Archive

Posts Tagged ‘AlGore’

Gobal Warming statistics

September 20, 2007 Leave a comment

Jerome J Schmitt has a good article at American Thinker on why people should be suspect of all the Doom and Gloom from Global Warming disciples of the Goracle.

"Garbage in, garbage out"
has become a cautionary maxim of the computer age, reminding us that
bad data corrupts computer software and many other artifacts of modern
technology. What then are we to make of global warming scientists who
present us with temperature charts purporting to display changes in the
global mean temparture for the last century-plus. Who was measuring global mean temperatures in the 1880s?

Political
observers are familiar with "margin of error" in opinion polls. Polls
seek to measure the political prospects of candidates competing for
elected office. The "true value" of the candidate’s political viability
is established when the votes are counted. 

Similarly, the mathematics of physical measurements require knowledge of potential sources of errors in measurements to place bounds on the likely true value. Estimated errors are expressed as "error bars" in plots of empirical data.  The true value could be any value within the margin of the error.

With this background, I was astonished to see the assurance with which climatologists writing about global warming report Global Mean Temperature over Land & Ocean as far back as 1880 — as shown in the US Government’s "official" NOAA Chart reproduced below.

It is noteworthy that most reproductions of this chart in the popular press omit the error bars. Who could possibly have
been measuring Global Mean Temperature (GMT) so accurately (±0.14°C) in
1880? For context, remember that in the 1880s, Mr. Stanley was
searching for Dr. Livingston, who was totally lost while exploring
Africa for the source of the Nile.  Put another way, as seen from the
error bars, why has science’s ability to measure global mean
temperature increased in accuracy only by a factor of two (±0.07°C)  in
the last 125 years?  more

submit_url = ‘http://stix1972.typepad.com/stix_blog/2007/09/gobal-warming-s.html’;
button_type = 0;

Al Gore–Ball of Fire!

September 13, 2007 Leave a comment

El Rushbo’s AlGore update theme song.

Another Goracle song

submit_url = ‘http://stix1972.typepad.com/stix_blog/2007/09/al-gore–ball-o.html’;

 

More on the Global Warming Consensous

September 12, 2007 Leave a comment

It looks like more and more scientists are coming out and poking a hole in the Goracle’s theory that Manbearpig is destroying the Earth

H/T to My Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12  /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun’s irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Other researchers found evidence that 3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly; 4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings; 5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Despite being published in such journals such as Science, Nature and Geophysical Review Letters, these scientists have gotten little media attention. "Not all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics," said Avery, "but the evidence in their studies is there for all to see."

The names were compiled by Avery and climate physicist S. Fred Singer, the co-authors of the new book Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, mainly from the peer-reviewed studies cited in their book. The researchers’ specialties include tree rings, sea levels, stalagmites, lichens, pollen, plankton, insects, public health, Chinese history and astrophysics.

"We have  had a Greenhouse Theory with no evidence to support it-except a moderate warming turned into a scare by computer models whose results have never been verified with real-world events," said co-author Singer. "On the other hand, we have compelling evidence of a real-world climate cycle averaging 1470 years (plus or minus 500) running through the last million years of history. The climate cycle has above all been moderate, and the trees, bears, birds, and humans have quietly adapted."

"Two thousand years of published human histories say that the warm periods were good for people," says Avery. "It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease."  "There may have been a consensus of guesses among climate model-builders," says Singer. "However, the models only reflect the warming, not its cause." He noted that about 70 percent of the earth’s post-1850 warming came before 1940, and thus was probably not caused by human-emitted greenhouse gases. The net post-1940 warming totals only a tiny 0.2 degrees C.

The historic evidence of the natural cycle includes the 5000-year record of Nile floods, 1st-century Roman wine production in Britain, and thousands of museum paintings that portrayed sunnier skies during the Medieval Warming and more cloudiness during the Little Ice Age. The physical evidence comes from oxygen isotopes, beryllium ions, tiny sea and pollen fossils, and ancient tree rings. The evidence recovered from ice cores, sea and lake sediments, cave stalagmites and glaciers has been analyzed by electron microscopes, satellites, and computers. Temperatures during the Medieval Warming Period on California’s Whitewing Mountain must have been 3.2 degrees warmer than today, says Constance Millar of the U.S. Forest Service, based on her study of seven species of relict trees that grew above today’s tree line.

