CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY
DELEGATES at the 18th annual UN climate gabfest at the dismal, echoing Doha conference center – one of the least exotic locations chosen for these rebarbatively repetitive exercises in pointlessness – have an Oops! problem.
No, not the sand-flies. Not the questionable food. Not the near-record low attendance. The Oops! problem is this. For the past 16 of the 18-year series of annual hot-air sessions about hot air, the world’s hot air has not gotten hotter. There has been no global warming. At all. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.
The equations of classical physics do not require the arrow of time to flow only forward. However, observation indicates this is what always happens. So tomorrow’s predicted warming that has not happened today cannot have caused yesterday’s superstorms, now, can it?
That means They can’t even get away with claiming that tropical storm Sandy and other recent extreme-weather happenings were All Our Fault. After more than a decade and a half without any global warming at all, one does not need to be a climate scientist to know that global warming cannot have been to blame.
Or, rather, one needs not to be a climate scientist. The wearisomely elaborate choreography of these yearly galah sessions has followed its usual course this time, with a spate of suspiciously-timed reports in the once-mainstream media solemnly recording that “Scientists Say” their predictions of doom are worse than ever. But the reports are no longer front-page news. The people have tuned out.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPeCaC), the grim, supranational bureaucracy that makes up turgid, multi-thousand-page climate assessments every five years, has not even been invited to Doha. Oversight or calculated insult? It’s your call.
IPeCaC is about to churn out yet another futile tome. And how will its upcoming Fifth Assessment Report deal with the absence of global warming since a year after the Second Assessment report? Simple. The global-warming profiteers’ bible won’t mention it.
There will be absolutely nothing about the embarrassing 16-year global-warming stasis in the thousands of pages of the new report. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.
Instead, the report will hilariously suggest that up to 1.4 Cº of the 0.6 Cº global warming observed in the past 60 years was manmade.
No, that is not a typesetting error. The new official meme will be that if it had not been for all those naughty emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases the world would have gotten up to 0.8 Cº cooler since the 1950s. Yeah, right.
If you will believe that, as the Duke of Wellington used to say, you will believe anything.
The smarter minds at the conference (all two of us) are beginning to ask what it was that the much-trumpeted “consensus” got wrong. The answer is that two-thirds of the warming predicted by the models is uneducated guesswork. The computer models assume that any warming causes further warming, by various “temperature feedbacks”.
Trouble is, not one of the supposed feedbacks can be established reliably either by measurement or by theory. A growing body of scientists think feedbacks may even be net-negative, countervailing against the tiny direct warming from greenhouse gases rather than arbitrarily multiplying it by three to spin up a scare out of not a lot.
IPeCaC’s official prediction in its First Assessment Report in 1990 was that the world would warm at a rate equivalent to 0.3 Cº/decade, or more than 0.6 Cº by now.
But the real-world, measured outturn was 0.14 Cº/decade, and just 0.3 Cº in the quarter of a century since 1990: less than half of what the “consensus” had over-predicted.
In 2008, the world’s “consensus” climate modelers wrote a paper saying ten years without global warming was to be expected (though their billion-dollar brains had somehow failed to predict it). They added that 15 years or more without global warming would establish a discrepancy between real-world observation and their X-boxes’ predictions. You will find their paper in NOAA’s State of the Climate Report for 2008.
By the modelers’ own criterion, then, HAL has failed its most basic test – trying to predict how much global warming will happen.
Yet Ms. Christina Figurehead, chief executive of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, says “centralization” of global governing power (in her hands, natch) is the solution. Solution to what?
And what solution? Even if the world were to warm by 2.2 Cº this century (for IPeCaC will implicitly cut its central estimate from 2.8 Cº in the previous Assessment Report six years ago), it would be at least ten times cheaper and more cost-effective to adapt to warming’s consequences the day after tomorrow than to try to prevent it today.
It is the do-nothing option that is scientifically sound and economically right. And nothing is precisely what 17 previous annual climate yatteramas have done. Zilch. Nada. Zip. Bupkis.
