From JunkScience.com Joe Romm squeals like stuck pig over WaPo, NYTimes publishing anti-alarmist pieces
Joe Romm squeals at Climate Progress:
In a collective act of media irresponsibility, the New York Times and Washington Post have joined the Wall Street Journal in publishing “don’t worry, be happy” articles days before the big UN climate science report will say quite the opposite.
We expect the WSJ to be a haven for disinformation, and as I discussed Sunday, Matt Ridley didn’t disappoint.
Meh. Romm is paid to squeal. More here
From ICSC: UN has hidden research that shows that nature, not humanity, controls the climate
OTTAWA, Sept. 17, 2013 /CNW/ – “As the science promoted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) falls into disrepute, reporters face a difficult decision,” said Tom Harris, executive director of the Ottawa, Canada-based International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC). “Should they cover IPCC reports, the next of which will be issued on September 27th, as if there were no other reputable points of view? Or should they also seek out climate experts who disagree with the UN’s view that we will soon face a human-induced climate crisis?
“With today’s release of Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (CCR-II – see http://climatechangereconsidered.org/, a 1,200 page report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), it is now much easier for media to adopt the second more balanced approached,” continued Harris. “Co-authored and co-edited by Dr. Craig Idso, Professor Robert Carter, and Professor S. Fred Singer who worked with a team of 44 other climate experts, this document cites more than 1,000 peer-reviewed scientific papers to show that the IPCC has ignored or misinterpreted much of the research that challenges the need for carbon dioxide (CO2) controls. In other words, the NIPCC report demonstrates that the science being relied upon by governments to create multi-billion dollar policies is almost certainly wrong.”
Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer:
‘We are now at the point in the age of global warming hysteria where the IPCC global warming theory has crashed into the hard reality of observations’
‘In the coming years, scientists will increasingly realize that more CO2 in the atmosphere is, on the whole, good for life on Earth. Given that CO2 is necessary for life, and that nature continues to gobble up 50% of the CO2 we produce as fast as we can produce it, I won’t be that surprised when that paradigm shift occurs, either.’ — ‘With over 20 years of forecasts from the early days of climate modelling, and the chickens are finally coming home to roost.’
A difficult question for the climate science community is, how is it that this broad community of researchers — full of bright and thoughtful people — allowed intolerant activists who make false claims to certainty to become the public face of the field?
“Climate change a net positive” for US farmers: “16% of the total heat necessary to mature a corn plant in Fargo is due to the climate change”
Statewide, North Dakota’s growing season since 1879 has lengthened by 12 days, says state climatologist Adnan Akyuz at North Dakota State University. Before the 1970s, corn just wasn’t grown north of Bismarck. “Now we’re seeing it all the way up to the Canadian border,” he says.
According to Akyuz’s calculations “16% of the total heat necessary to mature a corn plant in Fargo is due to the climate change.”
Climate change a net positive
The United States has the largest amount of arable land of any nation, and climate change has only made it better.
“We have more area where production is limited by cold rather than by heat. So on net, we come off a bit better,” McCarl says.
In North Dakota, that has contributed to an economic boom. Growers are getting harvests that would have been unimaginable years ago, says Mike Ostlie, an agronomist at the Carrington Research Extension Center of North Dakota State University, about 150 miles northwest of Fargo. “Used to be, every three to five years there was a crop failure. Now I don’t know when that last happened.”
Things are so good that the long drain of children moving off farms is beginning to reverse, says Steve Metzger, a farm management expert at Carrington.
David Archibald talks about what will happen to the corn crop if we lose that advantage here The Climate-Grain Production Relationship Quantified
h/t to Tom Nelson
We should be facing the reality of climate change. Look what happened in Colorado. I talked to Senator Bennet yesterday, he said the floods were “biblical.” In one part of Colorado, it rained 12 inches in two hours. I can’t imagine that.
Fires all over the West — climate change is here.
