|
Newsletter (April 16, 2010)
In This Issue
Featured- A Superstorm for Global Warming Research
- EPA Choking Freedom
Debate- Book: 'Climategate: A Veteran Meteorologist Exposes the Global Warming Scam'
- Lyin' for Climate Indoctrination
- Global Warming's Unscientific Method
- UN Climate Talks: Earth Spirits' Twin Visions on Climate
Science- UK Parliament’s House of Commons Science Committee Releases Report on Climategate
- Letter: Know More, Debate
- No-Till Farming: Landslide Protection?
Economics- Energy Density Is Key
Upcoming Events
Briefly Noted
Meet the Critics: Paul J. Berenson, Ph.D.
Landmark Documents from the Cornwall Alliance
Featuredby Marco Evers, Olaf Stampf, and Gerald Traufetter
Spiegel Online International, April 1, 2010
Plagued by reports of sloppy work, falsifications and exaggerations, climate research is facing a crisis of confidence. How reliable are the predictions about global warming and its consequences? And would it really be the end of the world if temperatures rose by more than the much-quoted limit of two degrees Celsius?
Life has become "awful" for Phil Jones. Just a few months ago, he was a man with an enviable reputation: the head of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, an expert in his field and the father of an alarming global temperature curve that apparently showed how the Earth was heating up as a result of anthropogenic global warming.
Those days are now gone.
Nowadays, Jones, who is at the center of the "Climategate" affair involving hacked CRU emails, needs medication to fall sleep. He feels a constant tightness in his chest. He takes beta-blockers to help him get through the day. He is gaunt and his skin is pallid. He is 57, but he looks much older. He was at the center of a research scandal that hit him as unexpectedly as a rear-end collision on the highway.
His days are now shaped by investigative commissions at the university and in the British Parliament. He sits on his chair at the hearings, looking miserable, sometimes even trembling. . . .
Read the rest.
Part 1: A Superstorm for Global Warming Research
Part 2: Politically Charged Science
Part 3: A Climate Rebel Takes on the Establishment
Part 4: The Smoking Gun of Climatology
Part 5: The Reality of Rising Sea Levels
Part 6: The Myth of the Monster Storm
Part 7: Climate Change's Winners and Losers
Part 8: The Invention of the Two-Degree TargetBack to top by Mark Landsbaum
Editorial Writer and Columnist, Orange County Register
April 9, 2010
. . . Several key decisions begin this spring, not the least of which is the beginning of EPA enforcement. With this in mind, here are some EPA talking points, in case you're able to get a word in edge-wise:
Presumptions
We start with the understanding that this nation's founders never intended a massive government bureaucracy to dictate how Americans must live, what they can and cannot consume or manufacture, let alone how much of the stuff they exhale may legally be emitted. The EPA begins with the assumption that we've got all of this 100 percent wrong.
Change of venue . . .
Changing rules
Once upon a time this overbearing regulatory agency restricted its intrusions to matters that pretty much everyone agreed needed attention. Air pollution was a serious problem not long ago. It's debatable whether the might of the federal government was the only, let alone the best, solution. But at least real pollution was a real problem. The EPA has changed that game, perhaps forever, by declaring CO2 to be a harmful pollutant that must be regulated.
Quasiscience . . . Building on sand . . . Real science . . . Arbitrariness on steroids . . . 'It's too late' defense . . . Fix is in . . . Nearly last ditch . . . Last ditch . . . Forecast . . .
Read the rest.Back to top DebateWorldNetDaily, April 12, 2010
Just when you thought the government couldn't get any more invasive than the 2010 Census and requirements under "Obamacare" that your medical records be posted on the Internet, a coming book called "Climategate" by veteran meteorologist Brian Sussman warns that soon there could be a "green goon squad" visiting at your door.
Sussman's book, the newest title by WND books and scheduled for release April 22 "Earth Day," has been charting for several weeks already among Amazon's top 10 preordered titles. It arrives just as people who thought the campaign over global warming was being dropped over revelations of apparent manipulation by researchers in the field are becoming concerned that Washington still has it on the fast-track.
