening naturally for eons.

In 1513, a Turkish sea captain, Piri Reis, using ancient maps, produced an accurate chart of the coastline of Antarctica which is now covered by a kilometre of ice. Geological evidence suggests it was ice-free just 6,000 years ago. Several past eras of icing and melting follow the natural cycles of the solar system, totally ignoring man’s puny activities.

It is not surprising that most glaciers and ice sheets show melting and calving while snow is being added at their source. If this did not occur, much of Earth’s water would eventually become tied up in the ever-growing ice sheets, as happened in the Ice Ages. And when land-based ice caps melt during periodic warm eras, the sea level inevitably rises and all life-forms must adapt to the new shoreline.

Sea levels rose swiftly by some 130 metres as ice sheets melted at the end of the latest ice age just 13,000 years ago. This made islands out of many coastal hills. We are all descendants of a long line of survivors who had the sense to adapt to these dramatic sea level changes without needing edicts from climate witch-doctors prohibiting camp fires and ordering villagers to abandon their seaside settlements.

There is no evidence that man’s production of carbon dioxide is having any effect in Antarctica. Despite rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, global surface temperatures are steady, global sea levels are rising very gently and the Antarctic Ocean is cold because the sea-ice surrounding Antarctica has increased to record levels.

Examination of ice cores suggests that it takes several hundred years for Earth’s vast oceans to fully adjust to cycles of global warming and cooling. Thus today’s oceans may be still warming, expanding and degassing in gradual adjustment to the medieval warm era which peaked about 700 years ago.

Ice caps grow and shrink naturally, depending mainly on the relative temperatures of the atmosphere and the surrounding oceans. A warm ocean with a cold atmosphere is a recipe for rapid accumulation of snow and ice on adjacent land. Moisture evaporates rapidly from the warm ocean, and then the cold air over the land triggers precipitation. A warm atmosphere and a cool ocean will reverse that process and see the ice caps return to the ocean. It is all about the ratio of precipitation vs outflow and melting.

The Arctic is a totally different story, because here, there is no land – just the Arctic Ocean. Floating sea ice comes and goes, depending on the temperature and direction of winds and ocean currents, but the melting of floating ice has no effect whatsoever on global sea levels.

Undersea volcanism is adding warmth to oceans at both poles and under-ice volcanoes may well be melting and undermining ice sheets in the West Antarctic.

Someday the huge Antarctic ice cap may melt, or large slabs of ice may slip off the continent into the sea. When that happens, the seaside homes of Al Gore and Tim Flannery will be submerged and other shore-dwelling humans must evacuate or drown.

These are all un-stoppable natural events. There is no chance that polar ice will be affected in the slightest by carbon taxes in Australia, wind turbines in the North Sea, or solar panels plastered all over California.


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/05/false_alarms_in_the_frigid_zone.html at May 22, 2014 - 03:57:12 PM CDT

[extelecom]

Obama's Climate Assessment, more hot air
Releasing the eight hundred page National Climate Assessment (NCA), President Obama now tries to resurrect the specter of climate change not as a future threat, but as an “already-happening” threat requiring immediate action in eight U.S. geographical regions. Obama’s NCA eco-propaganda attempts to re-brand what was once global warming, then climate change, than extreme weather, as the new shiny issue of “climate disruption.” This in spite of polls showing a consistent decline in the progressives’ belief in manmade global warming. And, in spite of the recent, much-heralded United Nations “Assessment Report” that admits to overstating climate change threats, and states that U.N. climate researchers cannot accurately predict long term temperature trends.

The NCA is exhausting in its deluge of anecdotal conflations of cherry-picked, yet incongruous, timelines to conclude climate disruption causation of such impacts as temperature extremes, disease, migration, hurricanes, rainfall, sea level raise and ocean acidification. The NCA calls for new government spending to cut carbon pollution, and to prepare America and global communities for global warming impacts. The NCA also states “that even as we act to reduce the greenhouse-gas pollution that is driving climate change, we must also empower the nation’s communities, businesses and individual citizens with information they need to cope with the changes in climate that are already underway.” The NCA emphasizes government education programs to force this partisan eco-propaganda into all levels of public education and governance.

Using the NCA, the Obama Administration stages yet another partisan “green” campaign to 1) energize his progressive base in the run up to November’s off-year elections in light of Democrats’ plunging popularity, and 2) to distract voters from his administration’s perpetual lies, and failed domestic and foreign policies.

Progressive “green” environmentalism has perversely passed from green awareness to the green hysteria of climate change and a politically-corrupt “war on carbon”; from prudent regulatory controls on air, water, toxics and land use to global energy and food austerity; from peaceful protests to radical eco-terrorism and endless lawsuits by partisan nonprofit eco-groups subsidized by taxpayers and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) grants. Today’s gratuitous and politically-partisan green-government regulations inflate the costs of all goods, services, activities and energies, and kill jobs and prosperity. The “war on carbon” is a “war on prosperity.”
http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-s-climate-assessment-more-hot-air

[extelecom]

Ohio Had a Long Drought in 2007?
By Sierra Rayne

The media fallout from the latest National Climate Assessment is the gift that keeps on giving. Over at the Natural Resources Defense Council, apparently climate change is wreaking havoc on agriculture in Ohio. Just take this claim by the NRDC:

"Ohio farmers, for instance, saw corn yields drop by up to 60 percent and first hay harvests by up to 70 percent during the long drought of 2007."

Wait. Ohio had a long drought in 2007? Well, by definition, if it was just in 2007, that isn't a "long drought," is it?

Perhaps a closer look at this "long drought of 2007" in the Buckeye State is needed.

It wasn't even a dry year in Ohio during 2007. The state saw 41.2 inches of precipitation during the calendar year, well above the 20th-century average of 38.3 inches per year. Even the prior twelve-month periods ending in July, August, September, October, and November of 2007 weren't dry. In fact, they were all above average, too.

Indeed, the period from September 2006 through August 2007 was the 18th wettest on record dating back to 1895. A whopping 43.4 inches of precipitation fell over this time-frame, more than 5.1 inches above the 20th-century average.

During 2007, statewide precipitation during March and August was well above average (August was the sixth wettest in the 120-year record), April and July were about average, and May, June, and September were dryer than normal. Sound like a "long drought"? Nope.

In 2007, 84 percent of Ohio's planted corn acreage was in the central, north central, northeast, northwest, and west central agricultural districts. There were no unusually low precipitation amounts in these regions during 2007 during the April to October period. In fact, the largest corn growing acreage region of the state -- the northwest -- saw well above average precipitation in 2007.

The April to October drought index for the northwest portion of the state was the 13th highest (i.e., almost a record non-drought) since 1895. Same extreme non-drought result for the north-central region, as well as the west-central district. The central region (climate division 5) of Ohio was in drought during the 2007 growing season. But it certainly wasn't one to cause climate hysteria. Here are the drought indices for this part of Ohio since 1895 (green is non-drought, yellow is drought; y-axis quantifies magnitude of non-drought/drought severity). See 2007? It's not even remotely close to a historically severe drought. And for comparison, the drought indices for the northwest region (climate division 1) are also provided. Note the extreme non-drought conditions during 2007.




