posted May 16, 2014 04:13 PM            

Scientists skeptical that mankind is causing the Earth’s climate to change say that such claims are based on false theories and flawed models. The White House report is a “masterpiece of marketing” that is trying to scare people into action, scientists said.

“As independent scientists, we know that apparent evidence of ‘Climate Change,’ however scary, is not proof of anything,” wrote the 15 scientists and meteorologists,including Dr. Don Easterbrook of Western Washington University and Dr. George Wolff, who formerly chaired the Environmental Protection Agency’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee.

“Science derives its objectivity from robust logic and honest evidence repeatedly tested by all knowledgeable scientists, not just those paid to support the administration’s version of ‘Global Warming,’ ‘Climate Change,’ ‘Climate Disruption,’ or whatever their marketing specialists call it today,” they continued.

The White House’s “National Climate Assessment” (NCA), released last week, claimed that the U.S. was already being affected by global warming though warmer temperatures and increasing extreme weather events.

But the 15 skeptical scientists said the White House is trying to lay the blame for global warming at the feet of the fossil fuels industry when there is little evidence to back up that claim. The Earth’s climate is very cyclical and has gone through many changes in the past, the scientists said, without humans emitting carbon dioxide.

“This NCA is so grossly flawed it should play no role in U.S. Energy Policy Analyses and CO2 regulatory processes,” the skeptics wrote. “As this rebuttal makes clear, the NCA provides no scientific basis whatsoever for regulating CO2 emissions.”

“We are asked to believe that humans are drastically changing the earth’s climate by burning fossil fuels,” they added. “The problem with their theory is very simple: It is NOT true.”

The NCA says the U.S. average temperature has risen between 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit to 1.9 degrees Fahrenheit since 1895, which is causing more extreme weather, like hurricanes and droughts, and harming fragile ecosystems around the country.

The NCA also warns that the U.S. average temperature could rise 4 degrees Fahrenheit in the coming decades if nothing is done to limit carbon dioxide emissions. The report suggests a slew of regulatory solutions from cap-and-trade to green energy subsidies to mitigate global warming.

“’Global Warming’ has not been global and has not set regional records where warming has occurred,” the skeptical scientists rebutted. “For example, over the last fifty years, while the Arctic has warmed, the tropical oceans had a flat trend and the Antarctic cooled slightly.”

posted May 16, 2014 05:12 PM            

So the assumption that more carbon d=more vegetation is foiled by.our removal of said vegetation...etc

posted May 20, 2014 10:33 AM            

If I could, I'd send them all back to the mid 19th century and they could live in their little sod homes on the prairie. Lots of clean air and exercise in their daily lives there.

I expect we'll be hearing about wind and solar power to replace coal, natural gas, gasoline and diesel....or perhaps Tesla will be trotted out once again.

posted May 23, 2014 08:00 AM            

While the United Nations and the Obama administration assert that climate change is settled science and requires dramatic regulatory oversight, 31,072 U.S. scientists have signed the Petition Project, saying the issue remains decidedly unsettled.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the foreseeable future cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition says.

"The purpose of the Petition Project is to demonstrate that the claim of 'settled science' and an overwhelming 'consensus' in favor of the hypothesis of human-caused global warming and consequent climatological damage is wrong," the petition asserts. "No such consensus or settled science exists."

Over 9,000 of the petition's signatories have a Ph.D. in a scientific field.

For all the talk of "settled science," all that has been settled is the stunning inaccuracies of alarmists — from failed computer models and a discredited "hockey stick" graphic that pointed to exponential warming, to dire predictions of melting Himalayan glaciers, receding rain forests, increases in hurricane activity, and the end of snow.

Other climate-change claims include assertions that the United States has suffered the warmest temperatures ever recorded in recent years and that the melting polar icecaps will cause drastic sea rises, leading to widespread flooding and death.

But those are all myths, according to the World Climate Report, whose editor is climatologist Patrick Michaels, a prominent skeptic of anthropogenic global warming — the notion that mankind's greenhouse gas emissions are driving catastrophic climate change.

Historical temperature records for the United States are spotty at best, and "after removing biases caused by urbanization, thermometer relocations, instrument changes, and so on, it is clear that there is no trend in mean annual temperatures in the last 65 years" in the United States, the World Climate Report found. In fact, "aside from a sharp rise from 1915 to 1930, when trace-gas concentrations were low, the trend is essentially zero."