Sussman writes in "Climategate" that not only are promoters of the belief that starting a car in Texas or heating a home in North Dakota contributes to a cataclysmic environmental warping are continuing their campaign, Washington already has parts of it in writing. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top by Paul Chesser
Director, Climate Strategies Watch; Scholar, John Locke Foundation; Correspondent, Heartland Institute
Ameican Spectator, April 13, 2010
Last fall I alerted Spectator readers to the start-up nonprofit Alliance for Climate Education, which spreads the global warming alarmism gospel to students one school assembly at a time.
It turns out that the slick ACE lecturers are more than just preachers; they are recruiters too. After they dazzle teens with hip talk, animation and jokes, they work to sign them up for their anti-consumption (Americans are to blame) cause, often collecting cell phone numbers and email addresses without parents' knowledge. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top Washington Times, April 7, 2010
The prophets of global warming continue to lament as their carefully crafted yarn unravels before their eyes. Ross McKitrick, an intrepid economics professor from the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, has tugged apart the thin mathematical threads that once held together the story of climate change.
Recent attempts to silence Mr. McKitrick illuminate the extent to which the alarmists have abandoned proper scientific method in their pursuit of political goals. . . .
Read the rest.
Related item:
Circling the Bandwagons: McKitrick's Adventures Correcting the IPCC (PDF)
by Ross McKitrick
Associate Professor of Environmental Economics, University of Guelph; Co-author, Taken by Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy, and Politics of Global Warming
March, 2010
Back to top by Richard Black
Environment Correspondent, BBC News
April 11, 2010
Good news: I've had my sins absolved.
Well, not all of my sins, obviously - that would take more Hail Marys than there are days in the year - but my carbon sins, at least.
Tucked in my back pocket is a piece of paper saying I am "hereby forgiven" for sins such as flying where I choose, using a washing machine, and eating meat.
The "Earth Goddess" who gave it to me marks the most colourful display in "NGO alley", the corridor along which every delegate to the UN climate convention (UNFCCC) meeting here must walk to and from the conference rooms.
Most of the non-governmental organisations displaying their wares are campaigning for carbon controls - the Ecosystems Climate Alliance, the Women and Gender Constituency, EcoNexus - but this Gaia belongs to a group with a completely different agenda, the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT).
. . . this organisation has campaigned for 15 years on issues including climate change, on the premise that "the power of the market combined with the applications of safe technologies could offer humanity practical solutions to many of the world's pressing concerns."
One of those manning the committee's table is Lord Monckton, the British peer who has become one of the country's most prominent "climate sceptics" - opposing carbon curbs on the grounds that science does not indicate the necessity, and opposing the UN institutions aiming to tackle climate change for what he sees as unacceptable interference in democracy.
There's no way I can sum up the scientific arguments in a single blog post, but I'll have a quick look at the democracy issue.
His concern - which he has elaborated at length during a series of public talks in the US - is that UN bureaucrats are aiming to take control of countries' elected governments through measures including a new climate treaty.
We walked to the meeting's document counter and took a copy of a document called FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2 (PDF) . . .
Read the rest.
Related item:
UN Climate Talks Conclude
Update from Christopher Monckton
Viscount of Brenchley; Chief Policy Adviser, Science & Public Policy InstituteBack to top Scienceby E. Calvin Beisner
National Spokesman, Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation
April 15, 2010
The headline of Climate Progress's report tells it all: “House of Commons exonerates Phil Jones.” Climate Progress, a project of the Left-wing Center for American Progress, quickly offers a few quotes from the Committee’s report that clinch everything:
. . . the scientific reputation of Professor [Phil] Jones and [Climatic Research Unit] remains intact. We have found no reason . . . to challenge the scientific consensus . . . that “global warming is happening [and] that it is induced by human activity.”
We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in particular, has largely been misplaced . . . .
In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones's actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community . . . .
Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers. And Climate Progress goes on to quote Michael Mann, of hockey stick fame: “I'm very pleased to hear that this distinguished panel saw through the dishonest attacks against Phil Jones, and made the correct determination.”
Perhaps Climate Progress learned its tactics from the global warming alarmists: carefully cherrypick your data and you can get whatever results you want. A thorough reading of the Committee’s report gives a very different picture.