Droughts in these portions of Ohio are also becoming less severe over time, as they are in each and every other climate subdivision of the state. So while the NRDC is concerned about the National Climate Assessment and anthropogenic climate change effects on a supposedly "long drought" in Ohio during 2007, when we actually look at the data we see that 2007 wasn't actually even a drought in half the state's climate divisions, and only a modest drought in the remainder.

In 2008, only one of the state's climate subdivisions saw drought conditions: the northeast hills, and this area was barely (and I mean barely) in a technical drought during 2008 -- ranking only 51st worst out of 119 years (a.k.a., pretty much average). The rest of the state was wetter than normal and most clearly in a non-drought. So much for that "long" component of the 2007 Ohio drought.

Having established that half the climate subdivisions in Ohio weren't even in drought during 2007, and that the other half were only in a very short term minor drought, what effect did Ohio's 2007 "long drought" have on corn and hay yields?

Remember, the NRDC claims that "Ohio farmers, for instance, saw corn yields drop by up to 60 percent and first hay harvests by up to 70 percent during the long drought of 2007."

In 2007, the hay yield for Ohio was 2.42 tons/acre, only down 14 percent from 2006. In 2008 (a uniform non-drought year across the state), the yield was 2.46 tons/acre. The average hay yield since 2007 has been 2.48 tons/acre -- equivalent to that during the supposed "long drought" year that the NRDC claims crushed "first hay harvests by up to 70 percent."

Now corn is serious business in Ohio, worth about $3 billion per year. And what happened to corn yields in 2007? The statewide average was 150 bushels per acre. That was down less than 6 percent from 2006, and was significantly higher than 135 bu/acre in the following non-drought year of 2008. Since 2000, the average corn yield in Ohio has been 148 bu/acre. In other words, the purported "long drought" of 2007 led to an average statewide corn yield.

Corn yields continue to rise in Ohio. In 2013, the state saw its highest ever yield, breaking the record set only a few years prior in 2009. Four of the top five highest ever corn yields have occurred during the last five years (and the drought year of 2012 was ranked 20th highest -- still impressive). All of the top ten Buckeye State corn yields have been seen since 2000. That 2007 "long drought" year? Ranked the 8th highest of all time.

Once again, we see the National Climate Assessment being employed to generate hysteria -- this time, food security hysteria for Americans -- in a manner that simply doesn't hold up to the test of real data scrutiny. These fear-mongering tactics by the activists go on all day, every day, and it appears the scientific community -- many (most?) of whom are activists themselves -- is going right along with the hysterifying. Terrible times at present for rigorous science and evidence-based policymaking.

http://americanthinker.com/2014/05/ohio_had_a_long_drought_in_2007.html

[extelecom]

GLOBAL WARMING WILL NOT COST THE EARTH, LEAKED IPCC REPORT ADMITS

The economic costs of 'global warming' have been grossly overestimated, a leaked report - shortly to be published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - has admitted.
Previous reports - notably the hugely influential 2006 Stern Review - have put the costs to the global economy caused by 'climate change' at between 5 and 20 percent of world GDP.
But the latest estimates, to be published by Working Group II of the IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report, say that a 2.5 degrees Celsius rise in global temperatures by the end of the century will cost the world economy between just 0.2 and 2 percent of its GDP.
If the lower estimate is correct, then all it would take is an annual growth rate of 2.4 percent (currently it's around 3 percent) for the economic costs of climate change to be wiped out within a month.
This admission by the IPCC will come as a huge blow to those alarmists - notably the Stern Review's author but also including everyone from the Prince of Wales to Al Gore - who argue that costly intervention now is our only hope if we are to stave off the potentially disastrous effects of climate change.
Sir Nicholas (now Lord) Stern was commissioned by Tony Blair's Labour government to analyse the economic impacts of climate change. Stern, an economist who had never before published a paper on energy, the environment, or indeed climate change, concluded that at least two per cent of global GDP would need to be diverted to the war on global warming.
Stern's report has been widely ridiculed by economists, whose main criticism was that its improbably low discount rate placed an entirely unnecessary burden on current generations. Even if you accept the more alarmist projections of the IPCC's reports on "global warming", the fact remains that future generations will be considerably richer than our own - and therefore far more capable of mitigating the damages of climate change when or if they arise.
But Stern's Review, published at the height of the global warming scare, was seized on by policy makers around the world as the justification for introducing a series of economically damaging measures, including carbon taxes, more intrusive regulation and a drive to replace cheap, efficient fossil fuels with expensive, inefficient renewables.
This is why Lord Stern has been variously described as "the most dangerous man you've never heard of" and been held responsible for some of the worst economic excesses of the green movement.
As Bishop Hill wrote:
When you see wind farms covering every hill and mountain and most of the valleys too, you can blame Stern. If you can't pay your heating bills, ask Stern why this has happened. When children are indoctrinated and dissenting voices crushed, it is at Nicholas Stern that you should point an accusing finger. When the lights start to go out in a few years time, it's Stern who will have to explain why.
Despite years of having mainstream economists pointing to the flaws in the Stern Review there has been an almost unanimous collective shrug from the media, more interested in climate porn than the wellbeing of their neighbours.
These measures make no economic sense whatsoever, as economist Andrew Lillico argues here.
So the mitigation deal has become this: Accept enormous inconvenience, placing authoritarian control into the hands of global agencies, at huge costs that in some cases exceed 17 times the benefits even on the Government's own evaluation criteria, with a global cost of 2 per cent of GDP at the low end and the risk that the cost will be vastly greater, and do all of this for an entire century, and then maybe – just maybe – we might save between one and ten months of global GDP growth.
Unfortunately, those expecting the IPCC's Working Group II's report to effect a new note of realism in global economic policy on climate change may be disappointed.
That's because the Summary for Policymakers (the only part of the IPCC's reports that policymakers tend to read) will - as usual - strike a much more alarmist tone than the contents of the more detailed report actually justify.
"Basically, it has been Pachauri-ised," says Benny Peiser of the independent think tank the Global Warming Policy Foundation. Peiser is referring to the IPCC's jet-setting chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, an Indian former railway engineer who has consistently put an alarmist complexion on all the IPCC's Summaries for Policymakers.
As evidence for this, economist Richard Tol - a Working Group II author - asked yesterday for his name to be removed from the Summary For Policymakers. He said:
"The message in the first draft was that through adaptation and clever development these were manageable risks, but it did require we get our act together."
"This has completely disappeared from the draft now, which is all about the impacts of climate change and the four horsemen of the apocalypse. This is a missed opportunity."