Singer emphasized, "Humans have known since the invention of the telescope that the earth’s climate variations were linked to the sunspot cycle, but we had not understood how. Recent experiments have demonstrated that more or fewer cosmic rays hitting the earth create more or fewer of the low, cooling clouds that deflect solar heat back into space-amplifying small variations in the intensity of the sun.

Avery and Singer noted that there are hundreds of additional peer-reviewed studies that have found cycle evidence, and that they will publish additional researchers’ names and studies. They also noted that their book was funded by Wallace O. Sellers, a Hudson board member, without any corporate contributions.

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years is available from Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Every-Years/dp/0742551172 /ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-6773465-0779318?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189603742&sr=1-1

For more information, please contact Dennis Avery, Hudson Institute Senior Fellow and co-author of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years, at 540-337-6354: Email:

cgfi@hughes.net

Hudson Institute

EarthTimes.com

submit_url = ‘http://stix1972.typepad.com/stix_blog/2007/09/more-on-the-glo.html’;

 

Unltimate Global Warming Challenge

September 8, 2007 Leave a comment

PETA v AlGore – Vegans vs. Greens

September 1, 2007 Leave a comment

Hysterical!   The Greens and the Vegans are now fighting each other.  Sounds like an episode of Star Trek.    ha ha ha ha

A People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals billboard chides Al Gore.

Published: August 29, 2007

Correction Appended

EVER since “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore has been the darling of environmentalists, but that movie hardly endeared him to the animal rights folks. According to them, the most inconvenient truth of all is that raising animals for meat contributes more to global warming than all the sport utility vehicles combined.

The biggest animal rights groups do not always overlap in their missions, but now they have coalesced around a message that eating meat is worse for the environment than driving. They and smaller groups have started advertising campaigns that try to equate vegetarianism with curbing greenhouse gases.

Some backlash against this position is inevitable, the groups acknowledge, but they do have scientific ammunition. In late November, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization issued a report stating that the livestock business generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined.

When that report came out, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and other groups expected their environmental counterparts to immediately hop on the “Go Veggie!” bandwagon, but that did not happen. “Environmentalists are still pointing their fingers at Hummers and S.U.V.’s when they should be pointing at the dinner plate,” said Matt A. Prescott, manager of vegan campaigns for PETA.

So the animal rights groups are mobilizing on their own. PETA is outfitting a Hummer with a driver in a chicken suit and a vinyl banner proclaiming meat as the top cause of global warming. It will send the vehicle to the start of the climate forum the White House is sponsoring in Washington on Sept. 27, “and to headquarters of environmental groups, if they don’t start shaping up,” Mr. Prescott warned.

He said that PETA had written to more than 700 environmental groups, asking them to promote vegetarianism, and that it would soon distribute leaflets that highlight the impact of eating meat on global warming.

“You just cannot be a meat-eating environmentalist,” said Mr. Prescott, whose group also plans to send billboard-toting trucks to the Colorado Convention Center in Denver when Mr. Gore lectures there on Oct. 2. The billboards will feature a cartoon image of Mr. Gore eating a drumstick next to the tagline: “Too Chicken to Go Vegetarian? Meat Is the No. 1 Cause of Global Warming.”

The Humane Society of the United States has taken up the issue as well, running ads in environmental magazines that show a car key and a fork. “Which one of these contributes more to global warming?” the ads ask. They answer the question with “It’s not the one that starts a car,” and go on to cite the United Nations report as proof.

Read the rest at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/business/media/29adco.html?ex=1346040000&en=afd55f3af97a69be&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Meanwhile, The Times of London thinks this is really funny and features a photo of AlGore.

