Recently in Climate Category

There's nothing more I can add to this. 'Nuff said.

(H/T GraniteGrok)

It is laudable when individuals or businesses deploy alternative energy generation systems, be they small or large. It's great...as long as they work.

In Minnesota, the Minnesota Municipal Power Authority erected 11 wind turbines in a number of cities around Minneapolis/St. Paul this past fall. The plan was to have all of them up and running by Christmas. The turbines were refurbished units originally used at a California wind farm. After reconditioning they were shipped from California to Minnesota and erected.

In southern California it's warm, even in winter. In Minnesota, it's cold from late fall through spring. In fact it's more than just cold, it's freakin' cold. Apparently the folks in California weren't aware of this fact.

The turbines sit idly in Anoka, North St. Paul, Chaska, Shakopee, Buffalo and six other cities, all members of the Minnesota Municipal Power Agency (MMPA). The refurbished, 115-foot towers had operated on a California wind farm, where they didn't have to worry about cold hydraulic fluid turning to gel and oil lubricants getting too sluggish.

Fluids and lubricants that worked well in California didn't work at all in below freezing temperatures, gumming up the works and bringing the turbines to a halt until spring. That turned them into expensive monuments to facts overlooked.

Oops.

As I mentioned in my regular Sunday post, ClimateGate is the gift that keeps on giving.

The type of data and computer code manipulation committed by climate scientists at the CRU apparently has also been committed by NASA and NOAA as well, with non-global warming supporting temperature readings being eliminated, in turn showing a false increase in temperatures.

We don't dispute the fact that there has been some cyclical warming in recent decades -- most notably from 1979 to 1998 -- but cooling took place from the 1940s to the late 1970s, again after 1998, and especially after 2001, all while CO2 rose. This fact alone questions the primary role in climate change attributed to CO₂ by the IPCC, environmental groups, and others.

However, the global surface station data is seriously compromised.

There was a major station dropout -- and an increase in missing data from remaining stations -- which occurred suddenly around 1990. Just about the time the global warming issue was being elevated to importance in political and environmental circles.

A clear bias was found towards removing higher elevation, higher latitude, and rural stations -- the cooler stations -- during this culling process, though that data was not also removed from the base periods from which "averages," and then anomalies, were computed.

The data also suffers contamination by urbanization and other local factors, such as land-use/land-cover changes and improper siting.

There are also uncertainties in ocean temperatures. This is no small issue, as oceans cover 71% of Earth's surface.

These factors all lead to significant uncertainty and a tendency for overestimation of century-scale temperature trends. A conclusion from all findings suggests that global databases are seriously flawed and can no longer be trusted to assess climate trends, or rankings, or to validate model forecasts. Consequently, such surface data should be ignored for political decision-making.

Many of the warmists say it doesn't matter if the data was cooked because they 'know' we're all doomed unless we impoverish the world and return to agrarian level energy usage. They believe no more debate or study is needed, only action.

But with more respected and credentialed scientists calling AGW into question and pointing to the fraudulent data and the incomprehensible and questionable computer code, neither the debate or the science is settled. Before we spend trillions of dollars on a theory of questionable validity, shouldn't we go back over all the data and modeling software and verify it's accuracy?

To add to the debate, it appears that if we look at just rural US MSS station data going back to 1900, there is no evidence of global warming.

Using data downloaded from NASA GISS and picking rural sites near, but not too near, to urban sites, a comparison has been made of the temperature trend over time of the rural sites compared to those of the urban sites. 28 pairs of sites across the U.S. were compared. The paired rural site is from 31 to 91 km from the urban site in each pair. The result is that urban and rural sites were similar in 1900, with the urban sites slightly higher. The urban sites have shown an increase in temperatures since then. The rural sites show no such temperature increase and appear to be generally unchanging with only ups and downs localized in time. Over a 111 year time span, the urban sites temperatures have risen to be about 1.5C warmer than the rural sites. So, the much touted rising temperatures in the U.S. are due to the urban heat island effect and not due to a global warming such as has been proposed to be caused by human emissions of CO2 due to the combustion of fossil fuels.

It's not just rural US stations seeing this non-trend. Canadian ground station in Ontario are seeing the same thing. If global warming were happening to the extent the warmists claim, wouldn't rural weather stations data show it as well? Or might we make the assumption that global warming is only an urban phenomenon? By positing such a hypothesis, might we also state the cure would be to do away with all urban areas (cities) and move everyone back into the countryside? (Yes, it is a ridiculous hypothesis and equally ridiculous 'cure', but both have as much validity as the present AGW theory and proposed cure.)

Late yesterday afternoon, the phone on my desk at work rang. Answering it I found my son on the line, seething in barely suppressed anger.

Apparently one of his teachers had assigned a paper dealing with global warming and its effects on coral reefs. In and of itself, that was not why he was angry. What pissed him off was the paper had to be written using only the information in a packet given to each student in his class.

It was as if Al Gore had handed him a copy of An Inconvenient Truth along with background materials and other propaganda pamphlets. The 'data' was that biased.

He wasn't sure about what to do. I pointed him to a number of information sources including NOAA, MIT, and NASA, and let him do the digging. In the end he decided he would do the assignment, but add a counterpoint to the original assignment.

Like me, he is a skeptic about AGW, but his skepticism comes from a source that is not me. While I am naturally a skeptic about anything grandiose that demands that we "do something NOW before we all DIE!!!", he comes into his AGW skepticism by way of his employer, Farmer Andy.

I haven't come across another profession that is more in tune to weather and its cycles and patterns than farmers and, of course, meteorologists. Weather can make or break a farmer, so they tend to be far more aware of it than the rest of us. Farmer Andy has weather records going back decades and those records make him skeptical about the dire claims about global warming.

Seeing BeezleBub's dismay at having to write about something he knew was bogus only confirmed my belief that our local school system is more interested in indoctrination - teaching kids what to think - rather than education - teaching them critical thinking. Fortunately BeezleBub has had plenty of examples and help from family to learn how to think critically, to take apart statements, claims, and "settled science" and look at it dispassionately and discover the truth or falsehoods behind them. That could be why some of his teachers see him as troublesome because he questions them and others see him as bright.

I told him this time, as I have many times in the past, that I would have his back should any of his less open-minded teachers decide he was "too disruptive" or "contrary" or "too much of a smart ass". Better that he speak out and contradict things he knows to be in error (or just outright wrong) than go along to get along and become nothing but another drone.

We hear more about ClimateGate as time goes on, particularly from many professionals. One group we've been hearing from on a regular basis has been engineers. Maybe it's because we depend upon verifiable data and reproducible results as part of our jobs. No amount of wishful thinking will make what it is we design work if the scientific principles upon which it is based are false. This is something the so-called climate scientists involved in the ClimateGate scandal seem to have forgotten.

One of the latest engineers to speak out about ClimateGate is Ken Johnson, a registered Professional Engineer, retired professor of Mechanical Engineering, Thermodynamics, Fluid Mechanics, and Metrology (that's metrology, not meteorology, a similar sounding but unrelated scientific field).

The appearance of [the websites that first made the ClimateGate data public] was probably the fruit of either a diligent hacker or the guilt easing effort of an honest, science dedicated, whistle blower who became disgusted with the dishonest actions of their employer at the East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit (CRU), in Britain, who supplies global temperature data to the UN. The material contained on the sites verified what many climatologists and meteorologists have been claiming for many years, i.e., there is no legitimate scientific data which indicates any unusual long term increase in the global temperature ('Global Warming'). Further, although carbon dioxide (CO₂) 'greenhouse gas' in the atmosphere could have a small effect on global temperatures, it is kept in check by the massive amounts of CO₂ loving vegetation on land and in the oceans (like kelp), which convert the CO₂ into our life sustaining oxygen and food.

The e-mails revealed there has been an organized "cabal" of politicians and others calling themselves "Climate Scientists" who for years have been supplying falsified global temperature data to the UN to promote their efforts at worldwide wealth redistribution through CO₂ emission rationing and taxing schemes, such as the US's upcoming 'Cap and Trade' (industrial CO₂ generation allotments), with a tax on all CO₂ releases. Following the first announcement that their scheme had been uncovered by the e-mails, the major players were on the Internet commanding file deletions, hard drive erasures, and demanding prosecution of those responsible for the releases. This whole episode was dubbed by some journalist as "Climategate". It has been an example of the radical environmentalists demanding the 'foot' must be made to fit the 'shoe'.

To base policies, taxes, regulations, and laws on patently bogus data used to 'prove' a theory not much more than scientific quackery is madness...assuming the theory wasn't designed for just that purpose.

UPDATE 1/13/10: Sorry, I forgot the link when I posted this last night. All fixed now.

The short, powerful video by Mr. Bastardi who says the above line, complete with lots of Algore-refuting graphs, showing we're as cold as it was in the 1970s when Newsweek's cover was about the coming mini ice age. I remember that well. As a youngster I liked to regale the adults, Lisa Simpson style, of what the "experts" were predicting.

Culture changes, folks. I think we've learned from Chan who has been outstanding on this, that the global warming movement is a charade.

HT: Fran Smith at Global Warming.org

My local weather website says it's 0.8 degrees Fahrenheit with the windchill. I'm actually disappointed as I'm one of those crazies who like to cover his body with the latest clothing technology and brave the elements. When one don't have an inch of flesh exposed in proper arctic clothing, one doesn't even feel it. But after below -25 to -35 I start to get worried--which is why I'm terrified of hiking Mt. Washington during a cold snap like much of the country is experiencing.

UPDATE: Ross Kaminsky at Human Events has an excellent blog posting, "Global Warmists' Mouths Frozen Shut."

It all leads me to believe that this issue is the greatest boon for small government types since the fall of communism. I remember as a subscriber to Conservative Chronicle in the early 1990s, a Townhall.com on paper--a collection of conservative commentary from syndicated columnists--how guys like Walter Williams and Paul Craig Roberts (now a little off the reservation with his paranoid anti-Israel stuff) referenced mainstream college economic texts and highly regarded liberal economists and their projections of the strength of the Soviet economy. It briefly opened up a wonderful teaching moment in the morass that's American education. The idea that the bien pensant view among the MSM elites of the day was to tout the socialist state's economy when it was so obviously moribund was precious to say the least.

It's too bad Republicans are the stupid party and can't drive home the killing stroke when the opening's there. I almost used another French expression coup de grâce.

Imagine my surprise (not) when Sam Champion, ABC's Good Morning America meteorologist, answered Diana Sawyer's question during her evening news broadcast about the effects of global warming on the unusually cold weather we've been experiencing. When asked if those below normal temperatures and above normal snowfalls might be attributed to global warming, Sam answered (as best I can remember):

If this were only happening in North America, it might be an indicator. But it's happening in Europe and Asia, too.

The few meteorologists I know do not believe global warming has anything to do with human activity. In fact a couple of them seem to think we're in for a prolonged period of cooling.

It appears that if the AGW faithful can't get their way via treaties and legislation, they'll do an end around and use the courts to force the issue even though AGW theory appears to either seriously flawed or outright fraudulent. I have no doubt at some point they'll sue you for breathing and exhaling CO₂. (Oh, okay. Laugh now. But just wait until it happens. Then we'll see who's laughing.)

Fresh from the fiasco in Copenhagen and with a failure in the U.S. Senate looming this coming year, the climate-change lobby is already shifting to Plan B, or is it already Plan D? Meet the carbon tort.

Across the country, trial lawyers and green pressure groups--if that's not redundant--are teaming up to sue electric utilities for carbon emissions under "nuisance" laws.

A group of 12 Gulf Coast residents whose homes were damaged by Katrina are suing 33 energy companies for greenhouse gas emissions that allegedly contributed to the global warming that allegedly made the hurricane worse. Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and seven state AG allies plus New York City are suing American Electric Power and other utilities for a host of supposed eco-maladies. A native village in Alaska is suing Exxon and 23 oil and energy companies for coastal erosion.

Never mind that there's not one bit of verifiable proof carbon emissions have any relation to any of these things. They'll still take up the battle cry of "I'll Sue Ya!" But then, that's the way the folks like this have always worked, forcing their minority view on the rest of us by bypassing the legislative route and going right to the courts. And they'll justify it by telling us they're doing it "for our own good." What's worse is that they actually believe it!!

The faithful figure they have non-denominational, gender-neutral, non-judgmental G*d/G*ddess on their side, which gives them leave to employ any means to achieve their ends. (Hmm. That sounds familiar. Where have we heard that before? Somewhere in the Middle East, if I'm not mistaken...)

I do have to admit to surprise when I found that an actual, non-name-calling unemotional debate actually took place in the comments, somewhat lost in the noise of the faithful constantly linking to or copy/pasting discredited "proof", as if that's all that's needed to 'win' the debate. But all it is is repetition of talking points and nothing else.

One of the debates I mentioned started with this comment by Paul Drallos (edited to remove a few references to previous comments that were not germane to the topic, though the full unedited comment can be seen at the link):

As a physicist with more than 20 years experience of modeling hydrodynamic systems, I can tell you that there are many, many things wrong with the computer-climate models.

Where to begin? Even the AGW people don't contend that CO2 is the dominant climate forcing agent. It is well known that water vapor is much, much stronger. However, in their models, the IPCC has hard-wired into their codes that water vapor responds with a positive feedback to small temperature changes due to CO2. But this is wrong. Actual measurements show that water vapor acts with negative feedback to small temperature changes and does not amplify CO2's effects.

It is insane to say, as Buzz claims, that the pre-human record is irrelevant. By studying the pre-human or early civilization record provides a mechanism for identifying natural behaviors. This is essential for distinguishing natural from alleged non-natural behaviors.

The widespread agreement on how our temperature compares with the last few millennia is that there have been periods of much warmer and much cooler temperatures - Unless one fudges the data as the CRU has unquestionably done. (See the CRU computer codes instead of the emails for incontrovertible documentation of this.)

And Buzz, you are completely wrong about "hide the decline". It has *everything* to do about historical temperature fluctuations. The tree-ring data was used as a temperature proxy (for determining the historical temperature before thermometer data was available.) The problem with the proxy data was that it diverged from thermometer data when thermometer data was available. That means that the proxy data was *not* reliable. The act of "hiding the decline" was an unethical ruse to cover-up the obvious failure of the tree-ring data as a reliable temperature proxy.

I believe Paul has hit the highlights in regards to the theory of AGW and where it fails.

The followups between Paul and another commenter, Buzz Belleville, give a reasonable back and forth, though Buzz does tend to focus on a single dimension (carbon dioxide) as the only driver of climate change. It is in this area where I believe he falls short in his understanding of the semi-chaotic mechanism that is our global climate system.

As the saying goes, Read The Whole Thing.

Even members of the MSM can learn the lessons of ClimateGate. One reporter from northern California even changed his mind about AGW after seeing the overwhelming evidence of scientific fraud committed in the name of "climate science".

A few years ago, I accepted global warming theory with few doubts. I wrote several columns for this paper condemning what I thought were unfair attacks by skeptics and defending the climate scientists.

Boy, was I naive.

Since the Climategate emails and documents revealed active collusion to thwart skeptics and even outright fraud, I've been trying to correct the record of my earlier foolishness. In one of those columns, I even wrote: "And see Real Climate (www.realclimate.org) for global warming science without the political spin."

In fact, Real Climate was and is nothing more than the house organ of global warming activists, concerned more with politics than with science.

When the self-blinded finally come to see the light, the transformation is amazing to behold. Even if this fellow at some point decides we are at fault for (the presently reversing) global warming, at least it's likely he will come to this conclusion based upon real science and not the political pandering that has been masquerading as science.

There is hope, as illustrated by this one reporter.

I must admit this up front: words fail me.

After spending countless days and untold millions of dollars while at the same time generating an incredible amount of carbon dioxide, the only thing that came of the Copenhagen climate conference was a non-binding agreement to keep the global temperature increase to 2 degrees?

Couldn't this whole thing have been handled with a few conference calls, an on-line video conference, or even a virtual conference via Second Life? It would have taken a whole lot less time and cost very little. But then it wouldn't have given the self-important Anointed a chance to preen before the cameras and make speeches to make it seem like they were actually accomplishing something.

There were no serious discussions about ClimateGate or the related Russian claims of data they provided being manipulated in order to show warming where there was none. Dissenters were given no voice even though many of them had better credentials (and credibility) than those whose questionable work was being used as the basis for the conference.

Over all it was a waste of time, money and energy that could have been better used elsewhere.

We humans contribute three percent of the world's carbon dioxide, plant food last time I checked. And I learned from MIT climatologist and preeminent scientist Richard Lindzen that the atmosphere is only three percent carbon dioxide.

So we going to spend gargantuan sums on that? Three percent of three percent? As Bjorn Lomborg has repeatedly written and said, there're better dollars than that to help the environment.

Of course ecocide occurred in former and current communist countries--there seems to be a connection between larger government and a worse outcome for the environment--so I'm not clear why increasing the size and scope of gubmit will help when truly enormous gubmits failed miserably to keep the environment non-toxic.

An incredibly important book by Ian Plimer. A great post by Cato Institute's David Boaz. I remember hearing an interview with Charlie Rose and the late Michael Crichton. Boy did the latter lambaste the computer modeling, calling it "Garbage in garbage out."

I guess these models can't account for past climate changes or the current twelve-year cooling period we've been in. According to Ian Plimmer, the IPCC doesn't take into account known variables of climate change and overestimates the importance of carbon dioxide in bringing it about. Astonishingly, he claims the levels of carbon dioxide were higher during the last ice age.

Is it true the computer models aren't transparent? Is this science or more like a secular religion? Judging from liberals' response to the prospect of drilling in the frozen wastelands of northern Alaska (ANWAR), I'm thinking more and more we've got a surrogate religion on our hands.

You know it's getting bad when even the Russians are piling on. In this case, the Institute of Economic Analysis on Moscow made accusations that the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia likely tampered with Russian-supplied data, 'conveniently' ignoring temperature data from up to 75% of Russia's reporting stations.

The IEA believes that Russian meteorological-station data did not substantiate the anthropogenic global-warming theory. Analysts say Russian meteorological stations cover most of the country's territory, and that the Hadley Center had used data submitted by only 25% of such stations in its reports. Over 40% of Russian territory was not included in global-temperature calculations for some other reasons, rather than the lack of meteorological stations and observations.

Where were most of those stations located? In non-urban areas, particularly in northern regions of the nation (that means Siberia). If the data from those areas was excluded, then it would have given a false result, showing warming when none really existed. The IEA believes that of all the data were used then the so-called warming trend would disappear.

To say this allegation is throwing even more cold water on the 'theory' of Anthropogenic Global Warming would be an understatement.

Here's a list I can really get into:

Climate Change Is Natural: 100 Reasons Why

1) There is "no real scientific proof" that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man's activity.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

--snip--

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

I particularly like #'s 8, 10, 12, and 16.

As the saying goes, Read The Whole Thing. Pay particular attention to some of the comments following the article as they are indicative of the closed-minded AGW faithful and their inability to actually debate the issue.

It seems AlGore is more than willing to 'debate' his findings about AGW with anyone, as long as that 'anyone' happens to agree with him. But given the opportunity to actually debate the issue in an open forum with those who disagree with his opinion that Global-Warming-Is-All-The-Fault-Of-The-Evil-Humans, he'll take a pass.

Despite appearing on CNN and MSNBC Wednesday, Nobel Laureate Al Gore was apparently too busy to discuss global warming on the premiere episode of John Stossel's new Fox Business Network program.

To kick off his new show Thursday, Stossel chose the controversial subject of climate change, and invited on a number of guests to address the issue in great detail.

According to an e-mail message sent to Stossel's producers on November 23, "the growing influence of the climate crisis message and the demand on Mr. Gore's time" made it impossible for the former Vice President to attend.

He's made it clear on more than one occasion that the "debate is over and the science is settled", meaning there's no need to debate anything because it would be pointless. But anyone knowing anything about science, and specifically the scientific method, know one thing that all real scientists know - science is never settled. New knowledge can upset the science apple cart, turning everything that we believed to be true upside down. Goodness knows it's happened more than once during the whole of human history.

As a man far smarter than AlGore could ever hope to be once said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong." AlGore's problem is that more than one 'experiment' has proven the theory of anthropogenic global warming wrong.

Climate models touted by the AGW cabal as showing the planet's doom aren't capable of predicting what climatic conditions will be like next year, let alone 100 years from now. They weren't able to predict past climatic conditions (in the 70's, 80's, or 90's) using data from 1900 on forward. Their models have failed to predict the past 10 years of cooling. Their models have failed to predict the growing ice sheet on both the North and South polar regions. Their models have failed to predict the growth of glaciers in Greenland. Their models have failed to predict the falling ocean temperatures reported by over 3000 Argus ocean buoys. Their models have failed to explain why satellite measurements of surface and lower atmosphere temperatures are steady, if not falling in some areas, rather than rising. Their models have failed to explain or predict record cold winter temperatures in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. Their models have failed to predict cooler and wetter than normal summers throughout most of the US. Yet we're supposed to turn our economies upside down based upon these same models? It's obvious that they believe we're stupid enough to be scammed by the dire predictions made by their seriously flawed climate models.

I wish AlGore would explain that to those of us not buying the crap he's peddling.

At first I couldn't believe it.

ABC World News was going to do a story about ClimateGate.

I thought, "Gee, at least someone other than Fox is paying attention." But that thought faded away as I watched the report, a piece that covered the hacked files and the so-called "smoking gun". Call it a CBS-Lite version of the scandal.

The only part of ClimateGate they covered were the incriminating e-mails, something they tried to explain away. No mention was made about the FORTRAN source code used to create results the CRU crew wanted to see, or the Read Me text file accompanying the computer code. No mention was made of destroyed data nor machinations to prevent skeptics from being able to question CRU's conclusions or publish dissenting articles. Nor did they say anything about Jones stepping down as head of CRU or of the UK government investigating the affair. There was also no mention of Penn State University investigating another member of the CRU cabal, Michael Mann, he of the discredited Mann "hockey stick" graph.

Instead they tried to make AGW skeptics seem deranged, even more than the AlGoristas have tried to do.

From comments made to the ABC News blog post about the report, it appears few are buying ABC's attempt to minimize the story.

I, as well as many others, have been beating the ClimateGate meme to death. It's about time AGW met its long overdue comeuppance. Despite claims by many of the AGW faithful that the fraud committed by the Climactic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia was not major, being that the CRU was only one of many climate research institutes, they have overlooked the fact that the CRU was a major clearinghouse for climate data used by other institutions to generate their climate models. That meant they were using the same 'corrected' data as the CRU, which in turn meant the other models were wrong, too. And one must keep in mind that the CRU data and models were used by the UN IPCC to generate their reports. The fraud committed by the CRU did not affect just the CRU, but any research team or institution using their data to create climate models and the resulting predictions.

As an aside, I came across this presentation about Anthropogenic Global Warming (available here in both PDF and PowerPoint format) given by Burt Rutan at Oshkosh this past summer. (Yes, that Burt Rutan of SpaceShip 1 fame.) For anyone not familiar with Burt Rutan, he is an aeronautical engineer extraordinaire. And as such, he has a considerable amount of experience analyzing test data and putting it in formats easily understood (and reproducible) by just about anyone wishing to spend the time to do so. With that in mind, Burt applied his considerable data analysis skills to the theory of AGW...and totally shreds it. Using readily available data from a number of sources including NOAA, NASA, as well as from global warming advocate sites and organizations, he delves into the data and its presentation to the world.

As he states more than once in a number of ways, it isn't always the amount of data you have that 'proves' a case like AGW as much as how it is presented. In this case he shows how climate data has been manipulated in ways that change the meaning as well as the context in order to sell a theory that is pretty crappy at best. Never mind the data massaging and corrective algorithms applied at the CRU to make it look like we're all doomed because of AGW. He shows how data analysis should be done to show what's really happening and why, regardless of one's personal beliefs one way or the other.

I must remind you that Burt Rutan is not a climate scientist, nor has he studied climatology or meteorology or atmospheric physics. He is an aeronautical engineer and he makes his living designing aircraft and spacecraft. Part of his engineering duties include analysis of flight test data and making sure the analysis is accurate. His job demands accuracy and an elimination of bias because if he gets it wrong people die. This isn't something abstract like AGW. If he fails in his job the aircraft or spacecraft he's designed and built will fail and those on board will die. That gives him great incentive to get it right. And so it is with his analysis of AGW.

Look at his presentation and decide for yourself whether he's on to something or not.

I find it interesting (but not surprising) the AlGoristas are not willing to discuss or debate the ClimateGate scandal, turning instead to invective, ad hominum attacks, and the old stand by - repeating the same old tired mantra "But the scientific consensus is..." over and over again as if that's all that's needed to make AGW come true.

A perfect example of all three can be found in the comments to this op-ed piece by MIT Professor of Meteorology Richard Lindzen.

The general support for warming is based not so much on the quality of the data, but rather on the fact that there was a little ice age from about the 15th to the 19th century. Thus it is not surprising that temperatures should increase as we emerged from this episode. At the same time that we were emerging from the little ice age, the industrial era began, and this was accompanied by increasing emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2, methane and nitrous oxide. CO2 is the most prominent of these, and it is again generally accepted that it has increased by about 30%.

No argument there. But then Lindzen does the unforgivable, at least in the eyes of the AlGoristas: He questions the validity of the claims that GW is real and that we, human beings, are the sole cause.

At this point there is no basis for alarm regardless of whether any relation between the observed warming and the observed increase in minor greenhouse gases can be established. Nevertheless, the most publicized claims of the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) deal exactly with whether any relation can be discerned. The failure of the attempts to link the two over the past 20 years bespeaks the weakness of any case for concern.

He goes on to make his case, showing the science is, at best, very weak and that the models are useless because they give too much weight to some factors and not enough (or none) to others. It is this that drove the comments of the faithful to go over the edge and cease being a debate. One comment in particular sticks out, trying to discredit Professor Lindzen despite his impeccable credentials and expertise in the science of climate.

At age 70, Professor Lindzen just isn't current on the research, it's that simple. He's done distinguished work in the past, but his current opinions [are] at best outliers. He's not involved in the current research.

His view is that the computer models are unreliable. Considering the capabilities of computer modeling at the time he received his Ph.D, which was 1964, that view is understandable. His expertise in the state of computer modeling is just outdated.

So the argument put forward is that he's too old, which means he is incapable of understanding the science (and the math) behind climate research? The commenter, one Arthur Kreitman, believes that just because Professor Lindzen is 'old' that he is out of touch, implying perhaps that he is senile. He also assumes that the professor's knowledge ossified and that he's learned nothing new since 1964! He is assuming based upon facts not in evidence. Kreitman's comments are a perfect example of an ad hominum attack. Don't argue the facts, argue instead the qualifications of the one you disagree with and make the allegation that he is incapable of understanding the science behind the fraud that is AGW.

But on the other hand, I liked this one because, if nothing else, it explains a few things I've noticed, too.

I too have a theory and a model. Through careful observation of the night sky, I have determined, within a few percentage points of perfection, the winning numbers for every lottery drawing over the last 20 years. But something always goes wrong, and the numbers drawn are not quite right. I've decided that this is clearly the work of extraterrestrials, who are screwing with the night sky to fudge my numbers and deny me my rightful winnings. I had all the data to prove this, but I threw it away when my computer's hard drive got overloaded. Nevertheless, my theory is a fact, because I say it is. And since no one has ever published data proving me wrong in a peer-reviewed journal, no one can say I'm wrong.

The exact same thing happened to me, too!

After the hacked and leaked e-mails and data files from the University of East Anglia's CRU became public, the hew and cry from both sides of the AGW debate rose to a level I've not witnessed before. The leaked information illuminated the fraudulent, dishonest, and in some cases, illegal activities of some of the 'premier' global warming researchers, both in the UK and elsewhere in the world. Cover ups, destruction and willful denial of publicly financed research data to those requesting it under both the UK and US Freedom of Information laws, and collusion to 'jigger' data to eliminate evidence that show climate models are wrong and to bolster preconceived ideas about human-caused climate change.

The AGW skeptics, including yours truly, can point to the files to show that scientific integrity has been lost, that all AGW alarmist doom-and-gloom predictions are based upon fraudulent, cherry-picked data and algorithms designed to produce a predetermined outcome regardless of the data fed into them.

That in itself might be a major news story, but the deafening silence from the MSM implies the fix is still in. Other than Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, and a few other news outlets, there has been little, if anything from the major media. About the only exception has been the New York Times, and that surprised me (though it appears they tried to downplay the significance of the leaked data). The rest of the media are acting like nothing's changed, still publishing iffy reports laying out "We're all gonna DIE if we don't impoverish ourselves NOW!!" scenarios. But readers/listeners/watchers aren't buying it, making comment after comment about Climategate and lambasting the media for acting like it doesn't exist.

But what disturbs me more than lack of attention by the MSM and the governments of the UK and the US are the comments posted by the faithful AlGoristas, bending over backwards to explain away the leaked e-mails, data, and jiggered computer code. Reading the comments to the WSJ article linked above, it is quite apparent that quite a few of those trying to debunk the leaked information have an ax to grind, their reasoning having absolutely nothing to do with the AGW fraud exposed. They blame the WSJ (as if reporting about the hacked and leaked data was somehow 'just not done'). They blame George Bush (I haven't quite figured that one out). They blame a nameless conspiracy bent on the destruction of the human race (I haven't figured out the logic of that one, either). Others seem to be lamenting the fact they won't receive the financial gains they expected due to AGW carbon credits/alternative energy schemes/complete control over the energy production portion of the economy. And yet others claim the multi-megabytes of e-mails, data, and computer code is all a hoax, created to discredit the researchers and their sainted AlGore. Never mind that the folks at the University of East Anglia say it appears the files posted onto the 'net are genuine. That will not deter the true believers.

As the old saying goes, don't confuse the issue with facts. The Warmists will not be denied despite evidence saying their beliefs are based upon falsified data and computer climate models that are little more than means of manipulating other data to 'prove' AGW regardless of what the data really says.

Via Instapundit we breathlessly read of "climategate." I hope G. Gordon Liddy won't be disturbed by the continued borrowing of -gate. Makes Ian Plimer who can make a devastating case against the mantra of man-made global warming look more credible by the hour.

The chief criticism of Plimer seems to be his assertion that volcanoes release more carbon dioxide--plant food last time I checked--than all of man's activities. He's been excoriated for that. I'm not sure we are all that knowledgeable about volcanic eruptions, though. They tend to be very nasty places for man or machine.

Well now, this brings up a whole new dimension of climate change. Evidently, not only is your SUV killing the environment, your food is too.

People will need to turn vegetarian if the world is to conquer climate change, according to a leading authority on global warming.

In an interview with The Times, Lord Stern of Brentford said: "Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world's resources."

Direct emissions of methane from cows and pigs is a significant source of greenhouse gases. Methane is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide as a global warming gas.

This idea is really nothing new. Sadly, so many actually fall for this. Regardless of not whether or not one believes global warming exists (though in recent times, the "stronghold" of global warming seems to have fallen a bit), one can not simply agree with this idea. This is not because methane may be twenty-five more times potent than carbon dioxide, but rather because this deals with the idea of putting the "global environment" above life (albeit animal life).

However, life isn't the only issue here. Take a second to imagine what would happen if this passes. Suppose there is a "methane cap" put in place. Each cow would most certainly be given an approximate methane value, and of course, the livestock population would be forced to dwindle. This would result in an incredible spike in the prices of beef and dairy, due to mass lowering of supply without proportionate lowering in demand. Combine this with a spike in production costs due to the new technologies one would have to implement to ensure that the methane caps are not exceeded (which, of course, the consumer will pick up the tab for). Just for fun, let's throw in a dollar at a 14 month low. What are they thinking? Our economy is struggling to recover enough as it is. There is a large portion of the American society sees beef and dairy products as necessities as opposed to luxuries. I firmly believe that should this cap take place, it won't effect demand (if anything, shortages - whether natural or manmade - have been known to increase demand), but rather, it will just cause vast rises in the prices.. This spike, coupled with an already recessed economy seems to me just to be turning a bad situation to worse. Again, I am a capitalist. If one feels so strongly about this, then by all means, turn to forums and debates and express your ideas out there. Allow supply and demand to take care of it's own. With only 21% of the US population approving of Congress, isn't it clear that the American population isn't looking to government for more (failed) resolutions and legislation?

Beyond that, however, is the fact that cows are only responsible for so much methane output. There is one (among others) major source of methane: humans. Now, it is true that on average, a cow "methane release" is generally less than that of a human (due to mass differences between the two). It has been estimated that there are 1.3 billion cows in the world. However, the world population (of people) is just shy of 6,800,000,000. How then, are they going to control the human methane producers? Are there going to be caps on the maximum allowable "gas passes" per day (with, of course, hefty fines for offenders)? Are we going to have to pay an "environmental clean-up" fee to get "methane-prone" foods? Are we going to have to go to a station once a year to receive a "methane rating" for tax purposes? Following this idea of "capping the methane producers" to it's logical extent would include restrictions on human population (as a whole, not just individual methane production) as well. This is clearly an unacceptable answer to the global warming question.

In short, I firmly believe in helping the environment where you can. Regardless of whether one believes that global warming exists (and is a problem) or not, one can not argue that newer, more energy efficient technologies are a "good" thing. Personally, I do use energy efficient light bulbs. My appliances are energy efficient as well. However, my car packs a V8 and heated leather interior (cows!), and I'm quite proud of it. Being good stewards of the environment is always a good thing, regardless of whether or not one believes that the environment needs to be saved. By all means, if one wishes to drive a hybrid, do so, and I shall respect you for it. But that is where I believe it should end. I do not believe that anyone (individual or entity) has the right to tell me that I can not use my hard-earned dollars to buy a large SUV if that is what I so desire. Environmentally friendly choices should be a personal decision, not a legislated one. Democracy was founded on personal choices. As history has so often shown us, once a government takes "responsibility" for the people, they are no longer responsible (free to decide) for themselves.

---TNJ