Need to know????

[Michael Larson]

Category: Real numbers, graphs, and stuff

Evidence doesn't bare out alarmist claims of global warming

THESE are the seven graphs that should make the Rudd Government(added:and all of us) feel sick.

These are the seven graphs that should make you ask: What? Has global warming now stopped?
Look for yourself. They show that the world hasn't warmed for a decade, and has even cooled for several years.

• See for yourself: Click here to view the graphs in detail (pdf)

Sea ice now isn't melting, but spreading. The seas have not just stopped rising, but started to fall.
Nor is the weather getting wilder. Cyclones, as well as tornadoes and hurricanes, aren't increasing and the rain in Australia hasn't stopped falling.
What's more, the slight warming we saw over the century until 1998 still makes the world no hotter today than it was 1000 years ago.
In fact, it's even a bit cooler. So, dude, where's my global warming?
These graphs should in fact be good news for the Government and all the other warming preachers who warned we were doomed by our gases, which were heating the world to hell.
View the full-size graphics

[nwagner]

Colorado hurricane forecaster says global warming 'grossly exaggerated'

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/loc...,4199254.story


By KEN KAYE
South Florida Sun-Sentinel
9:54 PM EDT, July 15, 2008
MIAMI

The studies continue to mount: Global warming is likely to blame for producing more powerful hurricanes and endangering the earth's ecosystems.

Nonsense, William Gray said Tuesday.

"There's been so much hype," the Colorado State University storm prognosticator said. "But I don't think there's a real problem. I think global warming has been grossly exaggerated."

Speaking at the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science on Virginia Key, Gray said humans play little or no role in global warming.

He said he has been "appalled" by claims that global warming is on the verge of causing great destruction, such as in Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth.

Because the U.S. government is taking substantial steps to reduce greenhouse emissions by cutting the use of fossil fuels, it's imperiling the economy, Gray told an audience of about 200, mostly college students. The problem, he said, is that fossil fuels will be sorely needed for the next four to five decades.

Gray's assertions conflict with several government and university studies indicating that humans have played a significant role in global warming through the production of greenhouse gases. Other studies have linked the gradual warming of the air and water to more powerful hurricanes.

For instance, Kerry Emanuel, an atmospheric sciences professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has found that the energy in the average hurricane increased by about 70 percent in the past 30 years. Gray contends such studies are based on computer simulations that are "all wrong."

Gray also lashed out at the media for creating unnecessary public "hysteria" over global warming.

Al Tompkins, who teaches broadcast and online journalism at the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists in St. Petersburg, said there were too many media outlets for him to judge whether they are acting irresponsibly on the issue. On the other hand, Tompkins said, in light of government studies indicating global warming is genuine, the issue is a legitimate one for the media.

"My gut reaction tells me the majority of the reporting shows that global warming is an emerging crisis type of story and that it's man-made more than not," he said. "If we don't excited about that, then what?"

Gray, along with research partner Phil Klotzbach, has become known for developing projections of how many storms will form during a given hurricane season, a field he pioneered and that has put him in the middle of the global warming debate.

For years, the plain-speaking Gray has dismissed warnings of melting polar ice, rising sea levels and more turbulent storm seasons as "so much foolishness." While conceding the planet is indeed warming, Gray maintains that it is the result of a natural cycle of warming and cooling caused by the circulation of the oceans.

"My projection is that in 15 to 20 years, we'll probably undergo a modest cooling," he said Tuesday.

Copyright © 2008, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

[klott]

Originally Posted by gluck

From Al Gore's speech on solar energy ( to post the entire speech would have put too many of you to sleep).
Does this guy have clue? He obviously thinks that he is the second coming of J.F.K. ( just not as literate )


