Global Warming Biggest Science Hoax Ever

I’ve been saying this for years, and Anthony Watts did a study of every weather station in the USA to see if they were actually getting accurate readings. He found them on asphalt pads, in front of A/C exhaust fans and all sorts of heat inducing placements. I think it was a majority of them that were not in compliance, but you can check at his web site by clicking his name above and searching his site. There have been several instances of “cooking the books” over the years and now here’s another one just as B. Hussein Obama says the greatest threat to America is Global Warming.

polarlounge3

The Telegraph reported:

When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling trend was changed to one that showed a marked warming.

This was only the latest of many examples of a practice long recognised by expert observers around the world – one that raises an ever larger question mark over the entire official surface-temperature record.

Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”.

Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.

Read the rest here.

H/T Gateway Pundit

Advertisements

The Ice Age Still Cometh

Want some real facts?

It is crucial that scientists are factually accurate when they do speak out, that they ignore media hype and maintain a clinical detachment from social or other agendas. There are facts and data that are ignored in the maelstrom of social and economic agendas swirling about Copenhagen.

Greenhouse gases and their effects are well-known. Here are some of things we know:

• The most effective greenhouse gas is water vapor, comprising approximately 95 percent of the total greenhouse effect.

• Carbon dioxide concentration has been continually rising for nearly 100 years. It continues to rise, but carbon dioxide concentrations at present are near the lowest in geologic history.

• Temperature change correlation with carbon dioxide levels is not statistically significant.

• There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels to temperature changes.

• The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide logarithmically declines with increasing concentration. At present levels, any additional carbon dioxide can have very little effect.

We also know a lot about Earth temperature changes:

• Global temperature changes naturally all of the time, in both directions and at many scales of intensity.

• The warmest year in the U.S. in the last century was 1934, not 1998. The U.S. has the best and most extensive temperature records in the world.

• Global temperature peaked in 1998 on the current 60-80 year cycle, and has been episodically declining ever since. This cooling absolutely falsifies claims that human carbon dioxide emissions are a controlling factor in Earth temperature.

• Voluminous historic records demonstrate the Medieval Climate Optimum (MCO) was real and that the “hockey stick” graphic that attempted to deny that fact was at best bad science. The MCO was considerably warmer than the end of the 20th century.

• During the last 100 years, temperature has both risen and fallen, including the present cooling. All the changes in temperature of the last 100 years are in normal historic ranges, both in absolute value and, most importantly, rate of change.

Contrary to many public statements:

• Effects of temperature change are absolutely independent of the cause of the temperature change.

• Global hurricane, cyclonic and major storm activity is near 30-year lows. Any increase in cost of damages by storms is a product of increasing population density in vulnerable areas such as along the shores and property value inflation, not due to any increase in frequency or severity of storms.

• Polar bears have survived and thrived over periods of extreme cold and extreme warmth over hundreds of thousands of years — extremes far in excess of modern temperature changes.

• The 2009 minimum Arctic ice extent was significantly larger than the previous two years. The 2009 Antarctic maximum ice extent was significantly above the 30-year average. There are only 30 years of records.

• Rate and magnitude of sea level changes observed during the last 100 years are within normal historical ranges. Current sea level rise is tiny and, at most, justifies a prediction of perhaps ten centimeters rise in this century.

The present climate debate is a classic conflict between data and computer programs. The computer programs are the source of concern over climate change and global warming, not the data. Data are measurements. Computer programs are artificial constructs.

Public announcements use a great deal of hyperbole and inflammatory language. For instance, the word “ever” is misused by media and in public pronouncements alike. It does not mean “in the last 20 years,“ or “the last 70 years.” “Ever” means the last 4.5 billion years.

For example, some argue that the Arctic is melting, with the warmest-ever temperatures. One should ask, “How long is ever?” The answer is since 1979. And then ask, “Is it still warming?” The answer is unequivocally “No.” Earth temperatures are cooling. Similarly, the word “unprecedented” cannot be legitimately used to describe any climate change in the last 8,000 years.

There is not an unlimited supply of liquid fuels. At some point, sooner or later, global oil production will decline, and transportation costs will become insurmountable if we do not develop alternative energy sources. However, those alternative energy sources do not now exist.

A legislated reduction in energy use or significant increase in cost will severely harm the global economy and force a reduction in the standard of living in the United States. It is time we spent the research dollars to invent an order-of-magnitude better solar converter and an order-of-magnitude better battery. Once we learn how to store electrical energy, we can electrify transportation. But these are separate issues. Energy conversion is not related to climate change science.