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/03/26/Global-warming-will-not-cost-the-earth-leaked-IPCC-report-admits

[extelecom]

The Denier Mantle Moves On
By Charles Battig
By their consistent refusal to acknowledge the accumulated facts of climate history, the mantle of “climate denier” has rightfully passed on to those who continue to promote misinformation and the unwarranted fear of manmade climate change. It is time that the fabricators of fear be so labeled.

These new-age denialists have elevated their computer models above the real world of factual observations. Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research set the standard for climate pseudo-science. “The data doesn't matter. We're not basing our recommendations on the data. We're basing them on the climate models.”

"The models are convenient fictions that provide something very useful,”: Dr. David Frame, Climate modeler, Oxford University. Indeed so, since the designer of the model can decide which “very useful” output is desired. The baking of a cake is a useful analogy. The cook decides which ingredients to include in the recipe, the quantity of each, the final shape and name of the cake. It could be named a lemon meringue, but if the lemon flavoring is omitted, it certainly will not be a valid lemon meringue.

Computer climate modeling has formed the basis for the continuing plethora of climate scare stories. The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) calls them “scenarios,” but these computer fabrications are treated by the media, politicians, and general public more like predictions. The common ingredient in the dozens of these General Circulation Models (GCM) used by the U.N. and its supporters is the assumed primary role of manmade carbon dioxide in driving Earth’s climate. They assert that the role of manmade carbon dioxide is the singular answer to making their climate models work, and thereby match some carefully chosen period of climate history. Like the lemon in the cake, the prime role of fossil fuel carbon dioxide in driving the results of their climate computers is the one essential ingredient purposely baked into the computer/cake. “Lemon in, lemon out.”

The full list of climate determinants (“cake ingredients”), their multiple interactions, relative temporal significance, and relative quantitative importance remain beyond current scientific understanding. Even the basic records of global temperature, surface or atmospheric, are in dispute because of faulty measurement technology, selective editing, missing data sites, and urban heat contamination. Yet, manmade carbon dioxide has been computer preprogrammed to a predetermined prime importance as the main determinant of global temperature and climate change.

What does the Earth say about the climate computer models? The real-world record documents no warming for the past 17 years, even as atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased about 9 per cent. How bad were the computer models? A recent paper found that “global warming over the past 20 years is significantly less than that calculated from 117 simulations of the climate by 37 models.” Oops.

The deniers claim deadly sea level rise based on their computers. The actual record shows that recent global sea level rise has decelerated 31 per cent. Oops.

Did the U.S. have an extreme weather year in 2013? Tornadoes? The number of tornadoes in the US in 2013 was the lowest total since 2000 and the lowest total in several decades. Oops.

U.S. wildfires? The number of wildfires across the US in 2013 is the lowest it has been in the past ten years and the acreage involved is at the second lowest level in that same time period. (http://www.nifc.gov/)

U.S. extreme heat in 2013? Extreme heat was down across the US for 2013. The number of 100 degree days across the country during 2013 was down, and may have been the lowest in about 100 years of records. (NOAA, USHCN reporting stations; through August)

U.S. hurricanes? The U.S. is in the longest period since the Civil War Era without a major hurricane strike in the US (i.e., category 3, 4 or 5). The last major hurricane to strike the US was Hurricane Wilma in 2005.

So who are the climate deniers? The U.N.’s IPCC would be the presumptive leader, as it was founded to find the imprint of “human induced” climate change. Other drivers of climate were largely dismissed unless they could be shown to support the pre-determined conclusion that there was a significant human fingerprint. This body is a political entity, not a scientific research organization. It is notable that even as earlier IPCC predictions of the impact of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide have proved false, and their magnitudes lessened in subsequent IPCC reports, the organization remains unrepentant in its claims of certainty.

Notable scientific organizations such as the World Meteorological Organization (present at the founding of the IPCC), the American Meteorological Society, and the American Physical Society have, at the leadership level, supported the premise of harmful climate change, primarily caused by manmade carbon dioxide. Their published papers are mostly skeptical of climate drivers not based on manmade carbon dioxide. Most recently, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) has declared itself firmly in the skeptics’ camp by issuing its report to “Recognize Climate Change Risks.” The failure of climate modeling predictions is not acknowledged…the relevance is denied.

There are many individuals including Al Gore, science advisor John Holdren, and John Podesta who are skeptics of scientific reports which point out the disconnect between the manmade climate change mantra, and the actual physical record.

Most notable is the lack of a definitive scientific report that can identify and quantify the impact of human carbon dioxide on global climate, and distinguish it from the natural background of climate change over time. The presumptive human influence signal is lost as background noise in the over-riding signal of normal climate variability.

The deniers of computer-generated climate failures are denying the real world.


Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/03/the_denier_mantle_moves_on.html at March 28, 2014 - 06:44:42 AM CDT

[HoosierHoagie]

The Coming Paradigm Shift on Climate
By S. Fred Singer

The just-published NIPCC reports may lead to a paradigm shift about what or who causes current climate changes. All the evidence suggests that Nature rules the climate – not Man.

Watch for it: We may be on the threshold of a tipping point in climate history. No, I’m not talking about a tipping point in the sense that the Earth will be covered with ice or become hellishly hot. I’m talking about a tipping point in our views of what controls the climate -- whether it’s mainly humans or whether it’s mainly natural. It makes an enormous difference in climate policy: Do we try to mitigate, at huge cost, or do we merely adapt to natural changes -- as our ancestors did for many millennia?

Such tipping points occur quite frequently in science. I have personally witnessed two paradigm shifts where world scientific opinion changed rapidly -- almost overnight. One was in Cosmology, where the “Steady State” theory of the Universe was replaced by the “Big Bang.” This shift was confirmed by the discovery of the “microwave background radiation,” which has already garnered Nobel prizes, and will likely get more.

The other major shift occurred in Continental Drift. After being denounced by the Science Establishment, the hypothesis of Alfred Wegener, initially based on approximate relations between South America and Africa, was dramatically confirmed by the discovery of “sea-floor spreading.”

These shifts were possible because there were no commercial or financial interests -- and they did not involve the public and politicians. But climate is a different animal: The financial stakes are huge -- in the trillions of dollars, and affect energy policy, and indeed the economic wellbeing of every inhabitant of the developed and developing world. For example, the conversion into ethanol fuel of a substantial portion of the US corn crop raised the price of tortillas in Mexico and caused food riots.

Nevertheless, I believe the time is right for a paradigm shift on climate. For one, there has been no warming now for some 15 years -- in spite of rising levels of greenhouse (GH) gases. Climate models have not come up with any accepted explanation. This disparity, of course, throws great doubt about any future warming derived from these same models, and indeed also about policies that are being advocated -- principally, the mitigation and control of Carbon Dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels.

Next year, in Paris, the UN will try to reconstitute the basic features of the (1997-2012) Kyoto Protocol -- an international treaty of participating nations to limit their emissions of CO2. They may succeed -- unless the current paradigm changes.

