Posts Tagged ‘climate change’

Protecting the Nation’s Frigid Air

Posted: Saturday, January 1, 2011 at 2:01 am
By: Ken Blanchard
7 Comments | Trackback Bookmark and Share

rudolph_snowman_crawlingFor the last two days Mother Nature has expressed her opinion of the global warming debate by dumping a ton of white powder on yours truly.  The snow drifts in my back yard are waste high and my beagle transformed into a dolphin this afternoon to navigate them.

Maybe Mother Nature is trying to tell me something, only it is difficult to determine what that is.  It seems obvious to me that a very cold day, or week, or even a decade of flat line temperatures tells us little or nothing about long range climate trends.  Judah Cohen, writing in the New York Times, thinks otherwise.

It’s all a snow job by nature. The reality is, we’re freezing not in spite of climate change but because of it.

Only a fool could doubt the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis since, apparently, virtually any data confirms it.

Tomorrow will be a bitterly cold day here, whatever that means, and it will be the first day of the rest of Barack Obama’s first term.  One of things that Obama/Reid/Pelosi failed to do so far was to pass strict limits on carbon emissions.  If they couldn’t do it when they controlled the White House and both branches of Congress, they won’t have better luck now that Orange John Boehner is replacing Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

Never mind.  The Pittsburgh Post-gazette informs us that the limits are coming anyway.

The decision by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to move forward on limiting greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and refineries is a welcome step, especially because it comes as Congress stubbornly refuses to enact measures to protect the nation’s air.

The EPA announced last week that it will propose standards for new and refurbished power plants in July and for new oil refineries next December; rules for existing power plants — there are 16 coal-fired power plants in Western Pennsylvania — would follow in 2015 or 2016. Nationwide, the plants and refineries emit about 40 percent of all greenhouse gases, and the rules are aimed at reducing carbon dioxide and other substances that are fouling the air today and harming the planet in the long term.

I am not quite sure what it means to “protect the nation’s air.”  Air is one of those things that no government, however rapacious, has yet found a way to seize.  Clouds drifting ashore over Seattle drift from further east, and the EPA has precious little jurisdiction over China.

I do know what it means for a bunch of executive branch bureaucrats to try to impose a policy favored by Democrats that failed in a Congress that Democrats controlled.  It means big trouble for the President and his party.

Cap and Trade legislation failed because there is no way on God’s green earth that the American people would put up with it.  Maybe green technologies will one day flower and give us abundant energy while shrinking our carbon footprint back to the days when firewood was carried on donkey carts.  Meanwhile the only way to achieve significant reductions in carbon emissions is to dramatically reduce energy consumption by making energy much more expensive.  That means that everything produced with energy becomes more expensive, and all of us become poorer.  The voters will notice.

Congress failed to pass restrictions on carbon emissions because Congress is directly responsible to the voters.  Even in boom times such legislation would have been a dubious proposition and these ain’t boom times.  The folks who staff the EPA don’t have to run for office, so they are more insulated from the people.

Barack Obama does have to run again, if he wants a second term.  If the EPA really tries to protect the nation’s air by putting the screws to the nation’s power plants, that will mean either a big rise in energy bills for pretty much everyone or energy shortages.  Either would be a great gift to whoever wins the 2012 Republican nomination.

I have a hard time believing that Obama will really give the Republicans so generous a gift.  He surely wants to convince his core support on the Left that he is serious about this issue, because the Left cares.  So the EPA will do something.  Congress has provided the template.  The Cap and Trade bill that passed Pelosi’s House contained so many loopholes that it would have been ineffectual if it had become law.  That’s how cap and trade worked in Europe.  I am guessing that the EPA regulations will look something like that.

Welcome to the second half of Barack Obama’s first term.  Happy New Year!

Lumpy Ocean

Posted: Wednesday, December 8, 2010 at 12:28 am
By: Ken Blanchard
2 Comments | Trackback Bookmark and Share

WaterworldIf there’s one thing you thought you could count on, it’s that sea level is sea level.  Maybe it will rise and fall with time; but surely it’s evenly distributed at any one time, like the surface of a bowl of water.  I was disturbed by the news that this isn’t true.  From Der Spiegel:

“In reality, the water in the oceans wobbles all over the place,” says oceanographer Detlef Stammer. He isn’t talking about waves, but large-scale bulges and bumps in the sea level.

