Round 3 of The Global Warming Lies Revealed

First We had ClimateGate.

Then We had GlacierGate.

We had Record Snowfalls in places that don’t have record snowfalls.

Now, whoops, they’ve stepped in it again.

And again, it only appears in English Newspapers.

The Mainstream Media largely ignores it.

The Religion of Global Warming moves on.

UK Guardian2/14/2010 : Climate experts have been forced to admit another embarrassing error in their most recent report on the threat of climate change.

In a background note – released by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) last night – the UN group said its 2007 report wrongly stated that 55% of the Netherlands lies below sea level. In fact, only 26% of the country does. The figure used by the IPCC included all areas in the country that are prone to flooding, including land along rivers above sea level. This accounts for 29% of the Dutch countryside.

“The sea-level statistic was used for background information only, and the updated information remains consistent with the overall conclusions,” the IPCC note states. Nevertheless, the admission is likely to intensify claims by sceptics that the IPCC work is riddled with sloppiness.

The disclosure will intensify divisions between scientists and sceptics over the interpretation of statistics and the use of sources for writing climate change reports, disagreements that have led to apologies being made by both sides of the debate. Last week a key climate-change sceptic apologised for alleging that one of the world’s leading meteorologists had deliberately exaggerated the dangers of global warming.

In an email debate in the Observer, Benny Peiser, head of the UK Global Warming Policy Foundation, quoted Sir John Houghton, the UK scientist who played a key role in establishing the IPCC, as saying that “unless we announce disasters, no one will listen”.

But in a letter to the Observer, Houghton said: “The quote from me is without foundation. I have never said it or written it. Although it has spread on the internet like wild fire, I do not know its origin. In fact, I have frequently argued the opposite, namely that those who make such statements are not only wrong but counterproductive.”

Houghton said he was incensed because he believed the quote attributed to him, and to the IPCC, an attitude of hype and exaggeration and demanded an apology from Peiser.

For his part, Peiser told the Observer that he welcomed the clarification. “For many years, the Houghton ‘quote’ has been published in numerous books and articles. I took Sir John’s failure to challenge it hitherto as a tacit admission that the ‘quote’ was accurate and reflected his view on climate policy. Now that he has publicly disowned the statement, I will certainly refrain from using it.”

Houghton’s “quote” has become one of the most emblematic remarks supposed to have been made by a mainstream scientist about global warming, and appears on almost two million web pages concerned with climate change. The fact that it now turns out to be fabricated has delighted scientists.

“We do not over-egg the pudding when it comes to the evidence about global warming – and I hope people will now appreciate this point,” said Alan Thorpe, head of the Natural Environment Research Council.

And it get’s better!

From Phil J0nes, IPCC science guru:

The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.

Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers.

And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

Professor Jones told the BBC yesterday there was truth in the observations of colleagues that he lacked organisational skills, that his office was swamped with piles of paper and that his record keeping is ‘not as good as it should be’.

The data is crucial to the famous ‘hockey stick graph’ used by climate change advocates to support the theory.

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.


BBC Question:

B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just.

H – If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing – see my answer to your question D.

I – Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade?

No – see again my answer to D.

Answer D: This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.

Professor Jones departed from this consensus when he said: There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia.

For it to be global in extent, the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today, then obviously the late 20th Century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm than today, then the current warmth would be unprecedented.

Sceptics said this was the first time a senior scientist working with the IPCC had admitted to the possibility that the Medieval Warming Period could have been global, and therefore the world could have been hotter then than now.

Professor Jones criticised those who complained he had not shared his data with them, saying they could always collate their own from publicly available material in the US. And he said the climate had not cooled until recently and then barely at all. The trend is a warming trend.

Mr Harrabin told Radio 4s Today programme that, despite the controversies, there still appeared to be no fundamental flaws in the majority scientific view that climate change was largely man-made.

But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Joness excuses for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and mates.

He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates.

He added that the professors concessions over medieval warming were significant because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.

So if it’s not settled, then there is no “consensus” and the “errors” just keep coming.

