Whenever someone asserts that a scientific question is “settled,” they tell me immediately that they don’t understand the first thing about science. Science is never settled. Dr David Deming
Perhaps the most frustrating aspect of the science of climate change is the lack of any real substance in attempts to justify the hypothesis ~Professor Stewart Franks
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
-- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin - See more at: http://thepeoplescube.com/lenin/lenin-s-own-20-monster-quotes-t185.html#sthash.aTrSI3tG.dpuf
Tuesday, 30 November 2010
The Western Climate Establishment is Cheating
- Official thermometers are overwhelmingly in warm localities such as near air conditioner exhaust vents, buildings, concrete, tarmac, or asphalt.
- Officials hide the modern Argo data, which shows the world’s oceans are cooling................"
Monday, 29 November 2010
|Mann tries to flatten the MWP|
Even Antarctica, YEP.
The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said “we do not want a repeat of the Copenhagen obscenity when 45,000 people gathered to discuss how to reduce things like air travel and conspicuous consumption”.
|Mr Viv Forbes|
Forbes said there is no reason for Australia to attend.
“This conference is no longer about climate – it is about international redistribution of wealth and industry from the west to the rest of the world. Australia is part of the spoils they hope to redistribute.
“There is zero chance of global agreement on emissions trading schemes or more carbon taxes. The political landscape and public opinion in the USA has turned dramatically sceptical of the increasingly shrill predictions from the desperate alarmists. Moreover, trading in carbon credits in Chicago has collapsed and even Al Gore is recanting on ethanol. Without US participation, nothing will be agreed globally.
“In addition, for over a decade, the whimsical world climate has mocked the feverish forecasts of the IPCC. Global Warming looks like becoming Global Cooling (still caused by burning coal of course). Prudently they chose tropical Mexico for this conference or the world media would be treated again to the amusing spectacle of warmists shivering in another bitter northern winter of “unseasonal” snow and blizzards.
“So they are plotting a new scheme – enforced global rationing of carbon emissions on a per capita basis. This means transfer of Australian wealth, industry and jobs to India, China and Africa for decades to come. And to bypass parliaments and the suspicious electorate, this will be attempted via “International Agreements”.
“Australia should send no more than one observer to Cancun, and that person should have no power to agree to anything. In particular there should be no promises to extend the failed but costly Kyoto Accord, and no transfer of authority to any new international body.
“A boycott makes more sense than sending jumbo jets of people to beach resorts in Mexico to talk about reducing that sort of activity.”
Chairman, The Carbon Sense Coalition
Rosevale, Qld, Australia
Phone 07 5464 0533
|Venue - Moon Palace Cancun|
Saturday, 27 November 2010
NOVEMBER 28th 2010
ANATOMY OF CLIMATE FRAUD
Environmentalists believe that humans are destroying the earth (or as they prefer to call it,“the planet”), and they routinely manipulate news items that can be distorted to support their views. “Resources” are being “depleted”, oil is about to run out, everything is about to become extinct, all chemicals are “toxic” and all human activities must be prevented because they “damage the environment”
The “greenhouse effect” was a golden opportunity to blame every climate event on humans and prevent many classes of industrial activity.
The “greenhouse effect is a real physical phenomenon, although it has nothing to do with what happens in a greenhouse. A greenhouse inhibits convection and confines the air warned by contact with the ground that has been heated by the sun’s radiation.
The “greenhouse effect” results from absorption of part of the infra red radiation from the earth by several trace gases in the atmosphere, causing an increase in the surface temperature of the earth,
In order to show that there are increases in this effect caused by humans which are damaging the climate several propositions had to be proved.
· Greenhouse gases are increasing because of human activity
· The temperature of the earth is increasing
· This rise is damaging the climate
· Future changes can be predicted to be disastrous
Let us take these problems one at a time.
ARE GREENHOUSE GASES INCREASING?