The report also found that Northern Hemisphere temperature changes have been greatly exaggerated, and "based on the best available temperature records," the region has actually warmed only "about 0.65 degrees Celsius [about 1.1 degree F.] since 1860."

The report noted, "We weren't producing much [carbon dioxide] prior to 1945, so the greenhouse effect should have been most prevalent in the last 40 years. But most of the temperature increase occurred prior to 1945."

Todd Myers, director of the Center for the Environment at the Washington Policy Center, said: "It's true, temperatures have risen, but not in the last 15 years."

"We've seen glaciers receding since 1862 — long before human activities that caused carbon dioxide."

As for melting icecaps causing worldwide flood-related disasters, the World Climate Report found that in Antarctica, "there is absolutely no evidence of increasing temperatures since the mid-1960s."

What about the dire predictions of the looming deaths of polar bears, owing to melting ice and dwindling livable space? Gross exaggerations and emotionally charged fallacies, other scientists and researchers say.

"We tend to hear nothing but alarming messages about the current status and future welfare of polar bears from animal advocates of all kinds, including lobby groups and activist scientists," Susan Crockford, a zoologist and evolutionary biologist with 35-plus years of experience who works at the University of Victoria, Canada, said in a previously published statement.

"Many of these tales of imminent doom, however, have important facts left out, glossed over or misrepresented — and much of the uncertainty in the underlying research has been downplayed," she said.

One more fallacy that the climate-change movement doesn't like to remember is the infamous "hockey stick" predictor, said Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "That's the curve that showed an exponential increase with the hike attributed largely to human activities that emit greenhouse gases."

"They are otherwise burdened by the only 'climate-change denial' on record: rewriting history — the hockey stick — to pretend [temperatures] didn't change until the horrors of industrial society were unleashed."

Horner said the science touted by climate-change proponents often falls by the wayside, a victim of factual evidence.

"The most notable changes were the cessation of a brief warming trend they vowed would continue linearly and without interruption, that the noisy hurricane season of 2005 was the future here and now – only to see things go remarkably quiet," Horner said.

Nevertheless, President Barack Obama is determined to make climate change regulation one of his legacies, declaring in his State of the Union address that "climate change is fact" and embracing the notion that the issue is "settled science."

White House spokesman Jay Carney recently said that "97 percent of scientists who study this issue agree that climate change is real and it is the result of human activity."

But even the White House's assertion that there is a consensus among scientists about the influence of human behavior on the environment is a matter of debate, as the Petition Project demonstrates.

Adherents of the "science-is-settled" argument often cite a study that tabulated the number of times global warming appeared in abstracts of articles and concluded that 97 percent of climate scientists accept the theory that human activity causes global warming.

The 97 percent figure is highly misleading considering that only 32.6 percent of the scientists endorsed anthropogenic global warming, while two-thirds expressed no position.

In 2013, Popular Technology contacted some of the scientists cited as belonging to the 97 percent. Craig D. Idso, chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, was one of the scientists whose paper was cited as supporting the argument that humans cause global warming.

Asked by the magazine whether his work was properly represented, he said it was "not an accurate representation of my paper" and that it "would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."

The impartiality of the scientific community backing climate change was also brought into question after emails exchanged between scientists were made public in 2009, showing how key researchers skewed evidence and blackballed dissenters.

"Once you grasp who and what they are, their desperation and seemingly irrational moves make much more sense," Horner, an author of several books about the pitfalls of environmental politics, told Newsmax.

However, daring to raise questions — a pursuit normally associated with the scientific method — is a sure-fire path toward receiving attacks as skeptics in the research community are subjected to harsh criticisms from colleagues, often isolated and derided for their findings.

Swedish meteorologist Professor Lennart Bengtsson recently accused the climate change world of "McCarthyist"-type pressure for scientists having to tow the alarmism line or face professional shunning, the Daily Mail reported.

Bengtsson, a research fellow at the University of Reading in England, joined with four of his scholarly colleagues to pen a study that suggested the planet might be less vulnerable to greenhouse gases than previously believed — a notion that flies directly in the face of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's claim that the Earth's temperatures are due to rise by 4.5 degrees Celsius if greenhouse gas levels double.

Bengtsson's paper simply suggested that the IPCC might want to conduct further research to "reduce the underlying uncertainty" of its findings.

"The problem we now have in the climate community is that some scientists are mixing up their scientific role with that of a climate activist," said Bengtsson, who spoke of unbearable pressure coming from other researchers after he submitted his paper. "It is an indication of how science is gradually being influenced by political views. The reality hasn't been keeping up with the models."