Stammer, who is the director of the Center for Marine and Climate Research at the University of Hamburg, is familiar with the incorrect notions that lay people have, which is why he likes to present them with two numbers to shatter their illusions. “In the Indian Ocean, the sea level is about 100 meters (330 feet) below the average, while the waters around Iceland are 60 meters above the average.”

The ocean is lumpy!  It’s like bad gravy.  This gives you some idea of how challenging it is to predict the effects of climate change.  Most of the reporting seems to assume that as temperatures go up, ice well melt and waters will rise evenly across the globe.  Not so.

The flood of data from the orbiting satellite has produced all kinds of surprises for scientists in recent years. For instance, while seas have risen by about 15 centimeters in the tropical Western Pacific, the ocean near San Francisco has fallen by about the same amount. “On the German coast, on the other hand, the sea level today is a few centimeters higher than it was 15 years ago,” says Claus Böning of the Kiel-based excellence cluster “The Future Ocean.”

I am not sure what an “excellence-cluster” is, but I am sure this is good news for a lot of high-priced Bay Area real estate.

Sea level rise is one of the scary things that global warming is supposed to do, but how scary is it, exactly?  Al Gore showed us photo shopped images of most of New York City under water, which might count as an unparalleled disaster or as urban renewal, depending on your view of Manhattan.  Again from Der Spiegel:

If the Greenland ice sheet, which is 3 kilometers (1.88 miles) thick in some places, were to melt completely, sea levels would rise by 7 meters on average. It would take many centuries before the 3 million cubic kilometers of glaciers ended up in the ocean. But people living near Germany’s North Sea coast would hardly even notice, because the sea level there would remain virtually unchanged. The water would even subside off the coast of Norway. “And, purely theoretically, the sea level would actually fall by several meters off the coast of Greenland,” Stammer explains.

Of course, a seven meter rise “on average” would dunk someone.

The nations bordering the entire Indian Ocean and the Pacific, as well as the countries of South America and Africa, would be the true victims of a global rise in sea levels.

In those regions, the oceans would not just rise by the average of 7 meters, but by as much as 8 or even 10 meters. “Of course, this is only a theoretical model,” says Stammer, the oceanographer.

Ten meters up is a lot of meters in.  Atolls barely visible above the waves would be history.

That is something we have to worry about “centuries” from now, according to theoretical models, which tells us what we need to know.  There are many serious problems for policy makers to worry about.  Sea level rise is not one of them.  It has been rising for a very long time.  It isn’t at all clear that it is rising at present.  We haven’t much noticed sea level rise in the past and most of us won’t notice it for the foreseeable future.  The Germans, apparently, will never notice it, but they might have to start feeling guilty about the damage global warming is doing to Chile in 3075 or maybe 4075.

That’s assuming, of course, the historical trajectory remains unchanged.  The odds of that are very low.  If the present world civilization survives the next several centuries and continues to progress, the technological challenges presented by global warming will be child’s play.  We will figure out how to charge our iPods without heating up Greenland.  If not, well, that will solve the problem in another way.

It is delusional to think that we can base our policy on theoretical projections centuries into the future.  I think we should take climate change seriously.  I think it is absurd to believe that we can accomplish serious reductions in global greenhouse emissions over the near future without a dramatic contraction of world economic growth.  That means that we should focus on dealing with the consequences of climate change.  Some of these may be serious.  Sea level rise is not likely to be at the top of the list.

The Illusion that Climate Change Policy is about the Environment

Posted: Sunday, November 28, 2010 at 12:14 am
By: Ken Blanchard
2 Comments | Trackback Bookmark and Share

Magic_Is_MightMaybe he thought that he could get away with it because he said it in German.  Ottmar Edenhofer is, according to Powerline,

the deputy director and chief economist at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, the joint chair of the IPCC’s [International Panel for Climate Change] Working Group 3, and will co-chair the Working Group “Mitigation of Climate Change” at the upcoming summit in Cancun.

Here is a portion of an interview with Edenhofer in the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010.  The translation is from The Global Warming Policy Foundation.  The latter is clearly hostile to the global warming movement, but using my meager German and Google translator, it looks to be correct.  Bold face type is the interviewer.

The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet – and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 – there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

Wow.  This is, of course, what libertarians and conservatives have always suspected about the climate change movement: that it’s really about putting the economies of the developed world under the control of a handful of bureaucrats standing at a great remove from ordinary voters and not much at all about the environment.

Still, it’s one thing to recognize that, and another thing for an IPCC official to actually come out and call internationale Klimapolitik what it really ist.