Take just one of the excerpts Climate Progress uses above: "that Professor Jones's actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community . . . ." Sounds like exoneration for Jones--until you see what the Committee said, in boldface, about "common practice in the climate science community":
It is not standard practice in climate science and many other fields to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers. We think that this is problematic because climate science is a matter of global importance and of public interest, and therefore the quality and transparency of the science should be irreproachable. We therefore consider that climate scientists should take steps to make available all the data used to generate their published work, including raw data; and it should also be made clear and referenced where data has been used but, because of commercial or national security reasons is not available. Scientists are also, under Freedom of Information laws and under the rules of normal scientific conduct, entitled to withhold data which is due to be published under the peer-review process. In addition, scientists should take steps to make available in full their methodological workings, including the computer codes. Data and methodological workings should be provided via the internet. There should be enough information published to allow verification. The Committee also drew attention to a "culture of non-disclosure," adding, "a culture of withholding information—from those perceived by CRU to be hostile to global warming—appears to have pervaded CRU’s approach to FOIA requests from the outset. We consider this to be unacceptable" (boldface original).
The unavoidable conclusion on any thorough reading of the report--which the Committee rushed to present before the close of the session of Parliament--is that the Committee went to great pains to refrain from blatantly charging Jones, the CRU, and their close associates with serious offenses while simultaneously noting time and again that the whole standard operating procedure of the climate-change science community was the opposite of the transparency, accountability, and replicability that are the sine qua non of credible science.
In fairly short order the report came under close scrutiny that pointed out serious flaws in it--by "Bishop Hill," (the blog name of A. W. Montford, author of The Hockey Stick Illusion: Climategate and the Corruption of Science) once and in a follow-up, and by Frank Furedi, Richard Courtney, and, most recently, Lawrence Solomon and Iain Murray.
When one considers the makeup of the Committee (all members of the House of Commons), one wonders about its own credibility to judge in such matters. Its chairman is a music graduate and former teacher, and the remaining members were a social-science Ph.D.; the president of a foundation specializing in agricultural research and education; a computer programmer; a nurse; a medical practitioner; a Ph.D. in organic chemistry; a historian; a Ph.D. in immunology; an M.S. in industrial engineering with Ph.D. in economics; a chemical plant operator; an analytical chemist; a Ph.D. in chemical research; and a businessman with experience in health and telecommunications sectors. . . .
Read the rest.
Reviews of the Parliamentary Report by:
Bishop Hill (and a Follow-Up)
Frank Furedi
Richard Courtney
Lawrence Solomon
Iain Murray
Fred SingerBack to top The Forestry Source, April, 2010
The ecologist Garrett Hardin said, "As a matter of policy, we must not reply in kind to those critics who love to indulge in name-calling. (They are all too numerous in interdisciplinary undertakings). But critics who, ignoring personalities, focus on the underlying nature of things are the true friends of science." We agree with Hardin and add that censorship is not the hallmark of the scientific method. In fact, when experts attempt to censor colleagues, prevent transparency, and stop debate, scientific progress is slowed.
Let's clarify the position of some foresters who question the evidence regarding how much 600 ppm of CO2 will affect temperature. We agree that the CO2 level has a small warming effect on the Earth's troposphere. The core debate is over how sensitive the climate is to a small change in energy levels. How large (and in what direction) are the feedbacks? Does a single forcing that would (in isolation) produce a 1°C warming result in 10 or 4°C warming (by 2100), when all feedbacks are allowed to contribute? Based on data collected from satellites, we doubt the feedback from clouds (a major forcing) is modeled correctly. In contrast, it is clear that other foresters have little doubt the models are correct, while others do not voice their doubts in public. Some believe a 4°C warming estimate for the year 2100 is precise and accurate (even though the range in predictions is quite large). Although some foresters believe climate sensitivity values in virtual worlds are the same as the Earth's, we do not share this belief. In closing, we agree with Nobel Laureate Richard Feynman, who said:
- "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."
- "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
- "When a scientist doesn't know the answer to a problem, he is ignorant. When he has a hunch as to what the result is, he is uncertain. And when he is pretty darn sure of what the result is going to be, he is in some doubt."
- "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
- "Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt."
