Search this Topic:
Feb 20 12 2:19 PM
by Daniel GreenfieldFeb 20, 2012
At the end of last year, the media widely trumpeted the “recantation” by Richard Muller, a physics professor at Berkeley. Muller’s confession of faith was met with the unreserved glee of fanatics who believe that conversion equals validation of the True Faith. Now Dr. Fritz Vahrenholt, a prominent German chemistry professor and green activist, announced that he is coming out with a book breaking with the Warmist view. Naturally, this recantation wouldn’t receive nearly the same prominence, except when the inevitable stories kick in about Vahrenholt being a tool of the oil companies.
But set aside the partisan bickering, and one professor accepting a view he had formerly rejected, while another rejects a view he had formerly accepted, is all part of the normal scientific debate. The journey from hypothesis to rock solid consensus is a long one, and it doesn’t end just because Al Gore makes a documentary or a few ads show crying polar bears. Positions are argued, minds change and then a century later the graduate students have fun mocking the ignorance of both sides. That’s science.
Unfortunately, the Cult of Warm doesn’t accept that there is a debate. As far as they are concerned, the debate never happened because it never needed to happen because they were always right. They can’t intelligently address dissent, because their science is not based on discovering the evidence needed to lead to a consensus, but on insisting that there is a consensus and that accordingly there is no need to debate the evidence.
In an ordinary scientific debate, a professor leaving one side and joining another might occasion some recriminations and name calling, but it wouldn’t make him anathema. But like being gay or Muslim, hopping on board the Warm Train makes you a permanent member, and there is no room for changing your mind. Once a Warmist, always a Warmist. That’s not a rational position, but then the Cult of Warm is not a rational faith.
Scientific debates have often had big stakes for human philosophy, but Global Warming is one of the few whose real world implications are as big as its philosophical consequences. At stake is nothing less than the question of whether the human presence on earth is a blight or a blessing, and whether every person must be tightly regulated by a global governance mechanism for the sake of saving the planet.
The Warmists have pushed their agenda through with alarmist claims and hysteria. They have flown jets around the world to argue that everyone must be taxed for their carbon footprint. They have smeared and intimidated anyone who stood up to them. That is not the behavior of people arguing over numbers. It’s a battle of much larger ideas.
It’s an exaggeration, but that’s what debates over the proper role of man tend to become. We don’t fight wars over temperature gradients. The passions on both sides are motivated by much larger issues. This isn’t science, it’s the continuing battle over industrialization, the modern society and the rights of the individual dressed up in the garb of theory. And just as a debate over the IQs of minorities will never be a dispassionate inquiry, neither will a debate over whether the world would be better off if we never existed– which is the theme of the environmentalist movement.
The place of man in the university not a question that science can answer, but like so many other controversial issues in the past, it can be aided by manufacturing a scientific consensus that supports one position or another. Nor would this be the first time that science was used in this fashion. It takes a great deal of humility to look outward without prejudging what is out there. When that humility is lacking, then instead of seeing what is out there, the learned doctors and professors come away seeing what is inside them instead.
That unfortunately is what the debate is actually about. The world is not in any danger, but human beings are, as usual, wrangling over their theories of how the world should be.
The debate is not a purely philosophical one. As with all debates about the nature of man, there’s a creed and money at stake. If the Warmists win, then the environmentalist movement takes another step forward to creating a post-religious spiritual crisis for which they have the solution, and a mandate for virtually unlimited power over mankind, over every nation and every individual. That power translates into concrete wealth, which many of the “experts” are already experiencing. But their investments are on the ground floor of what is supposed to be a “green” revolution which will see everyone taxed to save us from ourselves.It’s hard to be dispassionate when the success or failure of your theory has tremendous implications for your career, your wealth, the status of your field and the triumph of your worldview over all mankind. People have murdered for less. Forging a few graphs and demonizing the opposition is small potatoes by comparison.
A creed needs a crisis. An “If This Goes On” warning that ends in doom, Armageddon and cats and dogs living together in sin. Without an actual deity, the only curses available to environmentalists are those of science. And so they pronounce their curses in science’s name, which is an inconvenience when they fail to come true. An inconvenience that damages the credibility of actual research. But having cast aside reasoned inquiry, the Cult of Warm has no use for science except as a totem to wave over the crowd. They don’t want to be the seekers for knowledge, but the exclusive possessors of absolute truths. And that isn’t how science works.
Like Wall Street, Global Warming has gotten too big to fail. Too many prominent names have committed to it. Too many serious people have nodded their heads and accepted it as an obvious truth, who would be unacceptably embarrassed if it were proven that the whole thing was nothing more than a giant prank. Too many business leaders and governments have invested serious money into it to just shake it off. And much of American and European policy-making is now routed through Global Warming.
No matter what research emerges, the edifice of the lie cannot be allowed to come down. It might be reshaped a little, chiseled on the side, painted over in places, but it can never be toppled, because too much else would come down with it. Global Warming has become the Berlin Wall not only of the left, but of the entire establishment.
If the Cult of Warm were to come tumbling down, then the first victim of it would be the technocratic society built on an unreasonable confidence in experts and Harvard men who always know what they’re doing and know how to do it better than we do. Suddenly all those smart people would no longer seem so smart at all and our Republic of the New Deal and New Frontier would be revealed for a cluster of corrupt gullible idiots who are no better at running things than anyone else would be in their place.
The worst thing you can call a presidential candidate is stupid, not because they aren’t — most of them are — but because the present regime is built on convincing us that we have surrendered our freedom to a meritocracy of the best and the brightest. People who don’t make mistakes because they have gone to all the right schools, read all the right books and nod in all the right places. If people were to realize that their only actual skill is convincingly arguing positions based on talking points with no ability to think outside the box or evaluate the merits of the system, rather than the argument, then the regime would never be the same again.
Global Warming is not just a failure of a sizable chunk of the scientific establishment to put theory before ideology, it represents a failure of the entire process by which the West has been governed for a frightening number of years. It is a demonstration of how a handful of people in prominent positions can push through otherwise unacceptable measures by manufacturing a crisis and pipelining it through business and government. It’s a hack of our entire system of government.
If you understand the implications of that, then you begin to understand the consequences of it for the progressive technocracy and its mindless elitism that uses opinion leaders to drive actual leaders and has entire agencies dedicated to influencing opinion leaders. If Warmism fails, then it all fails. There will be no mobs in the street or squares filled with protesters, instead the entire infrastructure whose entire purpose is not to look stupid, will suddenly look very stupid.
Stupid leaders might not be too much of a problem in a democracy where people are entitled to elect any idiot they want, but it’s unacceptable in a technocracy where the leaders may win elections, but mostly they win the consensus of the elites. If the elites and their technocracy no longer amount to anything, then the emperor is naked, and suddenly elections might start mattering again.
Feb 21 12 6:44 PM
These are dark days for the “climate change” fraud. In 2010, 141 scientists wrote a letter to the United Nations challenging the junk science of the global warming cult, declaring “climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discover’ – the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly, the science is not settled.”
A year later, over a thousand scientists joined forces to express their skepticism of the climate change movement. Many of them were motivated to speak up by the “Climategate” scandal, in which emails from the East Anglia climate research unit revealed the deliberate manipulation of data by global-warming zealots. The group continues to collect a steady stream of climate scientists who study new data and conclude the basic assumptions of “climate change” are incorrect.
The release of new data has delivered one body blow after another to the “climate change” fanatics. Several major planet-wide studies have been released over the past couple of years, showing no significant global warming at all. The “climate models” used to wreak havoc upon the industrialized economies of the world utterly failed to predict our current global climate. The East Anglia fraudsters knew this was coming, which is why they were trying to “hide the decline” in global temperature data. Actually, the degree to which global warming is not happening came as a surprise to some critics of global warming theory, who were willing to accept that some atmospheric changes might be under way, but doubted human activity was a major contributing factor.
Non-politicized scientists have, in fact, returned to a school of thought that was gathering strength in the Seventies, before politicians took over from scientists and created the “global warming” cult: the Earth is headed for a period of cooling, caused in large measure by changes in solar radiation. In a fascinating turn of events, experiments at the CERN high-energy physics lab have increased scientists’ understanding of the role cosmic radiation plays in cloud formation, as discussed in an August 2011 piece in Nature. Refreshingly, the scientists pursuing these theories are cheerfully willing to concede they’re theories and open to challenge - not holy Scripture commanding the end of the Industrial Age, challenged only by heretics.
So, if you’re a die-hard global-warming dead-ender, how do you handle these depressing developments? You commit fraud in an attempt to discredit global-warming critics.
That’s what Peter Gleick, a cult member in good standing, decided to do to the Heartland Institute, a free-market think-tank that has long been outspoken against global warming. Gleick, who is nominally a “scientist” but doesn’t let ethics stand in the way of righteousness, created a false identity and stole confidential information from Heartland - including financial documents and their donor list - then published them online. He even threw in a complete forgery to make the story more interesting.
Because that’s what “science” is all about! Ignoring hard data, attacking the motives of those who dare to challenge your dogma, and making stuff up when necessary!
Once he was caught, Gleick wrote a hilarious “apology” in the Huffington Post in which he asserted, consistent with the highest traditions of science, that extreme righteousness justifies theft and forgery:
I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials; others have and are doing so. I only note that the scientific understanding of the reality and risks of climate change is strong, compelling, and increasingly disturbing, and a rational public debate is desperately needed. My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts -- often anonymous, well-funded, and coordinated -- to attack climate science and scientists and prevent this debate, and by the lack of transparency of the organizations involved. Nevertheless I deeply regret my own actions in this case. I offer my personal apologies to all those affected.
None of which has anything to do with all that highly inconvenient data that’s pulverizing the climate-change fraud, but I guess the true mission of “science” is to expose people who want to solicit contributions from the Koch Brothers.
As for those pleas for “rational public debate,” remind me: which side of this debate has been screaming “the science is settled” for years, hiding inconvenient data, producing ad campaigns that show children exploding into clouds of bloody meat as punishment for daring to question climate change dogma, and comparing its critics to Holocaust deniers?
The Heartland Institute responded to Gleick’s confession by saying “a mere apology is not enough to undo the damage,” ringing up their lawyers, and asking responsible publications to remove Gleick’s stolen and fraudulent documents from their Web sites.
Good luck with that, Heartland! Have you seen the way liberal media outlets are reporting the Gleick confession, when they bother to mention it at all? They’re still celebrating him as a hero, whose professional reputation was heroically sacrificed in the noble cause of embarrassing climate change “deniers.”
Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast is dubious that we’ve gotten the full truth from Gleick:
In his statement, Gleick claims he committed this crime because he believed The Heartland Institute was preventing a "rational debate" from taking place over global warming. This is unbelievable. Heartland has repeatedly asked for real debate on this important topic. Gleick himself was specifically invited to attend a Heartland event to debate global warming just days before he stole the documents. He turned down the invitation.
Gleick also claims he did not write the forged memo, but only stole the documents to confirm the content of the memo he received from an anonymous source. This too is unbelievable. Many independent commentators already have concluded the memo was most likely written by Gleick.
We hope Gleick will make a more complete confession in the next few days.
We can hope the same thing about the entire global-warming cult, but if hopes were greenhouse gases, we really would have polar bears riding ice floes into the Hudson River.
The larger context of this incident illustrates just how much politics has replaced science. A scientist would be more concerned with the discussion of data, and subjecting theories to rigorous challenge, than attempting to embarrass opposing participants in a discussion. And yet, the global warming cult is reduced to shouting that donations from the fossil-fuel industry presumptively discredit the arguments from institutions they support. As if the global-warming crowd isn’t getting big bucks from sources with a fiduciary interest in promoting their theories! What industry has been more guilty of using junk science to clean out the pockets of taxpayers than the “green energy” crew?
Most importantly, global warming has long enjoyed the patronage of statist politicians, who value the creation of a “problem” that demands immediate, unreasoning action by centralized government. Global warming theory is the perfect solvent for economic liberty – it positively demands the destruction of private property rights, because individuals cannot be trusted, by definition, to “do the right thing” on their own. Some global-warming extremists have openly suggested suspending democracy to battle the threat.
It’s tough to put a dollar value on that patronage, but I would be surprised if all the oily Koch Brothers money the Heartland Institute has ever dreamed of soliciting amounted to a fraction of one percent as much.http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49660
Oct 15 12 9:27 PM
By David Rose
13 October 2012
The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week.
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
global temperature changes
Research: The new figures mean that the 'pause' in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. This picture shows an iceberg melting in Eastern Greenland
The new data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land and sea, was issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare, and, until today, it has not been reported.
This stands in sharp contrast to the release of the previous figures six months ago, which went only to the end of 2010 – a very warm year.
Ending the data then means it is possible to show a slight warming trend since 1997, but 2011 and the first eight months of 2012 were much cooler, and thus this trend is erased.
Some climate scientists, such as Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, last week dismissed the significance of the plateau, saying that 15 or 16 years is too short a period from which to draw conclusions.
Others disagreed. Professor Judith Curry, who is the head of the climate science department at America’s prestigious Georgia Tech university, told The Mail on Sunday that it was clear that the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’.
Even Prof Jones admitted that he and his colleagues did not understand the impact of ‘natural variability’ – factors such as long-term ocean temperature cycles and changes in the output of the sun. However, he said he was still convinced that the current decade would end up significantly warmer than the previous two.
Disagreement: Professor Phil Jones, left, from the University of East Anglia, dismissed the significance of the plateau. Professor Judith Curry, right, from Georgia Tech university in America, disagreed, saying the computer models used to predict future warming were ‘deeply flawed’
Warmer: Since 1880 the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius. This image shows floating icebergs in Greenland
The regular data collected on global temperature is called Hadcrut 4, as it is jointly issued by the Met Office’s Hadley Centre and Prof Jones’s Climatic Research Unit.
Since 1880, when worldwide industrialisation began to gather pace and reliable statistics were first collected on a global scale, the world has warmed by 0.75 degrees Celsius.
Some scientists have claimed that this rate of warming is set to increase hugely without drastic cuts to carbon-dioxide emissions, predicting a catastrophic increase of up to a further five degrees Celsius by the end of the century.
The new figures were released as the Government made clear that it would ‘bend’ its own carbon-dioxide rules and build new power stations to try to combat the threat of blackouts.
At last week’s Conservative Party Conference, the new Energy Minister, John Hayes, promised that ‘the high-flown theories of bourgeois Left-wing academics will not override the interests of ordinary people who need fuel for heat, light and transport – energy policies, you might say, for the many, not the few’ – a pledge that has triggered fury from green activists, who fear reductions in the huge subsidies given to wind-turbine firms.
Here are three not-so trivial questions you probably won’t find in your next pub quiz. First, how much warmer has the world become since a) 1880 and b) the beginning of 1997? And what has this got to do with your ever-increasing energy bill?
You may find the answers to the first two surprising. Since 1880, when reliable temperature records began to be kept across most of the globe, the world has warmed by about 0.75 degrees Celsius.
From the start of 1997 until August 2012, however, figures released last week show the answer is zero: the trend, derived from the aggregate data collected from more than 3,000 worldwide measuring points, has been flat.
Surprising: News that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years will come as something of a shock. This picture shows drifting ice in Canada
Not that there has been any coverage in the media, which usually reports climate issues assiduously, since the figures were quietly release online with no accompanying press release – unlike six months ago when they showed a slight warming trend.
The answer to the third question is perhaps the most familiar. Your bills are going up, at least in part, because of the array of ‘green’ subsidies being provided to the renewable energy industry, chiefly wind.
They will cost the average household about £100 this year. This is set to rise steadily higher – yet it is being imposed for only one reason: the widespread conviction, which is shared by politicians of all stripes and drilled into children at primary schools, that, without drastic action to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions, global warming is certain soon to accelerate, with truly catastrophic consequences by the end of the century – when temperatures could be up to five degrees higher.
Hence the significance of those first two answers. Global industrialisation over the past 130 years has made relatively little difference.
And with the country committed by Act of Parliament to reducing CO2 by 80 per cent by 2050, a project that will cost hundreds of billions, the news that the world has got no warmer for the past 16 years comes as something of a shock.
It poses a fundamental challenge to the assumptions underlying every aspect of energy and climate change policy.
This ‘plateau’ in rising temperatures does not mean that global warming won’t at some point resume.
Damage: Global warming has been caused in part by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. This image shows smoke billowing out of a power station
But according to increasing numbers of serious climate scientists, it does suggest that the computer models that have for years been predicting imminent doom, such as those used by the Met Office and the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, are flawed, and that the climate is far more complex than the models assert.
‘The new data confirms the existence of a pause in global warming,’ Professor Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Science at America’s Georgia Tech university, told me yesterday.
‘Climate models are very complex, but they are imperfect and incomplete. Natural variability [the impact of factors such as long-term temperature cycles in the oceans and the output of the sun] has been shown over the past two decades to have a magnitude that dominates the greenhouse warming effect.
‘It is becoming increasingly apparent that our attribution of warming since 1980 and future projections of climate change needs to consider natural internal variability as a factor of fundamental importance.’
Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, who found himself at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ scandal over leaked emails three years ago, would not normally be expected to agree with her. Yet on two important points, he did.
The data does suggest a plateau, he admitted, and without a major El Nino event – the sudden, dramatic warming of the southern Pacific which takes place unpredictably and always has a huge effect on global weather – ‘it could go on for a while’.
Like Prof Curry, Prof Jones also admitted that the climate models were imperfect: ‘We don’t fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don’t fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don’t know what natural variability is doing.’
Headache: The evidence is beginning to suggest that global warming may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed - a conclusion with enormous policy implications for politicians at Westminster, pictured
Yet he insisted that 15 or 16 years is not a significant period: pauses of such length had always been expected, he said.
Yet in 2009, when the plateau was already becoming apparent and being discussed by scientists, he told a colleague in one of the Climategate emails: ‘Bottom line: the “no upward trend” has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’
But although that point has now been passed, he said that he hadn’t changed his mind about the models’ gloomy predictions: ‘I still think that the current decade which began in 2010 will be warmer by about 0.17 degrees than the previous one, which was warmer than the Nineties.’
Only if that did not happen would he seriously begin to wonder whether something more profound might be happening. In other words, though five years ago he seemed to be saying that 15 years without warming would make him ‘worried’, that period has now become 20 years.
Meanwhile, his Met Office colleagues were sticking to their guns. A spokesman said: ‘Choosing a starting or end point on short-term scales can be very misleading. Climate change can only be detected from multi-decadal timescales due to the inherent variability in the climate system.’
He said that for the plateau to last any more than 15 years was ‘unlikely’. Asked about a prediction that the Met Office made in 2009 – that three of the ensuing five years would set a new world temperature record – he made no comment. With no sign of a strong El Nino next year, the prospects of this happening are remote.
Why all this matters should be obvious. Every quarter, statistics on the economy’s output and models of future performance have a huge impact on our lives. They trigger a range of policy responses from the Bank of England and the Treasury, and myriad decisions by private businesses.
Yet it has steadily become apparent since the 2008 crash that both the statistics and the modelling are extremely unreliable. To plan the future around them makes about as much sense as choosing a wedding date three months’ hence on the basis of a long-term weather forecast.
Few people would be so foolish. But decisions of far deeper and more costly significance than those derived from output figures have been and are still being made on the basis of climate predictions, not of the next three months but of the coming century – and this despite the fact that Phil Jones and his colleagues now admit they do not understand the role of ‘natural variability’.
The most depressing feature of this debate is that anyone who questions the alarmist, doomsday scenario will automatically be labelled a climate change ‘denier’, and accused of jeopardising the future of humanity.
So let’s be clear. Yes: global warming is real, and some of it at least has been caused by the CO2 emitted by fossil fuels. But the evidence is beginning to suggest that it may be happening much slower than the catastrophists have claimed – a conclusion with enormous policy implications.http://www.dailymail.co.u...bal-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html?ito=feeds-newsxml
Oct 16 12 4:08 AM
by John Ransom
Climate experts from United Kingdom’s National Weather Service told the world that while is was not unusual for pauses in global warming that last for a decade to occur once every eighty years or so, there was no way that one could last for 15 years or more according to their climate model.
Oops. Their mistake, I guess.
Maybe that’s why when the United Kingdom’s National Weather Service updated their data and it showed that global warming has been paused for the last 16 years, they remained mum.
“The world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago, according to new data released last week,” write the Daily Mail’s David Rose. “The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures. This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.”
Rose includes a nice graphic, which we have reprinted below, that shows global temperatures remaining stable since 1997, with a statistically insignificant .03 degree rise on the Celsius scale.
Remember last summer- and the summer before that, and the summer before that- when droughts and tornadoes were pinned to global warming by a compliant media? Or when we were told that 100 million people would die in the next twenty minutes, or twenty years- is there really a difference?- because of global warming? And that of course women and children would bear the brunt of those deaths? Or last year when we were told about the wave of Polar Bear cannibals terrorizing the animal kingdom in the great white north?
Looks like the model might be a tad bit off.
“Climate models are very complex,” climate scientists Judith Curry, head of climate science department at Georgia Tech told the Mail in an email, “but they are imperfect and incomplete. In that context the problem is how people interpret the simulations from climate models in view of the uncertainties and imperfections.”
I could have not made a more eloquent point for those of us who love to sport the moniker “Climate Change Denier.”
And yes. I love to be called a Climate Change Denier.
Because it just confirms what we climate skeptics have said all along: Climate Change isn’t based on science, it’s based on faith.
If you want to separate government and religion, don’t worry about the Christians.
Start instead with the climate scientists.
Because it takes a real act of faith to extrapolate tornadoes, drought, floods, pandemics, and flesh-eating zombie Polar Bears to events that aren’t happening in any real, material sense.
Let’s put it this way, more Americans believe in Christ’s Virgin Birth than global warming.
And that makes sense to me.
“It occurs rarely in vertebrates,” reports CBSNews “but examples of it are increasingly being discovered. For instance, the Komodo dragon, the world's largest living lizard, has given birth via parthenogenesis, in which an unfertilized egg develops to maturity. Such virgin births have also been seen in sharks at least twice; in birds such as chickens and turkeys; and in snakes such as pit vipers and boa constrictors.”
Now that’s some science.
Global warming, on the other hand is just pure religion.
Every report the ICC or the United Kingdom’s National Weather Service puts out should start with “Let’s us pray.”
Mind you, I don’t care what another man’s religion is.
I just don’t want to pay for it with my tax dollars, my gas dollars or my energy bill.
Let them take up a collection instead and pay for it the way honest, hard-working religions have to.
Then, when they are done passing the hat, let’s count the faithful again, amen. http://finance.townhall.c...globalcooling/page/full/
Dec 24 12 6:24 PM
Feb 1 13 10:31 PM
Report shows U.N. admitting solar activity may play significant role in global warming
By Maxim Lott, Charles Couger
February 01, 2013
The Earth has been getting warmer -- but how much of that heat is due to greenhouse gas emissions and how much is due to natural causes?
A leaked report by a United Nations’ group dedicated to climate studies says that heat from the sun may play a larger role than previously thought.
"[Results] do suggest the possibility of a much larger impact of solar variations on the stratosphere than previously thought, and some studies have suggested that this may lead to significant regional impacts on climate," reads a draft copy of a major, upcoming report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The man who leaked the report, StopGreenSuicide blogger Alec Rawlstold FoxNews.com that the U.N.’s statements on solar activity were his main motivation for leaking the document.
The main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself.'
- StopGreenSuicide blogger Alec Rawls
"The public needs to know now how the main premises and conclusions of the IPCC story line have been undercut by the IPCC itself," Rawls wrote on his website in December, when he first leaked the report.
Rawls blames the U.N. for burying its point about the effect of the sun in Chapter 11 of the report.
"Even after the IPCC acknowledges extensive evidence for ... solar forcing beyond what they included in their models, they still make no attempt to account for this omission in their predictions. ... It's insane," he told FoxNews.com.
Some skeptical climatologists say that the statement in the U.N. draft report is important, but not game-changing.
"The solar component is real but not of sufficient magnitude to have driven most of the warming of the late 20th century," Pat Michaels, the former president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and current director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, told FoxNews.com.
The U.N. report also says that the effect of solar activity will be "much smaller than the warming expected from increases in [man-made] greenhouse gases."
An estimate from said that solar variations caused 25 percent of the 1.1 degree Fahrenheit warming that has been observed over the past century.
But Michaels said that if the U.N. increases its estimates about how much the sun affects Earth’s temperatures, it might help the U.N. get its prediction models back on track. While the Earth warmed over the last two decades, it did so more slowly than the U.N. had predicted.
"Climate science has the problem of trying to explain why we are now in our 17th year without a significant warming trend. As a result, you are seeing many forecasts of warming for this century being ratcheted down," he said.
Others say that the focus on solar activity distracts from the big picture -- the fact that the Earth is warming.
"I see climate contrarians try this trick almost every time a big new solar study comes out. They somehow tend to neglect mentioning that solar variation is smaller than the heat-trapping power of carbon dioxide," Aaron Huertas of the Union of Concerned Scientists told FoxNews.com.
To back that up, Huertas points to data that that solar activity and temperature rose together from 1880 until 1960, but that then, solar activity stopped increasing -- even as temperatures continued going up.
"The basic evidence is that solar activity has varied a bit while global temperature keeps going up," Huertas said.
But Rawls said that while solar activity has indeed stopped increasing, the important thing is that it remains at a historically high level.
"The simplest way to put it is: If you put a pot on the stove at the maximum temperature, and leave it on at that temperature -- are you telling me that the pot won’t keep warming?"
Rawls worries that if solar activity falls, the effects could be dire.
"Unlike warming, cooling really is dangerous, regularly dropping the planet into hundred-thousand-year-long glacial periods."
NASA has said that there is evidence that the most recent "Little Ice Age" was caused by a dip in solar activity.
"Almost no sunspots were observed on the sun's surface during the period from 1650 to 1715. This extended absence of solar activity may have been partly responsible for the Little Ice Age in Europe," during which temperatures were colder by about 1.8 degrees F than they are today, he said.
But Huertas said that’s not what we should worry about at a time when the effects of warming are already being felt.
"Climate change is affecting weather all across the planet and when it comes to extreme weather, the strongest links are to coastal flooding [and] heat waves," Huertas said.
"While climate skeptics are arguing on the Internet about drafts of the report, states like New York and New Jersey are working to help people rebuild their homes in ways that have a better chance of surviving more destructive storms and flooding in the future," he said.
Feb 9 13 6:04 PM
February 8, 2013
A polar bear in Svalbard, Norway. There are 19 polar bear subpopulations world-wide. Roughly one-third are in decline, another third are steady or increasing and the others haven't been studied sufficiently.
I knew I was in trouble when the biologist from the Manitoba Conservation Department sat down next to me. "The bears look good," he said. "I haven't seen them this fat in years." We'd both been hanging around the tiny town of Churchill, Manitoba, ground zero for everything having to do with polar bears. Every fall the town is overrun with bears waiting for Hudson Bay to freeze. The bears, in turn, are trailed by herds of tourists, tour guides, scientists, green-leaning types and B-list celebrities—all looking for communion with The Most Important Animal of Our Time.
What worried me wasn't what the biologist had to say, but what the woman who had occupied that same seat three minutes earlier had said about the very same bears. A publicist for an environmental advocacy group, she shook her head ruefully. "It's just so sad," she exhaled. "They all look so skinny that it's hard to look at them."
I went north for a simple reason: I wanted to be a hero of the environmental movement and write a poetic obituary for a doomed species. The Center for Biological Diversity—the environmental group that sued the U.S. government to put polar bears on the Endangered Species list—had predicted that "two-thirds of the world's polar bears could be extinct by 2050."
But after months of reporting and hundreds of bear sightings, I kept running up against an inconvenient truth: There were a lot of well-meaning, well-credentialed scientists, wildlife officers and local experts who simply didn't believe that polar bears were one ice cube away from extinction. And they had the numbers to prove it.
Which was good news for the bears…even if it was terrible news for their careers as symbols of environmental doom.
Let's start with what we know. Almost everybody agrees that there are between 20,000 and 25,000 polar bears alive today. Here's another thing almost everyone agrees on: That number is a whole lot bigger than it was 40 years ago.
"Polar bears are one of the biggest conservation success stories in the world," says Drikus Gissing, wildlife director for the Canadian territory of Nunavut. "There are more bears here now than there were in the recent past." And since as many as half of the world's polar bears live in Nunavut, that's not an insignificant statement.
Exactly how much the bear population has grown in recent decades is a subject of intense debate. Some poorly sourced reports placed the earlier number as low as 5,000 animals world-wide, and in 1965, top scientists reported that extinction was in sight. By 1990, the consensus was that the threat had passed, and one expert declared the population could be as high as 40,000. Today, the pendulum has swung back to a gloomy forecast for the future.
The task is complicated by the fact that there isn't one monolithic polar bear population. There are 19 polar bear subpopulations world-wide. Between 1997 and 2004, the bear population of Baffin Bay fell by about one-quarter. Yet in Davis Strait, just to the south, the population has more than doubled since the 1970s.
And in Churchill, where tourists crowd into rumbling "Tundra Buggies" to watch polar bears cavort, the population fell from 1,194 to 935 between 1984 and 2004. After that 2004 count, scientists predicted that the population would crater to 676 bears by 2011. But a recent survey found more than 1,000 bears there, leading some government scientists to enthusiastically endorse increased hunting quotas.
Different factors account for the health of each population. In one area, a ban on the hunting of whitecoat harp seals led to an explosion in the bears' food supply. On the other end of the spectrum, one group of bears appears to be suffering because it has been hunted by indigenous people in both Canada and Greenland. Of the 19 subpopulations, some scientists argue that about one-third are decreasing and one-third are steady or increasing. The rest haven't been studied enough for anyone to know.
It's also important to remember that when people talk about decreases in sea ice, they're usually referring to summer sea ice. Nobody is predicting the disappearance of winter sea ice. Polar bears in the southern latitudes have been accustomed to ice-free summers since well before the Industrial Revolution. During these lean months, they don't go into caves but rather experience a "walking hibernation," eating very little and conserving their energy. If northerly bears start to have somewhat longer summers—as southern bears already do—the future might not be as catastrophic as some fear.
Despite the many real bits of heartening news, bad omens abound. Declines in polar-bear body condition have been widely observed. Recently it has become far less common to see adult females bearing twins or triplets. As Lily Peacock, a bear researcher with the U.S. Geological Survey, puts it, "Some populations appear to be doing OK now, but what's frightening is what might happen in the very near future."
Still, there are reasons to be upbeat. For one, the idea that polar bears can survive only on seal meat has been called into question; diet analysis shows that polar bears routinely eat caribou, vegetation and waterfowl. Indeed, the population of snow geese in the north has recently grown dramatically, and one study suggests that the abundance of goose nests could offset some of the nutrients lost because of a shorter seal-hunting season.
Mitch Taylor, who published almost 50 peer-reviewed papers during his 21 years as a polar-bear biologist and wildlife manager for the territorial government of Nunavut, prefers to avoid speculating too much about the unknown. "We don't know what the future holds, but we do know that many current populations are stable. And we have to manage for what we've got right now, not what we might have in the future."
Management decisions must be driven by scientific data, of course. Yet the experience of people who know bears best can't be entirely discounted. I found that people who actually live in polar-bear country say, by a wide margin, that they're seeing more bears than ever before.
One night as Churchill's "bear season" was gearing up, I sat down with Kevin Burke, a man who has lived with polar bears all his life, as both a Churchill native and a ranger in the deep bush country. He has also spent countless hours assisting the Ph.D.'s who study bears and predict their imminent demise. "I'm just starting to resent being told that I'm not seeing what I know abso-flipping-lutely damn well that I'm seeing with my own eyes," he said (using considerably more colorful language). With polar bears, it's not always black and white. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323452204578288343627282034.html?mod=WSJ_LifeStyle_Lifestyle_5
Sep 29 13 1:53 PM
Baby girl survives after being shot in the chest in parents' 'global warming suicide pact'
By Gerard Couzens1 March 2010
Survivor: The seven-month-old baby girl is recovering in hospital after she was shot by her parents
A seven-month-old baby girl survived three days alone with a bullet in her chest beside the bodies of her parents and toddler brother.
Argentines Francisco Lotero, 56, and Miriam Coletti, 23, shot their children before killing themselves after making an apparent suicide pact over fears about global warming.
Their son Francisco, two, died instantly after being hit in the back.
But their unnamed daughter cheated death after the bullet from her dad's handgun missed her vital organs.
Paramedics rushed her to hospital covered in blood when police alerted by worried neighbours discovered the massacre three days later.
The youngster is recovering in hospital in the town of Goya in the northern Argentine province of Corrientes, where doctors say she is out of danger.
Her parents said they feared the effects of global warming in a suicide note discovered by police.
Jan 6 14 11:57 PM
Feb 3 14 1:11 AM
Is snow really "just a thing of the past" Dr. David Viner?
The global warming crowd was very short sighted when they started hyping natural weather events as proof of warming. Could they really have not know that the weather pendulum swings both ways?
Storms, heat waves, floods and droughts will come again as they always have. When they do, remember -- Weather happens.
This has been a bad winter for the global warming cultists.
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.