We can already see the pressure building up for such a treaty. The big guns of international science are actively promoting climate scares. The Royal Society and US National Academy of Sciences have published a joint major report, containing no new science but advocating a “need for action.” The AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science), the largest scientific organization in the United States, is promoting the same policy, again without a shred of science in their slick pamphlet. Even the once-respected Scientific American magazine has gotten into the act and openly advocates such policies.

All of these Establishment groups, it seems, have a keen eye open for government funding -- not only for research but also the actions that go with such policies. They all accept the climate science as propagated by the three volumes of the 5th Assessment Report (AR5) of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). Volume #1, dealing with physical science, was published in Sept 2013; volumes 2 and 3, dealing with impacts and mitigation, will be published in March and April of 2014.

But now, for the first time, we have NIPCC (Non-governmental International Panel on Climate Change) as a counter to the IPCC, as an independent voice, a second opinion, if you will -- something that was advocated by the IAC (InterAcademy Council on Science). We now have a credible number of studies, which the IPCC chose to ignore in reaching their conclusion about anthropogenic global warming (AGW). The NIPCC reports were also published in September 2013 (Physical Science), and in March and April of 2014 (Biological Impacts and Societal Impacts).

The NIPCC, in particular its Summary for Policy-Makers (SPM) of Vol 1, looks critically at the evidence that the IPCC uses to back up their claim of AGW. NIPCC notes that the evidence keeps changing over time. The first IPCC report (1990) used an improbable statistical method to suggest that the warming of the early part of the 20th century was due to human-produced GH gases; no one believes this anymore.

The second assessment report of 1996, which led to the infamous 1997 Kyoto Protocol, manufactured the so-called “HotSpot,” a region of increased warming trend, with a maximum in the equatorial troposphere. That evidence has also disappeared: a detailed analysis (published in Nature 1996) showed that the hHotspot doesn’t even exist. In addition, the assumption that it constitutes a “fingerprint” for AGW is in error.

As a result of these two failed attempts to establish some kind of evidence for AGW, the third IPCC report (2001) latched on to the so-called “Hockeystick” graph, which claimed that only the 20th century showed unusual warming during the past 1000 years. However, further scrutiny demonstrated that the Hockeystick was also manufactured -- based on faulty data, erroneous statistical methods, and an inappropriate calibration method. Even purely random data fed into the algorithm would always produce a hockeystick.

In its most recent AR5 of 2013, the IPCC has dropped all previous pieces of evidence and instead concentrates on trying to prove that the reported surface warming between 1978 and 2000 agrees with a warming predicted by climate models. This so-called proof turns out to be a weak reed indeed. The reported warming applies only to surface (land-based) weather stations and is not seen in any other data set; the weather satellite data that measure atmospheric temperature show no significant trend -- neither do proxy data (from analysis of tree rings, ocean/lake sediments, stalagmites, etc)

It can therefore be argued that there has been no appreciable human-caused warming in the 20th century at all -- and that the warming effects of rising GH-gas content of the atmosphere have been quite insignificant. See also http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/11/ipcc_s_bogus_evidence_for_global_warming.html

But what about future global temperatures? Opinions differ sharply -- all the way from another “Little Ice Age” (a calamity, in my opinion) to a resumption of warming (aided by the “missing heat” that some alarmists are sure is hiding somewhere). Personally, I don’t do forecasts since I know too little about the Sun’s interior; I simply try to understand and explain the past climate. But if pressed, I would go with historic cycles, like the observed 1000-1500-yr cycle; it suggests a modest warming over the next few centuries, perhaps in ‘fits and starts’ -- unlike computer models that yield a steady increase in temperature from a steady increase of GH-gas levels.

Will nations accept any treaties emanating from the 2015 Paris Conference? So far, only Western Europe seems to be keen on ratifying -- and even there, doubts are developing. Eastern Europe is definitely against any new Protocol, as are Japan, Australia, and Canada. And what about the Chinese, the world’s largest emitters of CO2? They gain a competitive advantage if their commercial competitors accept the Treaty’s restrictions, which raise their cost of energy.

The United States may be in a transition mode -- and that’s where a paradigm shift could really make a global difference. According to the latest Gallup poll, the US public ranks Global Warming almost at the bottom of twenty issues, mostly concerned with economics. The White House, however, seems to be gung-ho for climate alarmism. President Obama is planning new climate initiatives, based on advice from his Science Adviser, John Holdren, an erstwhile disciple of “Population Bomb” Paul Ehrlich. John Podesta has come aboard as counselor and special assistant to the President to push climate initiatives. And of course, the rest of the Administration is in tune with the White House.

Secretary of State John Kerry considers AGW the greatest challenge to US security -- in spite of having his plate full of foreign-policy problems: the Iran nuclear negotiations, the Syrian civil war, a developing Sunni insurgency in Iraq, the Arab-Israel ‘peace’ negotiations, and the Russian annexation of Crimea.

In mid-2014, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) will issue its opinion on the EPA’s mis-guided and unscientific efforts to limit or even abolish the use of coal for electric generation. If SCOTUS can become aware of the NIPCC conclusions, they will surely decide against EPA and therefore the WH. Such an event may become the trigger for a cataclysmic paradigm shift in US policy on energy and climate. The November 2014 elections could tip the balance and finally kill the myth of Global Warming catastrophes in the US and throughout the world.

NIPCC Conclusions in Brief

Backed by thousands of peer-reviewed studies, are in striking contrast to the IPCC’s alarmist predictions:

**Climate data tell us that the human impact on Earth’s climate is very small and that any warming due to GH gases will be so small as to be indiscernible from natural variability.
**The net impacts of modestly rising temperatures and higher carbon-dioxide levels on plants, animals, wildlife, and human welfare have been positive so far and are likely to continue to be positive.
**The costs of trying to mitigate climate change by reducing emissions vastly exceed the benefits. Annual cost per US household would run to some $3,900; would destroy millions of jobs.
**In light of the new science and economics of climate change, thousands of laws passed at the height of the global warming scare need to be re-evaluated, modified, or repealed.

S. Fred Singer is professor emeritus at the University of Virginia and director of the Science & Environmental Policy Project. His specialty is atmospheric and space physics. An expert in remote sensing and satellites, he served as the founding director of the US Weather Satellite Service and, more recently, as vice chair of the US National Advisory Committee on Oceans & Atmosphere. He is a senior fellow of the Heartland Institute and the Independent Institute. He co-authored the NY Times best-seller Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 years. In 2007, he founded and has since chaired the NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change), which has released several scientific reports [See www.NIPCCreport.org].

For recent writings, see http://www.americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/ and also Google Scholar.

[Smooth]

Not sure if this video made this board or not. As the video explains, the entire GW debate has to do with the feedback loop and how mother earth deals with the CO2 once it comes into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. From what I understand, Mother Nature appears to greatly reduce the direct effects(temperature rise) of CO2 in the atmosphere. What say you?