David South, Auburn, Alabama
Daowei Zhang, Auburn, Alabama
Roger Weaver, Chillicothe, Ohio
Tim Sydor, Athens, Georgia
Mark Thomas, Birrningham, Alabama
Harry Wiant, Mercer Island, Washington
Robin Rose, Corvallis, Oregon
Mike Newton, Philomath, Oregon
Kent Hanby, Dadeville, Alabama
Timothy La Farge, San Franclsco, California
Ray Newbold, Ruston, Louisiana
David Norton, Madison, FloridaBack to top by Dennis T. Avery
Director, Center for Global Food Issues; Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute and Heartland Institute; Scientific Advisor, American Council on Science and Health; Co-Author, Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years
Canada Free Press, April 6, 2010
Vegetable growers in the Philippines are finding that no-till farming not only saves their topsoil but may even lessen the danger of landslides!
Four years of experiments in the Cordillera—the “salad bowl” of the Philippine highlands—show a 50–70 percent reduction in soil erosion because the farmers neither plow nor hand-weed. The region specializes in vegetables because its 6,000-foot elevation keeps the soil cooler and less humid than at sea level hear Manila. However, the steep slopes also mean high risks for both soil erosion and landslides. . . .
Read the rest.Back to top Economicsby Richard W. Fulmer
Writer, The Freeman; Co-Author, Energy: The Master Resource
MasterResource, April 3, 2010
When it comes to power, density is the key. Energy density. The reason that solar power, wind power, and ethanol are so expensive is that they are derived from very diffuse energy sources. It takes a lot of energy collectors such as solar cells, wind turbines, or corn stalks covering many square miles of land to produce the same amount of power that traditional coal, natural gas, or nuclear plants can on just a few acres.
Each of these alternative energy sources is based on mature technology. Agriculture and fermentation have their roots in prehistory, windmills date back at least to 65 B.C., the photovoltaic effect was discovered in 1839. Yet nowhere in the world are these technologies serving as primary energy sources without significant government subsidies. While incremental improvements can be expected, what is needed for them to become viable is an order of magnitude increase in productivity. As old and as well-researched as the technologies are, such improvements are possible but unlikely. As significant future energy sources these technologies are dead ends, which is why the government, and not the private sector, is funding them. . . .
Read the rest.
Related item:
Video: One Offshore Natural Gas Platform Equals Fifty-Nine Cape Wind Projects
Institute for Energy Research, April 14, 2010Back to top Upcoming EventsThe purpose of ICCC-4 is the same as it was for the first three events: to build momentum and public awareness of the global warming “realism” movement, a network of scientists, economists, policymakers, and concerned citizens who believe sound science and economics, rather than exaggeration and hype, ought to determine what actions, if any, are taken to address the problem of climate change. Speakers will include over a hundred scientists, economists, and other scholars from around the world.
Register online.Back to top Briefly NotedBooker: Climate Change Act Will Cost Britain Hundreds of Billions
Eschenbach: Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics ... and GraphsBack to top Meet the CriticsMeet the Critics gives you basic information on 64 of the leading critics of dangerous manmade global warming. Today's critic:
Paul J. Berenson, Ph.D.
Physicist Paul Berenson, educated at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has been the Defense Science Board's executive secretary for the U.S. Department of Defense, scientific advisor to NATO and to a U.S. Army commanding general, and has published about a dozen peer-reviewed scientific studies. "Earth is in the final stages of a typical 10,000 year plus interglacial when both atmospheric temperature and CO2 content tend to increase long term from natural causes, as they have after every ice age," said Berenson, explaining the climate's natural cycle. "The analytical models used to predict higher atmospheric CO2 content and temperature have not been validated, and do not predict the measured values from the last 200 years; e.g., the cooling of roughly 1 degree C from about 1940 to 1975. Thus they are not valid and should not be used. They are not valid because they do not include major effects on the climate such as clouds, rain, electric currents, cosmic rays, sun spots, etc."
Back to top Landmark Documents from the Cornwall Alliance
E. Calvin Beisner, Ph.D., National Spokesman
Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation, http://www.cornwallalliance.org/
Information in this newsletter is for scholarly and educational use only and may not be copied or reproduced for any other purposes without prior permission of the copyright holders.
|
.jpg)