"The answer is to end our reliance on carbon-based fuels. In my search for genuinely effective answers to the climate crisis, I have held a series of “solutions summits” with engineers, scientists, and CEOs, who serve on the boards of the companies, that I own stocks in. In those discussions, one thing has become abundantly clear: when you connect the dots, it turns out that the real solutions to the climate crisis are the very same measures needed to renew our economy and escape the trap of ever-rising energy prices. Moreover, they are also the very same solutions we need to guarantee our national security without having to go to war in the Persian Gulf.
What if we could use fuels that are not expensive, don’t cause pollution and are abundantly available right here at home? We have such fuels. Scientists have confirmed that enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world’s energy needs for a full year. Tapping just a small portion of this solar energy could provide all of the electricity America uses. And enough wind power blows through the Midwest corridor every day to also meet 100 percent of US electricity demand. Geothermal energy, similarly, is capable of providing enormous supplies of electricity for America.
The quickest, cheapest and best way to start using all this renewable energy is in the production of electricity. In fact, we can start right now using solar power, wind power and geothermal power to make electricity for our homes and businesses. But to make this exciting potential a reality, and truly solve our nation’s problems, we need a new start.
That’s why I’m proposing today a strategic initiative designed to free us from the crises that are holding us down and to regain control of our own destiny. It’s not the only thing we need to do. But this strategic challenge is the linchpin of a bold new strategy needed to re-power America.
Today I challenge our nation to commit to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years. This goal is achievable, affordable and transformative. It represents a challenge to all Americans – in every walk of life: to our political leaders, entrepreneurs, innovators, engineers, and to every citizen."

OK, Al, how much of the earth's surface do you want to cover in solar cells? Have you noticed that fully 50% of that surface is turned away from the sun at any given time? Have you noticed that 40% of that surface ( land surface) is covered with clouds at any given time? Have you noticed that the production of solar cells is not pollution free? How many windmills are you going to build to harness the wind out west? Have you done any studies to see what effect changing the flow of all that wind will have on the environment? How many species of migratory birds will disappear due to collisions with those windmill blades? How will you transmit all that power from the sparsely populated west to where it is needed ( the heavily populated east) What effect will all those transmission lines have on the environment?

Oh silly me. I already know the answers. Obamma will make it happen.

I filled in, in bold, what he probably left out.

[George A. H. Luck]

Good one Ken. Too true !

[klott]

It never ends, the expert at the bottom of this story, knows what killed them. Once they get an idea, to place the blame, instead of admitting they don't yet know why it is happening.

[Michael Larson]

Category: What consensus?


“Consensus” on Man-Made Warming Shattering

The “consensus” on man-made global warming may have received a mortal wound.

Physics & Society, The journal of the 46,000-member American Physical Society, just published “Climate Sensitivity Revisited,” by Viscount Christopher Monckton. Monckton is an avowed man-made warming skeptic, and former science advisor to the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. (If you want to see the science, click here )
Viscount Monckton contends that the climate alarmists have mistakenly pre-programmed their computer models with equations that overstate the earth’s sensitivity to CO2 by 500 to 2,000 percent—thus creating a senseless First World panic that itself threatens the future of society.

Physics & Society says: “There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S.”

[George A. H. Luck]

Michael you have probably posted this already but it bears repeating.

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS;


http://www.petitionproject.org/

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by gluck

Michael you have probably posted this already but it bears repeating.

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS;


http://www.petitionproject.org/

I think I did a while back but it's a great reminder. Thanks for bringing it up front.

[Brian A. MacNeish]

Originally Posted by mlarson

Category: What consensus?


“Consensus” on Man-Made Warming Shattering

The “consensus” on man-made global warming may have received a mortal wound.

Physics & Society, The journal of the 46,000-member American Physical Society, just published “Climate Sensitivity Revisited,” by Viscount Christopher Monckton. Monckton is an avowed man-made warming skeptic, and former science advisor to the late British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. (If you want to see the science, click here )
Viscount Monckton contends that the climate alarmists have mistakenly pre-programmed their computer models with equations that overstate the earth’s sensitivity to CO2 by 500 to 2,000 percent—thus creating a senseless First World panic that itself threatens the future of society.

Physics & Society says: “There is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the IPCC conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution. Since the correctness or fallacy of that conclusion has immense implications for public policy and for the future of the biosphere, we thought it appropriate to present a debate within the pages of P&S.”

Michael:

"may" is not a very scientifically precise term!! It is used in the abstract which follows (plus a few other notable items i have highlighted.......not strong science at all......and you a scientific type of guy!!):

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review, since that is not normal procedure for American Physical Society newsletters. The American Physical Society reaffirms the following position on climate change, adopted by its governing body, the APS Council, on November 18, 2007: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate."