This year’s 18th yadayadathon will be no different. Perhaps it will be the last. In future, Ms. Figurehead, practice what you preach, cut out the carbon footprint from all those travel miles, go virtual, and hold your climate chatternooga chit-chats on FaceTwit.
Support CFACT’s mission here.
sceptical:
Your post at December 2, 2012 at 8:54 am is as ifnorakt, silly and daft as the question you are incapable of understanding and I answered.
It says
The comments of Jim Cripwell and myself are both correct, but I would nor expect somebody of your limited intellect to be able to understand that.
Richard
spvincent says:
December 2, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Same can be done with past shorter periods showing long term cooling, where the temperatures pause for a time.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1937/to:1980/plot/gistemp/from:1937/to:1980/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1937/to:1980/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1937/to:1980/plot/gistemp/from:1937/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1937/to:1949/offset:0.01/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1957/to:1964.17/offset:0.01/trend
The fact you missed was none of these were as long as the current non warming period. A short pause can occur for either cooling or warming, but we are not now at a short pause compared with these data sets.
The only other period that lasted longer than a decade with stable global temperatures was the start of a cooling period for 40 years, sound familiar?
Matt G says:
December 2, 2012 at 2:16 pm
“spvincent says:
December 2, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Same can be done with past shorter periods showing long term cooling, where the temperatures pause for a time.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1937/to:1980/plot/gistemp/from:1937/to:1980/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1937/to:1980/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1937/to:1980/plot/gistemp/from:1937/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1937/to:1949/offset:0.01/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1957/to:1964.17/offset:0.01/trend
The fact you missed was none of these were as long as the current non warming period. A short pause can occur for either cooling or warming, but we are not now at a short pause compared with these data sets.”
If helps to look a little back…
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1900/to:1980/plot/gistemp/from:1937/to:1980/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1937/to:1980/plot/hadsst2gl/from:1937/to:1980/plot/gistemp/from:1937/to:1980/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1937/to:1949/offset:0.01/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1957/to:1964.17/offset:0.01/trend
and ask spvincent : How did the warming in the beginning of the 20th century come about? Anthropogenic CO2 emissions were insignificant.
Don’t know when Trenberth will retire, but it will certainly be fun watching him squirm trying to explain away the travesty of the “missing heat” over the next 17 (or 34) years, when earth & other solar system objects with atmospheres experience global cooling. There will be a frantic search of our planet for volcanic eruptions, no matter how small, even those too weak to loft SO2 molecules into the stratosphere. Or something. The theory that growth in a healthful trace gas near starvation levels from 28 parts per 100K molecules of dry air to 39, 40, 41 (or whatever) is the primary driver of climate change has to be good & true, no matter how many actually observed physical data say the contrary. It has to be because so much ($100s of billions in “research”) depends on this easily falsified faith.
spvincent says:
December 2, 2012 at 1:13 pm
I don’t normally respond to anyone linking to SS as they are … of a type shall we say.
We are counting backwards. The chosen ‘starting point’ is TODAY.
Measuring. Not cherry picking like your side’s charts.
There has been zero global warming for the last 16 years *. What’s so difficult to comprehend in that sentence?
*(17 years in a couple of months time)
DirkH says:
December 2, 2012 at 2:25 pm
Good point and not finished here with that warming period not having any stable periods longer than a decade either until a 40 year cooling.
With limited data it supports that periods longer than a decade with stability are the planets response to a peak in global temperatures before the next phase of the cooling cycle occurs.
The Heat Is On
The strangest thing upon us yet
A sight to make the skeptics stare
The warmists all are in a sweat
They feel the heat that isn’t there
It wasn’t there the other day
It seems today the same is true
Tomorrow if it stays away
The warmists will be barbecue
Eugene WR Gallun
@ur momisugly Pat Ravasio
“So wait, you are saying that fossil fuels do not cause warming…”
Gravity has the CAPACITY to cause unsupported mass to fall to the ground. This can easily be shown in the laboratory. But does this mean that all unsupported mass will immediately plunge to the ground?
There are examples where this does not happen, including powered flight and orbital motion (for example, the Moon). In the laboartory, we usually try to isolate and observe a specific phenomenon. Real-world situations are usually more complicated, and can appear contradictory to the observations in the lab.
Gravity has the capacity to cause objects to fall to the ground, but there is not an absolute rule that this happens in every situation.
Likewise, we have the opportunity to examine the properties of CO2 in the laboratory. It is reasonable to conclude that CO2 has the CAPACITY to cause warming in the atmosphere, although it does nof follow that additional CO2 in a mixed atmosphere WILL behave exactly the same as in a laboratory experiment.
We must keep an open mind to the possibiltiy that some atmospheric physcal processes will compensate the warming effects of additional CO2. In the extreme, the atmosphere could be in a state of saturation, where any warming effect of additional CO2 is completely compensated by other processes.
Before we go sacrificing any virgins to appease the global warming Gods, it would be worthwhile finding out why the hypothesised tropospheric hot spot has not been observed. The absence of any “vertical amplification” (greater temperature change aloft) should give us a hint that our uinderstanding of the Enhanced Greenhoues Effect does not presently justify any sacrifice.
And if you are interested to learn more about the possibility of a saturated Greenhouse Effect, you might wish to examine the work of Ferenc Miskolczi. Perhaps you could present your reasoned analysis of Miskolczi’s work on the website you are trying to publicise.
John West says:
December 2, 2012 at 11:36 am
@RGB@Duke
WOW! Great comment, worthy of being made into a post IMHO. Although, I would have preferred “fueled by” instead of “burning” with regards to uranium; but, oh well, it’s a small matter.
_________________________________
Actually worth making a copy with attribution to Dr. Brown and sending to our Congress Critters, not that they would listen.
Pat Ravasio says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:02 pm
So wait, you are saying that fossil fuels do not cause warming, but that if we shift away from them to clean energies, there is a risk of the earth cooling? Uh, could you just think that through and try agan?
_____________________________
It depends on which commenter. (We do not all agree,)
Dr. Roy Spencer, a former NASA scientist has some decent articles you should read (they are short)
Global Warming 101
Global Warming: Natural or Manmade?
Another site with a lot of good information is Lucy’s Greenworld Trust Climate Science Primer: This is a personal story of awakening, as well as a primer
And her very informative Graph
On the risk of CO2 and cooling is this peer reviewed paper. It agrees that we are at the point in the earth’s Milankovitch cycle that ushers in an ice age. The biggest question of course is why we are not covered in ice yet.
As far as CO2 goes, an increase will have little effect but a decrease will have a much larger effect see log response graph: link
Of course if we lower the CO2 down to where it effects temperature we will all be dead anyway. Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California.
RE: spvincent says: December 2, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Your elementary use of the SS “escalator” graph (with it’s straw man claim of how skeptic’s view global warming) is a poster child tactic meant to substitute for authentic debate.
skepticalscience.com can name no skeptic who views global warming in such a manner because there are none. The use of 1970 starting point to make up the nonexistent viewpoint is child-like.
However, with the much smaller escalator steps being nearly meaningless compared to the recent 16 years the portrayal of the “realists” view showing a straight line of increase during these same 16 years is laughable. But it is truly their convoluted view.
So that graph you posted shows nothing about skeptics while demonstrating the delusion and
dishonesty of alarmists.
I ask you, why do you seriously think that the shown straight line of increase over the last 16 would pass the last test?
pardon me
laugh test
Pat Ravasio says:
December 2, 2012 at 12:02 pm
I should also add. Fred H. Haynie. He is a retired EPA environmental research scientist who has devoted the past four years to a study of global climate change.
This are his findings in a PDF
@RGB@Duke
A couple of posters beat me to the comments here. Yes, great comment, and I was also going to say that I would really like to see this as a post. It has been many years since I studied physics and mathematics, and I have been appalled at the reluctance of physicists to publicly voice their feelings about the quality of science when it comes to climate. From what I have heard, commenting on the poor quality of the science is not good for a career at many universities.
My experience has been building lots and lots of models of other coupled non-linear chaotic systems. I have used fundamentals to model selected commodity markets for two decades. What is being done in climate science is not much more than sitting at a computer playing SimEarth. They have finally run up against enough real time data that it is clear that the models are – even in their words – not working.
Again, thank you for that post, Dr. Brown.
It has never ever been about the redistribution of money from the developed countries to the under- and undeveloped countries. It has ALWAYS been about redistributing wealth from the middle class to the upper class. “Help” in “development” of third world countries has been going on for three or four generations. If it was really a “hand-up” there would BE no third world. Instead the $$$ has gone in to the pockets of corrupt officials or corporations have moved in and wiped out local business.
Not entirely true, Gail. In the 60’s US AID, Ford Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation teamed up to transform India from a food importing country subject to drought-induced famines that killed people literally by the millions in the first half of the 20th century into a food exporting country that has never had another event comparable to those famines. This was the Green Revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution
My father worked for Ford Foundation in India from 1959 through 1967, when the US got kicked out because of our increasing “imperialist” involvement in Viet Nam (which actually was not received with open arms throughout Southeast Asia). I grew up in India while this was happening. This is a specific counterexample. It did not redistribute wealth from the middle to the upper class. It truly was a hand up — to the point where India has done fine on its own ever since. It made a real, tangible difference. It wasn’t, actually, horribly expensive to the US — the point wasn’t to dump money into India, it was to develop new hybrids of rice and grain and analyze the entire agricultural economy of India to figure out how they could optimize their use of the resources they had. My father wrote a book about it for Harvard afterwards, before going to work for the World Bank (under McNamara) as an expert — perhaps “the” expert — on rice production in Southeast Asia, India in particular.
There are actually a number of successful models for providing true aid, an actual hand up, to developing countries and to people in poverty in the US as well. They generally focus on developing infrastructure, not providing handouts, and they are generally run by people capable of doing a hard-nosed CBA and evaluating the ROI of any money invested. They also generally facilitate self-help — the country being helped has to be equally invested in the success.
When those conditions aren’t met, I’m sure there are failures. And Viet Nam itself was, of course, a massive and successful boondoggle (as was Iraq) intended to transfer truly enormous amounts of money from the taxpayers into the pockets of the military-industrial complex’s owners. I rather expect CAGW is too — it is too difficult to come up with a good war these days (although I expect that the powers that be will work one out soon so they can continue to pick our pockets) and CAGW is like a pipeline to free money “forever” for those in the right position to regulate and divert the flow. But nevertheless it is incorrect to assert that it cannot be done right or has never been done right — that suggests that there is no point in even trying.
rgb
This is not to argue about the real point of the IPCC/UN action
milodonharlani says:
December 2, 2012 at 2:31 pm
Don’t know when Trenberth will retire, but it will certainly be fun watching him squirm trying to explain away the travesty of the “missing heat” over the next 17 (or 34) years
__________________________
He was born in 1944 so I doubt he will last that long.
“Science advances one funeral at a time “ ~ Max Planck
@William Howard Grubel at 9:04 am
IPeCaC or ipecac….
[Groan!] Thank you, William. I didn’t get the joke until spelled it out for me. I was trying to fit something phonetic or chemical. I guess I do too much programming to naturally ignore letter case.
Hmmm. Lettuce sea.
T’was the night before bad case,
and all threw the house,
knot odd creature was stirring,
not even a mousse …
rgbatduke says:
December 2, 2012 at 4:12 pm
Not entirely true, Gail…..
___________________________
Thanks for the information. I stand corrected.
It is nice to know there were successes. Too bad there have not been more. I have no problem with US $$$ going into projects that actually help people. Input and buy-in from the locals is mandatory and I think missing in many cases.
In India there have also been horror stories: Farmer Suicides in India Linked to Debt, Globalization and retaliation Monsanto official Beaten by farmers in India over Failed GMO Bt Cotton Seeds
However horror stories always make the news, while success gets a YAWN.
Although, I would have preferred “fueled by” instead of “burning” with regards to uranium; but, oh well, it’s a small matter.
Awwww, now you’re getting all picky on me;-)
Yes, I do understand — in a fair bit of detail — how and why fission produces energy, and no, it’s not “burning” in the sense that burning is a self-sustaining rapid oxidation. But surely we do use the word in a more general sense, as in “I burned through calories on my recent hike” (only if you doused yourself in gasoline first), or “I burned through my work so I would be done in time to go to the game” (only if you wanted to get fired — err, perhaps I should say “discharged”, oops, no, that won’t do either, rendered an ex-employee?). So while the Sun doesn’t actually burn hydrogen, it is hardly uncommon to find the phrase used loosely by physicists — google “hydrogen burning stars” to see numerous examples.
There have been a few attempts to publish cost-benefit analyses of catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. I have to say I doubt their objectivity — they generally begin by assuming what amounts to worst case catastrophe and then exaggerate every cost while ignoring every benefit. They also without exception seem to completely ignore the entire tree of costs and benefits associated with alternative investment of the resources associated with ameliorating them. I would very much like to see a much more sober and honest appraisal of costs and benefits, one that counted the cost of leaving the third world in energy poverty as a catastrophe in its own right, a cost at compound interest assessed over the entire intervening century. Instead what I see is piffle where people try to attribute “deaths due to anthropogenic global warming” — surely one of the most meaningless statistics in the history of statistics, given the near-impossibility of attributing the anthropogenic component of global warming and the (again) complete and deliberate ignorance of the death’s PREVENTED by global warming compared to, say, the Little Ice Age or the year without a summer or a year where one could only harvest a single crop of grain in the world’s north temperate zone breadbasket.
But I won’t hold my breath.
rgb
I have been as biased as I possibly can. I personally do not want global to be true I have read into the whole debate and feel like I can frame it as such:
1. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we repeatedly can demonstrate that in a lab. That fact is established, no one contests it.
2. The Temperature increases of the 20th century appear to match the CO2 releases remarkably well. Except for the 40s-70’s. Which would seem to indicate that CO2/temperature are not related.
3. I’ve observed that some opposing scientists(like lindzen) that contest that global warming seem to support the whole theory, they just think some other feedback is going to kick in to slow it.
4. Global warming hasn’t increased in 16 years, also pointing to no connection.
5. Summer sea ice in arctic has been cut down to 50% of its’ level in 1979.
6. Greenland and Antarctic ice have been accelerating their ice losses.
7. Sulfate Aerosols do play a role in cooling the Earth, how much so is really difficult to ascertain.
8. Glaciers are overwhelmingly losing mass and the the ocean is rising, in addition to lowering it’s Ph.
9. Coral Bleaching is becoming very common, appears to related to temperature.
Now, I’m not a scientist, and really have to look elsewhere for interpretations of what is really going on. So that brings me to these points:
1. Most attacks against climate scientists appear to go after their motives, i.e., they have something to gain by eliminating fossil fuels, and are doing it all for money/power.
2. Media and news outlets give contradictory information about climate, like claiming tornadoes are related to climate change, another says they are not.
3. The elephant in the room is this: energy companies, in addition to anyone making a lot of money right now all have a big interest in delaying doing anything. There is $172 trillion dollars of fossil fuel in the ground that won’t be available.
4. The only thing that I have found to explain the rise in temps is it’s a coincidence that it matches the CO2.
5. Regardless of the temp drops in 40’s-60’s and recently, I can’t find any solid things that would convince me. If you point me in right direction, that would be appreciated.
Richardcourtney, let me first say, I am disappointed that you should resort to glib phrases like your brains are dropping out. Your postings are usually worth reading and are well thought out. By resorting to abuse, you are demeaning yourself to level of many posters who seem to think insulting people makes them more superior. You don’t need to do that as your comments show your true calibre.
With regard to your second point. I would have thought the graph going up if you include 1996 data indicates that the heating occurred AFTER 1997, not before as you suggest.
I also notice by including 1998 in the sixteen year sequence, (which is an outlier), would have helped the trend look level. Omitting it or starting the sequence from 1999 would have given a different result. I believe that writer was aware of this (after all he is a mathematician after all) and selecting 16 years and not say the 18 years (or thirteen years for that matter) to push a certain agenda rather than inform the public.
Hello Andrew Clark
C02 is certainly a greenhouse gas and causes the surface of the Earth to be warmer than it would be without it; although, whether that can be totally demonstrated in a lab is questionable.
“Temperature increases in the 20th century appear to match C02 releases remarkably well“
Don’t think so, unless you mean C02 has increased and temperature has increased somewhat over that period. C02 concentrations have moved up relentlessly (almost linearly) during that period but temperatures have fluctuated up and down. For example, from 1880 to 1910 temperatures decreased,; from 1910 to 1940 temperatures increased,; from 1940 to 1970 temperatures decreased; from 1970 to 2000 temperatures increased and, as we have seen, from 2000 onwards temperatures have remained flat. Do you see any pattern in that?
“Opposing scientists(like lindzen) ….think some other feedback is going to kick in to slow it”
That’s the wrong way around. With no feedback at all there is no problem, the C02 absorption bands are saturated ( or close to it ). So with no feedbacks the potential warming from a doubling of C02 concentration will be about one degree Celsius (according to the IPPC). In fact the assumption of a positive feedback is required to sustain theories of catastrophic runaway warming. With no feedback, there is no problem. Lindzen thinks that if there are any feedbacks at all they are likely to be negative (so warming will be less than one degree).
“Greenland and Antarctic ice have been accelerating their ice losses”
I believe that Antarctic sea ice has actually increased this year to an all time high. Could somebody confirm?
As for following the money, I take a rather a different approach. The oil companies are going to find their product in demand whatever happens – aren’t they? But Global Warming Research ( for want of a better name) has now become a multi-billion dollar industry. The beneficiaries of that funding are not as stupid as some commentators here suggest. They realise that as soon as they say that there is no problem their funding is going to dry up. So what are they going to say?
However, Truth is the Daughter of Time, so let us see.
Andrew Clark;
4. The only thing that I have found to explain the rise in temps is it’s a coincidence that it matches the CO2.
>>>>>>>>>
But it DOESN’T!!!!
The earth’s temperature has been rising at about the same rate for the last 400 years, since the Little Ice Age. CO2 didn’t start increasing by any significant amount until about 1950. It has increased on a slightly exponential curve since then, going from 280 ppm to 390 ppm, Of that increase, about 1/3 has been in the last 15 years. Yet temperatures have leveled off. The two did not track each other from 1600 to 1950, and they haven’t tracked each other from about 1998 to now. First temp went up when CO2 was flat, and now temps are flat while CO2 is going up. There’s only one period of time when they went up together, and it is a very brief period of time. If there is a coincidence, that’s it.
Andrew Clark says:
December 2, 2012 at 4:56 pm
I have been as biased as I possibly can. I personally do not want global to be true I have read into the whole debate and feel like I can frame it as such:
convince me. If you point me in right direction, that would be appreciated.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If you read nothing else read:
Carbon Dioxide or Solar Forcing? By Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv
Also read about the politics that keep the sun out of the IPCC: Judithgate: IPCC consensus was only one physicist (translated from Czech) “…Judith Lean and Claus Fröhlich are responsible for scandalous rewriting of the solar activity graphs… R.C. Willson (head of the ACRIM satellites): “Fröhlich made unauthorised and incorrect adjustments… “ Lean as lead author (and only solar physicist) vetted and included only one paper and that was the one in which she was the co-author.
Also look at the links I posted in comment 1 and in comment 2 and THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD applied physicist and engineer.
CO2 The Greatest Scientific Scandal Of Our Time by Zbigniew Jaworowski, M.D., Ph.D., D.Sc. (He was fired and denied funding link )
That is just the tip of the iceburg, there is a ton more information. The Videos that Anthony is putting up may be a lot easier than all the reading for some.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/23/the-next-video-from-wuwt-tv-dr-ross-mckitrick/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/30/more-wuwt-tv-interview-and-presentation-with-dr-sebastian-luning/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/26/another-wuwt-tv-segment-engineer-and-aviation-pioneer-burt-rutan-on-why-he-doubts-global-warming/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/29/another-wuwt-tv-video-mike-smith-severe-weather-expert/