The British scientist John Tyndall in the 1860s, who fist established the existence of the greenhouse effect, showed that the most important greenhouse gas is water vapour, so this should be the main emphasis of any investigation into possible damage from increase of greenhouse gases. Unfortunately the concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere varies over several orders of magnitude, being dependent on temperature, time and place. No accurate average value has ever been reliably measured and there is no acceptable evidence of any changes that have been taking place. Even if these were established it might be difficult to blame them on humans.
So, somehow, water vapour had to be ignored. This is done by leaving it out of lists of greenhouse gases, discussing it as little as possible and leaving it out of the main components of their model by calling it a ”feedback”. assuming that its average value is exclusively dependent on average temperature.
So then, emphasis was placed on the next trace gas, carbon dioxide. This is a much more suitable candidate, because its concentration in the atmosphere can be blamed on combustion of fossil fuels by humans.
But then another snag arises. Its concentration in the atmosphere has been shown to be highly variable from some 40,000 measurements that have been reported in learned scientific journals, going back to 1850. Some of these measurements were made by Nobel Prize winners, all were respected scientists of the day, and the papers were peer reviewed in the days when this meant something.
In order to show carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere is increasing it is necessary to make continuous measurements distributed everywhere in the atmosphere on a representative basis. This is plainly impossible.
But do they despair? No. The first thing to do is to suppress all knowledge of any measurements of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere between 1850 and 1950. Then they publicized the measurements near the Mauna Loa volcano in Hawaii as the only authentic measurements and followed this up by taking measurements that had been made in a negligibly small sample of ice cores as representative of concentrations before the industrial era, Subsequently they permitted the use of measurements made over the sea in several places to be added, but they have prevented or suppressed all measurements over any land surface, or in any other than an approved direction which are regarded as “noise’ (unwelcome data). These restricted results showed a fairly steady increase, but this was not large enough, so they more than doubled it for their models.
THE TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH
Temperature on the earth’s surface is highly variable. It is impossible to show if there. a general increase unless you can measure the average surface temperature. This would surely involve the placing of measuring instruments randomly all over the earth’s surface, Including the 71% that is ocean, and all the forests, pastures, deserts and icecaps. Such an enterprise is impossible with current technology, so it is not possible to find if the average temperature of the earth is increasing..
But, again, a way of faking it was evolved. The originator, Jim Hansen of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies in New York features on his website a discussion headed “The Elusive Surface Temperature” which shows that there is no satisfactory way of defining or measuring the surface temperature of the earth. Yet he proposed to make use of temperature measurements that were routinely made at weather stations around the world as part of weather forecasting services, to derive what is called a “mean global temperature anomaly”.
Weather stations are not situated in representative places on the earth’s surface. They are predominantly near towns. Their number and location varies daily, so there is no fair statistical comparison over any time period. Although many (but not all) thermometers are housed in a standard screen, their positioning is far from standard and it changes over time. Many are close to buildings, sources of heat, concrete, tarmac, vegetation and other changing circumstances. There is no way of allowing either for the lack of representativity or the changes in circumstances.
Then, no weather station actually measures the average local temperature. They typically measure the maximum and the minimum over a 24 hour period which depends on the time of observation. This makes sense for weather forecasting since the temperature regimes by day and night are so different that an average between the two is meaningless.
Recent studies have shown that most weather stations, even today, cannot assess local temperature to better than a degree or two Celsius. Weather forecasters know that their figures are only rough. They never use decimals of a degree.
The “mean annual global temperature anomaly” involves multiple averaging, by week, month and year, plus a subtraction from the average for a reference petiod. This process must involve very large accumulated inaccuracies so that a claim of an increase in the “anomaly” of several decimals of a degree over 100 years is meaningless.
Then there is the overall warming effect of urban and land use change. The 1990 paper in “Nature” which was routinely used to claim the urban effects are negligible was shown by Keenan in 2000 to be fraudulent when he tried to find the Chinese data upon which it was partly based. Phil Jones recently admitted that the data did show an urban effect (and then promptly denied it) but the effect is still ignored in the teeth of the evidence in its favour.
IF THERE IS WARMING, IT IS NATURAL?
