Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup

Quote of the Week:

“Climate change deniers cloak themselves in scientific language, selectively critiquing aspects of mainstream climate science.” “… no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate and why” … “The assertions of climate deniers therefore should not be given scientific weight equal to the comprehensive, peer-reviewed research presented by the vast majority of climate scientists.”

From a January 28, 2011 letter from 18 AGW proponents to members of Congress as reported in The Hill.

THIS WEEK:
By Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President, Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP)

The above quote is from a January 28, 2011, letter signed by eighteen scientists to members of Congress. Lest TWTW be accused of “cherry picking” its quotes, the article presenting the letter and the entire letter is referenced and reproduced as Article #1. This letter illustrates an important question:

What constitutes a “climate change denier”?

To appropriately address what is a “climate change denier”, one must first address the position taken by those accusing others of being “climate change deniers.” Second, one must address the position of the accused “deniers.” Third, one must examine the physical, scientific evidence. From this, finally, one may conclude what constitutes a “climate change denier.”

Based upon the assertions in the letter, the writings, and presentations to public audiences by many who signed the letter, one may reasonably conclude that the position of the signees (accusers) is that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing unprecedented and dangerous global warming. The authors of the letter invoke many of the familiar assertions of future disasters projected by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its followers. As stated in the NIPCC reports, many of these assertions, such as, water vapor amplifying atmospheric warming over the tropics, have been demonstrated as contrary to the physical, scientific evidence.

Most “climate change deniers” believe that human emissions of carbon dioxide may cause slight global warming, but not a warming that is unprecedented or dangerous to humanity. Further, many of these “deniers” assert that climate change is naturally occurring. Warming and cooling of this planet will continue to occur regardless of governmental policy concerning human emissions of carbon dioxide. This is not to say that human activity, such as, land use change, does not change local and regional climate. Many “climate change deniers” assert it does. The major difference in the opinions between the “deniers” and the “alarmists” is that “deniers” assert carbon dioxide emissions will not cause significant world-wide warming.

For the physical evidence supporting the views of the alarmists and the “climate change deniers,” one needs to look no further than the record from the Greenland GISP2 ice cores as reported by Don Easterbrook and referenced in the January 29, 2011, TWTW.

“Temperature changes recorded in the GISP2 ice core from the Greenland Ice Sheet show that the global warming experienced during the past century pales into insignificance when compared to the magnitude of profound climate reversals over the past 25,000 years.”

About 25,000 years ago, the measured temperatures were about -55 deg. C, today they are about -32 deg. C. As stated by Easterbrook, these data were reported in 1997, ten years before the latest IPCC report. Further, for over 80% of the past 10,500 years, the calculated temperatures have been warmer than today. These temperature changes, unrelated to carbon dioxide concentrations, were also shown in the 2008 NIPCC report. Based upon this research and other supporting research, Greenland ice cores are a good approximation of temperature changes in the mid-to-upper latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere.

Such data showing frequent, naturally caused climate change unrelated to carbon dioxide are extensive. Yet the accusers claim “… no research results have produced any evidence that challenges the overall scientific understanding of what is happening to our planet’s climate and why.”

Such statements are contrary to the physical evidence and prompt the question: who are the true climate change deniers: (a) those who recognize that the physical evidence demonstrates climate change is natural, normal, and cyclical; or (b) those who ignore the physical evidence of natural climate change that contradicts their beliefs?

Needless to say, a letter challenging the assertions of the 18 deniers of natural climate change is being prepared.
****************************************************
The failure by advocates of human-caused climate change to correctly understand the position of those who challenge their views apparently led to the failure of a meeting in Lisbon to reach a middle ground. This meeting was organized by Oxford science philosopher Jerry Ravetz. Titles of articles reporting the effort are clear: “Climate skeptics and scientists attempt peace deal.” Apparently, those who assert climate change is normal and natural are not considered scientists. Please see articles under “Seeking a Common Ground.”
****************************************************
The intense cold through the mid-West caused rolling black-outs in Texas. According to reports, at least three coal-fired power plants were off-line for scheduled maintenance – to prepare for a hot summer – in retrospect, a poor decision. Many other plants were “tripped-off.” It is not clear how much of the problem was caused by wind-power failing to perform as needed due to the intense cold, still air. Apparently, a number of natural-gas-fired plants (perhaps in back-up) did not have the electrical power to receive the needed natural gas. Shortages of coal were also reported (which is strange). A realistic report from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) would be beneficial for all considering wind power. Please see articles under “Extreme Weather.”
****************************************************
Roy Spencer reports that the global average temperatures for January, as calculated from satellites by the UAH, are rapidly dropping. The current temperatures are about the same as the calculated norm since 1979. We have received no dire reports from NOAA or NASA/GISS of another “hottest year,” or another ice age in the making. Please see
http://www.drroyspencer.com…