[extelecom]

This Just In On The ‘Settled Science’: 95% Of Global Warming Models Are Wrong

As record cold temperatures, snow and ice storms continue to grip much of the nation, environmentalists and Democrats are once again beating the climate change drum with a renewed determination. They love to cite a “97% consensus among scientists” that global warming is real. What they don’t like talk about is that 95% of “global warming” models are wrong. In fact, former NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer says that climate models used by government agencies to create policies “have failed miserably.”
Spencer analyzed 90 climate models against surface temperature and satellite temperature data, and found that more than 95% of the models “have over-forecast the warming trend since 1979?:
“I am growing weary of the variety of emotional, misleading, and policy-useless statements like ‘most warming since the 1950s is human caused’ or ‘97% of climate scientists agree humans are contributing to warming’, neither of which leads to the conclusion we need to substantially increase energy prices and freeze and starve more poor people to death for the greater good. Yet, that is the direction we are heading.”
To Dr. Spencer’s point, not only is the science not settled, as Al Gore, Barack Obama, countless other Democrats and environmentalists claim; science is proving the opposite, of anything. Even the latest UN Report on Climate Change concedes that the planet has largely stopped warming over the past 15 years. Some scientists now predict that the “pause,” as environmentalists call it, may not end until the 2030s — if ever.
The Climate Science Capitulation Begins…Hans von Storch: “We Definitely Have Seen Less Warming Than Expected”
IPCC Railroad engineer [and Chair of the "Science" Panel] Pachauri acknowledges ‘No warming for 17 years’
Man-made global warming: even the IPCC admits the jig is up [IPCC's AR5 Report]
See also: RSS global temperature data: No global warming at all for 202 months
But, hey, deniers, the science is settled. In fact, if we don’t stop climate change dead in its tracks in 2014, the world as we know it may very well come to an end. According to liberals, anyway.
Calling Al Gore…calling Al Gore…are you there? Mr. Gore…are you there? Mr. Gore?
http://www.ijreview.com/2014/02/114474-just-settled-science-95-global-warming-models-wrong/

[extelecom]

Greenpeace co-founder says ‘no scientific proof’ humans cause climate change
A co-founder of Greenpeace told a Senate panel on Tuesday that there is no scientific evidence to back claims that humans are the “dominant cause” of climate change.
Patrick Moore, a Canadian ecologist who was a member of Greenpeace from 1971-86, told members of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee environmental groups like Greenpeace use faulty computer models and scare tactics in further promoting a political agenda, Fox News reported.
“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” Mr. Moore said. “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.
“It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a [two degrees Celsius] rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species,” he continued. “We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing.
“The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming,” he said.
Mr. Moore left Greenpeace in 1986, accusing the organization of political activism.
“After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave as Greenpeace took a sharp turn to the political left, and began to adopt policies that I could not accept from my scientific perspective,” he said. “Climate change was not an issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is now.”
A United Nations report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released in September indicated that global surface temperatures had not increased for the past 15 years.


Read more: http://p.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/26/greenpeace-co-founder-says-no-scientific-proof-hum/#ixzz2uex71IR4
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[extelecom]

Climate change skeptic decries ‘global warming nazis’ and their ‘jack-booted’ tactics
By Tom Boggioni
Friday, February 21, 2014 11:40 EST
Writing on his blog, global climate change skeptic Dr. Roy W. Spencer, decried the use of the term “global warming denier”, saying it is being used by “global warming nazis’ in an attempt to equate those who reject global weather change with Holocaust deniers.

Dr. Spencer, a former NASA climatologist who has testified before Congress on climate issues, says that it is “time to push back” against scientists and politicians who use the term ‘denier’.

“When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers”, they crossed the line. They are still doing it. They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened,” he wrote. “Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back. I’m now going to start calling these people ‘global warming Nazis’ .”


Although there is an overwhelming consensus among scientists that anthropogenic global climate change is real, there remain small pockets of skeptics who explicitly deny global warming.

Dr. Spencer claims these voices are not being heard, stating “Dissenting scientific views are now jack-booted through tactics like pressuring scientific journals to not publish papers with which they disagree…even getting journal editors to resign.”

About the “global warming nazis”, he writes , “Like the Nazis, they advocate the supreme authority of the state (fascism), which in turn supports their scientific research to support their cause (in the 1930s, it was superiority of the white race).”

He adds, “Like the Nazis, they are anti-capitalist. They are willing to sacrifice millions of lives of poor people at the altar of radical environmentalism, advocating expensive energy policies that increase poverty. And if there is a historically demonstrable threat to humanity, it is poverty.”

Dr. Spencer, who teaches at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, blames global climate change consensus on “authoritarianism”, writing, “This authoritarianism tends to happen with an over-educated elite class…I have read that Nazi Germany had more PhDs per capita than any other country. I’m not against education, but it seems like some of the stupidest people are also the most educated.”

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/21/climate-change-skeptic-decries-global-warming-nazis-and-their-jack-booted-tactics/

[extelecom]

By William Murchison - February 22, 2014
Gee. Gosh. And my, oh, my, as my grandmother might have exclaimed in wonder and awe.

All we need to know about global warming is what John Kerry tells us? In Jakarta last weekend, our secretary of state exposed the irrelevance and blindness of any who questions what he calls "the science" on climate change.



These folk represent "loud interest groups" -- i.e., "big companies" that "don't want to change and spend money" to prevent the melting of the ice caps and the withering of the planet. They are "a tiny minority of shoddy scientists" and "extreme ideologues." "The science is unequivocal!" Unequivocal; do you hear that?! "(T)hose who refuse to believe it are simply burying their heads in the sand. We don't have time for a meeting anywhere of the Flat Earth Society."

Wham. Down comes the curtain on an allegedly serious debate -- to the extent liberal/progressive hectoring about "climate change" can be interpreted as debate. The fake triumphalism of the liberal vision is nowhere more clearly to be viewed than on those occasions when liberals throw out of court any perceived obstacles to eradication of fossil fuels and their replacement with sunshine and gentle breezes.

Very much in the modern spirit, with "science" ratified as the final authority on everything, theology and philosophy included, science sits enthroned above us. The word, as wielded by politicians, says it all. Kerry has only scorn for "ideologues" who won't take his word. President Obama, visiting California, links the state's ongoing drought to "climate change." His Environmental Protection Agency proposes regulatory goals that likely would put coal plants out of business. There is but one way to do things -- Our Way, the liberal way.

Than which a more futile hope probably doesn't exist. The best way, in human terms, to keep a debate going is to say the debate's over. And, what's more, "we" won. Kind of the way the health care debate closed down -- right? "We" -- a united Democratic party -- did it "our way," and to the hot place with anyone else's way. Consider the splendid results! Young enrollees are, so far, too few in number to support older and sicker enrollees. Overall enrollment targets are far below earlier estimates. Costs vary around the nation. Many -- no one knows yet precisely how many -- find they can't keep their doctors.