There is overwhelming anecdotal evidence of warm periods In history which may have exceeded temperatures today, Efforts to discount these by manipulating unreliable “proxies” such as thickness of tree rings have been unsuccessful. There is even evidence from tree rings that the current era is not unusual leading to the need to “hide the decline”
Besides being affected by urban and land use effects, the unreliable “mean global temperature anomaly” is affected also by currently known changes in the sun and in the ocean oscillations, particularly the North Atlantic Decadal Oscillation and the Southern Oscillation Index. Our knowledge of both of these effects is currently limited. Sunspots are an extremely crude measure of the Sun’s activity, and the ocean oscillations also have crude definitions.
FORECASTING THE FUTURE
The problem of forecasting future climate is also impossible to solve. Genuine honest scientists working in meteorology have struggled for several hundred years to try and provide a model of the climate which could help future forecasting. They have collected every measurable climate variable; wind, rain, temperature, atmospheric pressure, relative humidity, sunshine hours and cloud cover, and they have launched weather balloons to study the atmosphere. One measurement they have not found useful is the concentration of carbon dioxide, although that also has been measured in many places. Yet everybody, including the IPCC, knows that forecasts beyond a week or so are unreliable.
Yet in order to confirm the influence of increased greenhouse gases forecasting is essential, otherwise any theory is worthless.
It is insufficiently understood that the IPCC admits that computer based models of the climate are currently incapable of forecasting any aspect of future climate. This fact is freely admitted. Models never make “predictions”, but always “projections”, which are the results obtained by accepting the plausibility of the model assumptions. No “projection” from any climate model has ever successfully predicted any future climate behaviour
Since this is so, all the IPCC conclusions are based on the unproven opinions of those persons who are paid to produce the models. This conflict of opinion is so severe that any model maker who has a poor opinion of the results of his model would probably lose his job and career. This unreliable process is concealed by a system of levels of “likelihood” combined with fabricated figures of the statistical reliability of the “estimates” .
The forecasts made by meteorologists can be checked. If they are consistently wrong the model has to be modified. The “projections” made by the IPCC are usually so far ahead (100 years) that they cannot be checked until the experts have enjoyed their generous pensions. There is no way of telling whether one model is better than another. When more recent “projections” fail there is always the excuse that it is due to “natural variability”.
ARE THE MODELS PLAUSIBLE?
The assumptions made by the IPCC computer models of the climate are all in complete conflict with what is known about the climate.
They assume that the earth is in energy equilibrium. This means that the earth is flat, the sun shines all day and all night with one quarter of its maximum intensity, clouds are constant, and the temperature of the earth is constant. Such a model is essential if you want to calculate the possible effect of greenhouse gas increases as this can only be done if everything else is unchanging. In addition the concentration of greenhouse gases has to be constant at any point in time
All these assumptions are ridiculous. No part of the earth is ever in energy equilibrium and it is never “balanced” as a whole. It warms by day and cools by night, when there is no sun. The seasons, wind, cloud changes volcanism and ocean circulation come on top and inevitably confuse any possible change that might result from the greenhouse effect.
“ANTHROPOGENIC” INFLUENCES ON THE CLIMATE
All organisms influence the climate to a greater or lesser degree and humans are no exception. We try to maintain our body temperature by clothing and dwellings. Our buildings and our heating systems raise urban temperatures. We influence the land to encourage crops. There are wind breaks and fences and terraces and dams, and, again, climate is modified. None of these “anthropogenic” effects are allowed for by the IPCC.
Climate has always changed in an irregular manner over many time periods and its causes are at present imperfectly understood. Some changes (for example ice ages) take millions of years to develop. Others (such as the effects of a large volcanic eruption) influence only a year or so. The idea that natural changes can only be “variable” and not cause “climate change” is therefore incorrect. Also it is impossible to claim with any certainty that a particular change is “unprecedented” over such a short period as a few centuries.
The very existence of natural climate influences means that climate models that are not able to predict their influence cannot hope to detect any change caused by the greenhouse effect.