I have been a reviewer of the last two IPCC reports, one of the several thousand scientists who purportedly are supporters of the IPCC view that humans control global temperature. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many of us try to bring better and more current science to the IPCC, but we usually fail. Recently we found out why. The whistleblower release of e-mails and files from the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University has demonstrated scientific malfeasance and a sickening violation of scientific ethics.

If the game of Russian roulette with the environment that Adrian Melott contends is going on, is it how will we feed all the people when the cold of the inevitable Little Ice Age returns? It will return. We just don’t know when.

Source

H/T Mike C. at GCP

More Polar Bear Lies From The Cult

Listen to the Polar Bear

More recycled lies from the Global Warming Cult, trotted out just as the Dopenhagen party gets going.

The images, taken in Hudson Bay, Canada, around 200 miles north of the town of Churchill, Manitoba, show a male polar bear carrying the bloodied head of a polar bear cub it has killed for food.

Polar bears usually subsist on seals, which they hunt from a platform of sea ice. But the melting of sea ice as a result of rising global temperatures has made it more difficult for polar bears to hunt seals at sea, confining the bears to land.

This has led to malnourishment and starvation as polar bears are unable to build sufficient fat reserves for winter.

Drowning is also more common as bears are forced to swim further out to sea to find food.

The images add to the evidence that polar bears are increasingly hunting each other for food in their desperation to survive.

Manitoba Conservation normally receive one to two reports of bear cannibalisation annually, but scientists say they are aware of eight cases so far this year.

Last month tourists on a guided tour of the area were reported to be distressed after witnessing a male bear eating a cub.

The release of the images comes as world leaders gather in Copenhagen for the United Nations Climate Change Conference.

First of all, male polar bears will eat their young if given half a chance, so stop getting the vapors over three pictures. And that is the second point, this whole article is based on three pictures of a polar bear being a polar bear. (see link at bottom)

Some other points: The polar bear population is growing, not declining. Arctic ice is growing, not melting. It’s cooling, not warming. Polar bears have been known to swim non stop for a hundred miles without drowning. Eight sightings this year compared to an “average” of two per year is due to more polar bears, more tourists, taking more pictures, and getting more distressed. Get over it, it’s nature, and supposedly that is what you went out there to see.

Source

Global Warming Cult Still Beating This Dead Horse

beating_a_dead_horse

They are out of new ideas so they try to pass this one off again.

Saturday, October 17, 2009 LONDON —  Global warming will leave the Arctic Ocean ice-free during the summer within 20 years, raising sea levels and harming wildlife such as seals and polar bears, a leading British polar scientist said on Thursday.

Peter Wadhams, professor of ocean physics at the University of Cambridge, said much of the melting will take place within a decade, although the winter ice will stay for hundreds of years.

The changes will mean the top of the Earth will appear blue rather than white when photographed from space and ships will have a new sea route north of Russia.

Scientists say evidence of melting Arctic ice is one of the clearest signs of global warming and it should send a warning to world leaders meeting in Copenhagen in December for U.N. talks on a new climate treaty.

“The data supports the new consensus view — based on seasonal variation of ice extent and thickness, changes in temperatures, winds and especially ice composition — that the Arctic will be ice-free in summer within about 20 years,” Wadhams said in a statement. “Much of the decrease will be happening within 10 years.”

Wadhams, one of the world’s leading experts on sea ice cover in the North Pole region, compared ice thickness measurements taken by a Royal Navy submarine in 2007 with evidence gathered by the British explorer Pen Hadow earlier this year.

Hadow and his team on the Catlin Arctic Survey drilled 1,500 holes to gather evidence during a 280 mile walk across the Arctic. They found the average thickness of ice-floes was 1.8 metres, a depth considered too thin to survive the summer’s ice melt.

Sometimes referred to as the Earth’s air-conditioner, the Arctic Sea plays a vital role in the world’s climate. As Arctic ice melts in summer, it exposes the darker-coloured ocean water, which absorbs sunlight instead of reflecting it, accelerating the effect of global warming.

Dr Martin Sommerkorn, from the environmental charity WWF’s Arctic programme, which worked on the survey, said the predicted loss of ice could have wide-reaching affects around the world.

“The Arctic Sea ice holds a central position in our Earth’s climate system. Take it out of the equation and we are left with a dramatically warmer world,” he said.

“This could lead to flooding affecting one-quarter of the world’s population, substantial increases in greenhouse gas emissions …. and extreme global weather changes.”

Britain’s Energy and Climate Change Secretary Ed Miliband said the research “sets out the stark realities of climate change”.