The Olympians who designed Obamacare and handed it down to the riffraff are possibly feeling frustrated when the topic is climate change. They don't receive the deference they feel they deserve. Thus, conceivably, the stridency of Kerry's language. "Shut up!" he explains to the differently minded.

It's a challenge all right. The New York Times, no friend to "polluters," notes the lack of "scientific consensus" as to whether climate change is the cause of California's drought. Droughts do happen. Not a few of us recall the profound dryness of 1951-57 -- "The Time It Never Rained," to give it the title of Texas writer Elmer Kelton's great novel about the period. I mean, it didn't rain. But eventually it did.

The winter of 2013-14 has been rough. Eighty-eight percent of the Great Lakes has turned to ice. In 1994, it was 94 percent. Take the matter back further. In February 1899 -- before gasoline engines -- the worst cold snap to afflict the country in modern times dropped temperatures to 7 degrees in New Orleans, dumped snow on Miami and froze the Mississippi River solid as far south as Cairo, Illinois. "Climate change?" If only John Kerry had been around, he might have ventured a viewpoint and proposed a federal program.

The intractability of life is a matter that disturbs liberals confident of their ability -- using the best "science" -- to engineer foolproof solutions to matters large and small. Thus their exasperation when things go amiss -- or, worse, people (the fools!) refuse to listen. The Obama administration -- the most monolithically liberal regime in half a century -- must be feeling pretty well put off by widespread ingratitude. So might we all, given comparable levels of perfect, dogmatic certainty.



Read more: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/02/22/climate_change_and_the_liberal_mind_121629.html#ixzz2u5fiUuZ8
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter

[extelecom]

Kerry and climate change: Weapon of mass misinformation?
Speaking to a group of Jakarta students and government officials, Secretary of State John Kerry warned, “Climate change can now be considered the world’s largest weapon of mass destruction, perhaps even, the world’s most fearsome weapon of mass destruction.” He further declared that the science is settled, equating skeptics to Flat Earth Society Luddites. The idea of a flat earth was “settled science” once upon a time, or at least until Aristotle unsettled this scientific belief. Much as bloodletting was once standard medical treatment in medieval Europe, until it too became an unsettled science. Yet Professor Kerry, political science major from Yale, with lower grades than the “Village Idiot from Texas,” presumes to know which bits of science are settled.

The mission of Mr. Kerry’s State Department is to, “Create a more secure, democratic, and prosperous world for the benefit of the American people and the international community.” How does Mr. Kerry’s scaremongering about phantom WMDs translate into security, democracy, or prosperity? Perhaps he could devote more of his time toward its real mission: Our security is threatened by Iranian warships off our Atlantic coast. Democracy is threatened in Venezuela through election fraud and diplomat expulsion. And prosperity is threatened by our national debt, $17 trillion and counting. So while the world is burning, Secretary of State Kerry is fiddling away over “fearsome” climate change and dismissing skeptics as rubes.

The science may be settled in the halls of Foggy Bottom, but in the real world of thought and inquiry, it is anything but. Over 31,000 American scientists, 9,000 with PhDs, believe “there is no convincing scientific evidence” of catastrophic global warming and climate disruption. This is New York City’s second snowiest February, and Philadelphia’s third snowiest winter, with plenty of winter left. The Great Lakes have nearly frozen over and 49 states have snow on the ground. Even among climate scientists, there is skepticism as, “Many of these scientists frankly admit to each other that much of the science is weak and dependent on deliberate manipulation of facts and data.”



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/21/kerry-and-climate-change-weapon-of-mass-misinformation/#ixzz2u5dJnAFL

[extelecom]

You may want to expand your information sources -

Union of Concerned Scientists
OVERVIEW
Committed to an “open-minded search for truth,” and armed with “unrivaled scientific expertise,” the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) “doesn’t say anything [it] can’t back up with solid evidence.” At least, that’s what its fund-raising letters say. The reality is quite different.

UCS embraces an environmental agenda that often stands at odds with the “rigorous scientific analysis” it claims to employ. A radical green wolf in sheep’s clothing, UCS tries to distinguish itself from the Greenpeaces of the world by convincing the media that its recommendations reflect a consensus among the scientific community. And that’s what makes it so dangerous. Whether it’s energy policy or agricultural issues, UCS’s “experts” are routinely given a free pass from newspaper reporters and television producers when they claim that mainstream science endorses their radical agenda.

Here’s how it works: UCS conducts an opinion poll of scientists or organizes a petition that scientists sign. Then it manipulates or misconstrues the results in order to pronounce that science has spoken. In 1986 UCS asked 549 of the American Physical Society’s 37,000 members if Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was “a step in the wrong direction for America’s national security policy.” Despite the biased wording of the push-poll question, only 54 percent disapproved of SDI. Even so, UCS declared that the poll proved “profound and pervasive skepticism toward SDI in the scientific community.”

More recently, UCS pulled a partisan, election-year stunt in 2004 aimed at the Bush Administration. The group rounded up 60 scientists to sign a statement complaining that “the administration is distorting and censoring scientific findings that contradict its policies; manipulating the underlying science to align results with predetermined political decisions.”

On issue after issue, UCS insists, the White House fails to embrace global scientific “consensus” — and that automatically means it has “politicized” science. But UCS itself is frequently guilty of that exact sin. For instance, it works overtime to scare Americans about a whole host of imagined environmental problems associated with genetically modified food. But every authoritative regulatory agency, including the Environmental Protection Agency and the World Health Organization, declares that biotech food crops are perfectly safe.

UCS routinely abuses and politicizes science. Its crusade against farm animals receiving antibiotics presents guesswork as scientifically rigorous analysis, and is calculated to scare the public about risks it admits are groundless. UCS helped initiate the vicious attacks on Danish scientist (and “Skeptical Environmentalist”) Bjorn Lomborg, only to be repudiated by the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology, and Industry. And in 2003, the group dressed up its “strong opposition to the US invasion of Iraq” as an exercise in science.

Like many environmental activist groups, UCS uses the twin motivators of cheer and fear. A giggly Gwenyth Paltrow and a catty Cameron Diaz headlined a series of short appeals about energy conservation that UCS produced. The two mega-stars crow that they turn the water off while brushing their teeth, switch off the light when they leave their bedrooms, and keep the thermostat at 65 degrees. “Its time for us to band together and really make every effort to conserve our natural resources,” chirps Diaz. That’s the sunny side.

But UCS is more adept at producing horror stories than chick flicks. They are fear-mongers of the first order — turning the sober science of health and environmental safety into high drama for public consumption. For example, UCS recently warned that by 2100 the U.S. might suffer 50-80 million more cases of malaria every year if the Senate fails to ratify the Kyoto treaty. Such racy statistics are based on clumsy modeling of worst-case scenarios, and assume — against all evidence of human behavior — that no countermeasures whatsoever would be employed. “Not considering factors such as local control measures or health services,” in their own words. Of course, you won’t find those caveats in the press release.