The international movement to purge the climate of democratic emissions seems to have hit a snag in the U.S. with recent elections.  Again from Powerline:

Last year’s [Climate Change] conference in Copenhagen occurred to much fanfare. President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Speaker Pelosi all attended. This year, they all apparently will be absent. The U.S. delegation will be led by a state department official named Todd Stern.

Mr. Stern’s presence in Cancun will suggest to the Klimacrats how things ist in the U.S.

Hiding the Truth about Affirmative Action

Posted: Friday, April 2, 2010 at 11:40 pm
By: Ken Blanchard
Comments Off | Trackback Bookmark and Share

sleight-of-handOffhand, I can’t think of a case where a conservative scholar or institution announced a finding and then refused to release the data on which it was supposedly based.  But I know of a number of occasions where that happened on the Left.

Michael Bellesiles (pronounced Bell-Leel) published a book Arming America in 2000, in which he argued that gun ownership was far less common in antebellum America than historians had suspected.  The point, of course, was the right to bear arms wasn’t something that the founding generation and subsequent generations really cared about.  Bellesiles’ book received glowing reviews across the MSM, and he won the Bancroft Prize.

The book was a fraud.  It was riddled with errors, and much of the data was apparently invented.  When asked to produce it, he claimed that it has been damaged when an office flooded.  For the first time, the Bancroft prize was withdrawn.

Much the same thing has recently happened in the global warming debate.  The records of climate history on which the Anthropogenic Global Warming thesis is based rely on a small number of data sets.  The researchers who maintain those data sets have consistently refused to release them to the scrutiny of skeptical scientists, in one case in defiance of court orders.  In another case, it was claimed that the original data was lost.

Now we have a third such example.  From the Chronicles of Higher Education:

Judge Curtis E.A. Karnow of the California Superior Court for San Francisco County ruled last week that the state bar is not legally obliged to release the data sought by Richard H. Sander, a professor of law at the University of California at Los Angeles, and Joe Hicks, a former governor of the California state bar who is involved in a consortium of affirmative-action researchers organized by Mr. Sander. The two men were joined by the California First Amendment Coalition in their lawsuit, which seeks state-bar data on law students broken down by race and ethnicity.

Here is the question.  Affirmative Action is the practice of giving preference to minority candidates in hiring and university admissions.  In almost every case, minority status is weighted so heavily that a student who can claim such status can secure admission to the most competitive schools even if his or her test scores and academic record would have automatically disqualified a non-minority applicant.

One of the reasons offered for Affirmative Action is that it will increase the number of lawyers, doctors, etc., who are African American, Hispanic, etc.  But does it in fact do that? Students whose academic preparation is modest will often fail when they are placed in the most competitive schools, whereas they might have flourished in a more typical institution.  Does Affirmative Action really increase the number of minority students graduating from law schools and entering the legal profession?  Or does it rather decrease the number by setting up many promising students for failure in programs for which they are ill-prepared?

That is what Sanders and Hicks want to find out.  But the California State Bar refuses to release the data.  I think we can assume the answer.  When people refuse to release data, it is always because they think the data will confirm something that they don’t want to see confirmed.  Affirmative Action isn’t helping minority students, it is hurting them.  But the Left loves the idea of Affirmative Action more than it cares about the real people affected by such policies.

Hiding the data has become a habit in modern times.  That is a sign of corruption.  No doubt conservatives would be tempted to do it too, if they could get away with it.  With the establishment Press and academia arrayed against them, they can’t.  The California Bar Association, so far, can.

SD State Legislature on Global Warming

Posted: Thursday, February 25, 2010 at 11:04 pm
By: Ken Blanchard
3 Comments | Trackback Bookmark and Share

I was quite ready to take issue with Badlands Blue and the Madville Times on HCR 1009.  I am doubtful that global warming or the teaching of such in our state High Schools are topics that call for a resolution.  After a brief read, I thought that most of the resolution was basically on target.

However, while I certainly do not endorse my blogosphere colleagues’ snide remarks about our legislators, they were right to make fun of one part of the resolution.  The problem is this passage:

That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative…

This is basically correct, except for a couple of words.  “Astrological”?  This word refers to astrology.  Does it affect global climate when the moon is in Virgo, and anyone who is a Gemini need beware?  Probably the right word would be “astronomical”.

What about “Thermology”?  That, I gather, refers to the infrared imaging of the human body.  I have heard it said that whenever Al Gore shows up to give a speech on global warming, the local temperatures plunge by ten or twenty degrees and it snows.  Could he really exercise such a cooling effect?  Until some study confirms it, thermology probably doesn’t belong in this bill.

Also, I don’t think “interrelativity” is a real word or a useful coinage.  Perhaps “interrelationship” might have been better.

Climate change alarmism is in a crisis right now, for good reason.  Cap and Trade legislation, a very costly proposal based on very dubious quazi-scientific ideas, is something the State of South Dakota ought to be concerned about.  It is easy to make mistakes when putting a resolution together, but if we are going to weigh in on this we need to be rather more careful in our choice of words.

Global Warming Melts Down

Posted: Friday, February 19, 2010 at 12:56 am
By: Ken Blanchard
Comments Off | Trackback Bookmark and Share

My latest column in the American News:

If you want to know what the temperature is in your back yard, you probably don’t want to put the thermometer on top of a hot oven.  If you want to monitor changes in global temperature, you probably shouldn’t rely on weather stations located mostly in cities and other developed areas where the environment is artificially warm.  Yet that is what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been doing.  The IPCC is the primary scientific body raising the alarm about global warming.

The London Times reports that a wide body of research now questions the claim that the world is warming at all.  John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, found that in three areas, Alabama, California, and East Africa, apparent warming was entirely due to local factors that influenced the weather stations.  When economic professor Ross McKitrick was invited by the IPCC to review its recent report, he found that the panel’s “climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialization and data quality problems.”  A number of researchers in Britain and elsewhere are reaching the same conclusions.

The claim that industrial production is causing an unprecedented and dangerous spike in global temperatures was based largely on so called “hockey stick” charts.  These charts showed more or less even temperatures over the thousand years followed by a sharp upward spike beginning in the 1970s.  The charts were bogus.  The evidence indicates that there were periods of global warming prior to the industrial revolution, including the medieval warming period when global temperatures may have been warmer than they are now.  If the world is indeed in a warming period, and it probably is, there is no good reason to believe that this is due to industrial production rather than natural fluctuations in the climate.

Trying to measure changes in the global climate is a very difficult business.  Figuring out what causes those changes is enormously more difficult.  Water vapor traps a lot of solar energy, but fluffy white clouds reflect a lot of it back into space.  Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that absorbs a lot of the sun’s heat, but more CO2 and warmer temperatures cause forests to grow faster.  Trees sequester CO2.  No one can be sure how these things balance out.

It is not, however, the IPCC’s scientific accuracy that is now most at question.  It is its good faith.  When thousands of email messages between climate scientists were pirated and released to the public several months ago, it became clear that some of the latter were engaged in manipulating the data and were determined to prevent dissenting scholarship from being published.

The IPCC has solemnly reported that by 2035 the Himalayan glaciers will be gone, that rain fed crop production in Africa could be cut in half by in ten years, that 40% of the Amazon rainforest will disappear, well, soon, all because of global warming.  Any one of these things would be a catastrophe of Biblical proportions, but the IPCC has been forced to admit that not one of them has any reliable research behind it.  These are the sort of things that come out of the mouth of a carny barker.  They discredit a supposedly responsible scientific committee.

Global warming alarmism is politics, not science.  Politicians in the developed world like the idea that human industry is destroying the environment.  It fills their sails with righteous indignation and gives them a reason to demand more political control over their national economies and those of other nations.  For climate scientists, this means a lot of public funding and the warm feeling that they are saving the world.

If the whole thing melts away, the conceits of politicians are no great loss.  The reputation of the scientific community is another matter.

Glowbull Warming(?) Update

Posted: Wednesday, January 13, 2010 at 12:43 am
By: RadioActive Chief
Comments Off | Trackback Bookmark and Share

Yes, it’s true. Some who are unable to see the ice-cubes in their coffee are STILL worshiping at the altar of the Church of St Algore of the Hot Air.

They need a good sharp whack upside the headbone with the ol’ cluebat!

The mini ice age starts here

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice insummer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.

Sounds like the Polar Bears will be doing fine, which they already have been doing, as they increased their population from approx. 5000 in 1950 to over 25,000 now, but I digress.

The story goes on with a fair amount of detail on the very real science behind the current cooling trends.

Of course it notes the continued obtuseness of the Brit pols who are still getting their card punched at St. Algore’s. They just can’t bring themselves to admit all those pounds, euros, and dollars promised by the con-scheme of “carbon credit trading” are flying away for the winters.

Meanwhile the Chief will be scooping some more “white Glowbull Warming” away from the outpost this week while the temperature is reasonable.

Political Science

Posted: Sunday, December 6, 2009 at 12:15 am
By: Ken Blanchard
Comments Off | Trackback Bookmark and Share

darkness_in_el_dorado_bookIn 2000 a book was published, briefly, accusing one of the most famous anthropologists of a number of grievous sins.  The book was Darkness in El Dorado, by Patrick Tierney.  It focused on the activities of Geneticist James V. Neel and Anthropologist Napoleon Chagnon in their dealings with the Yanomami, an indigenous people in South America.

From The Chronicle of Higher Education:

Among other things, Mr. Tierney asserted that Mr. Neel had worsened a measles epidemic in 1968; that the two scholars had failed to obtain full informed consent when collecting blood samples from the community; that Mr. Chagnon had tacitly encouraged violent conflicts among the Yanomami; and that Mr. Chagnon had collaborated with an unscrupulous gold miner in an effort to create a research reserve in Venezuela.

Within a year of the book’s publication, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Society of Human Genetics, and committees at Michigan and Santa Barbara issued statements that generally exonerated Mr. Chagnon and Mr. Neel.

As I recall, the book was withdrawn by the publisher.  At this year’s meeting of the American Anthropological Association, passions still smoldering after nine years have kindled new fire.

During a panel session on Wednesday evening, a Northwestern University scholar presented new evidence of distortions in the book, and she charged that the anthropological association had badly mishandled the entire affair.

In a spirited, at times blistering critique, Alice Domurat Dreger, a professor of clinical medical humanities and bioethics at Northwestern University, questioned why any academic would want to be a part of the association, considering how, in her estimation, it had unfairly harmed the reputations of two scholars. “I can’t imagine how any scholar feels safe at the hands of the Triple A,” she said.

How bad was Darkness in El Dorado?

One of Ms. Dreger’s findings concerns a 1995 incident that is recounted at the beginning of Mr. Tierney’s book. That year Mr. Chagnon intended to travel to the northern Brazilian state of Roraima, and he allegedly planned to collect blood samples without proper permission from the Brazilian government. According to Mr. Tierney, that plan was stifled after indigenous activists circulated a “dossier” of material about various controversies that had dogged Mr. Chagnon.

In Mr. Tierney’s account, that dossier was written by Leda Martins, a Brazilian-born scholar who was then a graduate student in anthropology at Cornell University. (She now teaches at Pitzer College.) But Ms. Dreger says that Ms. Martins admitted to her in an interview that the actual author was Mr. Tierney himself, and that Ms. Martins merely translated it.

Tierney’s book was not only riddled with inaccuracies, it was an intentional act of fraud.  The scandal is that the American Anthropological Association not only embraced the book at its publication, but continued to defend Tierney’s accusations long after they were discredited.

Why was such a dreadful piece of writing published at all, and why did the “Triple A” champion it?  Anthropologists are generally left-leaning in their politics and sentiments, and they want to believe that “indigenous,” isolated peoples are better than modern people and especially better than modern people in Europe and America.  Chagnon’s work with the Yanomami shattered that charming myth.  Hunter-gatherer societies tend to be much more violent than modern societies, and are every bit as given to social pathologies.  The discipline of anthropology has never forgiven Chagnon for delivering this message.

Scientists are people, and people are subject to political passions.  This sometimes results in the corruption of science.  That is a good thing to remember when considering the current debate over global warming.  At stake in the Tierney scandal was the reputation of two honest scholars.  At stake in the latter controversy is world economic development.

Inconstant as the Weather

Posted: Saturday, December 5, 2009 at 1:19 am
By: Ken Blanchard
Comments Off | Trackback Bookmark and Share

If you don’t like the weather in South Dakota, just wait a bit; it will change.  Apparently much the same is true about our President.  Originally the President had planned to attend the Copenhagen Conference on Climate Change.  Then the Administration said he would not be attending.  Then he announced that he would show up, on December 9th.  Now we learn that plans have been changed.  President Obama will indeed grace the Danes with his presence, but on December 18th.  One wonders how many times he met, for how long, with how may advisers, before his Copenhagen attendance policy was finalized.  If it is indeed finalized.  With thirteen days to go, I figure he can change his mind about three more times.

The Hyde Park Hamlet is, as another Shakespearian character put it, inconstant as the moon.  He is not entirely to blame, however, for his difficulties when it comes to climate change policy.  A policy consists of a purpose and a means to achieve that purpose.  The international community is not very good at making collective policy.  No one but Iran wants Iran to get nuclear weapons, but getting Russia and China to agree on a common policy to prevent that looks hopeless.

On climate change, all the major nations seem to agree that global warming is a problem and that we should all do something about it.  But no one is willing to do anything that would make a difference.  For that reason, the Copenhagen Conference will produce no treaty, regardless of whether or on what day the President shows up.

I have been writing and blogging about global warming for several years.  My original position was this:

1.  The Earth has been warming for some time.

2.  It is very likely that human activity is contributing to that warming.

3.  It is very difficult to tell what consequences will follow from continued warming, for human beings or for the environment generally.

4.  Economic development in China and India will overwhelm any reductions in greenhouse gases that the developed world could possibly achieve.

5.  The developed world is not in fact going to voluntarily achieve any significant reduction in greenhouse emissions, because that would mean hobbling their own economies.

6.  The only reasonable policy is to accept that global warming is happening and plan for it.

Propositions 3-5 have stood up very well.  As for propositions 1 and 2, I trusted the scientists and just right now that trust has been greatly compromised.  Consider this news, from the National Post:

Millions of measurements, global coverage, consistently rising temperatures, case closed: The Earth is warming. Except for one problem. CRU’s average temperature data doesn’t jibe with that of Vincent Courtillot, a French geo-magneticist, director of the Institut de Physique du Globe in Paris, and a former scientific advisor to the French Cabinet. Last year he and three colleagues plotted an average temperature chart for Europe that shows a surprisingly different trend. Aside from a very cold spell in 1940, temperatures were flat for most of the 20th century, showing no warming while fossil fuel use grew. Then in 1987 they shot up by about 1 C and have not shown any warming since. This pattern cannot be explained by rising carbon dioxide concentrations, unless some critical threshold was reached in 1987; nor can it be explained by climate models.

If this were ordinary science, it would be back to the drawing board.  But it is politicized science, where retreat is now allowed.  The global warming meme is as basket case.  Anyone who cares about these things needs to go back to formula on the whole business.  As for the President, neither attending nor non-attending will do any good.

Climategate: Glowbull Warming Science Falls in the Fire

Posted: Saturday, November 21, 2009 at 9:54 pm
By: RadioActive Chief
Comments Off | Trackback Bookmark and Share

Hacked E-Mails Fuel Climate Change Skeptics

Hundreds of private e-mails and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming skeptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

The e-mails, attributed to prominent American and British climate researchers, include discussions of scientific data and whether it should be released, exchanges about how best to combat the arguments of skeptics, and casual comments — in some cases derisive — about specific people known for their skeptical views.

This can give a whole new meaning to the phrase “scientific cooperation”!

Some skeptics asserted Friday that the correspondence revealed an effort to withhold scientific information. “This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud,” said Patrick J. Michaels, a climatologist who has long faulted evidence pointing to human-driven warming and is criticized in the documents.

There’s good reason why the human caused Glowbull Warming proposition can be considered “junk science”.

What else is the big flap about, aside from that little thing about “scientific integrity”? Like the movie said: follow the free and easy grant money lavishly slushing around from various sources of the politically correct international establishment.

More in  the London Telegraph:

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of ‘Anthropogenic Global Warming’?

If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabites of confidential files onto the internet. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

When you read some of those files – including 1079 emails and 72 documents – you realise just why the boffins at Hadley CRU might have preferred to keep them confidential. As Andrew Bolt puts it, this scandal could well be “the greatest in modern science”. These alleged emails – supposedly exchanged by some of the most prominent scientists pushing AGW theory – suggest:

Conspiracy, collusion in exaggerating warming data, possibly illegal destruction of embarrassing information, organised resistance to disclosure, manipulation of data, private admissions of flaws in their public claims and much more.

There’s more in the linked piece specifically noting cases involving:

Manipulation of evidence
Private doubts about whether the world really is heating up
Suppression of evidence
Fantasies of violence against prominent Climate Sceptic scientists
Attempts to disguise the inconvenient truth of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP)
how best to squeeze dissenting scientists out of the peer review process.
How, in other words, to create a scientific climate in which anyone who disagrees with AGW [anthropogenic global warming] can be written off as a crank, whose views do not have a scrap of authority

Throw another AlGore log on the fire!