Any routine scientific study would have abandoned the attempt to justify the current emphasis on the greenhouse effect because of the impossibility of carrying out any of the necessary observations to confirm its importance. It could only have been established as a potential threat by multiple fraud from each of the considerations listed above.
75 Silverstream Road
Phone/Fax 064 4 9735939
"To kill an error is as good a service as, and sometimes better than, the
establishing of a new truth or fact"
Wednesday, 24 November 2010
Now we have a new peer-reviewed paper that confirms that the opposite result occurs. Empirical evidence continues to accumulate that a warming climate will save lives by making cold weather seasons less cold and thus less dangerous to health. UK death statistics reveal that for every additional summer death due to increased warming, the warmer winters saved 29 lives each year - a huge net benefit.
Christidis, N., Donaldson, G.C. and Stott, P.A. 2010. Causes for the recent changes in cold- and heat-related mortality in England and Wales. Climatic Change 102: 539-553.
The authors write that "the IPCC AR4 states with very high confidence that climate change contributes to the global burden of disease and to increased mortality," citing the contribution of Confalonieri et al. (2007) to that document.
What it means
Clearly, the IPCC's "very-high-confidence" conclusion is woefully wrong. Warming is highly beneficial to human health, even without any overt adaptation to it. And when adaptations are made, warming is incredibly beneficial in terms of lengthening human life span.
(Thanks to CO2 Science and C3 Headlines)
Tuesday, 23 November 2010
"Mother" Jones has a list entitled The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial (Link in title above.)
Let's get a few things staight about her title.
- There has been plenty written about the use of Denial for AGW sceptics, so Mother should be condemmed for the use of this term. The real people denying advances in science are the people who use the "hockeystick" to deny the fact that there was a Mediaeval Warm Period and to deny that there was a Little Ice Age.
- Mother is misusing "Climate Change." I am sure this "mother" means some-one who is sceptical re the failed AGW hypothesis. We, on the sceptical side admit that Climate changes, that climate has ever changed. Those pushing the flawed AGW hypothesis believe, or claim to believe that Climate has not changed for a thousand years and suddenly in the late twentieth century temperatures turned up.
Here are a few spreading climate disinformation who should go above any on that "mother's" list.
- Al Gore who produced a flawed movie - AIT and keeps spreading disinformation through his Climate Connectors Network. 35 Inconvenient truths in the Movie.
- Michael Mann, who along with Bradley and Hughes cherry-picked his way to the fraudulent "hockey-stick" graph. It was shown that random numbers fed into his model still produced the hockey stick.
- NOAA with false satellite data - here
- NASA-GISS temperature adjustments - here
- Jonathan Overpeck who admitted telling Geologist and Geophysicist Dr David Deming that "We have to get rid of the Mediaeval Warm Period." Linkyoutube.This was probably the first attempt to promote denial by the Climate Cabal.
- "Consensus" of Scientists: Recent events have shown, rather embarrassingly, that the IPCC is not “the” consensus of scientists, but rather the opinions of a few scientists (in some cases as few as one) in various subject areas whose consensus among themselves is then kludged together by the designers of the IPCC final product who a priori know what they want the ultimate outcome to be (that greenhouse gases are leading to dangerous climate change and need to be restricted).
- Paul Ehrlick and Obama's John Holdren and their various false prophesies.
- Phil Jones of East Anglia U confessed to Climate Fraud. Here and here
- Keith Briffa - Hide the decline.
- Other Climategate Conspirators includeTom Wigley, Ben Santer and Kevin Trenberth.
Saturday, 20 November 2010
James Corbett of The Corbett Report reviews the year since the Climategate emails were leaked.
Friday, 19 November 2010
According to the Climate Institute, there is a strong connection between Climate and Faith:
Faith is an important part of the Climate Institute’s perspective on climate change. Religion, spirituality and faith provide an ethical and values based foundation to motivate actions for a better environment and a sustainable future. The Climate Institute’s activities draw from close connections in many community and faith groups, and reflect concerns of these groups as well as their aspirations to create a more harmonious planet.