Genetically Modified Science

Among UCS’s many concerns, “the food you eat” is at the top of the list. More than a million dollars went to its food program in 2001. Genetically enhanced foods — dubbed “Frankenfoods” by opponents — have caused worldwide hysteria even though no reputable scientific institution can find anything to be afraid of. But that doesn’t stop UCS’s “experts” from playing cheerleader to these unfounded fears.

They warn that biotech foods could result in the “squandering of valuable pest susceptibility genes,” “enhancement of the environment for toxic fungi,” and the “creation of new or worse viruses.” They scream about “Poisoned wildlife” and “new allergens in the food supply.” Biotech foods, they claim, might “increase the levels of toxic substances within plants,” “reduce the effectiveness of antibiotics to fight disease,” “contaminate foods with high levels of toxic metals,” “intensify weedy properties” and cause the “rapid evolution of resistance to herbicides in weeds,” leading to “superweeds.”

Rigorous scientific analysis led UCS to this list of horrors, right? Wrong. That was merely a “‘brainstorming’ of potential harms.” So how likely are any of these to occur? “Risk assessments can be complicated,” UCS says, and pretty much leaves it at that. In other words, they have absolutely no idea.

In contrast, more reputable authorities have a very good grasp of the potential risks of genetically enhanced foods. The U.S. Environmental protection Agency says that genetically enhanced corn “does not pose risks to human health or to the environment.” The World Health Organization says that biotech foods “are not likely to present risks for human health” and observes that “no effects on human health have been shown as a result of the consumption of such foods by the general population.” Even the European Union, which has gone out of its way to stifle food technology for political reasons, notes: “The use of more precise technology [in genetically enhanced crops] and the greater regulatory scrutiny probably make them even safer than conventional plants and foods.”

The Food and Environment Program at UCS is headed up by Margaret Mellon and her deputy Jane Rissler, both of whom hold Ph.Ds and have held positions at prestigious universities. So what do a couple of highly trained research scientists, armed with nothing but guesswork, ideology and a million dollar budget, do? They fight biotech food every step of the way.

Although UCS claims that it “does not support or oppose genetic engineering per se,” Mellon and Rissler in fact have never met a GM food they didn’t mistrust. That’s because they hold biotech foods to an impossibly high standard.

In 1999, UCS joined the National Wildlife Federation, the Sierra Club, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, and the Defenders of Wildlife, in petitioning the EPA for strict regulation of corn modified to produce large amounts of the bacillus thuringiensis (Bt) toxin. Bt is a naturally occurring insect poison that protects plants from pests like the European corn borer. UCS’s letter was part of a major scare campaign to convince the public that Bt corn posed a risk to the Monarch Butterfly.

Both the USDA and the EPA later concluded that Bt corn caused no harm to the Monarch. This reinforced the findings of federal regulators who had performed a comprehensive safety review of Bt corn before it was allowed into the marketplace. UCS remains unconvinced, even though the safest place for a Monarch larva to be is in a Bt cornfield. Rissler argued there was “insufficient data” to make such a conclusion.

Precautionary Nonsense

Of course, “sufficient” data can never exist for zealots like Rissler. She continued: “Do we assume the technology is safe… or do we prove it? The scientist in me wants to prove it’s safe.” It’s impossible to prove a negative, to absolutely demonstrate that there are no dangers whatsoever for any given product. The scientist in her knows that too, but she and her colleagues at UCS continue to be guided by the “Precautionary Principle.” This misguided maxim argues that, based on the fear that something harmful may possibly arise, we should opt for technological paralysis.

The Wall Street Journal editorialized in 2000 that The Precautionary Principle “is an environmentalist neologism, invoked to trump scientific evidence and move directly to banning things they don’t like.” It’s a big hit among anti-technology activists because it justifies their paranoia and serves to bludgeon technological progress.

Martin Teitel, who runs another misnamed activist group called the Council for Responsible Genetics, admitted as much in 2001. “Politically,” Teitel said, “it’s difficult for me to go around saying that I want to shut this science down, so it’s safer for me to say something like, ‘It needs to be done safely before releasing it.’” Requiring scientists to satisfy the Principle by proving a negative, Teitel added, means that “they don’t get to do it period.”

It should come as no surprise that UCS joined Teitel’s organization and other die-hard opponents of biotech foods in an activist coalition called the Genetic Engineering Action Network. While acknowledging that “we know of no generic harms associated with genetically engineered organisms,” UCS consistently opposes their introduction to the market on the basis of purely hypothetical risk.

Confronted with the real-world benefits of biotech foods, UCS simply changes the subject to its anti-corporate, socialist leanings. Rissler’s appearance on the PBS show Nova – on a program called “Harvest of Fear” — is a case in point. When the interviewer suggested that “genetically modified crops are arguably much less harmful to the environment” Rissler responded: “It depends on where you want to compromise. There’s another issue here with corporate control of the food supply.”

UCS’s knee-jerk reaction to biotech foods is matched only by its animus towards agribusiness. A 1994 press release condemning FDA approval of biotech foods complained that some of the data used by the oversight agency was provided by private enterprises.

In her zeal to decry increased food production from the corporate adoption of biotechnology, Mellon has argued that it’s “not clear that more milk or pork is good.” And UCS supports a radical vision of “sustainable agriculture.” That means no pesticides or herbicides; no fertilizer (other than E.coli-rich manure); and eating only “locally grown” produce. If it’s not clear under this plan where New York City would get its rice or how Chicago would scrounge up any bananas, there’s a reason for it. They wouldn’t.

Pigs, Chickens and Cows, Oh My!

Hogging It, a UCS report published in 2001, argues that the use of antibiotics in farm animals could result in human diseases that are resistant to conventional treatments. The report received a great deal of press attention, and UCS is not afraid to brag about it. “We developed the numbers that everyone uses when talking about… overuse of antibiotics,” trumpets a fund-raising letter. But how did they go about developing those numbers? “Rigorous scientific analysis”? Hardly. While the livestock industry actually calculates the amounts of antibiotics administered to farm animals using hard sales figures, UCS guesses at average drug dosages and then multiplies by the total number of animals. That’s “brainstorming.” Not science.

The real experts, like David Bell, coordinator of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s anti-microbial resistance programs, aren’t impressed by Hogging It. Interestingly, UCS admits the weakness of its evidence. The executive summary of Hogging It complains about a “gaping chasm” in the data. Nevertheless, the authors are proud to produce the “first transparent estimate” of livestock antibiotic use in America.

Estimate? That’s right. “The numbers everyone uses” are just estimates. Moreover, UCS measures antibiotic usage in total tonnage. But is that relevant in any way? UCS concedes that it’s not. The activist group wants the FDA to track antibiotic usage by “type,” since most antibiotics used in animals are unlike those used in humans.