“This further strengthens the case for an ambitious global deal in Copenhagen,” he added. Source

That dog won’t hunt. It was debunked in May of this year and I blogged about it HERE.

Meanwhile, up in the Arctic, after yet another delay for bad weather, the hapless Catlin trio, sponsored by an insurance firm which hopes to make money out of alarm over global warming, continue their painful progress towards the distant North Pole, measuring the ice with an old tape measure and assuring Prince Charles by satellite telephone that it is “thinner than expected”.

When the trio heard a passing aircraft, which they hoped was bringing much-needed supplies, they little realised it was a DC-3 carrying an international team of scientists, using the latest electro-magnetic induction equipment to discover rather more efficiently that the ice was in fact “twice as thick” as they had expected.

The Catlin Arctic Survey, actually three unprepared warmists, called off their trip and had to be rescued from the cold and ice. Ice that was Twice As Thick as what they expected!

The Global Warming Cult has nothing new to say so they will push old lies to get their way…and our money.

Bush’s Polar Bear Ruling Upheld

Dang it,

Bummer dude.....

Let the howling begin. The enviro-nuts will be yelling about being betrayed and the BDS sufferers who want every ruling made by the Bush administration overturned will have they’re panties in a twist over the latest polar bear ruling. It seems the Obama administration has agreed with Bush that the polar bear does not need more protection.

WASHINGTON — The Interior Department is letting stand a Bush administration regulation that limits protection of polar  bears from global warming, three people familiar with the decision told The Associated Press.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar will announce on Friday that he will not rescind the Bush rule, although Congress gave him authority to do so. The people spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to pre-empt the secretary’s announcement.

A year ago, the iconic polar bear was declared a threatened species because global warming is causing a severe decline in Arctic sea ice, the bear’s habitat. But the Bush administration rules limit that protection, saying no action outside the Arctic region could be considered a threat to the bear under the law.

Environmentalists have strongly opposed the rule as have many members of Congress. They argued the limits violate the Endangered Species Act because the release of greenhouse gases from power plants, factories and cars indirectly threaten the bear’s survival.

In March, federal lawmakers authorized Salazar to scrap the Bush regulation without going through a long regulatory process. The deadline for such action was Saturday, 60 days after Congress acted.

Salazar was expected to say that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will further study the limitations established by the “special rule” issued by the Bush administration in March 2008 when the bear was officially declared a threatened specie because of the reduction in Arctic sea ice, which is the bear’s habitat.

But business groups and their supporters in Congress have argued strongly that the Endangered Species Act is the improper vehicle for addressing climate change and that there are other ways to deal with the global environmental issue.

Congress is trying to craft broad legislation that would limit greenhouse gases and, separately, the Environmental Protection Agency has begun a lengthy regulatory process that could lead to heat-trapping emissions being controlled under the federal Clean Air Act. Last month, the EPA declared carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases a danger to public health.

But after the polar bear was declared threatened in March 2008, and brought under the protection of the Endangered Species Act because of climate change, environmentalists hoped they could use the species law to force broader nationwide limits of greenhouse gases.

The Bush special rule for the polar bear “significantly undercuts protections for the polar bear by omitting global warming pollution as a factor in the polar bear’s risk of extinction,” said Jane Kochersperger, a spokeswoman for Greenpeace, which delivered 80,000 petitions to the Interior Department after they were collected by the two environmental groups.

On Thursday, Rep. Doc Hastings of Washington, the ranking Republican on the House Natural Resources Committee, urged Salazar to keep the Bush rule in place.

“This reaches far beyond the scope of polar bears in the Arctic and could put jobs and economic activity across the entire nation at risk,” said Hastings.

Source

Polar Bear Politics

What, me worry?

What, me worry?

They had a little meeting up there in polar bear country. You know, where the polar bears actually live. You’ll never guess what they came up with.

The first Canadian federal summit on the environmental plight of polar bears has concluded with considerable differences of opinion in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

Federal Environment Minister Jim Prentice hosted the meeting of scientists, wildlife officials and Inuit leaders, the Globe and Mail reported Saturday.

Canada is home to about 15,000 polar bears, about two-thirds of the world population, in 13 distinct areas. While the United States declared the bears an endangered species in May 2008, Gabriel Nirlungayuk, director of Wildlife for Nunavut Tunngavik said the bears are actually more prolific now.

Forty or 50 years ago, our camping areas were not invaded by these animals, he said Friday. The current population is stable. It is not constructive to exaggerate that situation.

Harry Flaherty, chair of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, agreed and said scientists were politicizing the bears’ status.