Climate change alarmism is big business for some – including Al Gore, who was on a path a few years ago to become what The Telegraph described as the world's first "carbon billionaire" for pushing government environmental controls that would direct a vast fortune to his personal business ventures.

But to at least one environmental analyst, the rhetoric surrounding the green debate is too harsh and vicious to be all about money.

"My basic argument is that climate change is an identity, and changing their mind about science means changing their identity," Myers told Newsmax, referring to how many in the environmental movement refuse to acknowledge when climate change alarmism falters in the face of facts.

"That's too much for people to do — to say 'I've been living a lie.' It's become all about who they are as a person, as their identity. And that's why the attacks have become so personal."

posted June 23, 2014 11:19 AM            

The scandal of fiddled global warming data
The US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record
Christopher Booker
21 Jun 2014

When future generations try to understand how the world got carried away around the end of the 20th century by the panic over global warming, few things will amaze them more than the part played in stoking up the scare by the fiddling of official temperature data. There was already much evidence of this seven years ago, when I was writing my history of the scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster. But now another damning example has been uncovered by Steven Goddard’s US blog Real Science, showing how shamelessly manipulated has been one of the world’s most influential climate records, the graph of US surface temperature records published by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been “adjusting” its record by replacing real temperatures with data “fabricated” by computer models. The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data. In several posts headed “Data tampering at USHCN/GISS”, Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time. These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on “fabricated” data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century.

posted June 27, 2014 11:00 AM            

Obama was speaking to a crowd of around 30,000 at a commencement ceremony at the University of California, Irvine. Justifying the extravagance of his metaphor he said: "I want to tell you this to light a fire under you."

Here are some lines from his speech which explain why those present would be better off ignoring their pyromaniacal president's entreaties.

"I'm not a scientist." Possibly the only factually accurate words in the president's entire speech.

"But we've got some good ones at NASA." "Did have some good ones at NASA" would have been more accurate. Problem is, the organisation that put man on the moon is now in the grip of climate alarmists like Gavin Schmidt, successor to activist James "Death Trains" Hansen. In 2012, 49 former NASA astronauts and scientists wrote to protest against the anti-scientific, alarmist position being adopted by Hansen and Schmidt at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). They wrote: "We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data."

"I do know the overwhelming majority of scientists who work on climate change, including some who once disputed the data, have put the debate to rest." No, you don't know, Mr President. You're just repeating the multiply discredited "97 per cent" consensus meme. And even that figure were accurate - which it isn't - scientific knowledge is not a numbers game. If it were, we would still be going with the majority view that tectonic plates are a myth, that stomach ulcers are caused by stress, that combustion is caused by phlogiston, that leeches can relieve fever, that malaria comes from the bad air in swamps, etc.

“In some parts of the country, weather-related disasters like droughts, fires, storms and floods are going to get harsher, and they’re going to get costlier.” Technically accurate, utterly meaningless. Given the chaotic nature of weather, records are always being broken somewhere in the future. Increased costliness is a given as populations grow and more expensive houses and offices are built to accommodate their needs.

"Today's Congress is full of folks who stubbornly and automatically reject the scientific evidence." Indeed. They're called Democrats and most of them refuse to accept the overwhelming evidence that there has been no global warming since 1997, that the computer models which predicted catastrophic warming have been proved wrong by real world data. If it weren't such an ugly term you might almost call them "deniers."

"They will tell you climate change is a hoax or fad." There is a name for people who say such things. Truth-tellers.

"One member of Congress actually says the world might be cooling." Only one? Only one person in the whole of Congress knows that the Earth has entered a prolonged cooling period, the result of weak solar activity?

“It’s pretty rare that you’ll encounter somebody who says the problem you’re trying to solve simply doesn’t exist. When President Kennedy set us on a course to the moon, there were a number of people who made a serious case that it wouldn’t be worth it. But nobody ignored the science. I don’t remember anybody saying the moon wasn’t there or that it was made of cheese.”

posted July 01, 2014 08:28 AM            

NASA was one of the most respected institutions in the world after putting Americans on the Moon and later flying all those space shuttle missions.

But, then Jim Hansen at NASA began falsifying weather temperature data to pedal his man made global warming BS and it's been going on ever since.

Another federal agency is now involved in putting out reports with falsified data in attempts to sway the American public..as well as federal bureaucrats to their religion of man made global warming. Of course, they have to be given vast sums of money and unlimited power to solve this non-existent problem.