This perspective ties into areas of social justice where countries least responsible for the causes of climate change have become the ones to receive its earliest and most severe impacts.
So, it’s not an environmental issue, it’s a SOCIAL issue.
This was admitted on QandA by Climate Minister Bill Shorten:
TERRY HART: Well, the question I'd like to ask Bill Shorten is that what the heck has happened to the Labor Party? You've got the Liberal Party leading the agenda on social reform, which I think is disgraceful and why is it that with the Liberal Party now pursuing reform in the banking industry and Joe Hockey had nine points - why isn't there some bipartisanship from the Labor Party on this issue? Considering they made $26 billion amongst them, these banks, in the last 12 months, that's super tax stuff. Why isn't there some sort of reform coming out of the government and why isn't it a super tax?
BILL SHORTEN: I mean, you do get a sense that Joe Hockey has captured a public mood on this, don't you?
BILL SHORTEN: Well, Terry raised a couple of points. First of all, I don't think the Liberal Party is outdoing Labor in terms of social reform. That was the general statement, then you went to banking. If I want to look at social reform, I can look at everything from climate change through to industrial relations, through to a whole host - to health care.
GEORGE BRANDIS: You haven't done much good there.
Despite the emphasis on the environment, “the Greens are not a single issue party.” Their objective is clear: “to transform politics and bring about Green government.” The Australian Greens are part of a worldwide movement that is actively engaged in the political process. As their writings state, this objective involves a radical transformation of the culture that underpins western civilization. As a political party, they should be treated like any other political party and subjected to the same scrutiny.
The Greens Agenda: Part 1 Western culture and the Greens is here…
The Greens Agenda: Part 2 Ideology is here
The Greens Agenda: Part 3 Economic Policies is here…
The Greens Agenda: Part 4 Social and other policies is here…
So you were warned by Jack Mundey about the "Green Red future of socialism."The modern Greens party however had an earlier origin in the green bans applied by the Builders Labourers Federation in the 1970s in New South Wales. Indeed the visit to Australia by the German activist, Petra Kelly, in 1977, was influential in the foundation of the German Greens. The then leader of the BLF, Jack Mundey, was subsequently invited to conferences in Europe and North America. Mundey, a Communist Party official and candidate, who led the militant New South Wales Builders Labourers union, described himself as “an ecological Marxist.” Speaking years after the Communist Party folded, and a New Left party failed to gain support beyond Trotskyist and anarchist groupings, Mundey prophesised that “in the future there is a possibility of …. what I’d call a Green Red future of socialism.” In addition to Marx and Engels, Mundey was influenced by the overpopulation jeremiad of Paul Ehrlich.
And now we have a leading member of IPCC admitting the same thing. German economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer has openly admitted all it is, really, is a Marxist exercise in minority grievance-mongering and wealth redistribution on a global scale.
Wednesday, 17 November 2010
Although she indicates that she thinks Barnaby Joyce is loopy, now we can see that she definitely is just a reader of the auto-cue without any comprehension of what she is reading:
Will the real Michael Rowland please stand up?
Tuesday, 16 November 2010
|Carbon Sense Chairman Viv Forbes|
The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, also accused Australian PM Gillard of deceptive advertising in her support of a carbon tax. “When our PM says “we need a price on carbon”, she is just sprouting another misleading Wongism like “we must reduce carbon pollution”.
“Most forms of carbon already have a price – coal, oil, gas, petrol, diesel, beef, bread, butter, diamonds and whiskey – all have a price (which usually includes a few taxes).
“What Ms Gillard wants, but dares not say, is another tax on our usage of many carbon products.
“Who wants a tax on carbon?
“The Greens do. They hate humans and their farm animals, crops, coal, oil, cars, power generators and heavy industry. They would like to see the end of most mining, farming, fishing and forestry. A carbon tax will hit all of these people so the Greens support it.
“Ms Gillard and her Fiscal Czar want a carbon tax. They lead a party of taxaholics who need a new tax to support their extravagant spending. Unions, even those in industries that will be directly harmed by a carbon tax, ignore the interests of their members to maintain party solidarity.