On June 3, 1921, there was a sudden cloudburst ten miles west of Pueblo, Colorado. The always-volatile Arkansas River began swelling. About the same time, there was a downpour over the Fountain River 30 miles north. The two rivers meet in the heart of town. The waters rose to over 15 feet in some areas. When it was over, nearly 1,500 people were dead and damage to homes and businesses was widespread. Property loss was estimated to be over $20 million. The flood covered over 300 square miles. [Via DB]
Looks like Dana is in a “jam”
Readers will recall that I recently wrote a briefing paper for GWPF on the Cook et al 97% consensus paper. Today Dana Nuccitelli has written a post in which he translates my paper into his own idiosyncratic language, Nuccitello. Readers may struggle with Nuccitello at first, but you will get the hang of it, I’m sure.
For example, many of you may find it hard to work out how it is possible to discuss my paper, with its consideration of the nature of the 97% consensus, under the heading of “consensus denial”. Once you see that this is merely a translation into Nuccitello, all becomes clear.
The same blog post has further examples of this strange language. In Nuccitello, those who helped themselves to the documents that Skeptic Science’s admins left open to public view are “thieves”. And where I quoted participants on the forum as saying…
Related from Bishop Hill:
Writing at WUWT, Matt Ridley is taking John Abraham to task for his extensive use of Nuccitello in a Matt-bashing article at DeSmog. I thought this bit was very funny:
It’s a poor response, characterized by inaccurate representation of what I said, even down to actual misquoting. In the whole article, he puts just four words in quotation marks as written by me, yet in doing so he misses out a whole word: 20% of the quotation. Remarkable. If I did that, I would be very embarrassed.
McKittrick sets the cat among the pigeons
[Bishop Hill] Ross McKitrick has a must-read article in the Financial Post, looking at climate models and their environmentalist-like divergence from reality:
The IPCC must take everybody for fools. Its own graph shows that observed temperatures are not within the uncertainty range of projections; they have fallen below the bottom of the entire span. Nor do models simulate surface warming trends accurately; instead they grossly exaggerate them. (Nor do they match them on regional scales, where the fit is typically no better than random numbers.)
Monckton calls for Cook’s 97% paper to be withdrawn:
Dear Professor Kammen,
It must by now be patent to you and to every member of your Board that the paper by Cook et al. that you say “passed peer review” should not have passed peer review. It is gravely misleading.
The Cook paper stated that 97.1% of 4014 abstracts expressing an opinion on climate change endorsed the consensus on AGW, defined in the paper’s introduction as the consensus that more than half of the warming since 1950 was anthropogenic, when the true percentage endorsing the scientific consensus thus defined was 0.3%.
Now that the extent of the misrepresentations in the paper is clear to you and to all the board, the should be withdrawn at once. Please now make the appropriate announcement and let me know that you have done so.
I sent a commentary to you in July, outlining the misrepresentations in the Cook paper. You sent my paper back and asked for it to be shortened to 1000 words. I did that. You then asked for two temperature graphs to be removed “before we can submit the comment for review”. I did that well over two months ago (see attached), expecting that you would “submit the comment for review” as you had said. But you did not reply.
On being chased, you now ask me to submit a paper, not a comment, via an online portal. It is difficult to avoid the impression that I am not being dealt with either promptly or fairly. As to my attached comment, there will be no need for you to “submit the comment for review” if you withdraw the offending paper. Otherwise, I hope you will submit it for review without further delay.
Perhaps you would be kind enough to let me know your intentions, so that I can decide what to do next. I should not wish to involve the public authorities.
- Monckton of Brenchley
Climatologist Dr. Eduardo Zorita, one of the authors of the recent paper rejecting the climate models at a confidence level >98% over the past 15 years, has a new post in which he states that the model vs. real-world discrepancy is even greater during the winter months [Dec-Feb], with only 0.2% of 6,104 climate model runs projecting the observed negative trend in winter temperatures [-0.10 C/decade] over the past 15 years. Climate models instead predicted that the most warming would occur during the winter months, the opposite of observations.