August 30, 2007

The best way to tackle climate change? Vegetarianism

Big_old_al_gorePoor Al Gore – a man who clearly enjoys his burgers – is under attack:

Ever since “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore has been the darling of environmentalists, but that movie hardly endeared him to the animal rights folks. According to them, the most inconvenient truth of all is that raising animals for meat contributes more to global warming than all the sport utility vehicles combined…

“You just cannot be a meat-eating environmentalist,” said Mr. Prescott, whose group also plans to send billboard-toting trucks to the Colorado Convention Center in Denver when Mr. Gore lectures there on Oct. 2. The billboards will feature a cartoon image of Mr. Gore eating a drumstick next to the tagline: “Too Chicken to Go Vegetarian? Meat Is the No. 1 Cause of Global Warming.”

Really now, hasn’t the man done enough for the cause already?

Murad Ahmed   

Source:  http://timesonline.typepad.com/comment/2007/08/the-best-way-to.html

Julia 

submit_url = ‘http://stix1972.typepad.com/stix_blog/2007/09/peta-v-algore–.html’;

Uh Oh!! There isn’t a “consensus”

August 30, 2007 Leave a comment

Manbearpig
More and more people are coming out against the Goracle’s Church of Global Warming.  And now the whole "consensus" thing is obliterated.  Just as Michael Chriton says, "If there is consensus, there is no science."   The Whole folly of everyone saying we are destroying the planet is a bunch of BS, and the whole, most scientists agree with Man Made disaster because of Manbearpig, is also a bunch of BS.

Is there Global Warming???  Yes.   Will there be Global Cooling and an Ice Age at some point in the future????  Yes.  Do we have any control over it?????  Most likely no, and if we do, it is so miniscule that it wouldn’t really have an effect on warming or cooling.

So why all the drama and hype over Manbearpig????  Well, I guess for the Goracle it is all the money he can make. The scientists will also loose money.  See, the Manbearpig theory keeps a lot of people in jobs, that the government pays for.  So another myth is that the people putting foth the Manbearpig Myth are just regular old scientists.  Hell, half of them are not even Climatologists.

Thanks to Senator Inhofe for being a ray of sunshine in the government and exposing the farce of Goracle’s New Church of Global Warming.

Breaking: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory
August 29, 2007

Posted by Matthew_Dempsey@epw.senate.gov (4:45pm ET)
 
Last week in his blog post, New Peer-Reviewed Scientific Studies Chill Global Warming Fears, on the Inhofe EPW Press Blog, Marc
Morano cited a July 2007 review of 539 abstracts in peer-reviewed
scientific journals from 2004 through 2007 that found that climate
science continues to shift toward the views of global warming skeptics.
 
Today, Michael Asher provides more details about this new survey in his blog post, Survey: Less Than Half Of All Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory. Asher writes that the study has been submitted for publication in the journal Energy and Environment.
 
 
DAILYTECH
 
SURVEY: LESS THAN
HALF OF ALL PUBLISHED SCIENTISTS ENDORSE GLOBAL WARMING THEORY;
COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF PUBLISHED CLIMATE RESEARCH REVEALS CHANGING
VIEWPOINTS
 
Michael Asher
August 29, 2007 11:07 AM
In 2004, history professor
Naomi Oreskes performed a survey of research papers on climate change.
Examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science
database from 1993 to 2003, she found a majority supported the
"consensus view," defined as humans were having at least some effect on
global climate change. Oreskes’ work has been repeatedly cited, but as
some of its data is now nearly 15 years old, its conclusions are
becoming somewhat dated.

Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this
research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he
examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results
have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit
endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement
(accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises
to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus
outright, 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 when one remembers the watered-down
definition of  consensus here.  Not only does it not require supporting
that man is the "primary" cause of warming, but it doesn’t require
any belief or support for "catastrophic" global warming.  In fact of
all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.

These changing viewpoints represent the advances in climate science
over the past decade. While today we are even more certain the earth is
warming, we are less certain about the root causes. More importantly,
research has shown us that — whatever the cause may be — the amount
of warming is unlikely to cause any great calamity for mankind or the
planet itself.