“Taxes are the life blood of the tax consuming industries – there will never be enough taxes to satiate the nationalised education, health, media, research and welfare industries. So they all want a carbon tax.
“And of course the wind and solar subsidiesuckers want heavy carbon taxes to hide their chronic inability to provide economic and reliable power.
“The nuclear power industries love carbon taxes – it gives them a cost advantage against coal, oil and gas in the production of base load power.
“Many big businesses are trying to buy green respectability by plugging a carbon tax – they will pass it on to Australian consumers, but exporters will get exemptions.
“For lawyers and accountants, new taxes bring new business. They love new taxes with complex rules and many exemptions.
“And of course all of Asia hopes that Australia imposes a carbon tax. It will shift our industries to countries with no carbon taxes.
“So there is a powerful and diverse carbon tax lobby.
“Where are the environmental benefits?
“There are none. Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant – more of it will help plant growth thus creating a greener earth. And it is fanciful to believe that a carbon tax in Australia could possibly produce any beneficial effect on our climate. Climate will continue to change as it always has.
“Who will be hurt by a carbon tax?
“Whenever you tax something, a marginal producer somewhere closes up, and less of it is produced. Its price rises because of the cost of the tax and the reduced supply.
“Carbon taxes must increase the cost of electricity, fuel, food, fibres, building materials and transport. They will harm every Australian consumer, especially the poor who have no savings cushion and who spend a greater percentage of their income on these essentials.
“So who is our government protecting – taxaholics and vested interests, or consumers?”
Friday, 12 November 2010
See Peter Laux’s signed and authorized Statutory Declaration (affidavit) to this effect HERE.
The Statutory Declaration is a legal and binding document: “a false declaration is liable to the penalties of perjury.” The authorising witness is Constable Jack Armstrong 37499 of the Victoria Police, Australia.
As stated in the Statutory Declaration, all submissions for the “$10K Climate Challenge” must be made using the submitter’s true identity and must be submitted as a comment to the present Climate Guy blog post.
It is understood that $10K (AUS) will be paid to the first person to send a complete submission. This challenge is open for 20 years from the date of this post.
Warmists of the world: The ball is in your court. The $10K Climate Challenge is declared open.
Wednesday, 10 November 2010
Ther are a few quotes that are classic:
The public might not understand the science but they do understand the cheating
The corruption of climate science has become so blatant, so obvious, that even non-scientists can no longer throw their hands in the air, and say ‘I don’t know’. You don’t need a PhD to know it is cheating to place thermometers near artificial heat sources and call it ‘global warmingKey findings of the paper include:
* Leading authors publish a crucial graph with a deceptive colour scheme designed to imitate the results they wish they’d got. Why did a leading journal publish such a naked and childish attempt at cheating?
“Once one or two major news outlets start printing these photos of official thermometers near artificial heating sources, and points out the deception, the rush will be on for our elected representatives to abandon the Global Warming Crusade. No one would want to be seen to be taken in by half-truths and shameless deception. Who wants to look gullible because they didn’t ask the obvious burning questions? Those who support conclusions based on corrupt behaviour will be seen as negligent for not having considered the serious evidence here.
Tuesday, 9 November 2010
The Keywords (Part 1 of 3)
Written by Geraldo Luís Lino, special to Climate Change Dispatch | 06 November 2010
In the first of three articles for Climate Change Depot (Link in title) starts off by saying:
In the not too distant future, it will likely be difficult to understand how so many educated people believed in and accepted uncritically for so long a scientifically unproven theory like the so-called Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Taken almost as a dogma, the AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks and is volleyed relentlessly upon us by the media and many scientific institutions (including some pseudo-scientific ones), while gullible or opportunistic politicians devise all possible means of inserting climate-motivated items into their power-seeking schemes.
And then continues talking about the "environmentalist propaganda machine."
