LETTER: Climate running hot and cold

It has now been six years of recording the high and low, average high and low temperatures as reported by the Cleveland weather stat
Sandusky Register Staff
May 24, 2010

 

It has now been six years of recording the high and low, average high and low temperatures as reported by the Cleveland weather station. The deviations of each high and low from the average is calculated and recorded as a bit of data.

There were 2,192 days from Jan. 1, 2004, to Dec. 31, 2009, (2004 and 2008 were leap years). Each day the high and low deviations are recorded. Hence there are 4,384 bits of data. Only 174 of these bits were 20 degrees Fahrenheit or more, 132 of the 174 bits were 20 degrees F or more above average and 42 were 20 degrees F or more below average.

In 2009 when the 265 high deviations were summed, it came to +188 degrees F or +0.52 degrees F per day. The 365 low deviation came to +838 degrees F or +2.30 degrees F per day.

For the six year period the 2192 high deviations came to +1,605 degrees F or +0.73 degrees F per day. The 365 low deviations came to +5,600 degrees F or +2.56 degrees F per day.

Conclusion: Global warming can't be judged by what's happening today, last week, last month or even last year.

Ed Boose

Huron

Comments

goofus

Paul Joseph Watson, Infowars.net
March 30, 2009

A combination of interesting mainstream and alternative media reports reveal compelling links between president Obama and a privately owned carbon trading group, which also has direct ties with elitist groups such as the Club of Rome and the Trilateral Commission.

Judi McLeod’s excellent article for Canada Free Press, which she expanded from a Fox News piece, highlights how years before he became president, Obama helped directly fund a carbon trading exchange that will likely play a critical role in the proposed cap-and-trade carbon reduction program.

The charity was the Joyce Foundation on whose board of directors Obama served and which gave nearly $1.1 million in two separate grants that were “instrumental in developing and launching the privately-owned Chicago Climate Exchange, which now calls itself “North America’s only cap and trade system for all six greenhouse gases, with global affiliates and projects worldwide.”

Essentially Obama helped fund the profiteers of the carbon taxation program that he is now seeking to steer through Congress.

McLeod also notes that The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) has direct ties to both Al Gore and Maurice Strong, two figures intimately involved with a long standing movement to use the theory of man made global warming as a mechanism for profit and social engineering.

Gore’s investment company, Generation Investment Management, which sells carbon offset opportunities, is the largest shareholder of CCX.

While Maurice Strong, who is regularly credited as founding father of the modern environmental movement, serves on the board of directors of CCX. Strong was a leading initiate of the Earth Summit in the early 90s, where the theory of global warming caused by CO2 generated by human activity was most notably advanced.
While McLeod’s article highlights the cronyism and corporate dealings behind this set up, we should also add the fact that both Gore and Strong come from a stable of elite groups that have long sought to use the environmental movement to advance their agendas.

goofus

Blood And Gore – The Nickname For Al Gore’s Carbon Trading Firm That Is Poised To Make Billions Of Dollars From Carbon Credits
Posted by Admin | Posted in Corruption, Enviromental, Politics | Posted on 10-11-2009 1We all know how the mainstream media loves to portray Al Gore - the visionary "eco-prophet" who shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his climate advocacy. But is Al Gore truly such a selfless do-gooder? What does it say about the motives of an environmental crusader when that person stands poised to rake in billions of dollars from the very carbon credit trading scheme that he is tirelessly advocating?

That is exactly the position that Al Gore finds himself in. The leading advocate of the theory of "man-made global warming" is also one of the people who would likely benefit the most financially from the implementation of a "cap and trade" carbon credit trading scheme.

You see, Al Gore is chairman of Generation Investment Management. David Blood, the former chief executive of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, is the CEO.

Thus the nickname - Blood and Gore.

Wikipedia describes Blood and Gore this way.....

Generation Investment Management LLP (GIM) is a London-based investment management firm with an investment style that blends traditional equity research with a focus on sustainability factors, including social and environmental responsibility and corporate governance.

It all sounds very noble, doesn't it?

But the bottom line is that GIM is about making money. GIM owns a 10 percent stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange. The Chicago Climate Exchange owns half of the European Climate Exchange.

Thus if the United States and Europe adopt a "cap and trade" carbon credit trading scheme Al Gore could potentially rake in billions of dollars.

If they don't, Al Gore's investment in these ventures could end up being worthless.

When asked about the financial incentives that Gore has to promote carbon trading in an appearance before Congress, Gore did not back down one bit.....

"Do you think there is something wrong with being active in business in this country?" the New York Times quotes Gore as telling Congress. "I am proud of it. I am proud of it."

Gore insists that he is completely committed to solving the problems caused by "climate change" and that he is not ashamed of being ready to make tons of money off of those solutions.....

"I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it."

But is Al Gore ready to back real environmental solutions which would not make him money?

Apparently those kinds of solutions don't appeal to him as much. Just consider the following passage from a recent Newsweek article.....

"If we feed the biology and manage grasslands appropriately, we could sequester as much carbon as we emit," says Timothy LaSalle, CEO of the Rodale Institute, who presented at two summits. The political clash is this: if you tell people soils can be managed to s'ck up lots of our carbon emissions, it sounds like a get-out-of-jail-free card, and could decrease what little enthusiasm there is for reducing those emissions—as one of Gore's assistants told LaSalle in asking him to dial down his estimate. (He didn't.)"

One of Gore's assistants actually asked LaSalle to "dial down his estimate"?

What in the world?

Perhaps LaSalle's idea could really work.

But apparently since it would not make Al Gore any money it is not as good as the "cap and trade" carbon trading scheme which would dramatically raise energy prices for American consumers and which would further wreck the U.S. economy.

The truth is that Al Gore is going to keep positioning his money to take advantage of "green" legislation and he is going to keep using his political clout to tirelessly advocate for that same legislation.

As Al Gore's firm, Blood and Gore, starts to rake in billions of dollars as middle class Americans struggle to pay their power bills, perhaps it will be then that many Americans will finally learn the true meaning of this Al Gore quote.....

"Reality does have a way of knocking on the door."

Share and Enjoy:

6079 Smith W

In it’s history, the Earth has experienced at least five known ice ages.

The last one ended approximately 10,000 yrs. ago when humankind was a minor species who had just recently discovered fire.

So what ended that ice age woolly mammoth flatulence?

6079 Smith W

@ goofus:

Gore’s father, Al Gore, Sr. practiced law with Occidental Petroleum, became vice president and was a member of its board of directors.

Gore is rich only because his daddy made money in oil.

Typical rich Democrat – I’ve got mine and so scr*w the little people.

goofus

While there are big research grants available to climate scientists who peddle the politically correct theory of man-made global warming, researchers who dare to question the sacred dogma are dismissed as "deniers' and virtually cut off from funding.

The gravy train of research riches for the global warming doomsayers shows no sign of running off the rails, despite the exposure last month of hacked e-mails (or was it the work of a whistleblower?) from Britain's Climate Research Unit (CRU) revealing efforts by top climate scientists to fudge temperature data, finagle computer models and blackball critics.

In one of the e-mails, a frustrated computer programmer named "Harry," after trying to un-knot CRU's tangled temperature databases, sent the following message to fellow researchers:

"I am very sorry to report that the rest of the databases seem to be in nearly as poor a state as Australia was. . . . Aarrggghhh! There truly is no end in sight. . . . So we can have a proper result, but only by including a load of garbage!

He continued:

Ulp! I am seriously close to giving up, again. The history of this is so complex that I can't get far enough into it before by [sic] head hurts and I have to stop. . . I could be throwing away all kinds of corrections.

As the eminent British economist Ronald Coase once quipped, "If you torture data long enough, it will confess."

The CRU fiasco, now referred to as Climategate, unmasked the junk science behind much of the man-made global warming hypothesizing. It comes as no surprise that some of the same researchers mentioned in the e-mails also played a role in making the Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period disappear from climate history.

When inconvenient climate facts failed to match their pre-conceived theory of anthropogenic warming, they simply manipulated the raw temperature data to smooth out the warm peaks and cold valleys. When other researches asked to see the raw data, they were told to get lost. Now the data has suspiciously disappeared.

But global-warming research funding hasn't. One of the biggest beneficiaries is CRU Director Phil Jones, at the center of the Climategate controversy, who received $19 million in research grants between 2000 and 2006, six times the amount doled out to him during the previous decade.

In December, the Wall Street Journal reported that the European Commission appropriated nearly $3 billion for climate research, an amount that doesn't include grants from EU member governments.

U.S. government agencies also are dishing out the dough.

According to the same Journal article, "The House intends to spend $1.3 billion on NASA's climate efforts, $400 million on NOAA's, and another $300 million for the National Science Foundation. The states also have a piece of the action, with California - apparently not feeling bankrupt enough - devoting $600 million to their own climate initiative. In Australia, alarmists have their own Department of Climate Change at their funding disposal."

In 2001, James Hansen, chief climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, won a $250,000 Heinz Award "for his exemplary leadership in the critical and often-contentious debate over the threat of global climate change." He also was co-winner in 2007 of the $1 million Dan David Prize for his contributions to climate research.

In spite of his accolades, Hansen has been rebuked by his former supervisor at NASA, Dr. John Theon, who publicly disagreed with his sky-is-falling global warming predictions and suggested that "some scientists have manipulated the observed data to justify their model results."

Government agencies are not alone in the campaign to pump lots of loot into climate-change research. During the past decade, big corporations have upped the ante, channeling billions of dollars into climate studies.

According to The Boston Globe, ExxonMobil in 2002 doled out $100 million to establish a Global Climate and Energy Project at Stanford University tasked with studying climate change. In 2006, Richard Branson, founder of Virgin Atlantic Airways, pledged $3 billion to fight global warming. He also has promised to pay $25 million to anyone who develops a method to cleanse at least a billion tons of CO2 annually from the earth's atmosphere.

The money pouring into the global warming camp is "huge," says Professor Ross McKitrick, a professor of environmental economics at Britain's University of Buckingham.

"Institutions like the CRU have a very large budget, but that would disappear if global warming ceased to exist. Scientists are enjoying a funding gravy train. There is so much money in climate research. Lots of areas of science are short of money, but not climate change."

With so much money at stake, researchers and their contingent of green supporters have turned their verbal daggers towards anyone who threatens to kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, told Britain's Daily Telegraph that he has been the target of five death threats since openly questioning the man-causes-global-warming doctrine.

"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.

"I can tolerate being called a skeptic because all scientists should be skeptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal."

How nasty?

"Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees [with global warming]," said Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist. "Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."

The global warming camp often wags its collective finger at dissenting scientists, demonizing them as allies of big energy conglomerates. But skeptics such as James Spann, a meteorologist in Alabama, claim they have been unfairly criticized and, in truth, the only the people cashing in are those who peddle the global warming orthodoxy.

"Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon … Nothing wrong with making money at all. But when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab."

Even some long-time environmentalists bemoan their peers' addiction to the almighty dollar. David Crowe, founder and former president of the Alberta Greens political party in Canada, said he has stopped funding environmental organizations whose focus is climate change.

"There is a lot of evidence that the activity often called science, and the scientists who practice this activity (as opposed to those few who have a monk-like dedication to the scientific method), are not trustworthy. Peer review is a bankrupt process . . . It is lousy at detecting fraud, but very good at suppressing innovative thought.

"Financial conflicts of interest are frequent and rarely disclosed. Scientists often fall into the trap of focusing on their next grant rather than what important questions need to be asked (including questioning their own assumptions and biases)."

Kirk Myers' Examiner column appears several times weekly.

6079 Smith W

Read what American Farm Bureau president Bob Stallman recently had to say about the Democrats' climate change programs and how it will devastate the American farmer and the future of farming:

"At the very time we need to increase our food production, climate change legislation threatens to slash our ability to do so. The exact level of land that will shift to trees will depend on the price of carbon – a number nobody knows at this point – but USDA suggests we could easily be talking about 59 million acres."

Stallman noted in today's terms that means eliminating about 130,000 farms and ranches that grow food and crops.

"The United States would be less able to provide the world a viable hunger safety net. Food prices here at home would shoot up. The result? Less food security and our climate would not improve, not even by one degree. That is not the kind of American agriculture I want to leave behind for future generations."

Read:

http://mobile.michiganfarmer.com...

brutus smith

I see the crazy train is up and running this morning.

Duhast

Oh, Sorry! You global warming deniers must be right… Please continue to burn massive amounts of hydrocarbons and pollute the atmosphere. It’s all fake anyway. Go about your business. While you’re at it, enjoy your spotted owl egg omelet served on ivory plates. We didn’t need those animals either…

BTW, cancer cluster in Clyde is just a fluke. No way any man made pollutants could make those children sick. Perhaps they should quit inbreeding so much? Humans can’t affect the environment after all. It’s just the natural progression of things. Darwinian if you will…

goofus

'Poster Child' for Obama hypocrisy on green jobs?
By: Mark Tapscott
Editorial Page Editor
01/15/10 7:43 AM EST
In a city full of conflicts of interest, this one ranks near the top of the "Most Blatant Ever." Robin Roy is a senior executive of Serious Materials, a California-based windows maker that was virtually unknown within its industry until last year when President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden began praising it as, in the latter's words, the "poster child of green industry."

Actually, Serious Materials is at the center of a grubby new conflicts of interest scandal in the White House because Assistant Secretary of Energy Cathy Zoi, Roy's wife, just happens to be the Obama appointee in charge of the government's crash weatherization program.

The Freedom Foundation of Minnesota and its investigative reporter Tom Steward has been looking into the Zoi-Roy connection for several months. Here's what they found:

"Last year Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA or the so-called Stimulus Bill). The U.S. Department of Energy’s office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) received $16.8 billion of those ARRA funds to be used to promote green energy and conservation programs including the popular $1,500 tax credit for homeowners who install energy-efficient windows. The Assistant Secretary of Energy, Cathy Zoi, is responsible for oversight in disbursing these stimulus funds.

"Ms. Zoi is married to Robin Roy, a top executive at Serious Materials, a privately held manufacturer of 'sustainable green building materials' located in California. On the Executive Branch Personnel Public Financial Disclosure submitted by Ms. Zoi to the White House Ethics office as part of her confirmation, Ms. Zoi disclosed ownership with her spouse of 120,000 vested and unvested stock options in Serious Materials, a company her office regulates and that she may profit from."

In other words, Zoi complied with the letter of the law by disclosing her interest in her husband's employer. But has she observed the spirit of the government's ethics laws, which are intended to prevent conflicts of interest, real and apparent? Well, the White House has specifically praised Serious Materials in an official news release, and the company chairman has participated in a 22-minute news conference with Obama. The company is also the recipient of a special tax break and the government has ordered so much of its products that the firm can't keep up with demand.

John Stossel of Fox Business News, whose nationally syndicated column begins in The Washington Examiner in February, calls Serious Materials and its relationship with the Obama administration an illustration of "crony capitalism." Stossel's report aired last night.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.co...

goofus

Monday, January 18, 2010
Muslims Light Church on Fire With Christians Inside
The Religion of Peace continues to spread its special love, tolerance and exceptional pluralism in the same compassionate way as it has for 1,400 years as prescribed by the koran. Obama says, respect it!

Nigeria: Muslims Light Church on Fire With Worshippers in it!
The recent list of Churches under attack by Muslims is as follows. Algeria, Egypt, and Malaysia. Today we unfortunately get to add Nigeria to the list. This will only get worse, as Islam is a religion of war.

WORLD BRIEFING | AFRICA
Nigeria: Religious Violence Kills 27
Published: January 18, 2010

Angry Muslim youths set fire to a church filled with worshipers, starting a riot that killed at least 27 people and wounded more than 300 in Jos, in northern Nigeria, officials said Monday. Sani Mudi, a spokesman for the local imam, said 22 people died in fighting between Christians and Muslims after rioters set fire to a Catholic church on Sunday. Five others died Monday from their wounds. More than 300 people were killed in inter-religious violence in Jos in 2008.

goofus

Kumbaya my lord kumbaya

goofus

Since measurements began in 1979 antarctic sea ice has continued to expand, contrary to what the news media would have you believe. We bring this information to you month after month and still there is no sign of the main stream media picking up on the story. They continue to discuss the relatively small areas of the Western Antarctic Peninsula that are melting due to changes in ocean currents.

You may have heard that some of the “computer models” predicted increases in antarctic ice, but they predicted increased “interior ice” due to increased snow fall. None of the models predicted increased sea ice around the antarctic. Yet that is what we have, more sea ice in November of 2009 than what we had in November of 1979 when measurements began. This is highly significant yet hardly anyone in the main stream media (MSM) is talking about it.

Sea ice is much different than interior ice. Some of the computer models predicted increased ice over the interior of antarctic. If you've ever lived in the extreme cold temperature regions you already understand the reason why. When it gets very cold the air become drier and it snows less, as the temperature warms towards freezing it actually snows more. Since the antarctic rarely even gets close to freezing its understandable that warming would cause more snow fall. Over time compacted snow would lead to more ice. But that is not what is happening here. We're seeing increases in “sea ice”, this ice is over the ocean. Sea ice is caused by colder temperatures, not by increased snow fall. But we hear nothing from either the MSM or the scientific community. Especially compared to the out 6%-7% decrease at the arctic (this isn't year over year, this is a 6% decline since 1980!).

Antarctic Sea Ice for November

Extent Concentration2009 16.3 million sq km 11.6 million sq km1995 16.0 million sq km 11.4 million sq km1979 15.9 million sq km 11.2 million sq kmThis continues a long trend of increasing sea ice that has been noted here for several months.

Interior ice is also increasing but not due to warming as the models have predicted. According to NOAA GISS data winter temperatures in the antarctic have actually fallen by 1°F since 1957, with the coldest year being 2004. All the while global CO2 levels have gone up and the main stream media has been reporting near catastrophic warming conditions. They regularly show Antarctic sea ice shelves breaking apart, which is an entirely normal process (though they never tell you that part). The main stream media and certain segments of the scientific community truly must have no shame.

Duhast

Mr. Boose. I don’t think applying high school statistics to 6 years of Cleveland weather data adds much to the scientific discussion. The earth is 4.54 billion years old and you have taken data from 6 years of The Weather Channel.

goofus

An editorial by Mark Johnson, Meteorologist AMS CBM/NWA. Reprinted with Permission.
--
I talk about the fallacy of Man-made Global Warming to whomever will listen. I talk to many groups, large and small about how AGW is just bad science. I tell them that study results are hand-picked and modified to fit a pre-determined conclusion. That is: Man-made carbon emissions are responsible for accelerated, dangerous global temperature rises.

Many are enlightened by my graphs disproving the fictional Hockey Stick. They are amazed when I cite peer-reviewed studies that prove Polar Bears aren’t drowning and that arctic sea ice and glaciers are actually increasing in size. They laugh in disbelief when I flash photos of official surface stations next to air conditioners and barbecue grills. And then there’s the icing on the cake: I bust out IPCC’s failed computer model plots that show world temperatures going up. The room goes quiet. “But notice,” I say to my audience, “how the actual temperatures over the last decade are going down!” I then crumple up a copy of of the IPCC’s 2001 Report and pitch it into the trash in dramatic triumph while shouting, “The Man-Made Global Warming Hypothesis is pure HOGWASH!”

Applause, applause, applause. Some shake their heads in disbelief. Many more, though, smile and say, “I thought so!”

Its a great feeling for me. Another seemingly successful presentation. Another positive attempt to correct the mis-information spread by the AGW alarmists.

Still, there is always at least one person in every group who raises a hand and asks that haunting question, “But shouldn’t we want to save the planet?”

“Hey,” I think to myself, “Weren’t you listening to me?” Maybe, this person wasn’t paying attention while I was showing off all of my pretty-coloured charts and graphs. Or maybe, I, as a scientist, am only seeing this issue through proxies, homogenized data and hand-picked correlations. Maybe, to the average, non-science person, Global Warming is a much simpler issue. Maybe the AGW boils down to a moral responsibility. As one middle school student told me last week, “If we are hurting the planet, then we should do something about it!”

As I have learned through conversation, other colleagues hear the same statement. This is an issue all of us in the scientific community need to address everytime we speak about Man-Made Global Warming. So lets, start now! I will begin the journey here:

Listen up, Folks: Reducing man-made CO2 emissions will NOT save the planet! The Man-Made Global Warming Theory that the UNIPCC hangs its hat on, states that increasing amounts of man-made carbon dioxide will trap more of the sun’s heat in the atmosphere. This will then increase the water vapor content of the atmosphere. According to the IPCC, the two greenhouse gases will combine their super powers to increase earth’s surface temperatures to dangerous levels.

But, my friends, carbon dioxide is NOT a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring trace gas essential to life on earth. Simply reducing CO2 levels does nothing to reduce real pollution. It does nothing to clean up our streams and rivers from dangerous mercury contamination. It does nothing to prevent sewage from polluting our drinking supplies. It doesn’t fix holes in the ozone layer, nor does it stop landfill chemicals from leaching into ground water. Even if CO2 levels plummeted in the next 20 years, we’d still have pollution problems.

My “Facebook” buddies are much more esteemed scientists than I. I asked them for their responses to such a question. Here’s what Geologist Don Easterbrook, of Western Washington University told me in a recent e-mail:

“CO2 is not a pollutant and reducing emission of it does nothing to abate the real pollutants (sulphur, particulates, metals, etc).” He adds emphatically, “We can’t afford to waste trillions of dollars needlessly chasing the CO2 fantasy.”

In 2001, Don predicted the start of a cooling cycle in or around the year 2007 (spot on, I must say!). “We are just starting several decades of global cooling, which directly kills twice as many people as warming and many times more indirectly, ” he adds. “If we needlessly blow trillions of dollars trying to reduce CO2, we will have significantly reduced our ability to deal with global cooling and all it’s attendant problems (crop failures, reduced food supply, increased energy costs, increased transportation costs and interruptions, etc), all during three decades when global population will increase by 50%!”

Professor Geoff Duffy, a Chemical Engineering expert from The University of Auckland in New Zealand adds this, “Caring for the environment is one very important issue, (but) it has little to do with climate change.” Excellent point, Dr. Duffy!

“Carbon dioxide is but a trace, and mankind’s CO2 footprint is a trace- of-a-trace.” He continues, ”CO2 is not a pollutant; it is a valuable feedstock for all plant and vegetable life on which we depend; and the bi-product is oxygen! The atmosphere and the sea buffer all changes. History alone shows that mankind can do virtually little to change climate: but we can keep our local environment clean!”

Atmospheric Scientist Tim Minnich holds a masters degree in meteorology and taught courses at Rutgers University and University of Michigan. He is passionate about the issue. “To accuse one of being unconcerned about the environment simply because they reject the AGW “pseudo-science” is not only illogical – it’s patently absurd.” He goes on, “It’s like suggesting the person who rejects capital punishment advocates murder!”

Tim specializes in issues like acid rain and ozone, “I firmly believe that each of us has a moral responsibility to be a vigilant steward of our planet and environment for future generations, and that the reckless spending of energy and resources on a scientifically unsubstantiated fad like AGW is deplorable.” Tim, I couldn’t agree more!

Dr. William Briggs, Meteorologist & Adjunct Professor of Statistical Science, Cornell University, shares a similar sentiment: “The answer is OF COURSE we should “save” the planet and “protect” the environment, but in this case there isn’t anything to that needs saving or protecting.” The probability of catastrophic warming is so low, and the costs to protect against radical climate change are so high, that we are better off being reasonably prudent and not panicking by adopting burdensome—and unproven—new rules and regulations.”

Professor Robert Carter runs the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University in Queensland, Australia.
“Spending money on cutting back carbon dioxide emissions in the hope that it will prevent hypothetical warming will be no more effective than peering into the entrails of chickens to the weather!”

Incredibly funny, Bob…and absolutely true!

“Meanwhile, in the real, measurable scientific world,” He adds, ”there are a number of urgent environmental problems where spending significant money would produce a significant result.”
Bob’s short list include:
Cheap (probably coal-fired; alternatively nuclear) energy for 3rd world countries, to minimise wood-burning and charcoal fire cooking, and generally allow them to lift themselves out of poverty.

Clean water and sanitation for the same.

Healthy research funding for additional/new sources ofenergy generation, and transport fuel substitution.”

Contrary to popular belief, not ALL politicians support the Man-Made Global Warming frenzy. Marc Morano, sent in these comments from Senator James Inhofe’s Office. Inhofe is the ranking member of the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee.

“A cleaner environment can be accomplished through technology, not command and control regulations. Saddling our economy with UN mandates and new layers of federal bureaucracy will only make us poorer and not solve the alleged climate crisis.”

by: Mark Johnson, Meteorologist AMS CBM/NWA

You can read more from Mark Johnson at his blog Power Of 5 Weather Blog

Kumbaya

Duhast

Goofus, I’m not sure what point you are trying to make with your “cut-and-paste” posts as I’ve completely skipped over them. I can assume you are trying to post information to discredit global warming. You have convinced nobody and proven nothing. It hardly matters what you think or if the theories are correct or not. Humans produce about 28 billion metric tones of carbon dioxide every year. Most comes from burning fossil fuels. This is not being good stewards of our planet.

Just because our massive carbon emissions may or may not contribute, doesn’t mean we shouldn’t address the problem. Your twisted logic is like someone saying we should let children eat lead paint because lead has not been shown to cause cancer.

goofus

Funny but CO2 is vital to the function of the planet. If you would like to cut down the CO2 please refrain from breathing and read my posts

Duhast

To the tune of 28 billion metric tonnes???

Sunlight is vital to the function of the planet too. To much of that and we’re all crispy critters!

By testing ice core samples from glaciers (using trapped bubbles) we are able to see a HUGE spike in CO2 ppm after 1900 AD.

6079 Smith W

duhast wrote on Jan 19, 2010 9:01 AM:

‘BTW, cancer cluster in Clyde is just a fluke.’

Possibly.

In nature sometimes what is thought to be causality is instead mere correlation.

That goes for 'climate change' as well.

Humans like to fit the world into understandable patterns and will invent them if necessary (Astrology for one).

As a skeptic, you should know that. :)

Anyone for a nice juicy tautology?

6079 Smith W

duhast wrote on Jan 19, 2010 9:01 AM:

‘Oh, Sorry! You global warming deniers must be right…’

The Soviets had Trofim Lysenko and we have Al Gore – what goes around, comes around.

brutus smith

goofus, nobody reads those long cut and pastes, and besides I could get 10 cut and pastes that say the exact opposite. Save the cut and pastes for actual history.

goofus

Keep on putting your faith in failed and scammed global warming research. All you have to do is follow the money right to the global warming scam. GO SCOTT BROWN!! DRIVE THAT TRUCK TO WASHINGTON LT COL. BROWN

brutus smith

How can any patriotic American be against getting off foreign oil? As for Brown, one elitist beating another.

Duhast

Winston,
The Skeptics view of Global warming is that we accept it is happening. There is sound evidence that global temperature averages are increasing. So, you have an observable phenomenon with repeatable tests to confirm. Global warming is happening. Silly people with the weather channel have no clue as to how it’s actually calculated.

Now, we understand that there are several paradigms to explain why this is happening. As I explained earlier about glacier ice bubble testing we can also observe massive increased in C02 ppm since the industrial revolution. As a skeptic, I also understand correlation does not always equal causation. If scientists come up with a valid scientific evidence to the contrary, I’m completely open to it. Now I really mean VALID. Many of the global warming deniers use data and articles from studies paid for by oil companies. Then they refuse to publish their evidence and papers in peer reviewed journals such as “Nature”.

That being said; Perhaps global warming is man made, perhaps not. It’s still a really really really bad thing to burn this many hydrocarbons and pump them into the atmosphere. There was a point in earths early history where massive volcanic emissions pumped CO2 into the atmosphere turning the planet into another Venus. Not good.

Here’s an idea. The next country the republicans invade, they should turn it into a forest and see of global atmospheric C02 reduces. Hmmmm?

goofus

You are invited to vote on the global sysops proposal. Click here for more information. [Hide]
[Help us with translations!]

Scientific consensus
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Scientific consensus is the collective judgement, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method. [1]

Consensus is normally achieved through communication at conferences, the process of publication, replication (reproducible results by others) and peer review. These lead to a situation where those within the discipline can often recognize such a consensus where it exists, but communicating that to outsiders can be difficult. On occasion, scientific institutes issue position statements intended to communicate a summary of the science from the "inside" to the "outside". In cases where there is little controversy regarding the subject under study, establishing what the consensus is can be quite straightforward. Scientific consensus may be invoked in popular or political debate on subjects that are controversial within the public sphere but which may not be controversial within the scientific community, such as evolution.[2][3]
This is the basis for global warming, not a fact as Duhast would have you to believe. He mentions the temperature is rising was he using the Hadley Climate Research Unit russian studies? The Moscow based Institute of Economic Analysis has stated that only25% of the temperature stations were used. The 25% were in urban areas subjected to the urban warming effect, and certainly none from Siberia.

goofus

Posted three hours ago in the Gaurdian U.K. the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations climate science body admitted that in the 2007 stated that the Himalyan Glaciers would melt away in 2035 was unfounded. Global Hoax and Change

Duhast

Still not OK to pump all the hydrocarbons into the air.

brutus smith

Gee goofus, can we borrow the crystal ball that you and the rest of the crazies are using?

Chung Lee

Goofus clearly learned everything he needed to know in kindergarten....... Cut and Paste. Does he have any of this own ideas? The anti-islam posts sound strangely like the material that was put on the hacked Erie County Health Department website. Maybe somebody should check and see if there is a connection,

goofus

Now that all the intellectual liberal scientists have weighed in on global warming, I have one question concerning physics. What is the maximum attainable velocity that Chung Lee must maintain after the end of the Glenn Beck Show and the beginning of happy hour at Club X.

Duhast

How did you know happy hour was after Beck??

brutus smith

Duhast, I thought you knew Beck supplied goofus with all his info. That's why goofus never posts between 5:00 and 6:00pm. He is getting all his material so he can cut and paste it the next day. LOL

goofus

This just in from my shortwave radio, they no longer E mail. A consensus of highly intelligent scientists in East Anglia U.K. have released the findings of an exhaustive research, stating Sandusky is the leading cause of global warming. The deteiorating mortar of the Keller building is releasing harmful cement,lime,and sand dust into the enviroment. After tuesday's election in Ma., the amount of flatulance created by the vast number of crows being consumed by liberals have sent the mortar dust up and is in danger of blocking the sun at a rate worse than a major volcanic eruption. The study goes on to say that the chemical reaction caused by the decomposition of sea gull,pidgeon,and rat droppings in the Keller Building as well as other downtown buildings have created a heat source as well as letting vast amounts of methane into the atmosphere allowing Sandusky to have an increase in temperature of 1 degree in the last 50 years. Finally the study warns of the vast amount of hydro carbons released into the atmosphere by the independent pharmaceutical salesmen in their SUV's conducting their daily business. With all the millions of dollars available for climate research, the scientists said that Sandusky should get a million dollars for the purchase of helmets and bicycles for the pharmaceutical salesmen so they can go green and reduce the hydrocarbon pollution. With bicycles, the dealers have an edge on law enforcement by going cross country. The East Anglia scientists lamented that the hot air expelled by the liberals can't be controlled.

goofus

Duhast, your relatives told me.

wetsu

Increased plant growth.
Plants require less water.
More food produced per acre.
Improvements animal habitats and ecosystems.

Everything the greenies have been screaming for right at their finger tips.

Check the science, not your opinion. We need more carbon dioxide.

Duhast

Except that 16 million hectares of forest are removed every year. Maybe to make room for goofus’ flatulent cows.

goofus

I figure if we can find away to harness the cow flatulence we might get off of foreign oil. If we put some type of collector on a cows rump we have enough methane for all. We can put Brutus Smith as head flatulence collector.

Kimo

Ice cover on lake Erie, last 50 years?

In 1956 I made my first PIB trip on 12/15.
My last trip to Canada was in 1994.
Today, out my front window, open water, east as far
as I can see.............

Just look at ice cover records, for Lake Erie
in the last 50 years.

goofus

On youtube they have a video of guys taking their snowmobiles from Oak Harbor to PIB and stopped at Kelleys. I believe it was last year.

wetsu

I resided in Bay View for a time and during a stretch during the late 60's- to early 70's there was plenty of ice. If memory serves, 8+ inches of ice was not uncommon. Guys ran stripped modified vehicles on th ice at times without incident. It was common for my brother to leave his ice shanty out for weeks at a time.

brutus smith

Thanks goofus, I accept.

Kimo

It was last winter.........

I made my first trip 12/21/2008.
My last trip 2/06/2009.

Before that, it was 2005.

How far back do you want to go, I
have movies, pictures, from over
50 years of travel, and the good
years get farther and further between.

This year we had a week of three inch
ice in south passage, too little to
run with open water east..........

Again, the data is available, check the
Lake Erie ice cover data for the last
fifty years.

Raoul Duke

The lake wasn't anywhere near freezing when I was in Marblehead yesterday. Maybe the lake water is more clear now which allows the water to heat up deeper than it used to, so it takes longer for it to freeze, or in fact it doesn't freeze at all. Zebras.

Kimo

Correction:

Should read: 1/21/2009 not 12/21/2008.

2009 season (for me) was 1/21/2009 to 2/06/2009.

My point is: The ice cover on Lake Erie is on
the decline............

Kimo

re:Jimmy Ego wrote on Jan 22, 2010 10:07 AM:

Zebra's play a part, but the main reason is
degree days.

Water temp did hit 33 degrees for a while, it
looked good for a week or so, then the warm
temps hit..............

6079 Smith W

duhast wrote on Jan 20, 2010 9:06 AM:

‘It’s still a really really really bad thing to burn this many hydrocarbons and pump them into the atmosphere.’

Agreed, and the air and water in the U.S. is about 90% cleaner than it was in the 1970s.

No jobs, because most of those smelly industries have been off-shored – but the country’s environment IS cleaner.

Low-skilled retail and service jobs tend to pollute less, but they also tend to pay less.

D*mn those unintended consequences!

Global warming? Depends on the mathematical models – GIGO.

It’s like the CBO and Democrat health care – what assumptions do you want us to make in order to validate your intended outcome?

I’ve read a guy who studies solar cycles and he has said the 2012 will be the year that the Earth begins cooling. We'll see.

BTW: If the Earth were indeed heating up, why are we not witnessing increasing numbers of heat related deaths in cities, which tend to act like pressure cookers in summer?

IMO, this man-made climate change nonsense is a means to an end in ultimately controlling the means of production, because that’s what socialists want and desire – follow the money.

wetsu

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant.

Warming results in increased carbon dioxide, not the inverse.

6079 Smith W

On average, the Great Lakes never freeze.

It's obvious proof of man-made global warming!

Here's the socialists plan:

Simply torture the data until it proves one's intended outcome and then ridicule those who don't share a faith in your dogma.

A radical belief in one's own mathematical models reeks of the religion of scientism - not science.

Empirical science ALWAYS leaves room for doubt – dogma doesn’t.

How do you know when you’ve been presented with dogma? Because dogma hates being questioned.

wetsu

Empirical data disproves GW models.

Duhast

The global warming temperatures take averages from around the globe. Sandusky’s weather patterns don’t enter into it. You have to take multiple samples around the globe from many years. It may be colder in one area as an average and hotter in another on average. This is basic statistics people. Global warming does not mean that every city on the planet experiences an X degree increase per year.

Comparing Lake Erie ice when you were a kid to now sounds about as scientific as claiming Haley’s Comet doesn’t exist because you’ve never seen it.

6079 Smith W

@ duhast:

We have far more evidence for the existence of Halley’s Comet than we do of GW.

As you yourself are helping to demonstrate, there are far too many variables to arrive at the conclusion that GW is man-made.

What is logically valid is not necessarily ‘true.’

Use mathematical models to prove the existence of love.

Science is ALWAYS made up of assumptions.

To the best of our knowledge we think that we know that…

Be very care of falling prey to the fallacy of scientism.

brutus smith

Duhast, Professors Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh know best.

wetsu

Turn the page, troll. Back under the bridge and find some new material. The usual castle of sputum has no effect.

6079 Smith W

BTW: The socialists used what used to called Bolshevik or Soviet ‘word magic’ to change the name of the concept from ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ because they were being ridiculed by the public when it becomes ‘unseasonably’ cold.

Also, dogmatists tend to use the threat of force or actual punishment in order to help in the ‘conversion’ or ‘re-education’ of their detractors.

Kimo

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2...

It matters not what the subject, the same wingnuts
use any excuse to slander anyone that is not a wingnut.

It's the same wingnuts, all day, everyday, with
the same propaganda...........

SSDD

over and out

brutus smith

Winston, They didn't realize what simple minds there were in countries such as ours. That is why it was change to climate change. It could be zero out and the wingnut mind says where is that global warming now duh haha duh haha. Once things go beyond 2 words the right wingnuts become challenged.

Raoul Duke

How far back do records go of temperatures? 100 years? 150 years? Considering that the Earth has been in existence for, ah, millions of years, well...
Anyone who thinks(or wants)the end of the world to happen in their lifetime is obviously so self-absorbed that they can't image that life will go on without them after they die.

Duhast

OK, now we’ve moved back to the old realm of scientific theory vs. fact. Just like Evolution, we see something happening and the majority of qualified scientists agree that it is happening. There’s really no argument in the scientific community about average global temperatures rising. Well, those that are not paid by oil companies. Anyway, the discussion is not about the fact of it happening, it’s the why and how. I concede that the causes and effects are something to debate.

If you don’t believe me, then maybe National Geographic. Or are they too liberal for you guys?

http://news.nationalgeographic.c...

goofus

This just in, an expose similar to East Anglia climegate scandals. We know GRWU fudged the russians temperature reportings by only using those that they knew were going to be warmer, now our own government. You'll have to read it on the web, the MSM will never report that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies have doctored the temperatures as to prove global warming exists when it is being given credence by these agencies fudging the result. And by the way, Oslo was just a fake, only a dozen countries have abided so far. So the redistribution of wealth might be halted.

6079 Smith W

duhast wrote on Jan 22, 2010 12:48 PM:

‘There’s really no argument in the scientific community about average global temperatures rising.’

And on average, the Great Lakes never freeze.

Avg. is but one way to measure something and it is not always the most accurate.

Is there ‘really’ no argument, or is there ‘no argument’?

What exactly constitutes the ‘scientific community?’ It’s a nonsensical term that climate changers use to make themselves sound more authoritative.

‘Evolution’ is a ‘concept,’ it is NOT a ‘fact.’

Humans are not capable of knowing anything on an absolute metaphysical ‘without a doubt’ basis.

We express ourselves only in metaphors, not reality. We like to believe our own manufactured bs and call it ‘truth.’

The Israelites' golden calf so-to-speak.

You’re about to lose your use of the skeptic moniker if you continue with this line of dogmatist thought.

‘This’ I choose to believe, and this I do not?

You’re either a skeptic or not – there’s no in-between.

Again, why has the Earth had a minimum of five known previous Ice Ages? What caused them?

Got any scientific data to share on them?

brutus smith

goofus, does your neck and back ever hurt from bowing to the wealthy all the time?

goofus

I'd post it but its lengthy and very scientific.

goofus

I'm wealthy, people bow to me

Duhast

Winston,
First, evolution is considered a scientific fact. The paradigm to explain it’s model is the current theory which can itself evolve with new information. Same with gravitational theory. We know gravity exists, we just can’t fully explain the quantum mechanics behind it. (Why don’t right wingers deny gravity?)

You mention ice ages. We’ve never seen them, but we have found the evidenced to prove their existence. Therefore they are a scientific fact. Why were they in existence? That’s the scientific theory of ice ages. I saw a very interesting documentary recently about ice ages. A theory for one of the ice ages was lack of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Later. large volcanic activity spewed massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere causing them to melt and produce the oceans.

Let me explain this one more time. We can see global temperature averages going up. More so now than in past years. I am equally open to theories that it is natural and or man made. Regardless, we are dumping tons and tons of hydrocarbons and greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere. I don’t particularly care if it causes global warming or not. I just know it can not be a good thing. So, if countries want to reduce emissions because they think it contributes to GW or because a faerie told them in an absinth hallucination, so be it.

wetsu

duhast-

Cutting on absinthe!?

That's it, those are fighting words...

goofus

All you can see with rising temperatures is what they want you to see. The simple temperature taking is being fudged to keep the scientist employed. If you would like to see the story on how the CRU and NOAA and Nasa are doing it I will publish http://www.americanthinker.com/2...

Ned Mandingo

Global warming, 2009 was the coldest year i rember. The planet has been warming for the last 10,000 years. 10,000 years ago northern ohio was a few hundred feet under ice.

Duhast

Goofus, your theory is that there is a large global conspiracy by NASA and scientists to create global warming just to keep their jobs?? Wow! So, thousands of the worlds scientists would not have jobs without global warming? How can you expect to be taken seriously with those kinds of conspiracy theories? I’m sure all of the climatologists, geologists and, meteorologists don’t show up at a Starbucks in some back alley to discuss how they can further propagate this “lie”. I’m sure there’s a funny Far Side comic in that one! LOL Classic goofus…

Santownresident

The ice fisherman are ticked off and everyone else is happy. Wow ice fishermen, really?

goofus

January 22, 2010
Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg
By Marc Sheppard
Not surprisingly, the blatant corruption exposed at Britain’s premiere climate institute was not contained within the nation’s borders. Just months after the Climategate scandal broke, a new study has uncovered compelling evidence that our government’s principal climate centers have also been manipulating worldwide temperature data in order to fraudulently advance the global warming political agenda.

Not only does the preliminary report [PDF] indict a broader network of conspirators, but it also challenges the very mechanism by which global temperatures are measured, published, and historically ranked.

Last Thursday, Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo and computer expert E. Michael Smith appeared together on KUSI TV [Video] to discuss the Climategate -- American Style scandal they had discovered. This time out, the alleged perpetrators are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).

NOAA stands accused by the two researchers of strategically deleting cherry-picked, cooler-reporting weather observation stations from the temperature data it provides the world through its National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). D’Aleo explained to show host and Weather Channel founder John Coleman that while the Hadley Center in the U.K. has been the subject of recent scrutiny, “[w]e think NOAA is complicit, if not the real ground zero for the issue.”

And their primary accomplices are the scientists at GISS, who put the altered data through an even more biased regimen of alterations, including intentionally replacing the dropped NOAA readings with those of stations located in much warmer locales.

As you’ll soon see, the ultimate effects of these statistical transgressions on the reports which influence climate alarm and subsequently world energy policy are nothing short of staggering.

NOAA – Data In / Garbage Out

Although satellite temperature measurements have been available since 1978, most global temperature analyses still rely on data captured from land-based thermometers, scattered more or less about the planet. It is that data which NOAA receives and disseminates – although not before performing some sleight-of-hand on it.

Smith has done much of the heavy lifting involved in analyzing the NOAA/GISS data and software, and he chronicles his often frustrating experiences at his fascinating website. There, detail-seekers will find plenty to satisfy, divided into easily-navigated sections -- some designed specifically for us “geeks,” but most readily approachable to readers of all technical strata.

Perhaps the key point discovered by Smith was that by 1990, NOAA had deleted from its datasets all but 1,500 of the 6,000 thermometers in service around the globe.

Now, 75% represents quite a drop in sampling population, particularly considering that these stations provide the readings used to compile both the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) and United States Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) datasets. These are the same datasets, incidentally, which serve as primary sources of temperature data not only for climate researchers and universities worldwide, but also for the many international agencies using the data to create analytical temperature anomaly maps and charts.

Yet as disturbing as the number of dropped stations was, it is the nature of NOAA’s “selection bias” that Smith found infinitely more troubling.

It seems that stations placed in historically cooler, rural areas of higher latitude and elevation were scrapped from the data series in favor of more urban locales at lower latitudes and elevations. Consequently, post-1990 readings have been biased to the warm side not only by selective geographic location, but also by the anthropogenic heating influence of a phenomenon known as the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI).

For example, Canada’s reporting stations dropped from 496 in 1989 to 44 in 1991, with the percentage of stations at lower elevations tripling while the numbers of those at higher elevations dropped to one. That’s right: As Smith wrote in his blog, they left “one thermometer for everything north of LAT 65.” And that one resides in a place called Eureka, which has been described as “The Garden Spot of the Arctic” due to its unusually moderate summers.

Smith also discovered that in California, only four stations remain – one in San Francisco and three in Southern L.A. near the beach – and he rightly observed that

It is certainly impossible to compare it with the past record that had thermometers in the snowy mountains. So we can have no idea if California is warming or cooling by looking at the USHCN data set or the GHCN data set.

That’s because the baseline temperatures to which current readings are compared were a true averaging of both warmer and cooler locations. And comparing these historic true averages to contemporary false averages – which have had the lower end of their numbers intentionally stripped out – will always yield a warming trend, even when temperatures have actually dropped.

Overall, U.S. online stations have dropped from a peak of 1,850 in 1963 to a low of 136 as of 2007. In his blog, Smith wittily observed that “the Thermometer Langoliers have eaten 9/10 of the thermometers in the USA[,] including all the cold ones in California.” But he was deadly serious after comparing current to previous versions of USHCN data and discovering that this “selection bias” creates a +0.6°C warming in U.S. temperature history.

And no wonder -- imagine the accuracy of campaign tracking polls were Gallup to include only the replies of Democrats in their statistics. But it gets worse.

Prior to publication, NOAA effects a number of “adjustments” to the cherry-picked stations’ data, supposedly to eliminate flagrant outliers, adjust for time of day heat variance, and “homogenize” stations with their neighbors in order to compensate for discontinuities. This last one, they state, is accomplished by essentially adjusting each to jibe closely with the mean of its five closest “neighbors.” But given the plummeting number of stations, and the likely disregard for the latitude, elevation, or UHI of such neighbors, it’s no surprise that such “homogenizing” seems to always result in warmer readings.

The chart below is from Willis Eschenbach’s WUWT essay, “The smoking gun at Darwin Zero,” and it plots GHCN Raw versus homogeneity-adjusted temperature data at Darwin International Airport in Australia. The “adjustments” actually reversed the 20th-century trend from temperatures falling at 0.7°C per century to temperatures rising at 1.2°C per century. Eschenbach isolated a single station and found that it was adjusted to the positive by 6.0°C per century, and with no apparent reason, as all five stations at the airport more or less aligned for each period. His conclusion was that he had uncovered “indisputable evidence that the ‘homogenized’ data has been changed to fit someone’s preconceptions about whether the earth is warming.”

WUWT’s editor, Anthony Watts, has calculated the overall U.S. homogeneity bias to be 0.5°F to the positive, which alone accounts for almost one half of the 1.2°F warming over the last century. Add Smith’s selection bias to the mix and poof – actual warming completely disappears!

Yet believe it or not, the manipulation does not stop there.

GISS – Garbage In / Globaloney Out

The scientists at NASA’s GISS are widely considered to be the world’s leading researchers into atmospheric and climate changes. And their Surface Temperature (GISTemp) analysis system is undoubtedly the premiere source for global surface temperature anomaly reports.

In creating its widely disseminated maps and charts, the program merges station readings collected from the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) with GHCN and USHCN data from NOAA.

It then puts the merged data through a few “adjustments” of its own.

First, it further “homogenizes” stations, supposedly adjusting for UHI by (according to NASA) changing “the long term trend of any non-rural station to match the long term trend of their rural neighbors, while retaining the short term monthly and annual variations.” Of course, the reduced number of stations will have the same effect on GISS’s UHI correction as it did on NOAA’s discontinuity homogenization – the creation of artificial warming.

Furthermore, in his communications with me, Smith cited boatloads of problems and errors he found in the Fortran code written to accomplish this task, ranging from hot airport stations being mismarked as “rural” to the “correction” having the wrong sign (+/-) and therefore increasing when it meant to decrease or vice-versa.

And according to NASA, “If no such neighbors exist or the overlap of the rural combination and the non-rural record is less than 20 years, the station is completely dropped; if the rural records are shorter, part of the non-rural record is dropped.”

However, Smith points out that a dropped record may be “from a location that has existed for 100 years.” For instance, if an aging piece of equipment gets swapped out, thereby changing its identification number, the time horizon reinitializes to zero years. Even having a large enough temporal gap (e.g., during a world war) might cause the data to “just get tossed out.”

But the real chicanery begins in the next phase, wherein the planet is flattened and stretched onto an 8,000-box grid, into which the time series are converted to a series of anomalies (degree variances from the baseline). Now, you might wonder just how one manages to fill 8,000 boxes using 1,500 stations.

Here’s NASA’s solution:

For each grid box, the stations within that grid box and also any station within 1200km of the center of that box are combined using the reference station method.

Even on paper, the design flaws inherent in such a process should be glaringly obvious.

So it’s no surprise that Smith found many examples of problems surfacing in actual practice. He offered me Hawaii for starters. It seems that all of the Aloha State’s surviving stations reside in major airports. Nonetheless, this unrepresentative hot data is what’s used to “infill” the surrounding “empty” Grid Boxes up to 1200 km out to sea. So in effect, you have “jet airport tarmacs ‘standing in’ for temperature over water 1200 km closer to the North Pole.”

An isolated problem? Hardly, reports Smith.

From KUSI’s Global Warming: The Other Side:

“There’s a wonderful baseline for Bolivia -- a very high mountainous country -- right up until 1990 when the data ends. And if you look on the [GISS] November 2009 anomaly map, you’ll see a very red rosy hot Bolivia [boxed in blue]. But how do you get a hot Bolivia when you haven’t measured the temperature for 20 years?”

Of course, you already know the answer: GISS simply fills in the missing numbers – originally cool, as Bolivia contains proportionately more land above 10,000 feet than any other country in the world – with hot ones available in neighboring stations on a beach in Peru or somewhere in the Amazon jungle.

Remember that single station north of 65° latitude which they located in a warm section of northern Canada? Joe D’Aleo explained its purpose: “To estimate temperatures in the Northwest Territory [boxed in green above], they either have to rely on that location or look further south.”

Pretty slick, huh?

And those are but a few examples. In fact, throughout the entire grid, cooler station data are dropped and “filled in” by temperatures extrapolated from warmer stations in a manner obviously designed to overestimate warming...

...And convince you that it’s your fault.

Government and Intergovernmental Agencies -- Globaloney In / Green Gospel Out

Smith attributes up to 3°F (more in some places) of added “warming trend” between NOAA’s data adjustment and GIStemp processing.

That’s over twice last century’s reported warming.

And yet, not only are NOAA’s bogus data accepted as green gospel, but so are its equally bogus hysterical claims, like this one from the 2006 annual State of the Climate in 2005 [PDF]: “Globally averaged mean annual air temperature in 2005 slightly exceeded the previous record heat of 1998, making 2005 the warmest year on record.”

And as D’Aleo points out in the preliminary report, the recent NOAA proclamation that June 2009 was the second-warmest June in 130 years will go down in the history books, despite multiple satellite assessments ranking it as the 15th-coldest in 31 years.

Even when our own National Weather Service (NWS) makes its frequent announcements that a certain month or year was the hottest ever, or that five of the warmest years on record occurred last decade, they’re basing such hyperbole entirely on NOAA’s warm-biased data.

And how can anyone possibly read GISS chief James Hansen’s Sunday claim that 2009 was tied with 2007 for second-warmest year overall, and the Southern Hemisphere’s absolute warmest in 130 years of global instrumental temperature records, without laughing hysterically? It's especially laughable when one considers that NOAA had just released a statement claiming that very same year (2009) to be tied with 2006 for the fifth-warmest year on record.

So how do alarmists reconcile one government center reporting 2009 as tied for second while another had it tied for fifth? If you’re WaPo’s Andrew Freedman, you simply chalk it up to “different data analysis methods” before adjudicating both NASA and NOAA innocent of any impropriety based solely on their pointless assertions that they didn’t do it.

Earth to Andrew: “Different data analysis methods”? Try replacing “analysis” with “manipulation,” and ye shall find enlightenment. More importantly, does the explicit fact that since the drastically divergent results of both “methods” can’t be right, both are immediately suspect somehow elude you?

But by far the most significant impact of this data fraud is that it ultimately bubbles up to the pages of the climate alarmists’ bible: The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report.

And wrong data begets wrong reports, which – particularly in this case – begets dreadfully wrong policy.

It’s High Time We Investigated the Investigators

The final report will be made public shortly, and it will be available at the websites of both report-supporter Science and Public Policy Institute and Joe D’Aleo’s own ICECAP. As they’ve both been tremendously helpful over the past few days, I’ll trust in the opinions I’ve received from the report’s architects to sum up.

This from the meteorologist:

The biggest gaps and greatest uncertainties are in high latitude areas where the data centers say they 'find' the greatest warming (and thus which contribute the most to their global anomalies). Add to that no adjustment for urban growth and land use changes (even as the world's population increased from 1.5 to 6.7 billion people) [in the NOAA data] and questionable methodology for computing the historical record that very often cools off the early record and you have surface based data sets so seriously flawed, they can no longer be trusted for climate trend or model forecast assessment or decision making by the administration, congress or the EPA.

Roger Pielke Sr. has suggested: “...that we move forward with an inclusive assessment of the surface temperature record of CRU, GISS and NCDC. We need to focus on the science issues. This necessarily should involve all research investigators who are working on this topic, with formal assessments chaired and paneled by mutually agreed to climate scientists who do not have a vested interest in the outcome of the evaluations.” I endorse that suggestion.
Certainly, all rational thinkers agree. Perhaps even the mainstream media, most of whom have hitherto mistakenly dismissed Climategate as a uniquely British problem, will now wake up and demand such an investigation.

And this from the computer expert:
That the bias exists is not denied. That the data are too sparse and with too many holes over time in not denied. Temperature series programs, like NASA GISS GIStemp try, but fail, to fix the holes and the bias. What is claimed is that "the anomaly will fix it." But it cannot. Comparison of a cold baseline set to a hot present set must create a biased anomaly. It is simply overwhelmed by the task of taking out that much bias. And yet there is more. A whole zoo of adjustments are made to the data. These might be valid in some cases, but the end result is to put in a warming trend of up to several degrees. We are supposed to panic over a 1/10 degree change of "anomaly" but accept 3 degrees of "adjustment" with no worries at all. To accept that GISTemp is "a perfect filter". That is, simply, "nuts". It was a good enough answer at Bastogne, and applies here too.
Smith, who had a family member attached to the 101st Airborne at the time, refers to the famous line from the 101st commander, U.S. Army General Anthony Clement McAuliffe, who replied to a German ultimatum to surrender the December, 1944 Battle of Bastogne, Belgium with a single word: “Nuts.”

And that’s exactly what we’d be were we to surrender our freedoms, our economic growth, and even our simplest comforts to duplicitous zealots before checking and double-checking the work of the prophets predicting our doom should we refuse.

Marc Sheppard is environment editor of American Thinker and editor of the forthcoming Environment Thinker.

83 Comments on "Climategate: CRU Was But the Tip of the Iceberg" Recent Articles
•Terror at the Mall?
•Tiger, the Buddha, and Me
•The Currency of Social Justice
•Climategate: Just Sign on the Dotted Line
•A Two-Faced Peace Puzzle
•When Tolerance Trumps Principle
•Major Hasan and the Ideological Blinders
•Tea Party Crashers
•Obama's Suckers
•Say It Loud -- I'm Conservative, and I'm Proud!
Blog Posts
•Graph of the Day for January 24, 2010
•Barney Frank's flip flop on Fannie and Freddie oversight
•IPCC scientist admits Glaciergate was about influencing governments
•On health care, is doing 'something' better than doing nothing?
•Obama's bank bashing killing wealth creation
•Why has Sarah Palin agreed to campaign for McCain?
•California Dems seek single payer health insurance
•DoJ hires bloggers as propagandists and sock puppets
•What to Do With An Obama Bumper Sticker?
•The secret to Ford Motor's success
Monthly Archives
•January 2010
•December 2009
•November 2009
•October 2009
•More...

About Us | Contact | Privacy Policy © American Thinker 2010

goofus

Expert Warns of 'Climategate' Conspiracy
Friday, 22 Jan 2010 09:24 AM Article Font Size
By: Jim Meyers

Renowned meteorologist Dr. William Gray tells Newsmax that a possible new conspiracy regarding global warming has been uncovered in the U.S.

He also said environmentalists, socialists, governments and businessmen are trying to take advantage of climate change concerns for their own benefit, and declared that cap-and-trade legislation would do “very little” to improve the climate.

To see the video of Newsmax's conversation with Dr. Gray — Click Here.

Dr. Gray is a pioneer in the science of forecasting hurricanes and a critic of the theory of human-induced global warming. He is a professor emeritus of atmospheric science at Colorado State University and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at the university’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences.

Gray told Newsmax.TV’s Kathleen Walter about a new report out of San Diego calling into question the accuracy of “the data that they’re basing global warming on — that this is the second or third warmest month or year of the last 100 years and that sort of thing. [Investigators have] been digging more and more into the data bases and they’ve been finding that there are inconsistencies there.”

Manmade global warming proponents in the government “are handling the data in ways to obtain data that shows the globe is warming more than it really is.

“They drop certain data out of their averaging, and the data they’ve dropped out tends to make the globe cooler. You’ll probably be reading a lot about this in the next few weeks or so.”

Gray called the new findings “Climategate U.S.A.”

Climategate refers the scandal that began when hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit at the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and other documents. The e-mails suggested that data that didn’t support the global warming theory was being altered or ignored.

With many people suffering through a very harsh winter, reports have surfaced that a mini-ice age is on the way, Walter noted. She asked Gray: “What should we believe?”

He responded: “I think we should believe that the climate is not changing much. There’s not an ice age coming for perhaps many thousands of years.”
The climate moves in decades-long cycles “that I think are driven a lot by global ocean deep circulation currents, and we’ve been in kind of a warming trend from the middle 1970s to the turn of the century,” he continued.

“From about 1999 on there hasn’t been much of a warming trend. Some reports have shown that the earth is beginning to cool. But in my view this is natural . . .

“In the last two or three years we have been seeing around the globe slightly colder winters and I think that’s an indication that human-induced global warming that’s so talked about is really not progressing.”

Gray, who has previously called claims of manmade global warming “the greatest scientific hoax of all time,” added: “Humans are probably doing something [to affect climate] and the CO2 may be warming [the globe] a bit but it’s not doing near what the alarmists have been telling us — that the Greenland ice cap is going to melt, the sea ice near the North Pole will not be there in another 20, 30 years. All these wild claims, there’s no basis for. The ice cap is not going to melt in the next 20, 30 years.”

Walter asked why global warming alarmist Al Gore and his allies refuse to consider any contrary evidence and insist that human-induced global warming is a fact.

“They want to use this to push other hidden agendas they have,” Gray said.

“The environmentalists want to push environmental things and people will become more sensitive to the environment if they think the globe is really warming. There are socialists who want to push a leveling of living standards around the globe. There are governments that want to control peoples’ lives more. There are businessmen who want to get into the new renewable energy. They want to make money on this.

“There’s a whole set of people out there who don’t know much about how the atmosphere ticks but see how they can profit from this global warming hypothesis, and they want to convince the world that this is true.”

He also noted that “those who are advancing global warming get better grants and get well funded by our federal government compared to us who are skeptical.”

Gray declared that there is absolutely no connection between global warming and more frequent and powerful hurricanes, as some alarmists claim.
He also said cap-and-trade legislation restricting C02 emissions, which is supported by President Obama and many Democrats, would do “very little of significance to improve our climate, and we will pay an enormous economic price for it.”

Cap-and-trade will drive up the price of energy, he added, and “the standard of living in the Western world will go down. No one is going to agree to that in the belief that the climate will get slightly better.”

goofus

Hurricane Chief: Probe Climategate
Sunday, 03 Jan 2010 05:11 PM Article Font Size

A former director of the National Hurricane Center called Sunday for an investigation into the “scientific debauchery revealed by ‘Climategate,’” citing the way global warming skeptics have been marginalized by the mainstream media.

The emails not only are troubling because of what they reveal about how some scientists played with data, according to Neil Frank, who directed the National Hurricane Center for over a decade, but for the flawed assumptions they make about the role of CO2’s effects on warming. Frank called for the investigation Sunday in an article in the Houston Chronicle.

Climategate is the scandal that began when hackers penetrated the computers of the Climate Research Unit, or CRU, of the United Kingdom's University of East Anglia, exposing thousands of e-mails and other documents. One of the top climate research centers in the world, CRU has been the source for much of the evidence supporting climate change theory.

But any of the exchanges were between top mainstream climate scientists in Britain and the U.S. in the emails suggested that data that didn’t support the global warming theory was being altered or ignored.

“Among the more troubling revelations were data adjustments enhancing the perception that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other atmospheric greenhouse gases,” wrote Frank, who was director of the National Hurricane Center from 1974 to 1987.

“Particularly disturbing was the way the core IPCC scientists (the believers) marginalized the skeptics of the theory that man-made global warming is large and potentially catastrophic,” Frank wrote. “The e-mails document that the attack on the skeptics was twofold. First, the believers gained control of the main climate-profession journals. This allowed them to block publication of papers written by the skeptics and prohibit unfriendly peer review of their own papers. Second, the skeptics were demonized through false labeling and false accusations.”

The science isn’t settled, Frank wrote, despite what “climate alarmists” would lead you to believe. They also attack skeptics by painting them as tools of Big Oil or questioning their qualifications. But they are “numerous and well qualified,” Frank wrote.

“Several years ago two scientists at the University of Oregon became so concerned about the overemphasis on man-made global warming that they put a statement on their Web site and asked for people's endorsement; 32,000 have signed the petition, including more than 9,000 Ph.Ds. More than 700 scientists have endorsed a 231-page Senate minority report that questions man-made global warming. The Heartland Institute has recently sponsored three international meetings for skeptics. More than 800 scientists heard 80 presentations in March,” Frank wrote.

“They endorsed an 881-page document, created by 40 authors with outstanding academic credentials, that challenges the most recent publication by the IPCC. The IPCC panel's report strongly concludes that man is causing global warming through the release of carbon dioxide.”

“Last year 60 German scientists sent a letter to Chancellor Angela Merkel urging her to ‘strongly reconsider’ her position supporting man-made global warming. Sixty scientists in Canada took similar action. Recently, when the American Physical Society published its support for man-made global warming, 200 of its members objected and demanded that the membership be polled to determine the APS' true position.”

The skeptics do agree that the Earth has been warming since the end of a Little Ice Age around 1850. But they question the cause, Frank wrote. Believers think the warming is created by man, but skeptics believe the warming is natural and contributions from man are minimal and certainly not potentially catastrophic.

And skeptics argue that CO2 is not a pollutant but vital for plant life. They cite numerous field experiments that have confirmed that higher levels of CO2 are positive for agricultural productivity. Carbon dioxide is a very minor greenhouse gas, they believe. More than 90 percent of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by water vapor. If you are going to change the temperature of the globe, it must involve water vapor.

Finally, skeptics believe that climate models are grossly over predicting future warming from rising concentrations of carbon dioxide, Frank wrote. “We are being told that numerical models that cannot make accurate 5- to 10-day forecasts can be simplified and run forward for 100 years with results so reliable you can impose an economic disaster on the U.S. and the world,” he added.

“Climategate reveals how predetermined political agendas shaped science rather than the other way around. It is high time to question the true agenda of the scientists now on the hot seat and to bring skeptics back into the public debate,” he concluded.

Duhast

I'm not reading that stuff. Stop clogging up the blog.

goofus

Foolish people never do, they bow down to all leftists ideals. May I suggest another blog, surely Huffington Post or Daily Kos needs your pearls of wisdom. P.S. you started it.

brutus smith

Use your own words for a change. Cut and paste when it is actual fact. And you are the only one bowing down all the time to your Corporate masters.

goofus

I tried using my own words and Duhast calls me names, I warned him it was a lenghty post. Where is your post to refute mine. Global warming is a hoax

eriemom

I think Mr. Boose was showing that weather and climate are different. Global Warming is actually a faulty description. Anthropologic Climate Change is better.

Goofus or goof or Goofy ??? If you can't explain the science, but only attack those who try to expain it, please keep you cut and pastes to yourself. Anyone can copy deniers blog posts. Most of us can even read them.

Yes, photosynthesis does require carbon dioxide, but it is toxic to us at high ppm. Yes, animals fart. Yes, high carbon dioxide (and other GHG)does cause global temperatures to rise. See Venus statistics--you know the planet next door.

You attack the scientific community only because you don't want to believe what they are telling us. Science is messy and the participants don't always agree about what the data should conclude. I am concerned because you rarely see this kind of consensus from the community and they are scared.

If your political ideology will not allow you to take the time to try to understand what is occurring then talk to some gardeners or anyone who has paid attention to the natural world for more than 50 years. They will tell you "something" is changing--"messed up" growing seasons, draughts more often, rain down pours, changing lake levels, insect infestations, etc...

I lied about never posting to this again.

pigeon farmer

Republicans can't understand fact. They need Fox and Limpbaugh to tell them how to think. We report you repeat.

goofus

How can you explain a so called science that is based on fudged facts. If you would have taken the time to read my posts you will understand how the whole global warming scam is based on false facts. Look for a big boom coming in a couple of weeks. Pigeon farmer,what fact are you referring to?

goofus

Climate change is a generic term that the progressive's have coined because global warming is obsolete for people freezing. The sun cycle has more to do with our climate than aerosol spraycans. Now they are trying to say lawns cause global warming.