I'm talking about NOAA... National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration!

NOAA Reinstates July 1936 As The Hottest Month On Record
06/30/2014
Michael Bastasch

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, criticized for manipulating temperature records to create a warming trend, has now been caught warming the past and cooling the present.

July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the U.S. during a summer that was declared “too hot to handle” by NASA scientists. That summer more than half the country was experiencing drought and wildfires had scorched more than 1.3 million acres of land, according to NASA.

According to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in 2012, the “average temperature for the contiguous U.S. during July was 77.6°F, 3.3°F above the 20th century average, marking the warmest July and all-time warmest month on record for the nation in a period of record that dates back to 1895.”

“The previous warmest July for the nation was July 1936, when the average U.S. temperature was 77.4°F,” NOAA said in 2012.

This statement by NOAA was still available on their website when checked by The Daily Caller News Foundation. But when meteorologist and climate blogger Anthony Watts went to check the NOAA data on Sunday he found that the science agency had quietly reinstated July 1936 as the hottest month on record in the U.S.

“Two years ago during the scorching summer of 2012, July 1936 lost its place on the leaderboard and July 2012 became the hottest month on record in the United States,” Watts wrote. “Now, as if by magic, and according to NOAA’s own data, July 1936 is now the hottest month on record again. The past, present, and future all seems to be ‘adjustable’ in NOAA’s world.”

Watts had data from NOAA’s “Climate at a Glance” plots from 2012, which shows that July 2012 was the hottest month on record at 77.6 degrees Fahrenheit. July 1936 is only at 77.4 degrees Fahrenheit.

Watts ran the same data plot again on Sunday and found that NOAA inserted a new number in for July 1936. The average temperature for July 1936 was made slightly higher than July 2012, meaning, once again, July 1936 is the hottest year on record.

“You can’t get any clearer proof of NOAA adjusting past temperatures,” Watts wrote. “This isn’t just some issue with gridding, or anomalies, or method, it is about NOAA not being able to present historical climate information of the United States accurately.”

“In one report they give one number, and in another they give a different one with no explanation to the public as to why,” Watts continued. “This is not acceptable. It is not being honest with the public. It is not scientific. It violates the Data Quality Act.”

Watts’ accusation of NOAA climate data manipulation comes after reports that the agency had been lowering past temperatures to create a warming trend in the U.S. that does not exist in the raw data.

The ex-post facto data manipulation has been cataloged by climate blogger Steven Goddard and was reported by the UK Telegraph earlier this month.

“Goddard shows how, in recent years, NOAA’s US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN) has been ‘adjusting’ its record by replacing real temperatures with data ‘fabricated’ by computer models,” writes Christopher Booker for the Telegraph.

“The effect of this has been to downgrade earlier temperatures and to exaggerate those from recent decades, to give the impression that the Earth has been warming up much more than is justified by the actual data,” Booker writes. “In several posts headed ‘Data tampering at USHCN/GISS,’ Goddard compares the currently published temperature graphs with those based only on temperatures measured at the time.”

“These show that the US has actually been cooling since the Thirties, the hottest decade on record; whereas the latest graph, nearly half of it based on ‘fabricated’ data, shows it to have been warming at a rate equivalent to more than 3 degrees centigrade per century,” Booker adds.

When asked about climate data adjustments by the DCNF back in April, NOAA send there have been “several scientific developments since 1989 and 1999 that have improved the understanding of the U.S. surface temperature record.”

“Many station observations that were confined to paper, especially from early in the 20th century, have been scanned and keyed and are now digitally available to inform these time series,” Deke Arndt, chief of NOAA’s Climate Monitoring Branch, told TheDCNF.

“In addition to the much larger number of stations available, the U.S. temperature time series is now informed by an improved suite of quality assurance algorithms than it was in the late 20th Century,” Deke said in an emailed statement.

But NOAA has apparently not just been adjusting temperatures downward, but also adjusting them upwards.

“This constant change from year to year of what is or is not the hottest month on record for the USA is not only unprofessional and embarrassing for NOAA, it’s bullshiiit of the highest order,” Watts wrote. “It can easily be solved by NOAA stopping the unsupportable practice of adjusting temperatures of the past so that the present looks different in context with the adjusted past and stop making data for weather stations that have long since closed.”

NOAA did not immediately respond to TheDCNF’s request for comment.
http://dailycaller.com/2014/06/30/noaa-quietly-reinstates-july-1936-as-the- hottest-month-on-record/