Consumer Reports quotes Margaret Mellon saying, “We know nothing. We are flying blind.” No wonder the American Veterinary Medical Association and the Coalition for Animal Health also reject Hogging It’s findings. But none of that stops UCS from scaring the wits out of the public. Mellon warns of an “era where untreatable infectious diseases are regrettably commonplace.” That might be worth getting “Concerned” about, if only it were based on good science.

Unfortunately, political science masquerading as real science can have real-world consequences. In July 2003, identical bills introduced in the U.S. House and Senate threatened to ban the routine use of eight entire classes of antibiotics in livestock. Keep Antibiotics Working (KAW), a slick PR coalition of activist groups, was especially pleased with the news because its favorite statistic became the legislation’s main factual “finding.” Namely: “An estimated 70 percent of the antibiotics and other antimicrobial drugs used in the United States are fed to farm animals.”

Guess who “estimated 70 percent” for KAW? The Union of Concerned Scientists, a long-time coalition member. UCS admits that this estimate was created from mere guesswork, saying on its own website that “data to answer [the following] questions are not available”:

What is the total amount of antibiotics used each year in the United States?
How much of this is used to treat human disease?
How much is used in animal agriculture?
How much is used to treat sick animals and how much to promote their growth?
How much of each major class of antibiotics is used as supplements to animal feed or water?
Is agricultural use increasing? By how much?
Which agricultural uses are most likely to contribute to problems in treating human disease?
For a group facing so many unanswered questions, answers seem to come remarkably easily. While freely admitting that no good science exists to determine the effect (if any) of livestock antibiotics on human health, UCS managed to convince members of Congress otherwise. At the same time, UCS activists protested outside fast-food restaurants, holding giant “pillburgers” (prop hamburgers stuffed with oversized drug capsules) and chanting “Hey hey — ho ho — Drugs in meat have got to go.”

BLACKEYE
By any real scientific yardstick, the Union of Concerned Scientists has a lousy track record. Their predictions are often laughably, and sometimes tragically, wrong. A few examples:
In 1997 UCS organized a petition that warned of “global warming” and advocated U.S. ratification of the Kyoto treaty. It was signed by 1,600 scientists, and so UCS declared that “the scientific community has reached a consensus.” But when a counter-petition that questioned this so-called “consensus” was signed by more than 17,000 other scientists, UCS declared it a “deliberate attempt to deceive the scientific community with misinformation.”
UCS invested significant resources in “a multiyear effort to protect Bacillus thuringiensis, a valuable natural pesticide, by bringing high visibility to a preliminary report on the toxic effect of transgenic [biotech] corn pollen on the Monarch Butterfly.” Unfortunately for them, both the USDA and the EPA have concluded that Bt corn is only a threat to the crop-devastating insects it’s supposed to kill.
Based, we suppose, on some “science” or other, UCS’s Margaret Mellon predicted in 1999 that American farmers would reduce their planting of genetically enhanced seeds in the year 2000, saying it “probably represents a turning point.” What happened? Just the reverse. Planting of biotech crops has increased in 2000, 2001 and 2002 — and shows no sign of slowing down.
In 1980 UCS predicted that the earth would soon run out of fossil fuels. “It is now abundantly clear,” the group wrote, “that the world has entered a period of chronic energy shortages.” Oops! Known reserves of oil, coal and natural gas have never been higher, and show every sign of increasing.
To improve fuel efficiency, UCS argues for lighter tires on SUVs. But lighter tires are blamed — even by Ralph’s Nader’s Public Citizen — for tread separation. 148 deaths and more than 500 injuries were attributed to tread separation in Firestone tires alone.
UCS apparently hasn’t learned from its many, many mistakes. But if at first you don’t succeed, scare, scare again.

MOTIVATION
The Union of Concerned Scientists was born out of a protest against the war in Vietnam. In 1969, a group of 48 faculty members at MIT — the original “union” — sponsored a one-day work stoppage of scientific research. A conference that coincided with the strike included appearances from such notables as Noam Chomsky (who is now recognized as a leader of the 21st Century “hate-America left”); Eric Mann, who led the 1960s terrorist Weather Underground; and Jonathan Kabat, who argued: “We want capitalism to come to an end.”

Later that year, when the founding document of the Union of Concerned Scientists was formalized, the United States’ relationship with the Soviet Union was featured even more prominently than environmental issues. Three of the five propositions in the founding document concern political questions of the Cold War — a topic about which even the brightest physicists and biologists can claim no particular expertise.

UCS continues to involve itself in issues where scientific credentials carry little weight. For example, the group opposes urban sprawl, disputes a war in Iraq, and supports abortion. While these positions may be perfectly legitimate in themselves, they are hardly the product of “rigorous scientific analysis.”

An early petition from UCS argues: “A new ethic is required — a new attitude towards discharging our responsibility for caring for ourselves and for the earth… This ethic must motivate a great movement.” So activists with lab coats are now presuming to instruct us on matters of ethics and politics.

Among its ethical appeals that have nothing to do with science, UCS’s approach to farming stands out. The activist group advocates “a sustainable approach, based on understanding agriculture as an ecosystem.” They call it an “agroecosystem,” and label it “holistic.” They call it “science”; the rest of us call it Zen.

At UCS, politics drives science — not the other way around. “We undervalue our scientists and agriculturalists if we accept today’s productive, but highly polluting agriculture,” UCS claims. Of course, UCS advocates organic-only agriculture, the widespread adoption of which (at today’s anemic levels of production) would result in mass starvation. So in this instance, some form of technology will surely have to save the day, even for organic farmers. But when it comes to something UCS opposes — like missile defense — they argue that the technology will never work.

Respectable scientists operate by considering a question, developing a methodology to answer that question, and only then arriving at a conclusion. They disdain political interference, and go to the media only when their conclusions warrant immediate public attention. The Union of Concerned Scientists stands this process on its head. It develops a press strategy first, and then conducts politically tainted and methodologically flawed analysis. After all, it’s getting harder to convince the media that your environmental scare is more lurid than the next guy’s. You need good PR. That’s why UCS partners with slick Washington PR firms — to get attention, whether or not there’s good science behind the sound bites.http://www.activistcash.com/organizations/145-union-of-concerned-scientists/

[MisterEC]

There is so much disagreement as to the reasons climate changes! Did you ever think the SUN might have an effect on it? The universe perhaps? The ocean is the biggest source of CO2. The temperature on earth has not changed in 15 years. The temperature on earth has changed drastically changed in the past. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Climate-change-is-natural/313827422002524

[Mariner*]

Global Warming Science

The science is clear. Global warming is happening. We are the primary cause.

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/

[MisterEC]

Global warming is nowhere to be found. The mean global temperature has not risen in 17 years and has been slowly falling for approximately the past 10 years. In 2013, there were more record-low temperatures than record-high temperatures in the United States.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jan/16/another-year-of-global-cooling/#ixzz2qsjRFvDJ
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter