Endangering The Polar Bear: How Environmentalists Kill [Willie Soon and Friends]

[/tab]

.



Endangering The Polar Bear: How Environmentalists Kill [Willie Soon]

[youtube:dlgd99of]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AmoKRz5VcbI[/youtube]dlgd99of]



Global Warming: The Latest on False and Scary Greenhouse Gas Theory [Sallie Baliunas]

[youtube:dlgd99of]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aubZlRnIxI[/youtube]dlgd99of]



Is The Ozone Layer Threatened? [Sallie Baliunas]
 
[youtube:dlgd99of]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EelgyAf1dxM[/youtube]dlgd99of]



Global Warming: The Latest Onslaught in Defiance of Scientific Fact [Sallie Baliunas]

[youtube:dlgd99of]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxnPrgjPf6s[/youtube]dlgd99of]



The Sun Also Warms: The Sun-Climate Link [Willie Soon]

[youtube:dlgd99of]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txokYTAxFfM[/youtube]dlgd99of]



Identifying Mankind's Fingerprint: Why Is the Task So Difficult? [Willie Soon]

[youtube:dlgd99of]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xo8vQguRqc[/youtube]dlgd99of]


Cosmic Rays, Dusty Debris and Other Exo-Terrestrial Effects on the Environment [Sallie Baliunas]

[youtube:dlgd99of]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJlyrVu8ARY[/youtube]dlgd99of]



Is Global Climate at Risk? [Sallie Baliunas]

[youtube:dlgd99of]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lY4_HYMHAQs[/youtube]dlgd99of]



Ozone and Empire (and How Congress Can't Repeal the Laws of Physics) [Sallie Baliunas]

[youtube:dlgd99of]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1DbQW3h-yw[/youtube]dlgd99of]



The Science of Global Warming [William Nierenberg]

[youtube:dlgd99of]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSKNR4wfIkc[/youtube]dlgd99of]


20th Century Temperature Change: Facts, Dangerous Fictions, and Spin [Willie Soon]

[youtube:dlgd99of]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXm6vlyj-IE[/youtube]dlgd99of]



Identifying Mankind's Fingerprint: Why Is the Task So Difficult? [Willie Soon]

[youtube:dlgd99of]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Xo8vQguRqc[/youtube]dlgd99of]



http://www.google.com/search?q=marshall ... rt=10&sa=N



.
.

[/tab]

.

How come we now have to go to the Chinese for the truth about global warming?

By James Delingpole Last updated: July 5th, 2010

Another day, another climate fraud whitewash – this time from a Dutch government inquiry, conducted by something called the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency. (Hat tip: Sheumais)

PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency has found no errors that would undermine the main conclusions in the 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) on possible future regional impacts of climate change. However, in some instances the foundations for the summary statements should have been made more transparent. The PBL believes that the IPCC should invest more in quality control in order to prevent mistakes and shortcomings, to the extent possible.

Let's just pause for a moment to consider what's at stake here. According to the IPCC's projections – not even predictions, mark you, just projections based on deeply unreliable, garbage-in-garbage-out computer models – the world is on course for a period of catastrophic, unprecedented, man-made global warming which can only be prevented by drastically cutting carbon emissions and destroying the global economy. This will cost us all at least $45 trillion and prolong the recession indefinitely. And an official Dutch investigation now finds that this is all fair and proper and right, even though none of these "projections" is remotely grounded in empirical observation, though the link between the trace gas CO2 and catastrophic global warming remains no more than theoretical, and though the Climategate emails revealed that those scientists most close to the heart of the IPCC process are at best unreliable and incompetent, at worst corrupt, fraudulent and more interested in political activism than in honest science.

So instead, for the truth, we have to rely on those traditional bastions of openness the Chinese. Says World Climate Report:

We constantly hear that the warmest years on record have all occurred in the most recent decades, and of course, we are led to believe this must be a result of the ongoing buildup of greenhouse gases. In most places, we have approximately 100 years of reliable temperature records, and we wonder if the warmth of the most recent decades is unusual, part of some cyclical behavior of the climate system, or a warm-up on the heels of a cold period at the beginning of the record. A recent article in Geophysical Research Letters has an intriguing title suggesting a 2,000 year temperature record now exists for China – we definitely wanted to see these results of this one.

The article was authored by six scientists with the Chinese Academy of Sciences in Beijing, the State University of New York at Albany, and Germany's Justus-Liebig University in Giessen; the research was funded by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, National Natural Science Foundation of China, and the United States Department of Energy. In their abstract, Ge et al. tell us "The analysis also indicates that the warming during the 10–14th centuries in some regions might be comparable in magnitude to the warming of the last few decades of the 20th century." From the outset, we knew we would welcome the results from any long-term reconstruction of regional temperatures.

What this Chinese-led team has done, in other words, has confirmed the existence of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). This is the balmy period between about 950 and 1250 when Greenland was green and grapes grew in Northern England which Michael Mann tried to erase in his discredited Hockey Stick chart because it didn't suit his conviction that late 20th century global warming was dramatic and unprecedented. (Hat tip: Watts Up With That)

The report concludes:

The warming level in the last decades of the 20th century is
unprecedented compared with the recent 500 years. However, comparing with the temperature variation over the past 2000 years, the warming during the last decades of the 20th century is only apparent in the TB region, where no other comparable warming peak occurred. For the regions of NE and CE, the warming peaks during 900s–1300s are higher than that of the late 20th century, though connected with relatively large uncertainties.

The late 20th century global warming that started the massive AGW scare in other words is, put into its correct historical context, entirely normal and nothing to worry about. Now please can we sack Chris Huhne, save ourselves £18 billion a year we're spending to implement the Climate Change Act, and stop building those ruddy useless windfarms?


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100046150/how-come-we-now-have-to-go-to-the-chinese-for-the-truth-about-global-warming/





As third Climategate report is published, even computer models turn against AGW alarmists


By Gerald Warner World Last updated: July 5th, 2010


Many of you, I know, will find it almost impossible to sleep tonight: the climactic excitement attending tomorrow's publication of Sir Muir Russell's vindication – sorry, investigation – of the scientists at the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit is too pulse-quickening.

This will turn the number of inquiries into a hat trick. The general expectation is that this one will be as big a whitewash as its predecessors. There is just a remote prospect (please note I put it no higher than that) of the findings taking a slightly different tone – always, of course, within the requirement for an exculpatory acquittal of Phil Jones and his merry men, who gave us such classic phrases as "hide the decline", now celebrated in song.

The climate alarmist lobby has carried out a belated reappraisal of its situation. Although its first, knee-jerk response to Climategate was an arrogant business-as-usual demeanour, toughing out embarrassing revelations, there are signs that it has now, belatedly, begun to "get it". There are several reasons for this. Firstly, Climategate turned out not to be the nine-day wonder they had expected; it has massively eroded the credibility of the AGW scam globally. Surveys of public attitudes to the supposed menace of climate change around the world have seen credence in AGW drop like Barack Obama's popularity ratings.

Then, close on the heels of Climategate, came the nasty car-crash that the Copenhagen summit turned into. That was a severe blow to alarmists. It was followed by Draconian financial retrenchment by governments in the developed world. While some of them managed to retain an inordinately high budget allocation to climate superstition despite cuts, overall the AGW cause has suffered from the new financial austerity. The scepticism attaching to alarmists' claims as a consequence of Climategate made it more difficult for governments to accede to their more extravagant demands.

There have also been many instances of institutions retreating from their formerly uncritical endorsement of AGW to a more nuanced position; even the Royal Society has been obliged by fellows to go through these motions. The AGW establishment has now come to the realisation it must adopt a new tone. Like Dave Cameron it is setting out to detoxify the brand. Hence the illuminating remarks recently of Mike Hulme, professor of climate change at the University of East Anglia.

"The release of the e-mails was a turning point, a game-changer," Hulme was quoted as saying. "The community has been brought up short by the row over their science. Already there is a new tone. Researchers are more upfront, open and explicit about their uncertainties, for instance." Oh, yes? Uncertainties? When, pre-Climategate, was the slightest note of uncertainty ever allowed to intrude into the assertions of climate alarmists?

But the most startling development was partially revealed at the tail-end of Hulme's remarks, when he warned that greater openness would not ensure an easier time for climate scientists in future. He said this was because a new generation of more sophisticated computer models is not reducing the uncertainties in predicting future climate, but rather the reverse. "This is not what the public and politicians expect, so handling and explaining this will be difficult."

Too right it will. Despite the known proclivity of computer models to come up with the findings they have been programmed to produce, Hulme is conceding that more sophisticated versions are refusing to record the desired result, but in fact the reverse. If even the alarmists' own tame technology, due to improved accuracy, is refusing to comply with their wish list of global warming symptoms, then the game is well and truly up. Meanwhile, before confronting these awkward realities, it is time to sit back and admire Sir Muir Russell's brushwork with a bucket of whitewash.


http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100046168/as-third-climategate-report-is-published-even-computer-models-turn-against-agw-alarmists/



Amazongate: the smoking gun

July 03, 2010


More than five months after the IPCC was accused of making assertions on the fate of the Amazon forest on the basis of a non-peer reviewed WWF report, it now appears that the original source of the IPPC's claim is a Brazilian educational website which was taken down in 2003 (pictured - click to enlarge).

Furthermore, it appears that this is the only source of the IPCC's claim that made up the basis of "Amazongate" – that the IPCC was, once again, using unsubstantiated material which exaggerated the threat. This website, therefore, is the "smoking gun", the latest evidence to suggest that the IPCC is breaking its own rules.

Interestingly, when the "Amazongate" story was broken on this blog on 25/26 January, we had no way of knowing that the trail would eventually lead to a defunct Brazilian website. It was the official denials of our story that gave the clue, and they did not really get underway until 31 January when The Sunday Times published its report headed: "UN climate panel shamed by bogus rainforest claim,"


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_rqH4fUbko2U/T ... M+site.jpg

Then the paper had charged that the IPCC warning that global warming "might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest" was based on an unsubstantiated claim made in a WWF report.

This evoked from the WWF a press statement

http://www.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/press_centre/index.cfm?3684
http://www.wwf.org.uk/what_we_do/press_ ... x.cfm?3684

standing by "the credibility of its report", a Global Review of Forest Fires (2000).

Starting with the IPCC claim . . .

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter13.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor ... pter13.pdf

. . .  that: "Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation," this had been referenced to the WWF report which asserted: "Up to 40% of the Brazilian forest is extremely sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall."

Now, the WWF was claiming that the source for this statement was "Fire in the Amazon, a 1999 overview of Amazon fire issues from the respected Instituto de Pesquisa Ambiental da Amazônia (IPAM – Amazon Environmental Research Institute)." The source quotation read: "Probably 30 to 40% of the forests of the Brazilian Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall."

The claim was repeated on 7 February in a Sunday Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/letters/article7017878.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/commen ... 017878.ece

letter from David Nussbaum, the chief executive of WWF-UK, who then used a curious form of words. "This," he asserted – referring to the Fire in the Amazon statement - "is fully supported by peer-reviewed literature." Contrary to the Sunday Times's "suggestion," it was not a "bogus" claim.

Nussbaum did acknowledge, however, that a reference to Fire in the Amazon as the source of the 40% claim was omitted during the editing of the Global Review of Forest Fires.

The lead author of the report, Andrew Rowell, also pitched in, again using a curious form of words for his contribution. The paper, he claimed, had "ignored credible evidence" that the 40% figure was correct and "also ignored evidence that the figure had been backed up by peer-reviewed research both before and after our publication."

Even then, careful textual deconstruction indicated that no one was actually asserting that the source of the 40%, Fire in the Amazon, was actually peer reviewed – merely that it was "supported" or "backed up" by peer-reviewed work, the exact nature of which was always somewhat vague.

We were thus able to charge that Fire in the Amazon was not itself peer reviewed, thus arguing that the IPCC was relying on a WWF report which was not peer reviewed, which in turn was relying on another document which was also not peer reviewed.

The emphasis, however, was on a document and there was nothing to indicate otherwise, even though – also in early February – Daniel Nepstad claimed that the IPCC statement on the Amazon was "correct", but the citations listed in Global Review of Forest Fires were incomplete. He added that the authors of this report "had originally cited the IPAM website where the statement was made that 30 to 40% of the forests of the Amazon were susceptible to small changes in rainfall."

Therefore, the assumption was that the WWF's claimed source was the only significant IPAM publication of 1999, a document entitled: "Burning Forest: Origins, Impact and Prevention of Fire in the Amazon". This, though, presented problems in that the claim apparently attributed to it by the WWF


 did not appear in any of the three versions.

http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/07/alibi-in-flames.html
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/0 ... lames.html

Now, however, the website to which Nepstad referred has been recovered. This is the real "Fire in the Amazon" (pictured top left). It seems to have been posted on the IPAM website in February 1999

http://web.archive.org/web/19991103232238/www.ipam.org.br/fogo/porqueen.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/199911032322 ... rqueen.htm

 and left unchanged

http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.ipam.org.br/fogo/porqueen.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www ... rqueen.htm

until early in 2003s, when it was removed. See publication log via the link (illustrated above - click to enlarge).

Here, at last, we find the exact sentence "Probably 30 to 40% of the forests of the brazilian (sic) Amazon are sensitive to small reductions in the amount of rainfall." This is the source of the WWF claim and, ultimately, the source of the IPCC claim.

As it stands, this is the only known source of this sentence. There is no author identified, the provenance of the web page is not identified and not in any possible way could this be considered "peer reviewed". It has no academic or scientific merit – yet it is this on which the WWF and IPCC apparently rely.

What is also particularly important is that the IPCC uses the sentence, which it modifies slightly, to argue: "this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation."

By contrast, this very specific claim about reduced rainfall is not used on the IPAM site to argue that the forest will undergo a rapid change from one state to another, per se. The context is in the title: "Why are the forests in the Amazon burning?" It explains why forest flammability has increased. Thus, not only is the primary IPCC claim unsupported, so it its interpretation.

Yet, despite this, The Sunday Times has been prevailed upon to retract its report, removing an article which was essentially correct in alleging that the IPCC claim is "unsubstantiated". In its place, it has substituted what amounts to a lie, asserting that "the IPCC's Amazon statement is supported by peer-reviewed scientific evidence."

It would appear now that the WWF must explain why it is relying on data culled from the IPAM website to support its report. It must also explain why it is using material which has no academic or scientific value, while giving the impression that the material is fully supported. Similarly, the IPCC must tell us how it can justify the claims it has made, in breach of its own rules.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press/ipcc-statement-principles-procedures-02-2010.pdf
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/press/ipcc-state ... 2-2010.pdf


Posted by Richard Saturday, July 03, 2010


http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/07/amazongate-smoking-gun.html

.
.