****************************************************
NUMBER OF THE WEEK: 42%. According to the latest data just released by the US Energy Information Administration, in 2009 carbon dioxide emissions from China exceed emissions from the US by 42%. Please alert your representative in Congress! We are losing the carbon emissions race to China! See referenced article under “Energy Issues.”
****************************************************
TWTW Corrections and Amplifications:
Last week, we quoted Sir Joseph Banks, President of the Royal Academy, in a statement to their Lordships of the Admiralty on November 20, 1817, in which he commented on the disappearance of the circumpolar ice (ice around the North Pole.). As astute readers pointed out, we failed to state the influence of the intense volcanic event of Tambora in Indonesia in 1815 that no doubt greatly influenced global weather. The volcanic event was not realized in the contemporary science writings.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

ARTICLES:
For the numbered articles below please see:
http://www.sepp.org…

1. Scientists ask Congress to put aside politics, take ‘fresh look’ at climate data
By Andrew Restuccia, The Hill, Feb 1, 2011
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/141453-…

2. Climate Change Claims Melt Away
Editorial, IBD, Jan 28, 2011
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article/561…

3. Let’s Vote on It
Editorial, National Review, Feb 3, 2011 [H/t Cooler Heads Digest]
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/258776/let-s-…
[“For the United States to shoot itself in the economic foot as a feel-good act of environmental symbolism would be entirely pointless and unfathomably stupid – which is to say, it’s a job for Congress.”]

4. New Fight Breaks Out on Nuclear Dump Site
By Tennille Tracy, WSJ, Jan 31, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704680…
[SEPP Comment: Note the use of the prejudicial term “waste dump.” It should be “engineered disposal of spent fuel.”]

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

NEWS YOU CAN USE:
Climategate Continued
The Met Office winter forecast lie is finally nailed
Autonomous Mind, Jan 28, 2011 [H/t Anne Debeil]
http://autonomousmind.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/the-m…
[SEPP Comment: If government agencies have not consequences for falsehood, why bother with integrity?]

Challenging the Orthodoxy
Carbon Dioxide and Earth’s Future
Pursuing the Prudent Path
Craig D. Idso and Sherwood B. Idso, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Feb, 2011
http://www.co2science.org/education/reports/prudentp…
[SEPP COMMENT: An 110 plus page report summarizing the benefits and risks involved increasing concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide based on physical observations and experiments rather than computer simulations. The report specifically addresses the 10 most popular, and false, claims of the alarmists.]

The oceans, clouds and cosmic rays drive the climate, not CO2
By Jo Anne Nova, Feb 1, 2011
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/the-oceans-clouds-a…
[SEPP Comment: A summary of a speech to the Dutch Meteorological Institute by Dr. Noor van Andel]

Self Regulation Of The Climate System By Deep Cumulus Convection
R.A. Pielke, Sr. Pielke Research Group, Feb 3, 2011 [H/t ICECAP]
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/02/03/sel…

Dust levels in Earth’s atmosphere contribute to climate change
By ENN, Science and Environmental News, From India, Jan 28, 2011
http://www.mygreenchannel.org/index.php/my-green-cha…

Defending Harrison Schmitt, Nominee for Energy Secretary of New Mexico
By Jim Lakely, Somewhat Reasonable, Feb 3, 2011
http://blog.heartland.org/2011/02/defending-harrison…
[SEPP Comment: Harrison Schmitt has graced TWTW with his guest science editorials.]