Some of the points he makes:
• in the historical and geological time scales there has never been and there will never be such a thing as a “static” climate (so, climate change is sort of a pleonasm)
• During the interglacials the average temperatures reached 4-6ºC and the sea levels 3-6 m above the current ones. Our own interglacial the Holocene, which started 11,500-11,700 years ago, had average temperatures up to 4ºC and sea levels up to 3 m above the current ones between 5,000-6,000 years ago (Middle Holocene).
Read More at Climate Change Despatch...
BRING IT ON! WARMISTS AGREE TO DEBATE AFTER MORE THAN 2 DECADES!
'Climate scientists plan campaign against global-warming skeptics' Forming a 'Climate Rapid Response Team'
'Go toe-to-toe with their critics': '700 researchers have agreed to speak out... Some are prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk-radio and TV shows...aggressively engage the denialists and politicians who attack climate science' -- 700 Scientists claim DROPS TO 39?! Only '39 scientists agreed to participate' so far...
Now it's zero!
Thanks to Marc Morano and Steve Goddard
By Neela Banerjee, Tribune Washington Bureau Oh!
Reporting from Washington —Faced with rising political attacks, hundreds of climate scientists are joining a broad campaign to push back against congressional conservatives who have threatened prominent researchers with investigations and vowed to kill regulations to rein in man-made greenhouse gas emissions.
On Monday, the American Geophysical Union, the country's largest association of climate scientists, plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution.
LA Times Caught Making Stuff Up Again
Inaccurate news reports misrepresent a climate-science initiative of the American Geophysical UnionAGU Release No. 10–37
8 November 2010
For Immediate Release
WASHINGTON—An article appearing in the Los Angeles Times, and then picked up by media outlets far and wide, misrepresents the American Geophysical Union (AGU) and a climate science project the AGU is about to relaunch. The project, called Climate Q&A Service, aims simply to provide accurate scientific answers to questions from journalists about climate science.
Oh! What a tangle web we weave....
Sunday, 7 November 2010
|Read my lips: No Carbon Tax|
There is a link to the poll in the title above.
• 1. Should climate scientists discuss scientific uncertainty in mainstream forums? Yes- 90%
•3. What is causing climate change? Natural Processes 77.5%
•4. The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is
an effective group of government representatives, scientists and other experts. 15.9%
a corrupt organization, prone to groupthink, with a political agenda. 83.4%
something to do with Internet protocols. 0.7%
Other questions included What should we do about climate change? 68.4% said NOTHING, and when asked how much would they be willing to pay to forestall the risk of catastrophic climate change, 8/10 replied NOTHING.
(With thanks to JeffT)
Saturday, 6 November 2010
Please distribute widely
The Turtle eggs are stolen to be sold.
The planet is thankful for the forwarding of this email.
NOTHING LIKE A PICTURE TO EXPLAIN AN EXTINCTION
Friday, 5 November 2010
Is climate science disinformation a crime against humanity?
Indeed, with astonishing chutzpah given the torrent of critism that they are currently enduring for including in the 4AR an unchecked, anecdotal statement that the Himalayan icecap is melting at dangerous rates, senoir IPCC figures have recently been asserting that their reports set the gold standard of reviewing procedure.
There is no consensus. Consensus is not scientific. They then add some Climate Science Disinformation:Disinformation about the state of climate change science is extraordinarily – if not criminally – irresponsible, because the consensus scientific view is based upon strong evidence
Threats from climate change include deaths and danger from droughts, floods, heat, storm-related damages, rising oceans, heat impacts on agriculture, loss of animals that are dependent upon for substance purposes, social disputes caused by diminishing resources, sickness from a variety of diseases, the inability to rely upon traditional sources of food, the inability to use property that people depend upon to conduct their life including houses or sleds in cold places, the destruction of water supplies, and the inability to live where has lived to sustain life. The very existence of some small island nations is threatened by climate change.
Really all unproven - either proven to be not happening or proven that their is no link to man-made CO2 emissions. So, if we go back to the Guardian's headline -
Is climate science disinformation a crime against humanity?we must say, if it is, the Guardian is proven guilty.
Wednesday, 3 November 2010
Now here's a nice video of some of the above - (Thanks Bill)