They are using the polar bear as a tool, a tool to fight climate change, Flaherty said. [Th]ey shouldn’t do that. The polar bear will survive. It has been surviving for thousands of years.

You don’t say….They’re playing politics with the polar bear? I never would have guessed.

Do I LOOK threatened?

Do I LOOK threatened?

Source

CO2, Polar Bears, and Volcanoes

A New Years Eve Wrap Up. Courtesy of Phil Brennan of Newsmax. Video and pictures added by Me.

If you want to get an idea of just how absurd the global warming propaganda has gotten, consider a current TV commercial that suggests that “our green planet” will cease to be green if we don’t do something about the things that threaten its greenness, such as growing levels of atmospheric CO2.

Think about that for a moment. Ask yourself this question: What makes our planet green?

If you guessed CO2, you’re right. CO2 is to trees and foliage and all vegetation what oxygen is to humans — they can’t survive without it. It’s what makes them green and healthy.

The more CO2, the greener and healthy our planet. Yet the global warming fanatics are classifying CO2 as a pollutant and blaming it for dangerously warming our (fast cooling) planet.

How stupid do they think we are?

They call CO2 a “greenhouse gas” getting that description from what happens when the sun penetrates the glass in a greenhouse and not only heats its interior but also traps the heat, which cannot escape trough the panes enclosing it.

Atmospheric CO2, we are assured, acts like the panes of glass in the greenhouse, trapping the heat in the atmosphere and thus warming the planet. But CO2 levels have skyrocketed since 2000, and guess what’s happened?

It’s gotten colder, that’s what happened.

Maybe some kid broke the glass in the greenhouse.

Then there’s the latest panic about the alleged plight of the polar bears. According to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) polar bears face extinction — but not quite yet.

According to the WWF, “With 20-25,000 polar bears living in the wild, the species is not currently endangered, but its future is far from certain.”

They go on to assure us that, “If current warming trends continue unabated, scientists believe that polar bears will be vulnerable to extinction within the next century.”

To help stop that from happening, the WWF would like you to send it money.

Didja hear that? Mo money.

Didja hear that? They still believe it!

Like all solemn pronouncements from the warmiacs, the predictions concerning polar bear extinction is based solely on computer models, not on what’s happening now. Remember, the group said, “The species is not currently endangered.” And what’s happening now is the swelling of the polar bear population, which grew from a low of 5,000 to 10,000 in the ’50s and ’60s, according to The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Moreover, a 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations “may now be near historic highs.”

A Jan. 30, 2008, report from the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee notes, “The alarm about the future of polar bear decline is based on speculative computer model predictions many decades in the future. And the methodology of these computer models is being challenged by many scientists and forecasting experts.”

In other words, garbage in, garbage out (GIGO).

The report cites Canadian biologist Mitchell Taylor, wildlife research director with the Arctic government of Nunavut, as saying: “Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.”

Taylor added, “It is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria.”

A study by Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School at the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania and his colleague, forecasting expert Kesten Green of Monash University in Australia, found that one of the two key reports in support of listing the bears had “extrapolated nearly 100 years into the future on the basis of only five years data — and data for these years were of doubtful validity.” GIGO!

Asks botanist David Bellamy, a famed U.K. environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University, and host of a popular U.K. TV series on wildlife: “Why scare the families of the world with tales that polar bears are heading for extinction when there is good evidence that there are now twice as many of these iconic animals, most doing well in the Arctic than there were 20 years ago?”

If you want something real to worry about, try an eruption of the Yellowstone caldera where scientists have discovered that the ground is over 70 centimeters higher than in was in 1923 — indicating a massive swelling underneath the park.

Mount Saint Helens Erupts 1980

Mount Saint Helens Erupts 1980

There was a swarm of 16 earthquakes in 24 hours this past weekend. The reservoir is filling with magma at a staggering rate. The volcano erupts with a calendar-like cycle of every 600,000-650,000 years.

The last eruption was more than 640,000 years ago.

Last time it erupted, 642,000 years ago, it ejected 1,000 cubic kilometers of magma into the air. If this happened in today’s world, it would kill millions and cover most of the United States in a layer of ash at least a centimeter thick. The lighter ash would rise up into the atmosphere, initiating a volcanic winter and ruining crops worldwide.

This is something genuine Al Gore could get really his teeth on. Instead of recommending carbon caps, he could suggest sacrificing a few virgins to the god Vulcan. It would be cheaper than cap and trade.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!! SEE YOU IN 2009.

%d bloggers like this: