20070910 Marc Morano’s Round up– September 10, 2007
IPCC Peer Review Process an Illusion, finds SPPI Analysis
Excerpt: In “Peer Review? What Peer Review?” McLean writes, “The IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. Analyses of reviewer comments show a very different and disturbing story.” In Chapter 9, the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that "it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years". The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section. Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all. As with other chapters, simple corrections, requests for clarifications or refinements to the text which did not challenge the IPCC’s conclusions are generally treated favourably, but comments which dispute the IPCC’s claims or their certainty are treated with far less indulgence. In a related finding, McLean observes, “The dominance of research presupposing a human influence also means that the IPCC editing teams are likely to consist of people predisposed to view the situation in that light.” Adds McLean, “The problems continue into the authorship of these reports. According to IPCC documents, scientists are nominated by governments or explicitly invited by scientists already associated with the IPCC. What a wonderful way to position scientists who support a government agenda on climate and then fill out the IPCC with like-minded individuals.” Concludes McLean, “The IPCC reports appear to be largely based on a consensus of scientific papers, but those papers are the product of research for which the funding is strongly influenced by previous IPCC reports. This makes the claim of a human influence self-perpetuating and for a corruption of the normal scientific process.”
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/press/ipccprocessillusion.html
New study further debunks UN IPCC “consensus” claims
Excerpt: On Thursday, climate data analyst John McLean wrote a http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_originals/peerreview.html
fabulous analysis of the most recent IPCC Assessment Report released in April, and in so doing, obliterated many of the press assertions that have become prominent fixtures in climate change lore. Published by the http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
Science and Public Policy Institute, this paper should be must reading for all media members and global warming alarmists. < > And, here was McLean's most damning finding: It is difficult to quantify the extent of the reviewers' support for the IPCC's conclusions in the chapter on attribution of climate change. Given the number of reviewers who made very few comments, the duplication of comments and the number of minor corrections, it appears likely that less than 40 of the IPCC's 308 reviewers were generally supportive of the hypothesis. It is not true, therefore, that hundreds of scientists endorsed the IPCC's findings, still less that thousands did so. < > It began with a rather harsh review of the important Summary for Policy Makers (emphasis added throughout): The IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. An analysis of the reviewers' comments for the scientific assessment report by Working Group I show a very different and very worrying story. [...] A total of 308 reviewers commented on the Second Revision, which was the penultimate draft, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and just five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters. At the other end of the scale, 143 reviewers (46%) commented on just one chapter and a further 71 (23%) on two. This would be acceptable if they had provided numerous detailed comments, but 53 of these 214 reviewers made fewer then five comments and 28 reviewers made fewer than three comments.
The number of reviewers who made just one comment on a chapter varied between 12.6% and 32% (i.e. almost one-third) of the reviewers commenting on that chapter. For four chapters, fewer than six comments were made by more than 50% of the reviewers who commented. For another four chapters, the figure was between 40% and 50%.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/09/what-media-won-t-tell-you-about-u-n-climate-panel
UK Telegraph: Retreat of the warmists begins to accelerate
Excerpt: Just as we begin to see the colossal price we are being asked to pay for measures to combat climate change, ever more of the evidence adduced to support the global warming scare crumbles away. A key article of faith for the "warmists" is a supposed increase in the incidence of extreme weather events, such as droughts. As Al Gore claimed to a US Senate committee in March, "droughts are becoming longer and more intense".
But US researchers, led by Gemma Narisma, have now shown that, far from becoming more frequent in recent decades, serious droughts have in fact become rarer than they were a century ago. In a paper (reported on the website CO2Science.org) they identified the 30 most "severe and persistent" drought episodes of the 20th century. Seven of these occurred before 1920, seven between 1921 and 1940 and eight between 1941 and 1960, dropping to five between 1961 and 1980. The last two decades of the century, when the world was supposedly hotting up more than ever, saw just three.
The worst drought affecting the developed world was the US Dust Bowl disaster of the mid-1930s. This corresponds with the recently revised figures for US surface temperatures published by Gore's leading scientific ally, James Hansen of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).