But that will not shake the faith of the Global Warming Religionist.

Just rational people.

V – If you have confidence in your science why didn’t you come out fighting like the UK government’s drugs adviser David Nutt when he was criticised?

I don’t feel this question merits an answer.

‘Nuff Said.

Until the next time gentle reader… 🙂

The Great Green Fraud

I have noticed that the major media STILL don’t want to talk about it.

I guess the Liberals have another reason to hate FOX, as they are the only ones covering the story. 🙂

Yet, despite the seriousness of this issue, as well as a prominent Senator calling for hearings to investigate it, America’s television news organizations appear to be actively boycotting this growing controversy. (NewsBusters)

But, of course, that senator is a Republican. So they can ignore him. He’s just a rightwing nutjob, after all. 🙂

There is “virtually no possibility” of a few scientists biasing the advice given to governments by the UN’s top global warming body, its chair said today.

Rajendra Pachauri defended the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the wake of apparent suggestions in emails between climate scientists at the University of East Anglia that they had prevented work they did not agree with from being included in the panel’s fourth assessment report, which was published in 2007.

“The processes in the IPCC are so robust, so inclusive, that even if an author or two has a particular bias it is completely unlikely that bias will find its way into the IPCC report,” he said.

This reminds me of the Fake letter about George W Bush’s war deferment where the defenders to this day say, “The letter was fake but what was written was factual”.

So what happens if it was not just a “few” scientists???

Whoops, maybe that’s an Inconvenient Orwellian Possibility. 🙂

Phil Jones (CRU),”keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

Nah…The Religion rolls on.

I was amused by Ed Begley Jr on Cavuto (you can find the meltdown on You Tube). Mr super green ranted and raved about only believing peer-reviewed science.

I guess he missed the email where they talk about changing the rules for peer-reviewed science and talk of boycotting publications that tow their party line.

Phil Jones (CRU),”keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!

Though, for people like Mr Begley who are deep in the religion of Global Warming,  reason is no longer an option because that questions their faith. So much so that he was ranting about the quality of the air in LA during the interview as an example of something no one wanted to do but was forced to do anyhow.

But it doesn’t have anything to do with Global Cooling…Global Warming…Global Climate Change…Climate Change.

But it does have everything to do with force.

And the Orwellian way, apparently, that the all-hail the vaunted “peer review” process has been corrupted by one side of the argument is not an issue.

That’s not science.

That’s politics.

Canada.com: The immensely respected former British chancellor of the exchequer, Nigel Lawson, had great difficulty finding a publisher for his expose of these matters, An Appeal To Reason, A Cool Look at Global Warming, such is the pressure the eco-lobby can assert. He believes Green is the new Red, the anti-capitalists taking over the relatively inoffensive tandem bicycle of naturalists, and turning it into a nihilistic juggernaut, the treads having been blown off their great Red Marxist tank that careened through the world for most of the last century. The ecoextremists allow the conservationists and butterfly collectors and Sierra Clubs to front their activities, just as the pacifist naifs were often the witless dupes and “useful idiots” (in Lenin’s words), of the Communists.

As Lord Lawson wrote in his book, those worried about imminent environmental catastrophe, as compared, for examples, to nuclear terrorism or even large meteoric collisions, “need not worry about saving this planet. They are already living on another one … We appear to have entered a new age of unreason … It is from this, above all, that we really need to save the planet.”

Two of Canada’s greatest and most undersung recent heroes are environmental economist Ross McKitrick and statistical minerologist Steven McIntyre, who by their tireless research in the teeth of the entire ecological establishment, proved the former IPCC claim of drastically accelerated global warming was a fraud. These men have been prominently mentioned in the hacked emails that have just revealed the outrageous lengths the scientific propagators of the Great Green Fraud have gone to to suppress the facts.

Michael Schlesinger, a climatologist at the University of Illinois, a bringer of the Faith, in the New York Times, “The absolute worst thing that humanity could do is mistake a short-term natural cooling for the absence of human-caused global warming and, in so doing, not transition as soon as economically possible from the fossil fuel age to the post-fossil fuel age.

To make this mistake would leave a legacy of global warming for our children, grandchildren and multiple generations thereafter which they likely could not reverse, and for which they would likely not forgive us.

This we must not do.”

What about the debt, the loss of freedom, the jobs, the loss of rationality?

And it’s not been proven that it will even work.

But it will feel good.

And it’s a “Crisis”.

“You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.”-Rahm Emanuel, White Chief of Staff.

On (Last) Tuesday, ABCNews.com’s top story was, “Worse Than the Worst: Climate Report Says Even Most Dire Predictions Too Tame”

There’s even less time for humanity to try to curb global warming than recently thought, according to a new in-depth scientific assessment by 26 scientists from eight countries.

Sea level rise, ocean acidification and the rapid melting of massive ice sheets are among the significantly increased effects of human-induced global warming assessed in the survey, which also examines the emissions of heat-trapping gases that are causing the climate change.

“Many indicators are currently tracking near or above the worst-case projections” made three years ago by the world’s scientists, the new Copenhagen Diagnosis said.

Nor has manmade global warming slowed or paused, as some headlines have recently suggested, according to the report, which you can see here.

The Thought Police binders are firmly in place. And  Chicken Little is happy.

I have no doubt this started out as a well-meaning crusade. But that was a long time ago. In a Non-Partisan galaxy, far far away…

The case for global warming rests on “all kinds of evidence,” says climate scientist Don Wuebbles of the University of Illinois in Urbana-Champaign. “Look at what’s happening to ice in the Arctic. Explain that as ‘no global warming.’ It doesn’t take a genius to see, obviously, warming is happening, e-mails or not.” (USAToday)

Putting aside how condescending that statement is, can he explain the Patagonian glacier in Argentina THAT IS GROWING???

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina – Argentina’s Perito Moreno glacier is one of only a few ice fields worldwide that have withstood rising global temperatures.

Nourished by Andean snowmelt, the glacier constantly grows even as it spawns icebergs the size of apartment buildings into a frigid lake, maintaining a nearly perfect equilibrium since measurements began more than a century ago.

“We’re not sure why this happens,” said Andres Rivera, a glacialist with the Center for Scientific Studies in Valdivia, Chile. “But not all glaciers respond equally to climate change.” (Newsmax)

or  In the Western Himalayas, a group of some 230 glaciers are bucking the global warming trend. (Discovery.com 5/5/2009)

MOUNT SHASTA, Calif. —  Global warming is shrinking glaciers all over the world, but the seven tongues of ice creeping down Mount Shasta’s flanks are a rare exception: They are the only known glaciers in the continental U.S. that are growing.(Fox 2008)

Or won’t that be “reviewed”. 🙂

Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who have recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame.

A new study of the Karakoram, Hindu Kush, and Western Himalaya mountain ranges by researchers at England’s Newcastle University shows consistent recent growth among the region’s glaciers.

Researchers found cooler summers are failing to melt winter snows, which are themselves becoming more frequent, resulting in advancing ice sheets.

The study was published in the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society’s Journal of Climate.

Oh, look it was.

But the Religion rolls on.

Nothing to see here.

A March 14, 2005 report from the activist group World Wildlife Fund (WWF) claimed, “Himalayan glaciers are among the fastest retreating glaciers globally due to effects of global warming.”

The WWF said its report “reveals the rate of retreat of Himalayan glaciers accelerating as global warming increases.”

National Geographic, for example, reported on March 10,2006 that glaciers were shrinking throughout the Himalayas and that “these water supplies could eventually dry up as the glaciers melt due to global warming.”

But not if they are growing.

Whoops.

Guess we better just ignore that Inconvenient Truth. 🙂

Or maybe it takes an “idiot” to wonder if it man-caused at all or a “natural variation” as some global warming advocates call the lack of warming lately.

So maybe we do need so “useful idiots” to wonder if the agenda behind the rhetoric and “the consensus” is entirely above aboard.

We need a Reformation.

We Need Heresy.

We Need Truth.

Not Politics.