Global Warming Is Modest And No Threat To Humanity’
By Madhav Khandkar, GWPF, Feb 2, 2011 [H/t ICECAP]
http://www.thegwpf.org/the-climate-record/2363-madha…

Greenland Is Going to Be OK
By Norman Rogers, American Thinker, Jan 29, 2011
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/greenland_is_…

Defenders of the Orthodoxy
Gore: Global Warming Causing Record Cold, Snow
By Jim Meyers, Newsmax, Feb 2, 2011
http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/Gore-Record-Cold-…

Al Gore is right about snow and climate change
By Cynthia Tucker, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Feb 3, 2011 [H/t Real Clear Politics]
http://blogs.ajc.com/cynthia-tucker/2011/02/03/al-go…

Climate change emerges as disease-related security threat
By Jessica Chen, Washington Post, Jan 30, 2011 [H/t William Readdy]
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article…
[SEPP Comment: Years ago many joked that military intelligence was a contradiction in terms.]

How BBC warmists abuse the science
Sir Paul Nurse, president of the Royal Society, is an expert in genetics, not climatology
By Christopher Booker, Telegraph, UK, Jan 29, 2011 [H/t Anne Debeil]
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christ…

Seeking a Common Ground
Climate skeptics and scientists attempt peace deal
By Fred Pearce, New Scientist, Feb 2, 2011 [H/t Marc Morano, Climate Depot]
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/…

Climate skeptics and scientists attempt peace deal? As if.
By JoNova, Joannenova.com, Feb 4, 2011
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/02/climate-sceptics-an…

How Climate Sanity Has Been Gored
By Larry Bell, Forbes, Feb 3, 2011
http://blogs.forbes.com/larrybell/2011/02/03/how-cli…

Extreme Weather
The Westerlies Explain The Recent Extreme winter Weather, Not “Global Warming”
By R.A. Pielke, Sr. Pielke Research Group, Jan 28, 2011
http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/the…

Reliable forecast under the weather
By Michael Graham, Boston Herald, Feb 3, 2011 [H/t GWPF]
http://news.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/op_ed/view…

A storm bigger than Hurricane Katrina
By Andrew Fraser, The Australian, Feb 3, 2011 [H/t JoNova]
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/a-storm-…
[SEPP Comment: One must remember that much of New Orleans was built below sea level.]

BP Oil Spill and Aftermath
Report Foresees Quick Gulf of Mexico Recovery
By John Schwartz, NYT, Feb 1, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/us/02spill.html?_r…

U.S. Administration In Contempt Over Drilling Moratorium, Judge Rules
By Laurel Brubaker Calkins, Bloomberg, Feb 3, 2011 [H/t WUWT]
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-03/u-s-adminis…

Would We Drill For $200 Oil?
Editorial, IBD, Feb 1, 2011
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.asp…

Energy panel leader expects push for production of more U.S. oil
By Joseph Weber, Washington Times, Jan 31, 2011
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/ener…

Cap-and-Trade and Clean Energy Standards
Calif. cap-trade plan dealt blow by S.F. judge
By Wyatt Buchanan, San Francisco Chronicle, Feb 4, 2011
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/201…
[SEPP Comment: The environmental industry sued to close the CA cap-and-trade plan?]

EPA and other Regulators on the March
EPA’s Jackson is short, sweet & precautionary
By Lana Spivak, ACSH Facts and Fears, Feb 2, 2011
http://www.acsh.org/factsfears/newsID.2303/news_deta…
[SEPP Comment: With a sufficient dose, any natural chemical is toxic. By declaring concentrations of parts per billion or trillion, with no known public health threat, as a public health threat, EPA continues abandoning science. The precautionary principle belongs to the age of witches, hobgoblins and things that go bump in the night.]

The EPA’s Mess with Texas
By Ben Voth, American Thinker, Jan 30, 2011
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/01/the_epas_mess…

TCEQ Approves Air Permit for Texas Coke-Fired Project, Despite EPA Objections
Power News, Feb 2, 2011
http://www.powermag.com/POWERnews/3418.html?hq_e=el&…
[SEPP Comment: A few dare to stand up to the EPA.]

With energy czar gone, Michigan wins
By Henry Payne, Detroit News, Feb 3, 2011
http://detnews.com/article/20110203/OPINION03/102030…

EPA Facing Opposition to GHG Regulation on Multiple Fronts
Power News, Feb 2, 2011
http://www.powermag.com/POWERnews/3423.html?hq_e=el&…

Subsidies and Mandates Forever
Section 1603 Extension: The Renewable Energy Bailout of 2011
By Lisa Linowes and Bill Short, Master Resource, Jan 31, 2011 [H/t Randy Randol]
http://www.masterresource.org/2011/01/section-1603-w…
[SEPP Comment: According to this analysis, replacing a long term tax credit with an upfront cash subsidy is resulting in less productive assets at a higher cost. Could it be that wind promoters are learning from subsidized real estate promoters, or is it the natural order of things?]

Energy Firms Aided by U.S. Find Backers
By Matthew Wald, NYT, Feb 2, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/business/energy-en…
[SEPP Comment: Did the Rockefellers need government backing?]

Energy Issues
World carbon dioxide emissions data by country: China speeds ahead of the rest
By Simon Rogers and Lisa Evans, Guardian, UK, Jan 31, 2011 [H/t ICECAP]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/31/…
[SEPP Comment: According to 2009 Data from the US Energy Information Administration, China emissions exceed US by over 40%. This contradicts the argument China is racing us for alternative energy.]

China’s CNOOC inks U.S. shale gas deal
By Staff Writers, UPI, Jan 31, 2011 [H/t Toshio Fujita]
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2011/0…
[SEPP Comment: Another indication that China is not in an all out push for alternative energy.]

80% “Clean” Energy by 2035: What Does This Mean?
By Ken Kok, Master Resource, Feb 3, 2011
http://www.masterresource.org/2011/02/80-clean-energ…
[SEPP Comment: Putting a price on a dream!]

Energy panel leader expects push for production of more U.S. oil
By Joseph Weber, Washington Times, Jan 31, 2011
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jan/31/ener…

Oil sands in focus as Canadian leader visits
By Ben Geman and Andrew Restuccia, The Hill, Feb 3, 2011
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/677-e2-wire/142049-…
[SEPP Comment: Does the Administration really seek energy independence from the Mid-East?]

EU wants more money for clean energy
By Staff Writers, UPI, Jan 31, 2011 [H/t Toshio Fujita]
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2011/0…
[SEPP Comment: The wheels of clean must be greased with green.]

“Green Jobs” Cronyism and Cannibalism
By Ernest Istook, Huffington Post, Feb 3, 2011
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ernest-istook/green-jo…

Whistling in the Wind
The Dutch lose faith in windmills
By Karel Beckman and Alexander Haje, European Energy Review, Jan 13, 2011, [H/t John Droz, Jr]
http://www.europeanenergyreview.eu/index.php?id=2656…

Over-dependence on Wind Power Causes Energy Emergency in Texas
By Robert Snyder, KFYO Radio, Feb 2, 2011
http://kfyo.com/overdependence-on-wind-power-causes-…

California Dreaming
A small fish caught in a big fuss
The tiny delta smelt has a big effect on the amount of water sent to 25 million people and 2 million acres of Central Valley farmland. Scientists are trying to save the creature, but politicians look to gut protections
By Bettina Boxall, Los Angeles Times, Feb 2, 2011
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-delta-smelt-…
[SEPP Comment: Oh My! The smelt have survived for decades under the current system, but now are endangered? What about the 25 million people and 2 million acres including extensive, dead fruit orchards?]

Review of Recent Scientific Articles by NIPCC
For a full list of articles see
www.NIPCCreport.org

Greenland’s Outlet Glaciers
Reference: Nick, F.M., Vieli, A., Howat, I.M. and Joughin, I. 2009. Large-scale changes in Greenland outlet glacier dynamics triggered at the terminus. Nature Geoscience 2: 10.1038/NGEO394.
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/feb/1feb201…

Elevated CO2 Leads to More Nutritious Spinach … and More of It!
Reference: Jin, C.W., Du, S.T., Zhang, Y.S., Tang, C. and Lin, X.Y. 2009. Atmospheric nitric oxide stimulates plant growth and improves the quality of spinach (Spinacia oleracea). Annals of Applied Biology 155: 113-120.
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/feb/1feb201…

Ocean Acidification and Marine Coccolithophores
Reference: Halloran, P.R., Hall, I.R., Colmenero-Hidalgo, E. and Rickaby, R.E.M. 2008. Evidence for a multi-species coccolith volume change over the past two centuries: understanding a potential ocean acidification response. Biogeosciences 5: 1651-1655.
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/feb/1feb201…

Summer Ice Melt on Eurasian Arctic Ice Caps
Reference: Sharp, M. and Wang, L. 2009. A five-year record of summer melt on Eurasian Arctic ice caps. Journal of Climate 22: 133-145.
http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/feb/1feb201…

Other Scientific Issues
The United Nation’s Scientific Fraud against DDT
By Roger Bate, AEI, Jan, 2011 [H/t ASCH]
http://www.aei.org/outlook/101019…

Nonfiction: Nabokov Theory on butterfly Evolution Vindicated
By Carl Zimmer, NYT, Jan 25, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/01butterfl…

Kepler Planet Hunter Finds 1,200 Possibilities
By Dennis Overbye, NYT, Feb 2, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/science/03planet.h…

Other Issues that May Be Of Interest
Nutty Professors and Nutty New Taxes
By Alan Caruba, Warning Signs, Feb 1, 2011
http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com/…

In China, the true cost of Britain’s clean, green wind power experiment. Pollution on a disastrous scale
By Simon Parry in China and Ed Douglas in Scotland, Mail Online, Jan 29, 2011 [H/t Rupert Wyndham]
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/moslive/article-1350…
[“This toxic lake poisons Chinese farmers, their children and their land. It is what’s left behind after making the magnets for Britain’s latest wind turbines… and, as a special Live investigation reveals, is merely one of a multitude of environmental sins committed in the name of our new green Jerusalem.”]

Mr. Chairman, Your Carriage Awaits
By Donna Laframboise, Jan 28, 2011 [H/t Bob Ferguson, SPPI]
http://climatechange.mensnewsdaily.com/2011/01/28/mr…
[SEPP Comment: Yet another IPCC – for nature.]

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

BELOW THE BOTTOM LINE:
Agave fuels global excitement as a bioenergy crop
Press Release, Sarah Davis, Jan 26, 2011 [H/t Toshio Fujita]
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-01/w-afg…
[SEPP Comment: For freedom from foreign oil, drink more tequila.]

Cheap solar energy set to displace n-power
By Staff Writers, Solar Daily, Jan 28, 2011 [H/t Toshio Fujita]
http://www.solardaily.com/reports/Cheap_solar_energy…

CO2-molecule lobby plans to clear air about global warming
By Kirk Myers, Seminole County Examiner, Jan 15, 2011 [H/t ICECAP]
http://www.examiner.com/seminole-county-environmenta…
[SEPP Comment: A new pressure group defending the despised.]

Government Backs $1 Billion Plan to Make Gasoline from Wood
By Matthew Wald, NYT, Feb 3, 2011
http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/02/03/government…
[SEPP Comment: In the 19th Century the eastern forests were logged out for fuel and other uses. Let us do it again!]

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

PLEASE NOTE: The complete TWTW, including the full text of the articles, can be downloaded in an easily printable form at this web site: http://www.sepp.org/the-week-that-was.cfm…

Advertisements

28 thoughts on “Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup

  1. It must take a special kind of scientist to have his weather models torn to shreds the last 10 years or so and still arrogantly attack those that were right all along.

  2. The bottom line is that the world temperature data is lower than what the man made global warming theory prediction of much higher temperatures. Thus any sane person would conclude that global warming theory is false as it is not supported by real world temperature data. Policy makers in D.C. should use this new temperature data to unleash the vast amount of US oil, coal and natural gas reserves to make the an US energy independent and job rich economy. If Obama is really interested in what’s best for the US and getting reelected that is what he should be doing.

  3. Now that we know Irritable Climate Syndrome is responsible for everything…

    …warmcold, coldwarm, wetdry, drywet, rainsnow, snowrain, droughtflood, flooddrought, highice, lowice………..

    Forget the null hypothesis…

    disproving Irritable Climate Syndrome is the equivalent of disproving God……….

  4. I just bought
    “the real global warming disaster’
    by Christopher Booker
    I only started reading now
    but I already found a good quote
    that I can use here:
    “The work of science has nothing at all to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means he or she has results that are verifibale by reference (method) to the real world.”

    http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/assessment-of-global-warming-and-global-warming-caused-by-greenhouse-forcings-in-pretoria-south-africa

  5. What is a “climate change denier”, by Ken Haapala, Executive Vice President SEPP. Wow, i gave him a 10 for the figure skating technical. What a spin to try to maskarade deniers as skeptics.

    Definition is quite simple… A denier does not believe it has warmed and it is still warming, will repeat over and over that it is not warming, and can’t believe man can influence nature.

    All the other one are skeptics and i include myself.

    Is he trying to make us believe the SEPP was the skeptic’s headquarter … pffffff.

  6. Re Texas’ rolling blackouts and wind: I posted this comment on an earlier thread but it is also appropriate here.

    From “An Interview With the CEO of the Texas Grid,”

    “I’m not aware of any specific issues with wind turbines having to shut down due to icing. I would highlight that we put out a special word of thanks to the wind community because they did contribute significantly through this time frame. Wind was blowing, and we had often 3,500 megawatts of wind generation during that morning peak, which certainly helped us in this situation.”

    http://www.texastribune.org/texas-energy/energy/an-interview-with-the-ceo-of-the-texas-grid/

  7. Texas has 9,410 MW of Wind energy. So what if it peaked at 3,500 MW. What was the output when it was needed?

  8. Well, if Cynthia Tucker and Clarence Page say that all this cold is from global warming, it must be true.

  9. The total hypothesis includes some unspoken adjectives. If I deny (Unprecedented) (Catastrophic) (Anthropogenic)(Greenhouse) Global Warming, I might be denying the warming, the global distribution of same, the attribution of such warming to CO2, the attribution of warming to other human-controlled factors such as de-forestation… I might be denying the consequences are worse than the cost of the cure, or I might be denying that the current conditions, even if catastrophic etc, are unlike other sudden climate changes in the geological record.

    The true believers of mainstream warming mania have a huge number of burdens to prove. No wonder they balk; or attempt to shift the focus.

    For the record, I mostly deny the catastrophe. I THINK A WARMER PLANET WILL BE BETTER FOR CHILDREN AND OTHER LIVING THINGS.

    I also happen to like nuclear technology; ocean fertilization, and dome-covered cities. Anti-science, I ain’t. But a ‘denier’ I guess I am.

    Put that into your sustainable corn cob pipe, ignite it and breathe the fumes — including the CO2.

  10. The term they use to describe us; “climate change denier” is itself completely misleading, as is all the stuff that they come up with. Just part and parcel of the spin they need to apply to everything. No one denies that the climate has always changed. Except AGW proponents. Funny that.

  11. To appropriately address what is a “climate change denier”, one must first address the position taken by those accusing others of being “climate change deniers.
    The AGW Advocate’s Creed:
    To believe the conventional wisdom on Anthropomorphic Global Warming YOU MUST STIPULATE THE FOLLOWING.
    (1) Based on research by a small number of researchers,
    (2) with major professional axes to grind,
    (3) who have destroyed or withheld raw data,
    (4) often illegally,
    (5) and refused to reveal their research methods,
    (6) and have worked in concert to suppress and marginalize researchers who disagree with them,
    (7) and have repeatedly adjusted previous research data,
    (8) almost always to better support their theories,
    (9) and who are highly politicized,
    (10) and who have collectively received millions of dollars to prove their theories are true,
    (11) THE WORLD’S CLIMATE IS HOTTER THAN AT ANY TIME IN HUMAN HISTORY,
    (12) even the supposed medieaval warming period,
    (13) which anyway didn’t occur,
    (14) as proven by tree ring records
    (15) of 30 cherry-picked trees,
    (16) and that THE CLIMATE IS WARMING FASTER THAN AT ANY TIME IN HUMAN HISTORY,
    (17) but only since the middle of the twentieth century,
    (18) while temperatures in the first half of the twentieth century actually went down,
    (19) as shown by temperature records
    (20) though only after they have been “adjusted”
    (21) and the rapid TEMPERATURE INCREASE IS EXCLUSIVELY BECAUSE OF INCREASED LEVELS OF CARBON DIOXIDE
    (22) rather than other natural cycles like solar activity
    (23) or other “greenhouse” gasses like water vapor,
    (24) because the CO2 disproportionately controls retention of heat in the atmosphere,
    (25) triggering a catastrophic positive temperature feedback,
    (26) while triggering no counteracting natural mechanisms like cloud changes,
    (27) even though such a feedback has not been seen before in climate history,
    (28) where increases in CO2 appear to lag increases in temperature by hundreds of years
    (29) and is not seen actuality by satellites or sea buoys in the past 10 years,
    (30) neverless that the warmer climate will be catastrophic to humans,
    (31) justifying a multi-trillion dollar restructuring of the world’s economy,
    (32) through coercive, authoritarian, undemocratic political institutions,
    (33) that will not simply be dissipated in gargantuan graft and corruption,
    (34) and will entail a major decline in world living standards,
    (35) which is neverless the only sensible way to approach the problem
    (36) and the most sensible way to spend these vast resources,
    (37) rather than promoting general human economic prosperity
    (38) and dealing with climate related problems piecemeal if and when they arise.

  12. @Neil Ferguson says:
    February 6, 2011 at 1:06 pm
    ——
    LOL, Neil, that pretty much nails it!! Best, Charles the DrPH

  13. “CRS, Dr.P.H. says:
    February 6, 2011 at 12:00 pm

    Well, if Cynthia Tucker and Clarence Page say that all this cold is from global warming, it must be true.”

    I just have one dumb question: If we happen to be headed toward an ice age now, how would we be able to tell?

  14. Regg_upnorth says:
    February 6, 2011 at 10:33 am

    Definition is quite simple… A denier does not believe it has warmed and it is still warming

    No one I know of denies the planet is slightly warmer than it was when Dickens was a boy. But as for “still warming” , I hardly need to cite the evidence that this is at least highly debatable – there has, after all, been no significant warming since the late 1990’s, despite large increases in CO2 emissions.

    Whether warming has paused or is over for good is debatable, but to call someone a denier for asserting a verifiable fact is just ignorant

  15. Ken Haapala wrote:

    Based upon the assertions in the letter, the writings, and presentations to public audiences by many who signed the letter, one may reasonably conclude that the position of the signees (accusers) is that human emissions of carbon dioxide are causing unprecedented and dangerous global warming. The authors of the letter invoke many of the familiar assertions of future disasters projected by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its followers. As stated in the NIPCC reports, many of these assertions, such as, water vapor amplifying atmospheric warming over the tropics, have been demonstrated as contrary to the physical, scientific evidence.

    I haven’t read the NIPCC report, but water vapor amplifying atmospheric warming over the tropics has not been demonstrated as contrary to physical, scientific evidence. This has been a theme of the AGW skeptics for a long time, but is a false statement. Satellite observations have shown that the concentration of water vapor does increase with increasing temperature, in agreement with model predictions.

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081117193013.htm

    ….
    With new observations, the scientists confirmed experimentally what existing climate models had anticipated theoretically. The research team used novel data from the Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) on NASA’s Aqua satellite to measure precisely the humidity throughout the lowest 10 miles of the atmosphere. That information was combined with global observations of shifts in temperature, allowing researchers to build a comprehensive picture of the interplay between water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other atmosphere-warming gases. The NASA-funded research was published recently in the American Geophysical Union’s Geophysical Research Letters…..

    It is true that balloon data, which is known to be flawed, does conflict with the satellite data, but that does not amount to a demonstration that Dessler et. al. ‘s findings on water vapor are contrary to physical and scientific evidence.
    The claim made by the author is the kind of statement that provokes the label GW denier by the 18 scientists who wrote the letter.

  16. You know I actually heard a “scientist” say the other day that if we could control carbon dioxide emissions we would achieve “climate stability” – I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry!

  17. As astute readers pointed out, we failed to state the influence of the intense volcanic event of Tambora in Indonesia in 1815 that no doubt greatly influenced global weather. The volcanic event was not realized in the contemporary science writings.

    The Tambora eruption would have cooled the earth during several years, including 1817 when the letter to the admirality showed a decreasing ice cover at the North Pole. Thus without the Tambora eruption, the ice cover even might have been lower…

  18. eadler says:
    February 6, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    It is true that balloon data, which is known to be flawed, does conflict with the satellite data, but that does not amount to a demonstration that Dessler et. al. ‘s findings on water vapor are contrary to physical and scientific evidence.

    Balloon data flawed?
    The conflict is more like that total water vapor increased, but mainly at the lower altitudes, while at higher altitudes water vapor decreased (as the lack of “hot spot” in the upper troposphere tropics indirectly demonstrates). As for the radiative feedback the higher troposphere is by far more important, there is no positive feedback of importance, it even may be a negative feedback. See the discussion at CA:
    http://climateaudit.org/2009/03/04/a-peek-behind-the-curtain/

  19. The CO2 science 110 page paper on the benefits of CO2 has been castigated by SEPP as ‘based on observation and experiment not computer models’.
    I thought science was all about observation and experiment. formulating a theory and doing more observation and experiment to refine the theory. Use of computer models is not only producing the wrong answers but the lazy way to get the wrong answer.
    SEPP must live on a different planet.

  20. eadler says:
    February 6, 2011 at 8:25 pm

    From the same source, a few years later:
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100131145840.htm

    A 10 percent drop in water vapor ten miles above Earth’s surface has had a big impact on global warming, say researchers in a study published online January 28 in the journal Science. The findings might help explain why global surface temperatures have not risen as fast in the last ten years as they did in the 1980s and 1990s.

  21. The other point made by Ken Haapala in his effort to dispute the letter of the 18 scientists relies on Prof Easterbrook’s paper on Greenland. He states:

    “….For the physical evidence supporting the views of the alarmists and the “climate change deniers,” one needs to look no further than the record from the Greenland GISP2 ice cores as reported by Don Easterbrook and referenced in the January 29, 2011, TWTW.

    “Temperature changes recorded in the GISP2 ice core from the Greenland Ice Sheet show that the global warming experienced during the past century pales into insignificance when compared to the magnitude of profound climate reversals over the past 25,000 years.” …..”

    Easterbrooks analysis is full of errors that totally discredit his thesis:
    http://hot-topic.co.nz/core-blimey-easterbrooks-at-it-again/

    A sample of the criticisms of Easterbrook’s paper is as follows:

    “…He continues to represent the temperature data from Cuffey & Clow/Alley 2000 as reaching up to the present day, when the most recent data point in the series is 1855. (He refers to the “top of the core” being 1987, which it may well be, but that’s not the most recent data point in the temperature series he’s using.)

    He continues to represent temperatures at the top of the Greenland ice sheet as a good proxy for global temperatures. They’re not. Greenland temperature changes are not synchronous with changes recorded in Antarctic cores, for example.

    He pretends that the magnitude of historical changes in temperature at the top of the Greenland ice sheet can be used as a comparison to current global changes — but because he relies on a series that ends in 1855 he effectively excludes all modern warming from his comparison chart (Fig 2). In any event, if he had done any reading on the subject, he would have encountered the phenomenon known as “polar amplification” which suggests that the Greenland paleo record should be scaled by a factor of around 0.5 in order to scale with global average temperatures….”

    Relying on Easterbrook’s work to claim that AGW is not supported by observations and the science is clearly mistaken. Two separate independent polls of active climate science researchers show 97% accept that AGW is a real and significant driver of the earth’s climate.

  22. eadler says:
    February 7, 2011 at 7:15 am

    The other point made by Ken Haapala in his effort to dispute the letter of the 18 scientists relies on Prof Easterbrook’s paper on Greenland. He states:

    Even when prof. Easterbrook restricted his thesis to the Greenland ice core (the d18O is more or less related to seawater temperatures in the whole North Atlantic), there is a lot of evidence for warmer temperatures during the Holocene: simply google for Holocene Climate Optimum. Except for Wikipedia, heavily censored by William Connolley, they all show (much) higher temperatures than today at least in the NH and an icefree North Pole, at least in summer…

    And for a real poll amongst scientists, see what Dennis Bray and Hans Von Storch have found in a very detailed survey:
    http://coast.gkss.de/staff/storch/pdf/GKSS_2010_9.CLISCI.pdf
    very interesting to see the responses on a lot of topics…

  23. I am tired of reading pronouncements about who is a “denier” and who is a “warmist. I am tired of name calling as a means of proving one’s logic. Can’t we stop even if no one else does?
    The self appointed scientists who wrote to congress have a major concern about their power over the general scientific community. What would happen to their science funding “empires” if some how the planet started to cool off? Naturally, they hope to establish a forum for their ideas about AGW with the people elected to office and with them selected to be the expert witnesses. Sounds like the CRU whitewash in the UK. Congress has no background to comprehend the science associated with climate models and scientific ideas that center of climate. At times I wonder if any one comprehends the science of climate or just small niches in the science of climate.
    It beginning to look like the Scopes trial setting where politicians with no understanding of the science of evolution decided there wasn’t any. If I wanted to confuse the American public I can think of no greater forum than the media and politicians to screw it up. We should oppose them.

  24. eadler is still going with the 97% bogosity? Man, that’s SO 2009. There’s been a huge wave of “Then came ClimateGate; Now I’m a denier!” (See M4GW).

Comments are closed.