However, global mean surface temperature has not risen since 1998 and may have fallen since late 2001

Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained. More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”, and that currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.

You're trying to spin "I think" ,"suggests" and "may" into scientific statements. Tsk! Tsk!

And the revered Mr. Monckton thinks reducing CO2 production "could even be harmful". What????????????????????????????

[Michael Larson]

Originally Posted by Brian A. MacNeish

You're trying to spin "I think" ,"suggests" and "may" into scientific statements. Tsk! Tsk!

No, but somebody sure is.
The "not peer reviewed warning" was a later edition to the submitted and reviewed article.

Now why would they publish the original and then add the warning at a later date?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
American physicists warned not to debate global warming

.........................But within a few days, Monckton's piece carried a health warning: in bright red ink.

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions.

Not so much Medusa, then, as Nanny telling the children what not to think.
"The first sentence is nothing more or less than a deliberate lie," writes (http://numberwatch.co.uk/2008%20July.htm) Professor John Brignell on his Numberwatch blog. "The second is, to say the least, contentious; while the third is an outrageous example of ultra vires interference by a committee in the proper conduct of scientific debate."
Monckton has asked for an apology. In a letter to the APS President Arthur Bienenstock, he writes:

"If the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, may I ask with what credible scientific justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed when it had; secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no evidence) to be the "overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community"; and, tertio, that "The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions"? Which of my conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific grounds (if any)?"




Interchange between APS and Lord Monckton Direct link unavailable.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
APS PRESIDENT RESPONDS TO LORD MONCKTON LETTER
Artie Bienenstock [arthurb@stanford.edu]

20 July 2008

Thank you for your message concerning the American Physical Society's treatment of the article by Lord Monckton in the Newsletter of the Forum on Physics and Society. I am writing to discuss issues raised by some of you.

Some of those writing to me have claimed that the American Physical Society is censoring Lord Monckton's article in the Newsletter of the APS' Forum on Physics and Society. That is far from the case. The article has been presented and retained in the form agreed upon by him and the Newsletter's editor. You will find it readily available on the APS' website in that form.

Indeed, there was absolutely no censoring. The APS did not even do a scientific evaluation or peer review of the article. Lord Moncton's presentation of the interaction between him and the editor indicates clearly that the editor's review was aimed at ensuring the clarity and readability of the article by the intended audience. As Lord Monckton points out in his covering letter to me, "Most revisions were intended to clarify for physicists who were not climatologists the method by which the IPCC evaluates climate sensitivity - a method which the IPCC does not itself clearly or fully explain."

That is, the review was an editorial review for a newsletter, and not the substantive scientific peer review required for publication in our journals. No attempt was made to analyze the scientific substance of the article and no censoring was performed. As indicated above and in Lord Monckton's letter to me, the article appears in the form agreed upon by Lord Monckton.

Some people and news services misinterpreted the Newsletter publication of one editor's comments and Lord Monckton's article as a retreat by the American Physical Society from its official position on the contribution of human activities to global warming. Consequently, the APS felt it necessary to ensure that its official position was known both to those who logged on to the APS website and those who had followed a link to Lord Monckton's article on our website and were unaware of the context in which it appears. That is the origin of the comment that appears at the top of the article on the website. I am sure that you would not want the Society's position to be misunderstood in this important matter.

I hope that this clarifies matters for you. Let me thank you again for your interest in the American Physical Society's activities.

Arthur Bienenstock, President
American Physical Society


Arthur Bienenstock
Special Assistant to the President for Federal Research Policy
Director, Wallenberg Research Link
Stanford University
Building 160, Room 223
Stanford, CA 94305
650-723-8845

CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON REPLIES

The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley
Carie, Rannoch, PH17 2QJ
monckton@mail.com

Arthur Bienenstock, Esq., Ph.D.,
President, American Physical Society,
Wallenberg Hall, 450 Serra Mall, Bldg 160, Stanford University, Palo
Alto, CA 94305.

By email to artieb@slac.stanford.edu

21 July 2008

Dear Dr. Bienenstock,

Physics and Society

I have had your notice of refusal to remove your regrettable disclaimer from my paper Climate Sensitivity Reconsidered. Since you have not had the courtesy to remove and apologize for the unacceptable red-flag text that, on your orders, in effect invites readers of Physics and Society to disregard the paper that one of your editors had invited me to submit, and which I had submitted in good faith, and which I had revised in good faith after it had been meticulously reviewed by a Professor of Physics who was more than competent to review it, I must now require you to answer the questions that I had asked in my previous letter, videlicet -

1. Please provide the name and qualifications of the member of the Council or advisor to it (if any) who considered my paper (if anyone considered it) before the Council ordered the offending text to be posted above my paper;

2. Please provide a copy of this rapporteur's findings (if any) and ratio decidendi (if any);

3. Please provide the date of the Council meeting (if there was one) at which the report (if any) was presented;

4. Please provide a copy of the minutes (if any) of the discussion (if there was one);

5. Please provide a copy of the text (if any) of the Council's decision (if there was one);

6. Please provide a list of the names of those present (if any) at that Council meeting (if there was one);

7. If, as your silence on these points implies, the Council has not scientifically evaluated or formally considered my paper, please explain with what credible scientific justification, and on whose authority, the offending text asserts -

primo, that the paper had not been scientifically reviewed, when it had (let us have no more semantic quibbles about the meaning of "scientific review");

secundo, that its conclusions disagree with what is said (on no evidence) to be the "overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community"; and,

tertio, that "The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions"? Which of my conclusions does the Council disagree with, and on what scientific grounds (if any)? And, if the Council has not in fact met to consider my paper as your red-flag text above my paper implies, how dare you state (on no evidence) that the Council disagrees with my conclusions?

8. Please provide the requested apology without any further mendacity, prevarication, evasion, excuse, or delay.

Finally, was the Council's own policy statement on "global warming" peer-reviewed? Or is it a mere regurgitation of some of the opinions of the UN's climate panel? If the latter, why was the mere repetition thought necessary?

Yours truly,

THE VISCOUNT MONCKTON OF BRENCHLEY

[Michael Larson]

Category: Things that make you go Hmmm..

The fear is palpable:
American Physical Society Reaffirms Its Position that Human-Caused Greenhouse Gas Emissions Contribute to Climate Change

The American Physical Society www.aps.org/ (APS) today reaffirmed its position on climate change issued last November, releasing the following statement: "Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. (Press Release)

Why do you suppose a simple discussion causes such panic? Why should the APS stake out a position at all, much less issue press releases? And why are they so desperate to avoid all discussion when it should be a simple matter to prove the error of counter arguing that which they claim is so well proven? Just because the Royal Society appears to have abandoned their long-treasured motto Nullius in Verba does not mean the Physics Society should now determine science on the basis "because the loudest voices say".
The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin. -- Thomas H. Huxley

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it. -- Gautama Buddha

Science ... warns me to be careful how I adopt a view which jumps with my preconceptions, and to require stronger evidence for such belief than for one to which I was previously hostile. My business is to teach my aspirations to conform themselves to fact, not to try and make facts harmonize with my aspirations. -- Thomas H. Huxley

[nwagner]

The holier-than-thou liberals in Norway know how to combat "man-induced global warming" against the will of the people ...


In oil-rich Norway, petrol prices most expensive in Europe
by Gwladys FoucheMon Jul 21, 11:50 PM ET

In Norway, many motorists are up in arms over why they have to pay the highest petrol (gasoline) prices in Europe when the country is the world's fifth-largest oil exporter and a recent tax hike has done little to cool tempers.

"It is really strange: we have lots of oil and we're a rich country. Why do we have to pay so much?" asks Per-Arne Skjerpingstad, a 38-year-old hospital porter as he fills up the tank of his Peugeot 307 at an Oslo gas station for 750 kroner (94 euros, 148 dollars).

Diesel costs 14.23 kroner (1.78 euros, 2.82 dollars) a litre (quarter gallon) and 95 unleaded 13.84 kroner, putting it at the top of the European league, EU figures show.

And while many countries are discussing how to soften the blow of skyrocketing oil prices on consumers, Norway on July 1 increased its already heavy tax take by 0.05 kroner per litre on petrol and 0.10 kroner (0.1 euro cent, 0.2 dollar cent) on diesel.

Seven out of 10 Norwegians oppose the tax increase, according to a July poll by the daily VG.

"It's not the way to go. In a country like Norway, people need to have cars. I bought this car because I'm going to be a father soon," Skjerpingstad said.
Critics argue it is meaningless to increase taxation when oil prices have risen so much in the past months. And as the new tax increase is low, it won't significantly change drivers' behaviour.

Instead "we should lower tax because we are so fortunate to be an oil exporter," said Siv Jensen, the leader of the far-right Progress Party, the leading opposition group in Norway.

"We should give the money back to the people so they can enjoy it," she told AFP.

The tax increase is part of a wider government strategy to fight climate change by pushing Norwegians to leave their car at home.

"At a time when climate change is beginning to seriously impact the planet, and when Norway's carbon dioxide emissions are increasing, we politicians must take steps to meet these challenges," Finance Minister Kristin Halvorsen said.

The tax was agreed by all political parties, apart from the Progress Party, as part of the country's overall climate change policy.

But now supporters of the centre-left coalition government fear the tax increase will cost them dearly in the next elections, in September 2009.
"It's a very unwise political decision. The only thing it will accomplish is that the Progress Party will get even more votes," Labour MP Karita Bekkemellem told the daily VG in June.

A third of the population expect fuel prices to be the most important issue in the polls, according to a survey in Aftenposten, Norway's paper of reference.
Speculation has been rife over whether the far-right could come to power for the first time in the next election. Even Labour Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg has acknowledged that the Progress Party could get into government.

Those living in rural and remote areas are particularly incensed about the tax increase as they are more dependent on cars than city dwellers who have access to public transport.


"This is a serious issue with many people I have spoken to and met in my region, (rural) Moere and Romsdal. Much more serious than for those who live in a small circle in Oslo and Gruenerloekka (a fashionable area in the capital) think," Bekkemellem told VG.

At the same time, there are those who think the protests are overdone since Norway is a rich country and should be able to afford high fuel prices in the service of a good cause.

Norwegian salaries are among the highest in the world and the government estimates an average industry worker here can buy twice as much petrol as his Spanish counterpart after working an hour.

"Of course petrol is expensive but it's okay. The standard of living is good here and salaries are high," said Stine Nore, a 28-year-old logistics manager as she filled up her black BMW estate.
"There have to be incentives for people to drive less. Driving is a luxury. People should only drive a car when it really is necessary," she told AFP

[Michael Larson]

Roy Spencer in the U.S. Senate

Take a view and pay attention. (7.5 min.)

Very interesting

Watch to the end to see Senator Boxer try to discredit Spencer

Here is the entire 2 1/2 hour hearing.

[Michael Larson]

Category: Another Scientist Examines the Record and Finds Truth

Retired engineer disputes global warming threat
Published Thursday July 24th, 2008

SAINT JOHN - Global warming skeptic and retired chemical engineer Ian McQueen has spent the past 20 months trying to examine the veracity of the threat of global warming.

After sifting through reports for hours each day, he attempted to change the public's minds in a lecture at the Saint John Free Public Library Wednesday night.

"Carbon dioxide is not the bogeyman - there are other causes that are much more likely to be causing climate change, to the extent that it has changed," McQueen told a small audience.

McQueen was invited to speak by the Canadian Nuclear Society after letters and opinion pieces featuring his "moderately controversial opinions" ran in the Telegraph-Journal, society representative Mark McIntyre said.
"It's a challenge to everyone, to go home, do some fact-checking, and weigh both (former U.S. vice-president Al) Gore and Mr. McQueen's opinions," he said.

McQueen acknowledges he isn't a climate change expert, but immersed himself in the writings of experts on radiation, physics, and climate change after he began to feel that "objective science had been locked and stifled by the media."

"I realized that someone should be trying to bring forward the truth, and I found my research made me better qualified to do this than most people," he said. "If I don't do it, who will?"

[Michael Larson]

A comical T-shirt spied in Chicago this weekend (which you can find here):

AL GORE DIDN'T INVENT THE INTERNET
BUT HE DID MAKE UP GLOBAL WARMING