Quote from futurecurrents:
How nice. More fabricated data formatted into misleading charts
Global Warming Is Dead - RIP AGW
- Thread starter pspr
- Start date
How nice. More fabricated data formatted into misleading charts
Those AGW models are sure working out swell! 
AGW Is The Last Century's News - It's Done And Global Cooling Is Here
<img src=http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png width=400 height=300>
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/
AGW Is The Last Century's News - It's Done And Global Cooling Is Here
<img src=http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png width=400 height=300>
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/
The past 17 years of flat global temperatures are creating a big chill for lots of global warming doom-premised industries. Those experiencing cold sweats must certainly include legions of climate scientists who have come to depend upon the many tens of billions of taxpayer bucks for studies that would have little demand without a big crisis for the public to worry about. And that amount pales in comparison with the hundreds of $ billions we spend on generous subsidies, lost tax revenues and inflated consumer costs for otherwise non-competitive âgreen energyâ industries which depend upon those scary climate reports, or the insane economic penalties imposed upon all segments through EPAâs climate-premised regulatory rampage.
Cooler temperatures blow ill-winds for government bureaucrats, crony-capitalist rent- seekers, and other hucksters whose ambitions depend upon hot air. Even Western Europe, the cradle of carbon-caused climate craziness and cap-and-trade corruption, is feeling a cold draft. As Alister Doyle, reporting from Reuters in Oslo, recently observed: âWeak economic growth and the pause in warming is undermining governmentsâ willingness to make a rapid billion-dollar shift from fossil fuels. Almost 200 governments have agreed to work out a plan by the end of 2015 to combat global warming.â
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...ize-climate-science-and-green-energy-funding/
Cooler temperatures blow ill-winds for government bureaucrats, crony-capitalist rent- seekers, and other hucksters whose ambitions depend upon hot air. Even Western Europe, the cradle of carbon-caused climate craziness and cap-and-trade corruption, is feeling a cold draft. As Alister Doyle, reporting from Reuters in Oslo, recently observed: âWeak economic growth and the pause in warming is undermining governmentsâ willingness to make a rapid billion-dollar shift from fossil fuels. Almost 200 governments have agreed to work out a plan by the end of 2015 to combat global warming.â
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...ize-climate-science-and-green-energy-funding/
see those projections... those are models premised on the fact CO2 forces temps... not even man made co2.
There is no science showing co2 forces temps on earth. you leftist drones are destroying the good name of science.
CO2 forcing temps on earth is speculation.
When science does get around to pinning this down. Man made co2 will be shown to have an insignificant effect on warming.
There is no science showing co2 forces temps on earth. you leftist drones are destroying the good name of science.
CO2 forcing temps on earth is speculation.
When science does get around to pinning this down. Man made co2 will be shown to have an insignificant effect on warming.
Quote from pspr:
Those AGW models are sure working out swell!
AGW Is The Last Century's News - It's Done And Global Cooling Is Here
<img src=http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-global-LT-vs-UAH-and-RSS.png width=400 height=300>
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/04/global-warming-slowdown-the-view-from-space/
Beware Of Government Science
BRITISH journalist George Monbiot of the Guardian recently lamented the rise of government science advisers who seem to be co-opted by politicians.
"Among the official duties of the chief scientist is 'to ensure that the scientific method, risk and uncertainty are understood by the public'," Monbiot wrote.
"Less than a month into the job, Sir Mark Walport has misinformed the public about the scientific method, risk and uncertainty.
"He has made groundless, unscientific and emotionally manipulative claims.
"He has indulged in scaremongering and wild exaggeration in support of the government's position."
Why, if I did not know better, I would say that Monbiot was referring to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that received a Nobel Peace Prize but was so riddled with error that the report should be discarded.
For the last time, the Himalayan mountains will not â repeat not â be ice-free in 2035.
But Monbiot is a true believer in global cooling or global warming or climate change. Those government studies apparently are on the up-and-up to him.
His complaint is that Walport "indulged in scaremongering and wild exaggeration" to support the continued manufacture of pesticides.
Monbiot is fine with those who have "indulged in scaremongering and wild exaggeration" about the weather to push for broader government control of industry, and of course, higher taxes.
The doubt that Monbiot cast about government science was expressed more than a half-century ago by President Eisenhower in his farewell address on Jan. 17, 1961.
The speech is usually noted for popularizing the phrase "military-industrial complex," but Eisenhower also warned about government's control of science.
"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields," Eisenhower said.
"In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research.
"Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present â and is gravely to be regarded.
"Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."
In short, Eisenhower foresaw the creation of the global cooling-global warming-climate change industry.
The willingness of politicians and journalists to support trillion-dollar changes in the world economy based on the politicized science of global warming is dangerous.
Eisenhower was no more anti-science than he was anti-military. He launched the space race and pushed for greater emphasis on mathematics in schools.
But he knew how powerful both government and science are. He saw firsthand the results of the politicization of science by the Nazi regime.
The science of eugenics led to the creation and justification of hundreds of concentration camps across Germany in which the Germans slaughtered millions of people,
And Eisenhower knew enough to know that Americans are no more immune to such manipulations than the Germans were.
Liberals who think they have won the day by affixing "science" to each of their positions should heed Monbiot's words as well, because some day conservatives will take back the government.
Not all government science is bad. Most of it is excellent.
Federal employee David J. Wineland of the National Institute of Standards and Technology shared the Nobel Prize in Physics last year.
That's a real scientific award, unlike the IPCC's Peace Prize.
Government science can place a man on the moon, or 12 million men and women in ovens.
By Don Surber
http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/DonSurber/201305100034?page=1&build=cache
BRITISH journalist George Monbiot of the Guardian recently lamented the rise of government science advisers who seem to be co-opted by politicians.
"Among the official duties of the chief scientist is 'to ensure that the scientific method, risk and uncertainty are understood by the public'," Monbiot wrote.
"Less than a month into the job, Sir Mark Walport has misinformed the public about the scientific method, risk and uncertainty.
"He has made groundless, unscientific and emotionally manipulative claims.
"He has indulged in scaremongering and wild exaggeration in support of the government's position."
Why, if I did not know better, I would say that Monbiot was referring to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that received a Nobel Peace Prize but was so riddled with error that the report should be discarded.
For the last time, the Himalayan mountains will not â repeat not â be ice-free in 2035.
But Monbiot is a true believer in global cooling or global warming or climate change. Those government studies apparently are on the up-and-up to him.
His complaint is that Walport "indulged in scaremongering and wild exaggeration" to support the continued manufacture of pesticides.
Monbiot is fine with those who have "indulged in scaremongering and wild exaggeration" about the weather to push for broader government control of industry, and of course, higher taxes.
The doubt that Monbiot cast about government science was expressed more than a half-century ago by President Eisenhower in his farewell address on Jan. 17, 1961.
The speech is usually noted for popularizing the phrase "military-industrial complex," but Eisenhower also warned about government's control of science.
"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields," Eisenhower said.
"In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research.
"Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present â and is gravely to be regarded.
"Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."
In short, Eisenhower foresaw the creation of the global cooling-global warming-climate change industry.
The willingness of politicians and journalists to support trillion-dollar changes in the world economy based on the politicized science of global warming is dangerous.
Eisenhower was no more anti-science than he was anti-military. He launched the space race and pushed for greater emphasis on mathematics in schools.
But he knew how powerful both government and science are. He saw firsthand the results of the politicization of science by the Nazi regime.
The science of eugenics led to the creation and justification of hundreds of concentration camps across Germany in which the Germans slaughtered millions of people,
And Eisenhower knew enough to know that Americans are no more immune to such manipulations than the Germans were.
Liberals who think they have won the day by affixing "science" to each of their positions should heed Monbiot's words as well, because some day conservatives will take back the government.
Not all government science is bad. Most of it is excellent.
Federal employee David J. Wineland of the National Institute of Standards and Technology shared the Nobel Prize in Physics last year.
That's a real scientific award, unlike the IPCC's Peace Prize.
Government science can place a man on the moon, or 12 million men and women in ovens.
By Don Surber
http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/DonSurber/201305100034?page=1&build=cache
RIP - Global Warming Scam
1993 - 2013
Press Release: International Climate Science Coalition
Canadian Government Should Ignore Greenhouse Gas Impacts In Energy Policy Formulation
Pretending that climate science is settled, as authors of new open letter do, deceives the public
Ottawa, Canada, May 9, 2013: "Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver should reject the pleas of twelve climate scientists, economists and policy experts who signed an open letter urging him to make greenhouse gas impacts âa central considerationâ of Canadaâs hydrocarbon resources development,â said Tom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). âEnergy plans should be restricted to addressing only the environmental concerns we know to be real, such as air, land and water pollution. The linkage between energy usage and climate is far too tenuous to be included in any serious national discussions about energy.â
âIt is utter nonsense to say, as the open letter signers did, that âthe responsibility for preventing dangerous climate change rests with todayâs policymakers,ââ said ICSC Science Advisory Board member, Dr. Tim Ball, former University of Winnipeg climatology professor. âWe canât even properly forecast global climate, let alone control it. The open letterâs advocacy of âavoiding 2 degrees C of global warmingâ by altering our energy policy is ridiculous when cooling is more probable, and may have already started.â
âSpending billions of dollars to reduce Canadaâs carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in a vain attempt to stop non-existent global warming is a tragic waste of our resources,â continued Ball. âBy all means, we should work to control real pollution, but CO2, the greenhouse gas most under attack by climate campaigners, is a benefit to the environment, its rise resulting in more crop yield and a densification of forests.â
Speaking about the primary basis of the climate alarm, the forecasts of computerized climate models, applied mathematics professor and ICSC science advisor Dr. Chris Essex of the University of Western Ontario explained, âThey can't predict the future because they are not comprehensive implementations of known physics. They are empirically based models of the type that would be used in an engineering problem, but without the empirical validation that must be done for engineering.â
âMany people, including people with PhDs, are very weak on this issue,â asserted Essex. "The big policy questions are beyond the best models we can currently make. Climate is far from a simple solved scientific problem, despite rampant proclamations and simplistic analogies suggesting otherwise. Policymakers, not to mention academics, must come to terms with that."
âClimate change appears to be driven primarily by natural variability,â said former Environment Canada Research Scientist and ICSC science advisor Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar. âThe Earth has not warmed in last 16 years, despite about 250 billion tonnes of CO2 put out by human activity worldwide. Regardless, the net effect of any possible future warming and rising CO2 is most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants and wildlife.â
The real concern is possible global cooling, something that could have a disastrous effect on Canada, Khandekar, a contributing author to the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, warns. âSince the start of the new millennium, winters have become colder and snowier in Europe and North America. Winters in South America and South Africa have also become colder,â Khandekar explained. âNorth America may also quite likely see even colder winters in the next few years if forecasts of dropping solar activity prove to be correct.â
âThe dozen academics who signed the open letter to Minister Oliver are right about one thing: we do need a âserious debate about climate change and energy in this country,ââ said Harris. âICSC also encourages the Government to convene open, unbiased hearings into the state of modern climate science, inviting experts of all reputable points of view to testify. Only then will the public come to appreciate the vast uncertainty in this, arguably the most complex science ever tackled.â
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO13...ment-should-ignore-greenhouse-gas-impacts.htm
Canadian Government Should Ignore Greenhouse Gas Impacts In Energy Policy Formulation
Pretending that climate science is settled, as authors of new open letter do, deceives the public
Ottawa, Canada, May 9, 2013: "Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver should reject the pleas of twelve climate scientists, economists and policy experts who signed an open letter urging him to make greenhouse gas impacts âa central considerationâ of Canadaâs hydrocarbon resources development,â said Tom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). âEnergy plans should be restricted to addressing only the environmental concerns we know to be real, such as air, land and water pollution. The linkage between energy usage and climate is far too tenuous to be included in any serious national discussions about energy.â
âIt is utter nonsense to say, as the open letter signers did, that âthe responsibility for preventing dangerous climate change rests with todayâs policymakers,ââ said ICSC Science Advisory Board member, Dr. Tim Ball, former University of Winnipeg climatology professor. âWe canât even properly forecast global climate, let alone control it. The open letterâs advocacy of âavoiding 2 degrees C of global warmingâ by altering our energy policy is ridiculous when cooling is more probable, and may have already started.â
âSpending billions of dollars to reduce Canadaâs carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in a vain attempt to stop non-existent global warming is a tragic waste of our resources,â continued Ball. âBy all means, we should work to control real pollution, but CO2, the greenhouse gas most under attack by climate campaigners, is a benefit to the environment, its rise resulting in more crop yield and a densification of forests.â
Speaking about the primary basis of the climate alarm, the forecasts of computerized climate models, applied mathematics professor and ICSC science advisor Dr. Chris Essex of the University of Western Ontario explained, âThey can't predict the future because they are not comprehensive implementations of known physics. They are empirically based models of the type that would be used in an engineering problem, but without the empirical validation that must be done for engineering.â
âMany people, including people with PhDs, are very weak on this issue,â asserted Essex. "The big policy questions are beyond the best models we can currently make. Climate is far from a simple solved scientific problem, despite rampant proclamations and simplistic analogies suggesting otherwise. Policymakers, not to mention academics, must come to terms with that."
âClimate change appears to be driven primarily by natural variability,â said former Environment Canada Research Scientist and ICSC science advisor Dr. Madhav L. Khandekar. âThe Earth has not warmed in last 16 years, despite about 250 billion tonnes of CO2 put out by human activity worldwide. Regardless, the net effect of any possible future warming and rising CO2 is most likely to be beneficial to humans, plants and wildlife.â
The real concern is possible global cooling, something that could have a disastrous effect on Canada, Khandekar, a contributing author to the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, warns. âSince the start of the new millennium, winters have become colder and snowier in Europe and North America. Winters in South America and South Africa have also become colder,â Khandekar explained. âNorth America may also quite likely see even colder winters in the next few years if forecasts of dropping solar activity prove to be correct.â
âThe dozen academics who signed the open letter to Minister Oliver are right about one thing: we do need a âserious debate about climate change and energy in this country,ââ said Harris. âICSC also encourages the Government to convene open, unbiased hearings into the state of modern climate science, inviting experts of all reputable points of view to testify. Only then will the public come to appreciate the vast uncertainty in this, arguably the most complex science ever tackled.â
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO13...ment-should-ignore-greenhouse-gas-impacts.htm
Australians are POed over the AGW Alarmists and their message! Because they let their government fall for the Carbon Tax Scam.
---
AND so the great global warming scare dies. Around Australia, bruised taxpayers will ask each other: "What the hell was that about?"
The 10 signs of the death of the scare are unmistakable. Now it's time to hold the guilty to account.
Just why did we spend the past year paying the world's biggest carbon tax, which drove our power bills through the roof?
Why were our children forced to sit through multiple screenings of Al Gore's dodgy scare-flick An Inconvenient Truth?
Why did we scar the most beautiful parts of our coast with ludicrously expensive windfarms?
And why did so many people swallow such bull, from the British Climatic Research Unit's prediction that "children just aren't going to know what snow is" to ABC science presenter Robyn Williams' claim that 100m rises in sea levels this century were "possible, yes".
Yes, we may yet see some warming resume one day.
But we will be wiser. We have learned not to fall so fast for the end-of-the-world sermons of salvation-seekers and the tin-rattling of green carpetbaggers.
And here is why.
1st sign: The world isn't warming
Yes, the planet warmed about 0.7 degrees last century, but then halted.
Professor Richard Lindzen, arguably the world's most famous climate scientist, has argued for two years that "there has been no warming since 1997". Others date the pause as late as 2000.
Even the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admitted in its latest draft report that while its usual measurements of global temperature found some warming trends since 1998, "none of these are statistically significant".
2nd sign: The warming models are wrong
The weekend papers screamed alarm: "The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has surpassed 400 parts per million for the first time in human history."
But wait. Lots more carbon dioxide, but no more warming? This isn't what we were told to expect.
See, predictions the world is heating dangerously are based on mathematical models of how the climate is meant to work. Add our emissions to the equation, and scientists are meant to figure how much the world should warm. But as Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, told a US Congressional committee last month, those models guessed too high, and didn't predict pauses in warming longer than 17 years.
Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, found the global temperature since 2005 on the very lowest end of the widest range predicted by influential climate models.
3rd sign: Warming disasters aren't happening
In 2007, Chief Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery predicted "even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems". But it did.
In 2001, the IPCC predicted "milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms". But the US National Snow and Ice Data Center this year tried to claim global warming had now increased snowstorms in the US.
In 2008, Greens leader Bob Brown claimed data showed "drought is the new norm across Australia's greatest foodbowl", the Murray-Darling basin. But the drought quickly broke.
Same story with so many other scares. Al Gore was wrong - the critical glaciers of the Himalayas are not vanishing, with Bristol University researchers now finding "negligible mass loss". Nor are we getting more cyclones, bigger floods, worse diseases or greater famines, as some predicted.
4th sign: People are relaxing
People are now less prone to panic, as a Lowy Institute poll confirmed.
In 2006, two in three Australians thought global warming was so serious we should act now, even if it cost us plenty. Five years later, just one in three Australians thought that.
5th sign: The rest of the world is chilling, too
The Gillard Government told us it was not ahead of the world with its carbon tax. Other countries were just as scared of global warming and keen to stop it.
Rubbish. The US still won't agree to a national carbon tax, because voters won't wear it. China, the world's biggest emitter, doesn't have one either.
And Europe, home of the world's biggest carbon trading system, is now so broke and bored with global warming that the price of its permits has fallen to under $5, a fraction of our own $23 a ton, leaving us looking like mugs.
6th sign: Even Labor hardly seems to care now
If the Gillard Government still believed "climate change is the great moral challenge of our generation", would it have tied our own carbon trading system from 2015 to Europe's, so permits could fall as pathetically low as $5?
Would it now be considering hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to green schemes in tomorrow's Budget?
7th sign: A bit of warming seems good for us
Global production of wheat, rice and corn have all doubled since 1970, when man-made global warming is said to have really taken off.
Perhaps it's because of better farming. But more warming also means more rain in most places, and more carbon dioxide means more plant food.
8th sign: Warming seems worth the price of getting richer
More carbon dioxide is what we get when lots more people become rich, helping themselves to more electricity and all things that use it.
That is why China's carbon dioxide emissions soared as it dragged hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. China now produces a quarter of the world's man-made gases and rising. It's the price of progress.
9th sign: "Stopping" warming isn't working
Australians pay a $9 billion-a-year carbon tax and billions more in subsidies for "green" technology.
If we keep paying these billions for the next seven years, what difference will we make to the world's temperature by the end of the century?
Australia's Professor Roger Jones, a warmist, says no more than 0.0038 degrees, and that's even assuming the climate models are right.
10th sign: Skeptical scientists now get a hearing
In 2007, ABC staff protested when the ABC decided to finally show one documentary questioning the warming scare, The Great Global Warming Swindle.
The ABC compromised. The screening was given a hostile introduction and was followed with an even more hostile panel session.
That's how hard it was for skeptical scientists to get a hearing.
That wall is now breaking. Dissent is being heard, with Professor Ian Plimer's skeptical Heaven and Earth alone selling more than 40,000 copies here.
Yes, the world may start warming again. Yes, our emissions may be partly to blame.
But, no, this great scare is unforgivable. It's robbed us of cash and, worse, our reason.
Thank God for the 10 signs that this madness is over.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion...e-is-all-hot-air/story-e6frfhqf-1226640600205
---
AND so the great global warming scare dies. Around Australia, bruised taxpayers will ask each other: "What the hell was that about?"
The 10 signs of the death of the scare are unmistakable. Now it's time to hold the guilty to account.
Just why did we spend the past year paying the world's biggest carbon tax, which drove our power bills through the roof?
Why were our children forced to sit through multiple screenings of Al Gore's dodgy scare-flick An Inconvenient Truth?
Why did we scar the most beautiful parts of our coast with ludicrously expensive windfarms?
And why did so many people swallow such bull, from the British Climatic Research Unit's prediction that "children just aren't going to know what snow is" to ABC science presenter Robyn Williams' claim that 100m rises in sea levels this century were "possible, yes".
Yes, we may yet see some warming resume one day.
But we will be wiser. We have learned not to fall so fast for the end-of-the-world sermons of salvation-seekers and the tin-rattling of green carpetbaggers.
And here is why.
1st sign: The world isn't warming
Yes, the planet warmed about 0.7 degrees last century, but then halted.
Professor Richard Lindzen, arguably the world's most famous climate scientist, has argued for two years that "there has been no warming since 1997". Others date the pause as late as 2000.
Even the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change admitted in its latest draft report that while its usual measurements of global temperature found some warming trends since 1998, "none of these are statistically significant".
2nd sign: The warming models are wrong
The weekend papers screamed alarm: "The level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has surpassed 400 parts per million for the first time in human history."
But wait. Lots more carbon dioxide, but no more warming? This isn't what we were told to expect.
See, predictions the world is heating dangerously are based on mathematical models of how the climate is meant to work. Add our emissions to the equation, and scientists are meant to figure how much the world should warm. But as Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, told a US Congressional committee last month, those models guessed too high, and didn't predict pauses in warming longer than 17 years.
Ed Hawkins, of the University of Reading, found the global temperature since 2005 on the very lowest end of the widest range predicted by influential climate models.
3rd sign: Warming disasters aren't happening
In 2007, Chief Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery predicted "even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems". But it did.
In 2001, the IPCC predicted "milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms". But the US National Snow and Ice Data Center this year tried to claim global warming had now increased snowstorms in the US.
In 2008, Greens leader Bob Brown claimed data showed "drought is the new norm across Australia's greatest foodbowl", the Murray-Darling basin. But the drought quickly broke.
Same story with so many other scares. Al Gore was wrong - the critical glaciers of the Himalayas are not vanishing, with Bristol University researchers now finding "negligible mass loss". Nor are we getting more cyclones, bigger floods, worse diseases or greater famines, as some predicted.
4th sign: People are relaxing
People are now less prone to panic, as a Lowy Institute poll confirmed.
In 2006, two in three Australians thought global warming was so serious we should act now, even if it cost us plenty. Five years later, just one in three Australians thought that.
5th sign: The rest of the world is chilling, too
The Gillard Government told us it was not ahead of the world with its carbon tax. Other countries were just as scared of global warming and keen to stop it.
Rubbish. The US still won't agree to a national carbon tax, because voters won't wear it. China, the world's biggest emitter, doesn't have one either.
And Europe, home of the world's biggest carbon trading system, is now so broke and bored with global warming that the price of its permits has fallen to under $5, a fraction of our own $23 a ton, leaving us looking like mugs.
6th sign: Even Labor hardly seems to care now
If the Gillard Government still believed "climate change is the great moral challenge of our generation", would it have tied our own carbon trading system from 2015 to Europe's, so permits could fall as pathetically low as $5?
Would it now be considering hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to green schemes in tomorrow's Budget?
7th sign: A bit of warming seems good for us
Global production of wheat, rice and corn have all doubled since 1970, when man-made global warming is said to have really taken off.
Perhaps it's because of better farming. But more warming also means more rain in most places, and more carbon dioxide means more plant food.
8th sign: Warming seems worth the price of getting richer
More carbon dioxide is what we get when lots more people become rich, helping themselves to more electricity and all things that use it.
That is why China's carbon dioxide emissions soared as it dragged hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. China now produces a quarter of the world's man-made gases and rising. It's the price of progress.
9th sign: "Stopping" warming isn't working
Australians pay a $9 billion-a-year carbon tax and billions more in subsidies for "green" technology.
If we keep paying these billions for the next seven years, what difference will we make to the world's temperature by the end of the century?
Australia's Professor Roger Jones, a warmist, says no more than 0.0038 degrees, and that's even assuming the climate models are right.
10th sign: Skeptical scientists now get a hearing
In 2007, ABC staff protested when the ABC decided to finally show one documentary questioning the warming scare, The Great Global Warming Swindle.
The ABC compromised. The screening was given a hostile introduction and was followed with an even more hostile panel session.
That's how hard it was for skeptical scientists to get a hearing.
That wall is now breaking. Dissent is being heard, with Professor Ian Plimer's skeptical Heaven and Earth alone selling more than 40,000 copies here.
Yes, the world may start warming again. Yes, our emissions may be partly to blame.
But, no, this great scare is unforgivable. It's robbed us of cash and, worse, our reason.
Thank God for the 10 signs that this madness is over.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion...e-is-all-hot-air/story-e6frfhqf-1226640600205
A storm of recent reports, studies and measurements from scientists and trusted agencies worldwide is making it clear that the Earth is beginning to have the climate that greenhouse gas theory predicts will develop as we pump more and more heat-trapping CO2 into the air. It is not a pretty picture, as millions caught in heatwaves, record floods, searing drought, raging wildfires and stronger rainstorms will attest (and that is just in the American South!).
Here are some of the recent observations and long-term measurements published in the past month.
Only half-way through the year and "2011 represents the highest damage cost-to-date in the U.S. for any year since 1980 when we began tracking Billion-dollar disasters." --- NOAA.
It's not just in the continental U.S.:
"The largest and most permanent bodies of ice in the Arctic â multiyear sea ice, mountain glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland Ice Sheet â have all been declining faster since 2000 than they did in the previous decade." -- Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, 2011
"Arctic summer temperatures have been higher in the past few decades than at any time in the past 2000 years. Greenland's main outlet glaciers have more than doubled their contribution to global sea level rise over the last decade." --- The Arctic as a Messenger for Global Processes, 2011
David Lobell and colleagues report that in many nations crop losses and declines in growth from climate change effects outpaced increases from added CO2 (Science, 5 May 2011).
The World Meteorological Organization says there is a "fit between the facts observed about extreme events over the past decade, and the IPCC projections regarding the consequences of climate variability and change." -- Weather Extremes in a Changing Climate, WMO-1075, 2011
And the State of the Climate report from NOAA and the American Meteorological Society, provides a graphic view of how many measurements of the planetary climate, ocean and ice are moving as global warming theory predicted. This year's report for 2010 was published in late June.
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/nvjuly11.html
Here are some of the recent observations and long-term measurements published in the past month.
Only half-way through the year and "2011 represents the highest damage cost-to-date in the U.S. for any year since 1980 when we began tracking Billion-dollar disasters." --- NOAA.
It's not just in the continental U.S.:
"The largest and most permanent bodies of ice in the Arctic â multiyear sea ice, mountain glaciers, ice caps and the Greenland Ice Sheet â have all been declining faster since 2000 than they did in the previous decade." -- Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, 2011
"Arctic summer temperatures have been higher in the past few decades than at any time in the past 2000 years. Greenland's main outlet glaciers have more than doubled their contribution to global sea level rise over the last decade." --- The Arctic as a Messenger for Global Processes, 2011
David Lobell and colleagues report that in many nations crop losses and declines in growth from climate change effects outpaced increases from added CO2 (Science, 5 May 2011).
The World Meteorological Organization says there is a "fit between the facts observed about extreme events over the past decade, and the IPCC projections regarding the consequences of climate variability and change." -- Weather Extremes in a Changing Climate, WMO-1075, 2011
And the State of the Climate report from NOAA and the American Meteorological Society, provides a graphic view of how many measurements of the planetary climate, ocean and ice are moving as global warming theory predicted. This year's report for 2010 was published in late June.
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/nvjuly11.html
The last few years have seen much controversy over the question of whether the Earthâs climate is getting warmer and, if so, whether man is causing it. The issue has never been stated as a scientific question. The arguments for such man-made global warming have invariably been political in nature.
When you hear statements such as âthe debate is overâ or âthe science is settledâ or âa consensus of scientists agrees,â you can be assured that the speaker knows virtually nothing about science, what the scientific method is or how science is conducted. This I attribute to our faulty educational systems.
There are several questions involved with the subject of man-made global warming (after this, I will simply call it global warming). Is the average temperature of the Earth increasing? What definition of global warming is being used? What is the method being used to measure it? These important questions have never been answered. One would think that temperature data would be paramount in the discussion, but it has come to light that gross data manipulation, data editing, and selective data omission have taken place. I refer to the infamous âClimate Gate.â What data we have indicates that the Earthâs temperature has held steady or decreased a fraction of a degree Celsius over about the last ten years or more. Since the temperature data do not support global warming, the proponents have taken to calling their alleged effect âclimate changeâ and we see exploitation of those poor polar bears (whose estimated population has increased five-fold since the â70s) and are shown videos of calving glaciers (thatâs how ice bergs form) and are told, disingenuously, that it is because of global warming.
The choice of carbon dioxide (CO2) as the culprit in global warming was especially inept. It is a trace gas in Earthâs atmosphere. Even if the burning of fossil fuels doubled or trebled the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, it would still be a trace gas and not capable of the large effects ascribed to it. The laws of chemistry say that the effect of a particular compound must be a function of its concentration.
The so-called greenhouse effect has been falsified and concluded to be fictional. Greenhouses are made of glass with well-known physics. No greenhouse effect has been demonstrated in any planetary atmosphere. In fact, such an alleged effect has been thoroughly falsified and shown to be in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In science, falsifying does not mean disproving but, rather, showing that the subject effect is in violation of one or more of the fundamental laws of science.
The Earth, in the past, has been both colder and warmer than it is now. Even in historic times the Earth has seen extremes in climate. There was a warm period known as the Medieval Optimum where records show that Roman soldiers in England grew grapes and made wine. Greenland was named such by Viking explorers because it was green and the original name the Vikings gave to Nova Scotia was âVinelandâ because they found grapes growing wild there. Not too long after the Medieval Optimum, the Earth went through a period known as the âLittle Ice Ageâ in which there were several hundred years of colder than normal winters. In London, the Thames froze completely over. Both of these periods were ignored in generating the fictional âhockey stickâ graph used to support the idea of global warming in a now infamous so-called documentary film.
In science, the burden of proof is on those who make an assertion. Those that say the Earth is undergoing man-made global warming have the obligation to provide the scientific proof. They have not done so. Instead, they have reacted in not only unscientific ways but in anti-scientific ones as well. There is no place in science for personal attacks and character assassinations.
Al Miller is a chemist retired after a 40-plus-year career in research. He lives in Indio with his wife and their dog.
http://www.mydesert.com/article/201...nge-conclusion-goes-against-scientific-method
When you hear statements such as âthe debate is overâ or âthe science is settledâ or âa consensus of scientists agrees,â you can be assured that the speaker knows virtually nothing about science, what the scientific method is or how science is conducted. This I attribute to our faulty educational systems.
There are several questions involved with the subject of man-made global warming (after this, I will simply call it global warming). Is the average temperature of the Earth increasing? What definition of global warming is being used? What is the method being used to measure it? These important questions have never been answered. One would think that temperature data would be paramount in the discussion, but it has come to light that gross data manipulation, data editing, and selective data omission have taken place. I refer to the infamous âClimate Gate.â What data we have indicates that the Earthâs temperature has held steady or decreased a fraction of a degree Celsius over about the last ten years or more. Since the temperature data do not support global warming, the proponents have taken to calling their alleged effect âclimate changeâ and we see exploitation of those poor polar bears (whose estimated population has increased five-fold since the â70s) and are shown videos of calving glaciers (thatâs how ice bergs form) and are told, disingenuously, that it is because of global warming.
The choice of carbon dioxide (CO2) as the culprit in global warming was especially inept. It is a trace gas in Earthâs atmosphere. Even if the burning of fossil fuels doubled or trebled the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, it would still be a trace gas and not capable of the large effects ascribed to it. The laws of chemistry say that the effect of a particular compound must be a function of its concentration.
The so-called greenhouse effect has been falsified and concluded to be fictional. Greenhouses are made of glass with well-known physics. No greenhouse effect has been demonstrated in any planetary atmosphere. In fact, such an alleged effect has been thoroughly falsified and shown to be in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. In science, falsifying does not mean disproving but, rather, showing that the subject effect is in violation of one or more of the fundamental laws of science.
The Earth, in the past, has been both colder and warmer than it is now. Even in historic times the Earth has seen extremes in climate. There was a warm period known as the Medieval Optimum where records show that Roman soldiers in England grew grapes and made wine. Greenland was named such by Viking explorers because it was green and the original name the Vikings gave to Nova Scotia was âVinelandâ because they found grapes growing wild there. Not too long after the Medieval Optimum, the Earth went through a period known as the âLittle Ice Ageâ in which there were several hundred years of colder than normal winters. In London, the Thames froze completely over. Both of these periods were ignored in generating the fictional âhockey stickâ graph used to support the idea of global warming in a now infamous so-called documentary film.
In science, the burden of proof is on those who make an assertion. Those that say the Earth is undergoing man-made global warming have the obligation to provide the scientific proof. They have not done so. Instead, they have reacted in not only unscientific ways but in anti-scientific ones as well. There is no place in science for personal attacks and character assassinations.
Al Miller is a chemist retired after a 40-plus-year career in research. He lives in Indio with his wife and their dog.
http://www.mydesert.com/article/201...nge-conclusion-goes-against-scientific-method