Schulte’s survey contradicts the United Nation IPCC’s Fourth Assessment
Report (2007), which gave a figure of "90% likely" man was having an
impact on world temperatures. But does the IPCC represent a consensus
view of world scientists? Despite media claims of "thousands of
scientists" involved in the report, the actual text is written by a
much smaller number of "lead authors." The introductory "Summary for
Policymakers" — the only portion usually quoted in the media — is
written not by scientists at all, but by politicians, and approved,
word-by-word, by political representatives from member nations. By IPCC
policy, the individual report chapters — the only text actually
written by scientists — are edited to "ensure compliance" with the
summary, which is typically published months before the actual report
itself.

By contrast, the ISI Web of Science database covers 8,700 journals and
publications, including every leading scientific journal in the world.

 

submit_url = ‘http://stix1972.typepad.com/stix_blog/2007/08/uh-oh-there-isn.html’;

 

A great editorial at WSJ

August 28, 2007 Leave a comment

I really don’t think I can put it any better than Bret Stephens.  I think he has stolen my mind for this.

A Denier’s Confession

Global warming is more alarmist than alarming.


BY BRET STEPHENS

Tuesday, August 28, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

The recent discovery
by a retired businessman and climate kibitzer named Stephen McIntyre
that 1934–and not 1998 or 2006–was the hottest year on record in the
U.S. could not have been better timed. August is the month when
temperatures are high and the news cycle is slow, leading, inevitably,
to profound meditations on global warming. Newsweek performed its
journalistic duty two weeks ago with an exposé on what it calls the
global warming "denial machine." I hereby perform mine with a denier’s
confession

I confess: I am prepared to
acknowledge that Mr. McIntyre’s discovery amounts to what a New York
Times reporter calls a "statistically meaningless" rearrangement of
data.

But just how "meaningless" would
this have seemed had it yielded the opposite result? Had Mr. McIntyre
found that a collation error understated recent temperatures by
0.15 degrees Celsius (instead of overstating it by that amount, as he
discovered), would the news coverage have differed in tone and
approach? When it was reported in January that 2006 was one of the
hottest years on record, NASA’s James Hansen used the occasion to warn
grimly that "2007 is likely to be warmer than 2006." Yet now he says,
in connection to the data revision, that "in general I think we want to
avoid going into more and more detail about ranking of individual
years."

I confess: I am prepared to
acknowledge that the world has been and will be getting warmer thanks
in some part to an increase in man-made atmospheric concentrations of
greenhouse gases. I acknowledge this in the same way I’m confident that
the equatorial radius of Saturn is about 60,000 kilometers: not because
I’ve measured it myself, but out of a deep reserve of faith in the
methods of the scientific community, above all its reputation for
transparency and open-mindedness.

But that faith is tested when
leading climate scientists won’t share the data they use to estimate
temperatures past and present and thus construct all-important trend
lines. This was true of climatologist Michael Mann, who refused to
disclose the algorithm behind his massively influential "hockey stick"
graph, which purported to demonstrate a sharp uptick in global
temperatures over the past century. (The accuracy of the graph was
seriously discredited by Mr. McIntyre and his colleague Ross
McKitrick.) This was true also of Phil Jones of the Climatic Research
Unit at the University of East Anglia, who reportedly turned down one
request for information with the remark, "Why should I make the data
available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with
it?"

I confess: I understand that
global warming may have negative consequences. Heat waves, droughts and
coastal flooding may become more intense. Temperature-sensitive viruses
such as malaria could become more widespread. Lakes may be depleted by
evaporation. Animal life will suffer.

But as Bjorn Lomborg points out in
his sharp, persuasive and aptly titled book "Cool It," a warming
climate has advantages, too, and not just trivial ones. Though global
warming will cause more heat deaths, it will also mean many fewer cold
deaths. Drought may increase in some areas, but warming also means both
more rain and longer growing seasons. Temperature changes will harm
some wildlife in some places. But many species will benefit from a bit
more warmth. Does anyone know for certain that the net human and
environmental losses from global warming will exceed overall gains?

I confess: Denial never solves anything. But neither does sensational and deceptive journalism.

Newsweek illustrates this point by
its choice of cover art–a picture of the sun, where the surface
temperature hovers around 6,000 degrees Celsius. Given that the
consensus scientific estimate for average temperature increases over
the next century is a comparatively modest 2.6 degrees, this would seem
a rather Murdochian way of convincing readers about the gravity of the
climate threat. On the inside pages is a photograph of a polar bear
stranded on melting ice. But the caption that the bears are "at risk"
belies clear evidence that the bear population has risen five-fold
since the 1960s. Another series of photographs, of a huge Antarctic ice
shelf that quickly disintegrated in 2002, suggests the imminence of
doom. But why not also mention that temperatures at the South Pole have
been going down for 50 years?

I confess: It’s easy to be
indifferent to far-off and diffuse threats. It’s hard to work toward
solutions the benefits of which will not be felt in our lifetime.

Then again, if Americans are not
fully persuaded of the dangers of global warming, as Newsweek laments,
don’t chalk it up to the pernicious influence of the so-called deniers
and their enablers at ExxonMobil and Fox News. Today, global warming is
variously suggested as the root cause of terrorism, the conflict in
Darfur and the rising incidence of suicides in Italy. Yet the 20th
century offers excellent reasons to be suspicious of monocausal
explanations for the world’s ills, monomaniacs intent on saving us from
ourselves, and the long train of experts predicting death by
overpopulation, resource depletion, global cooling, nuclear winter and
prions. Also, hypocrites. When we are called on to bike to work,
permanently abjure air travel, "eat locally" and so on, we expect to be
led by example, not by a new nomenklatura.

I confess: Though it may surprise
those who use the term "denier" so as to put me on a moral plane with
Holocaust deniers, I have children for whom I would not wish an
environmental apocalypse.

Yet neither do I wish the
civilizational bounties built up over two centuries by an industrial,
inventive, adaptive, globalized and energy-hungry society to be
squandered chasing comparatively small environmental benefits at
gigantic economic costs. One needn’t deny global warming as a problem
to deny it as the only or greatest problem. The great virtue of Mr.
Lomborg’s book is its insistence on trying to measure the good done per
dollar spent. Do we save a few lives, at huge cost, as a byproduct of
curbing global warming? Or do we save many, for less, by acting on
problems directly?

Some might argue it is immoral to think this way. Maybe they are the ones living in denial.

Mr. Stephens is a member of The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board. His column appears in the Journal Tuesdays.

WSJ Opinion Journal

submit_url = ‘http://stix1972.typepad.com/stix_blog/2007/08/a-great-editori.html’;

 

Editorial about Manbearpig in the Patriot Post

August 17, 2007 Leave a comment

This is a very good editorial:

Goracle

Debunking the gullible warming Gorons

(EDITOR’S NOTE: This is a talking-point summary of developments regarding global-climate trends that have been collected since we published a comprehensive essay on the topic, “Global Warming: Fact, Fiction and Political Endgame”, in February of this year. That original essay has been revised and updated to include the new information in this summary.)

Correcting the record

Most of the evidence concerning U.S. temperature trends is collected by NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, which gathers information from about 1,200 weather observation stations across the nation. These stations are small wooden sheds with thermometers, which are read at intervals, mostly by volunteers. Many are located in sprawling urban and industrial centers, known as “heat islands,” and are subject to higher readings than stations in rural areas where temperatures are subject mostly to “land use effects.”

Most of the recent global-warming alarmists use 1998 as the benchmark for the hottest year on record, but it turns out that their reporting is flawed, the result of a math blunder.

In fact, 1934 was the hottest year on record, and four of the ten hottest years in the U.S. were recorded in the 1930s. The second hottest year on record was 1998, but the third hottest was 1921, not 2006. Notably, six of the ten hottest years occurred prior to 90 percent of the economic growth associated with increased greenhouse-gas emissions.

H. Sterling Burnett, a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis, reports, “Much of the current global-warming fear has been driven by [NASA scientist James] Hansen’s pronouncements, and he routinely claims to have been censored by the Bush administration for his views on warming. Now that NASA, without fanfare, has cleaned up his mess, Hansen has been silent—I guess we can chalk this up to self-censorship.”

New climate reports

In the winter of 2007, NASA satellites indicated that water temperatures in the Gulf of Alaska were dropping, suggesting that cooling Pacific waters may be a precursor to the reversal of a 30-year warming trend. The cooling resulted in the coldest season of Arctic air the lower 48 have seen in more than three decades.

Additionally, Reuters “News” Service reports, “Australian scientists have discovered a giant underwater current that is one of the last missing links of a system that connects the world’s oceans and helps govern global climate. New research shows that a current sweeping past Australia’s southern island of Tasmania toward the South Atlantic is a previously undetected part of the world climate system’s engine-room.”

This, of course, raises an all-important question: How can the climate debate be “settled” if we still don’t know what we don’t know?

Climate modeling

The computer models cited by Albert Gore and company are outcome-based, depending on how a programmer varies some of the five million input parameters or the multitude of negative and positive feedbacks in the program.

Scott Armstrong is a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School and one of the world’s foremost experts on long-range forecasting. He is author of “Long-Range Forecasting,” the most frequently cited book on forecasting methodology.

Armstrong and Kesten Green of New Zealand’s Monash University examined the IPCC’s report, and, at the 27th Annual International Symposium on Forecasting, they concluded, “Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.”

Armstrong bet Gore $10,000 that he could provide a better climate forecast than that of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which Gore cites regularly. “The methodology was so poor that I thought a bet based on complete ignorance of the climate could do better,” said Armstrong. “We call it ‘the naive model’.”

Gore’s office replied, “Please understand that Mr. Gore is not taking on any new projects at this time.”

The warming Solar System

As it turns out, there are some other planets in our solar system which are experiencing global warming—and these planets don’t have SUVs.

Mars is getting hotter. NASA scientist Lori Fenton reports that the Red Planet has warmed by around one-half degree Celsius in the last three decades, which likely contributes to the retreat of Mars’s southern polar ice cap.

According to Habibullo Abdussamatov, director of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, “The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars. Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance.”

On Neptune, MIT researchers say that planet’s largest moon, Triton, has heated up significantly since 1989, when the Voyager space probe sent back readings from the planet. Astronomer James Elliot and colleagues from MIT, Lowell Observatory and Williams College report, “At least since 1989, Triton has been undergoing a period of global warming. Percentage-wise, it’s a very large increase.”

Imke de Pater and Philip Marcus of the University of California, Berkeley, report that Jupiter is growing a new red spot. “The storm is growing in altitude,” de Pater says, which indicates a temperature increase in that region. The researchers think that, near term, the temperature on Jupiter may increase six degrees Celsius in large areas.

University of Hawaii astronomer David Tholen and his colleagues report that even though Pluto was closer to the Sun in 1989, they are not surprised by a warming that began this year. “It takes time for materials to warm up and cool off, which is why the hottest part of the day on Earth is usually around 2 or 3 p.m. rather than local noon,” Tholen said. “This warming trend on Pluto could easily last for another 13 years.” They predict Pluto’s temperature will rise two degrees Celsius before its next cooling trend.

The Climate Inquisitors

If you are a scientist, politician or journalist, and refuse to comport with Albert Gore’s eco-theological orthodoxy, you’d best put on some body armor.

Speaking to Al Gore’s minions during “Live Earth: The Concerts for a Climate in Crisis,” Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., said of political leaders who suggest global warming is not predominantly manmade, “This is treason and we need to start treating them as traitors.” Junior added, “Get rid of all those rotten politicians we have in Washington, DC.” We presume his bloated uncle is excluded?

The University of Oregon’s George Taylor is that state’s official climatologist, but Gov. Ted Kulongoski wants to strip Taylor of that title because his skepticism about CO2 as a primary factor in global warming interferes with Oregon’s goals to reduce CO2.

Elsewhere, the Weather Channel’s Dr. Heidi Cullen is demanding decertification of weather reporters who dare question global-warming orthodoxy.

Academicians who express their skepticism about global-warming causes are at high risk of losing research grants. Conversely, those who advocate for CO2 causation are in line for some big-money handouts. Thus, when academicians say “green,” they aren’t necessarily referring to the environment.

“Journalist” David Roberts is setting his sights on the “denial industry,” proclaiming, “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards [read: ‘skeptics’]—some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

Nonetheless, some of the most ardent global alarmists are starting to change their tune. In 2005, Chris Mooney wrote “The Republican War on Science,” a thorough indictment of the GOP’s attempt to discredit scientific work on climate change. When he started research for his latest book, “Storm World: Hurricanes, Politics, and the Battle over Global Warming,” he assumed it would be more of the same. Then, after meeting with leading climatologists, he concluded, “There’s a wide range of respectable positions here. In the end, I had to write a completely different book.”

And you wonder why they say it is the hottest year ever every year

August 13, 2007 Leave a comment

Have you ever wondered how they get temperature readings for climate research????   Well, today is your lucky.   I have found a blog that audits the weather stations that they are using for all that great science about Manbearpig.

Just take a look at where some of them are at:

How not to measure temperature, part 25

                        
                           
                              

This picture, taken by www.surfacestations.org
volunteer Don Kostuch is the Detroit Lakes, MN USHCN climate station of
record. The Stevenson Screen is sinking into the swamp and the MMTS
sensor is kept at a comfortable temperature thanks to the nearby A/C
units.

Detroit_lakes_ushcn

The complete set of pictures is here

From NASA’s GISS, the plot makes it pretty easy to see there was no
discernible multi-decadal temperature trend until the A/C units were
installed. And it’s not hard to figure out when that was.

Detroit_lakes_gissplot

But hey, thy can "fix" the problem with math and adjustments to the temperature record.

Another one:

How not to measure temperature part 24

                        
                           
                              

Warren Meyer,
one of the first surfacestations.org volunteers, delivered Tucson for
us Saturday. It was discovered during an analysis of climate stations
around the USA on the Climate Audit
blog that Tucson had the greatest positive temperature trend for any
USHCN station after the TOBS adjustment was applied. The TOBS
adjustment corrects for differences in local times of observation of
temperature by the observer. The picture says it all:

Tucson1

Yes folks, this is an official climate station of record, the
temperatures it measures go into our National Climatic Database and are
used in research such as the graph produced by NASA Goddard Institute
for Spaceflight Studies here:

Tucson5

There’s a British word that has been bandied about to describe the reaction to pictures like this one: "gobsmacked". The word applies even more so since this station is operated by science faculty members at the University of Arizona.

They are so proud of this station they even had a sign made for it to hang on the chain link fence enclosure:

Tucson2

The complete photo essay is available at the Tucson album at www.surfacestations.org The satellite and aerial photo images there are telling of the environment being measured.

Tucson3

Besides the obvious questions like "why is it in the middle of a parking lot?" and "why would scientists who should know better allow such a bizarre siting for a USHCN climate station of record?" Then there is this burning question: "Why
did they go to the trouble of installing a precision aspirated
temperature sensor and then not even bother to place it at the standard
observing height?".

 

Tucson4

 

It appears that the Stevenson Screen serves no other purpose except
as an equipment holder, as Warren Meyer reports the Stevenson Screen to
be empty. Originally the inside standard mounting board for the mercury
max/min thermometers were mounted about 1.5 foot higher than the air
inlet of the precision aspirated temperature sensor. So the lower
mounting height for the precision sensor adds a positive bias.

Is there no diligence left in basic measurement? Is this what they teach in college science departments these days?

This is just a few of the great weathere stations that are looking for Manbearpig.   Maybe the Goracle should look be hind one of the A/C units for Manbearpig.

Manbearpig

 

submit_url = ‘http://stix1972.typepad.com/stix_blog/2007/08/and-you-wonder-.html’;

The Great Globlal Swindle

August 12, 2007 2 comments

I know I have posted about this TV program before, but now they are going to be selling it to the public.   It has been taken down from Youtube and Google many times because of the disciples of the Goracle keep on complaining  about it. 
The Great Global Swindle is one of the best programs out there that totally disproves the whole Manbearpig question.  It is a figment of the Goralce’s imagination.  The Earth warms and cools to the Sun differing cycles. 
Here is an email I got:

Scientists
discover REAL cause of Global Warming is variations in sun not CO2!!!

 

Hi,

 

I am a long time admirer of your blog! Please, read the email I’m sending to every
Conservative Radio Station I can think of, about a British Documentary titled,
“The
Great Global Warming Swindle,”
that you can still see by clicking your mouse
on the web link I have provided below, but as you can read from my copied letter
below–I don’t know how much longer that web link will still be
available, so please try to see the documentary now. Also, mention the
documentary on your blog and also provide a permanent web link to the documentary on
your blog so others can also view the documentary
from your web page after your daily entry rolls of your blog
entries, and contact every conservative radio station, organization, blog, newspaper, and politician you can think of, so this Global Warming Fear Mongering can be put to
rest once and for
all.             

 

THANKS FOR ALL YOUR
HARD WORK!!!

 

 

 

Don Hagen

Huntington Beach, CA

 

dsthagen@verizon.net

 

 

Dear Sir:

 

 

This is the third email I’ve sent
you on this subject. About 4 weeks ago you I sent you an email about a British
Documentary done be scientists titled, “T
he Great Global Warming
Swindle"
saying scientists
have discovered what causes Global Warming is variations in the sun–not CO2!!!
The documentary also shows scenes from Al Gore’s, documentary,
An Inconvenient Truth, and points out the flawed logic in his
interpretation of the climate data. Anyway, the new web address I gave you to
see the documentary no longer works, but do not panic, I’ve found a new
link that still works. But, I think I have deduced why the web link to the
documentary no longer works. Soon it will be available as a DVD, and you can
buy a copy for a $20.00. So, I think that’s why the producers removed the
web link. However,
I found a French Web Link that still works!!! Fortunately–the Audio is still in English—and it has French Subtitles!!!
I will also provide the contact info web page of the producers of the
documentary so you can contact them for how to get your own DVD, incase the
French Web Link also stops working, and also so you can contact them, on who to
interview, incase you decide to share this info with your listeners.

 

 

To see the video, click your mouse on the
web link below. On my computer sometimes the video player pauses. Just be patient. It will start again shortly.
Also, the title of the
documentary is displayed 4 times before the end of the documentary, its not
over till you see the credits!!!

 

 

“The Great Global Warming
Swindle,” French Version

http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-4123082535546754758

 

 

As for who to interview: I would
suggest contacting the producers, of the documentary—whose contact info I
will provide below—
and asking them to suggest
someone!!!    

 

 

 

“The Great Global Warming
Swindle,” producer’s web page: 

http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/ 

 

“The Great Global Warming
Swindle,” Producer’s Contact Web Page:

 

http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/contact.html

Web Contact

Tel: +44(0)20 7688 1711
Fax: +44(0)20 7680 1702

Email: info@wagtv.com
Web: www.wagtv.com 1

 

Thanks for spreading the word!!!

 

Don Hagen

We need to get this word out before it is too late and our economy is totally taken over by the Swindlers. 

Here is the Video that he is talking about:

Also don’t forget that if you see the Manbearpig, give the Goracle a call

Manbearpig

submit_url = ‘http://stix1972.typepad.com/stix_blog/2007/08/the-great-globl.html’;

Two Heads are Better Than One

But we'd be happy if everyone just tried using his (or her) own

Retraction Watch

Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process

Truth, Lies and In Between

“Every time I let the government make a choice for me, I give up a little more of my freedom. I become more dependent and reliant on government to manage my life. I am right where the Socialists want me to be – perpetually dependent on them.” -J.D. Pendry

Token Dissonance

Black & gay, young & conservative. A Southern gentleman writes about life and politics after Yale

Be kind.

An imperfect Christian's journey into life and faith.

qwithaview

Just another WordPress.com site

Kemberlee's Blog

My little page for my little thoughts

Rogue Government

“If you're already in a fight, you want the first blow to be the last and you had better be the one to throw it.” - Garry Kasparov

Cry Liberty

For life, liberty, and the pursuit of all who threaten it

What do I think?

Letting you know exactly where I stand! You have to decide for yourself!

Deidra Alexander's Blog

I have people to kill, lives to ruin, plagues to bring, and worlds to destroy. I am not the Angel of Death. I'm a fiction writer.