Last month, when Steve McIntyre, an expert statistical analyst, spotted a fundamental flaw in the method Hansen had used to calculate his figures, GISS was forced to publish a new graph, showing that the hottest year of the 20th century was not 1998, as generally accepted, but 1934. Of the 10 hottest years since 1880, four were in the 1930s, only three in the past decade. This in turn followed the latest satellite figures from the US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration showing how global temperatures in recent years have flattened out at about 0.2 degrees below their 1998 level, and that this summer's figures have been lower than they were in 1983, despite a continuing rise in CO2. It is clear that 2007 is proving quite a turning point in the climate change debate.
Only last year one of the fathers of warmist alarmism, Professor James Lovelock, predicted that, by the end of this century, climate change would have been responsible for billions of deaths, and that the only habitable places left on Earth would be the polar regions. Last week, however, significantly retreating from his apocalyptic view, he told the World Nuclear Association that, even though temperatures might rise by a further five degrees, nature and humanity would learn to adjust. The Earth was in "no danger".
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/09/nbook109.xml
Sean Hannity Exposes Gore’s hypocrisy on Private jet
Excerpt: Fox News's Sean Hannity aired on Sunday's "Hannity's America" wherein the Global Warmingist-in-Chief, soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore, was seen getting off a private, fuel inefficient jet at San Francisco Airport before stepping into a non-hybrid, Lincoln Town Car.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/10/will-media-report-al-gore-s-hypocritical-private-plane-flights
Hannity Exposes Al Gore and Liberals with Their Global Warming Hypocrisy
Excerpt: “Is Al Gore a Hypocrite?” Well, if you read Al Gore and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s “Global Warming Survival Handbook,” I think you will have an idea just how ridiculous these people are. This book was supposed to accompany their Live Earth Tour. It outlines 77 essential skills to stop climate change or live through it. Solution #14, was to “green your home.” It suggested using composting toilets (this is probably why liberals smell so bad) and air drying laundry. The book also suggested riding a bike to work and bathing with someone else to save water. I guess liberals also need these green excuses to get it on. Most hilarious, however, was the solution to build a home out of straw. This is not a joke. I am not being satirical. Al Gore and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. want us to live in straw huts. Oh, and the #7 solution in Al Gore’s book was to “Fly Right,” probably suggesting that if you have 112 alternatives to a private jet, forgo the jet.
http://www.redstate.com/blogs/advocate123/2007/sep/09/hannity_s_america_sean_hannity_exposes_al_gore_and_liberals_with_their_global_warming_hypocrisy
Flashback: Day 173 OF FORMER VICE-PRESIDENT AL GORE'S REFUSAL TO TAKE THE INHOFE "PERSONAL ENERGY ETHICS PLEDGE"
Excerpt: During the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee hearing on March 21, 2007, http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=51628af6-802a-23ad-4588-bc4a4a94607a
“Vice President Al Gore’s Perspective on Global Warming,” former Vice President Al Gore refused to take a “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge” to consume no more energy than the average American household. The pledge was presented to Gore by Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Ranking Member of the Environment and Public Works Committee. At the hearing, Senator Inhofe showed Gore a frame from Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth” where Gore asks viewers: “Are you ready to change the way you live
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Pledge
Geologist Calls Unfounded Climate Fears 'Abuse of Science'
Excerpt: Al Pekarek doesn't like being called a denier. Rather, the associate geology professor at St. Cloud State University says he's seeking scientific truth amid the "media circus" he believes the global warming issue has become in recent years. For the past 12 years, Pekarek has read everything he can find about climate change. His conclusion — that the Earth has been getting warmer, but humans aren't causing it. < > Pekarek sharply criticizes people for whom he says environmentalism has become a "religion" and who are using flawed climate theories to push their agenda. "It's an abuse of science," he said. "They are misquoting science. They are misusing science. They are making predictions of dire consequences in the name of science that will not come true, and science will lose its credibility."
http://www.sctimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070907/NEWS01/109070042/1001
Former Harvard physicist smacks down RealClimatel.org
Excerpt: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/friday-roundup-3/
The RealClimate.ORG group has a special new blog article dedicated to the paper by Schwartz et al. and they assure the readers that Schwartz et al. "misinterpret" the IPCC report. A funny detail is that while RealClimate.ORG link to two less relevant texts, they don't offer their readers the very paper by Schwartz et al. that is being "debunked". Well, the readers don't even expect it. What the readers of RealClimate.ORG want is their daily dose of religion: they want to be assured by "experts" that the holy global warming is great and anyone who tries to diminish His holiness - including Prof Schwartz - is a jester, cook, denier, or liar. And RealClimate.ORG is indeed optimized for readers at this intellectual level.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/quantifying-climate-change-too-rosy.html
So-called global warming “consensus” debunked in new study
Excerpt: Credit Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte with exposing the lie that the global warming alarmists have traded in for years. Schulte, a surgeon and researcher at King's College Hospital in London, recently reviewed 528 climate change papers published from 2004 to February of this year and found that a mere 38, or 7%, explicitly support the consensus. Daily Tech, an online magazine, says the ratio goes to 45% "if one considers 'implicit' endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement)." While only 32, or 6%, of the papers reject the consensus outright, Daily Tech blogger Michael Asher reports that the "largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no 'consensus.' " "The figures are even more shocking," Asher says, "when one remembers the watered-down definition of consensus here." "Consensus," as used in the sense of Schulte's analysis, does not require support for the theory that man is the primary cause of warming. Nor does it require a belief in catastrophic global warming.
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=274057793953148
Unproven Climate Computer Models Predict Polar Bear Entirely Gone in Alaska by 2050
Excerpt: More than two-thirds of the world's polar bears will be killed off by 2050 — including the entire population in Alaska — because of thinning sea ice from global warming in the Arctic, government scientists forecast Friday. The agency projects that polar bears during that time will lose 42 percent of the Arctic range they need to live in during summer in the Polar Basin when they hunt and breed. Polar bears depend on sea ice as a platform for hunting seals, which is their primary food. But the sea ice is decreasing due to climate change. "It's that declining sea ice that appears to be driving the results in our models," said U.S. Geological Survey scientist Steven Amstrup, the lead author of the new studies. "As the sea ice goes, so goes the polar bear."
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j9NGJ0_eVkxqgpEFC6RMHVlvT9qw
[Note: It appears the greatest thing polar bears may have to fear are unproven computer models of the future. Despite the fact that according to the Fish and Wildlife Service “there are an estimated 20,000 to 25,000 polar bears (today). That's up from the roughly 8,000 thought to exist in the 1970s.” See: http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070615/NEWS01/706150410/1077/COL02
]
IceCap.US debunks unproven computer model polar bear extinction fears
Excerpt: A series of reports by the USGS were released Friday predicting tough sledding ahead for the world’s polar bear populations. More than two-thirds of the world’s polar bears will be killed off by 2050 — including the entire population in Alaska — because of thinning sea ice from global warming in the Arctic, government scientists forecast Friday. See in this blog: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/LINEAR_THING.pdf
why the evidence does not suggest that rising temperature endangers them or will cause their extinction but don’t let the facts get in the way of a good cause. Jeff Masters in his Wunderground blog yesterday projected the decrease in arctic ice the last few decades will continue, eventually leaving the arctic ice free by 2030. He gets there by comparing the ice in 1979 to the ice cover in 2007 and noting it was disappearing faster than the climate models showed it would. He notes that although this will have little effect on sea level it will mean we have to reevaluate the melting of the Greenland icecap and revise its demise sharply upwards. This he notes would have a much greater effect on sea level. Again Jeff and the researchers he quotes have little regard or understanding of the history nor understanding of the true factors at play in the cyclical changes in the arctic and Greenland (and the globe for that matter).
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/the_arctic_in_the_news_and_blogs_no_sense_of_history/
Religious leaders pray in Greenland for global warming to stop (it did already!)
Excerpt: Religious leaders from all over the world met at the mouth of a melting glacier in Greenland today to say a silent prayer for the planet, appealing to mankind to address the impact that humanity is having on life on Earth. A group of nearly 200 scientists, theologians and government officials sailed into the ice fields of the Illulissat Icefjord, the largest glacier in Greenland that is bearing the brunt of global warming.
http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=3572327
[Note: Gore’s friend Robert Corell is at it again, spouting off unfounded fears about Greenland that are not supported in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Once again see this report to get the actual latest scientific findings. Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175B568A-802A-23AD-4C69-9BDD978FB3CD
Corell was one of the scientists the AP’s Seth Borenstein quoted as giving Gore two thumbs up for accuracy in June 2006. Just to reiterate, Greenland’s high point in temps was in the 1930’s or in other words, warming stopped in Greenland in the 1930’s. As for the recent “massive acceleration” in melting that Corell drones on about, the rate of warming in the early part of the 20th century was twice as fast as recent warming in Greenland, long before man-made CO2 could have impacted it. ]
[EPW Note: First off, their prayers have already been answered. According to UK Met office and UN data, global warming has stopped. (Global temps have not gone up sine 1998) See: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8&Issue_id=
Second, according to latest peer-reviewed science, warming in Greenland stopped in the 1930's. (See: Latest Scientific Studies Refute Fears of Greenland Melt http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=175B568A-802A-23AD-4C69-9BDD978FB3CD
The public, religious leaders and policymakers, need to actually start reading peer-reviewed scientific literature and stop relying on politicized UN science, former Vice President Al Gore and a completely asinine news media which long ago stopped even trying to report climate issues accurately. ]
Greenland’s Melting ice cap triggering earthquakes
Excerpt: The Greenland ice cap is melting so quickly that it is triggering earthquakes as pieces of ice several cubic kilometres in size break off.
Scientists monitoring events this summer say the acceleration could be catastrophic in terms of sea-level rise and make predictions this February by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change far too low. The glacier at Ilulissat, which supposedly spawned the iceberg that sank the Titantic, is now flowing three times faster into the sea than it was 10 years ago. Robert Corell, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, said in Ilulissat yesterday: "We have seen a massive acceleration of the speed with which these glaciers are moving into the sea. The ice is moving at 2 metres an hour on a front 5km [3 miles] long and 1,500 metres deep. That means that this one glacier puts enough fresh water into the sea in one year to provide drinking water for a city the size of London for a year."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/08/climatechange
Reports of Record Arctic Ice Melt Disgracefully Ignore History
Excerpt: Getting the picture? Claims of "grim consequences" and "record low" ice levels are based on a satellite record which began in 1979, while routine monitoring of the region started in 1972. How can anyone make a claim with a straight face that ice conditions in the Arctic are either historically low or grim when we've only been monitoring these levels for the last 35 years? Is everything that happened in this region - in thousands of millennia since the Big Bang occurred - totally irrelevant? Such is especially the case given the history of successful sea-based explorations of the Arctic dating back as far as 1903.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/09/reports-record-arctic-ice-melt-disgracefully-ignore-history
Email exchange with AP reporter Borenstein makes waves at Journalism Conference
[EPW Note: I sent the Associated Press’ Borenstein and SEJ these two Senate reports on climate science and funding disparities: see: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8&Issue_id=
& http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=38d98c0a-802a-23ad-48ac-d9f7facb61a7
As reported by climate alarmist Mother Jones Magazine
Excerpt: A day before the event, he received an email from http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Marc_Morano
Marc Morano, a senior aid to Senator James Inhofe (R-Ok.)—the former head of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works and an adamant climate change denier—urging him to question the panel's seeming assumption that scientists had concluded that climate change was a reality. Borenstein promptly forwarded the email to several other journalists. Contrary to popular opinion (and Mother Jones' careful reporting), Morano wrote, scientists who challenge the climate change hypothesis are not a well-funded minority, but individuals whose research has held its own scientifically despite the PR victory of well-funded liberal fear-mongers. You've gotta give it to Inhofe, whose major funders list reads like a who's who of energy and forest products corporations—he's really stuck to his guns.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/09/5406_dispatch_from_t.html
Bogus NASA Severe Storm Study
Excerpt: I've been thinking about my criticism of a U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/moist_convection.html
study of tornadoes and hail in the previous post. I realize now that I was far too lenient on those who conducted the study. The study should never have been funded. It should never have passed the peer review process and it should never have been published in any scientific journal. The authors apparently are ignorant of the fact temperatures in most of the U.S. change drastically over a year's time. Seasonal changes are particularly drastic in "tornado alley" in the central U.S.. A mere 5 F (2.5 C) increase in temperature would only mean that spring and summer might occur a few days earlier. Passage of a cold front or warm front can change the high temperature by 10 F ( 5 C) or more in a single day. A strong cold front of the type that sometimes produces strong tornadoes may have a 30 F (15 C )or more difference in temperature in areas only 50 miles ( 70 km. ) apart. (NOTE: metric measures not intended to be exact equivalents).
http://my.telegraph.co.uk/reasonmclucus/september_2007/bogus_nasa_study.htm
'Hidden hurricanes' upsetting global warming theories?
Excerpt: Two studies published this summer contend that the number of hurricanes counted in the early 20th century is lower than the number that actually formed. The reason: Weather-recording technology has improved to the point that scientists can see tropical storms now that they never would have known about 100 years ago. The findings are important because in recent years, several researchers have factored in historical data to show that hurricane seasons have become more active. They have theorized that the more active seasons are linked to global warming. But those theories could come into question if there were more hurricanes in the past than previously believed. "If what I've done is reasonable, then taking into account what was missed, there's nothing you can relate to global warming," said Chris Landsea, a National Hurricane Center researcher who published one of the papers. http://www.al.com/news/mobileregister/index.ssf?/base/news/1189330481234080.xml&coll=3
Hurricane Scientists Flubbed Forecasts for Two Years
Excerpt: Hurricane researchers, who forecast seven more storms this season, have flubbed the past two annual estimates because of unusual El Nino and La Nina weather phenomena in the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. The predictions reflect variables that make this kind of weather forecasting ``more art than science,'' said Eric Blake, a hurricane specialist at the National Hurricane Center in Miami. Two of the nine Atlantic hurricanes predicted already have occurred for the season that ends Nov 30. Last year, five storms emerged after nine were anticipated.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aWuWjvhiv8Y4&refer=us
UK to propose banning 'energy-guzzling' plasma TV's
Excerpt: THE Conservatives will propose banning plasma screens and other energy-guzzling electrical goods in a report to be unveiled next week. The proposals target white goods like fridges and freezers, as well as TVs, personal computers and DVD players that use too much energy or operate on stand-by. The ideas come from a Conservative group set up by David Cameron to develop policies to protect the environment and although the measures to make household electrical appliances more energy efficient are not binding on Mr Cameron, they are thought likely to be warmly received by the Tory leader. The group will also suggest scrapping Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as a measure of the nation’s success in favour of a model that measures people’s happiness drawn up up by Friends of the Earth.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007420012,00.html
Eco-minded celebrities under scrutiny for lifestyles
Excerpt: No, it's not easy being green, least of all for Hollywood A-listers living in jaw-dropping decadence. Solar panels on a 50,000-square-foot manse in Malibu just don't scream "Live simply!" Ditto hopping onto a private plane to get to the Live Earth concert. Media outlets and Web sites have increased their scrutiny of green-speaking stars, such as Brad Pitt (above) and Ed Begley Jr. And with the eco-lifestyle becoming the new Hollywood must-have, stars are trying to find a comfortable place in the growing divide between the biodiesel-driving, rainwater-collecting model and the carbon-offsetting, private-jet-riding approach. Of course, celebrities don't let their lavish lifestyles stop them from preaching about temperance. Eco-friendly living isn't about great sacrifice, they contend, it's about making small but powerful changes. It's about voting green. Besides, they say, they're doing their part by using their fame to broadcast a pro-Earth message. Isn't that enough? It might have been, a few years back. But then, the green movement became part of the mainstream. For the rich and famous, the competition to out-green the next guy got so fierce that the next logical place to take the Greening of Hollywood was the exposé: Every media outlet and Web site has upped its scrutiny of green-speaking stars.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/ent/stories/DN-ecocelebs_0909gl.ART.State.Bulldog.423c35c.html
Activists take Al Gore to task on his diet
Excerpt: He may be the hero of the environmental movement for his crusade against global warming but Al Gore is about to be targeted by animal rights activists over his carnivorous contribution to greenhouse gases. Activists take Gore to task on his diet. Citing United Nations research that the meat industry is worse for the environment than driving and flying, animal rights groups are directing a campaign at the former American vice-president's diet. When he delivers a lecture on global warming in Denver next month, protesters will display billboards bearing a cartoon image of Mr Gore eating a drumstick and the message: "Too chicken to go vegetarian? Meat is the No 1 cause of global warming". The campaign is being organised by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta) and is backed by other animal rights groups. "For Al Gore, the fact that his diet is a leading contributor to global warming is a highly inconvenient truth - pun intended," said Matt Prescott, a spokesman for Peta.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/09/09/wgore109.xml
Judge Dismisses Claims CO2 Emissions Caused Hurricane Katrina
Excerpt: A federal judge on Aug. 30 rejected Mississippi residents' claims that coal, oil and chemical companies were liable for greenhouse gas emissions, which allegedly led to an increase in powerful hurricanes in the region, including Hurricane Katrina (Ned Comer, et al. v. Murphy Oil USA Inc., et al., No. 05-CV-436LG, S.D. Miss., Southern Div.).
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/08/judge-dismisses-claims-co2-emissions-caused-hurricane-katrina
NASA’s James Hansen Finally Releases Climate Data Computer Codes
Excerpt: Much as when the organization he leads
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/09/did-media-or-nasa-withhold-climate-history-data-changes-public
quietly made changes to the United States historical climate record at the prodding of Climate Audit's Stephen McIntyre, James Hansen of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies finally released critical computer codes scientists have wanted for years, but did so with absolutely no official press release. As a result, not one media outlet covered this occurrence that years from now could be seen as a huge turning point in the climate change debate. Despite the secrecy, there was great celebration amongst anthropogenic global warming skeptics that have wanted these closely held codes to be able to identify how NASA and the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration make adjustments to raw climate data collected by weather stations. One such skeptic is Anthony Watts, who happily http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/09/hansen_frees_the_code.html
reported Saturday: Apparently us "court jesters" http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/realdeal.16aug20074.pdf(as Dr. James Hansen calls us) carry some weight after all. I'm happy to report that NASA GISS has in fact http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/distro_peakrevandgistemp_070907.pdf
released the computer code used to arrive at temperature adjustments for the USA and the world. The first task is to make sure it matches what has been seen, and to verify that we have all of it. This is hugely important in doing independent verification of the surface temperature record. Following that, an analysis of the methodology and replication of the computer program output to see if it matches the current data sets. Then perhaps we can fully understand why some stations that are in "pristine" condition, such as http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=5405
Walhalla, SC, with no obvious microsite biases, get "adjusted" by Hansen's techniques. Shouldn't good data stand on it's own?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/08/nasa-s-james-hansen-finally-releases-climate-data-computer-codes
New video segment debunks man-made global warming fears
Excerpt: The clip focuses on the climate reconstructions, disagreement of the models with patterns of reality, papers arguing that the role of the Sun exceeds certain fractions, and ill-definedness of the surface air temperature. The creator of this video has to be a pretty talented young person.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/09/global-warming-unsettled-science.html
Carbon Offsets: Eco-Extortion, Green Guilt, and the Selling of Indulgences
Excerpt: the selling of “voluntary carbon offsets”—eco-indulgences—is a $55 million per year industry, involving over three dozen companies worldwide. Total sales are anticipated to double both this year and next, and entrepreneurs are clamoring all over themselves for a piece of the action. And it’s all a scam.
Yes, the money is very real, but the alleged benefits to the environment are fake. Paying someone to plant a tree to “offset” the carbon footprint of your SUV is just plain silly. Yet there are thousands of people spending real money on these kind of indulgences every day
Why? The answer is that it’s part green guilt, part eco-extortion, and part just plain novelty—like those pet rocks, mood rings, and Magic 8 Balls from the ’70s. People want to brag to their friends about how eco-sensitive they are. Which, of course, is part of the whole green guilt, eco-extortion thing. The dictionary defines extortion as “the practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats.” What is the “force” used to pressure people into wasting their money on carbon offsets? It’s called “green guilt,” and it’s the peer pressure generated by people like Algore and The Live Earth Hystericals (see here) to “Do something!” about the “threat” of catastrophic, man-made global warming. Of course, he and his green buddies aren’t going to stop living their giant carbon footprint lifestyles, which is why they came up with the whole scam of selling you a voluntary carbon offset—which is simply a self-imposed, guilt-motivated pollution tax.
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/FrankPastore/2007/09/09/carbon_offsets__eco-extortion,_green_guilt,_and_the_selling_of_indulgences