Temperature data does not support climate scare

December 13th, 2009 by John Draper

Every now and then, we need a touch of reality.  There are quite accurate measurements of actual global temperature available – they are taken from satellites and measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The signals that these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies are directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere.   Roy Spencer, climatologist  and former NASA scientist collects this data regularly and produces this graph.

Global temperature - 1979 - Nov 2009

Global temperature - 1979 - Nov 2009

What does this mean?  It does not mean we currently have global warming as predicted by IPCC.  If you follow the redline, you can see that its centre line is at 0.2 deg  for the period 2001 to 2009.  This is a lot less than what has been claimed.  If this trend continued, in another 30 years (2039) there would be 0.4 deg  and it would take 300 years to reach 2.0 degrees.

And still, the only reason given for the idea that even this small amount is caused by man is a computer model that scientists say they don’t fully understand (ask them about feedback) yet they use it to project warming.  They can’t even make a model to accurately predict short term weather – why would we believe they can predict it long term?  Why are we all bamboozled by scientists twisting models and data to prove something they have decided in advance?

Petition Harper to establish a Royal Commission

December 9th, 2009 by John Draper

Cam MacKay believes that the facts of Climategate at least require an official inquiry into the science and politics of Climate Change.  In Canada, that is best done by establishing a Royal Commission.  So Cam has started a petition calling on Prime Minister Stephen Harper to establish a Royal Commission  to investigate.    Canadian residents can sign the petition by following this link to Cam’s site.

Skeptic Videos at Copenhagen

December 7th, 2009 by John Draper

Despite the hype from many sheep in the media, the Copenhagen conference will not be a slam dunk endorsement of the IPCC alarmist reports.  You have to wonder if maybe the alarmists accept this shoddy science because they would not have a job if they changed their minds now. However and fortunately, there are some people willing to work at countering all this unquestioning and doubtful science.

Some videos have now been released that tell the other side of the story and it is planned to air them for delegates to the conference which opened in Copenhagen today.

Four of the videos were shot and edited by a KUSI-TV team led by meteorologist John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel and currently the lead meteorologist at KUSI-TV in San Diego.

Each of the videos features a well-known global warming skeptic and two of the four are confirmed speakers at the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change, to be held in Chicago on May 16-18, 2010.

Video: John Coleman
John Coleman is founder of the Weather Channel, the original weatherman on Good Morning America, and currently the lead meteorologist at KUSI-TV in San Diego.

Video: Joseph D’Aleo
Joseph D’Aleo is a certified consulting meteorologist, a fellow of the American Meteorological Society, first director of meteorology at the Weather Channel, and currently founder and president of Icecap.us

Video: Richard Lindzen
Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., is an atmospheric physicist and the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Video: Willie Soon
Willie Soon, PhD, is an astrophysicist and chief science advisor for the Science and Public Policy Institute.

Preserving the environment is separate to stopping Climate change

December 4th, 2009 by John Draper

Once again, politicians and many members of the public get confused over the difference between trying to stop climate change and preserving the environment. It is quite possible and desirable to preserve the environment without being concerned about “Climate Change”. Skeptics of the now exposed faulty and uncertain science of climate change generally agree that the environment should be preserved. In fact one of the good side benefits of the fuss about climate change is the increased awareness in the public of the need to not destroy mother earth.

The faulty climate change science wanted us to stop CO2 emissions at any cost whereas preserving the environment means reducing pollution, preserving natural areas (especially forests), conserving resources, reducing packaging and landfills and preserving all animal species (e.g. polar bears). The only one of these that relates to reducing CO2 emission is conserving oil and coal resources. And the problem here is not super urgent; it’s just that resources are limited and won’t last forever – so it’s good to develop alternative sources of energy like tidal power, geothermal power, solar power and wind power. Many of the things proposed in the name of halting “man-made climate change” are actually good – but for the wrong reason.

Measuring CO2 emissions and trying to halt them is a backwards kind of way of measuring consumption of carbon based fuels but in the long run it may be a good idea – in moderation. (By the way – taken to extreme – CO2 is emitted in large quantities by humans and animals – should these be limited?) But let’s not damage the economy in the process. And let’s focus on the real reason to do it so we don’t get sidetracked into carbon capture and carbon trading industries. And if the climate does heat up for natural reasons, let’s focus on mitigation.

Inhofe will counter Obama spin at Copenhagen

December 2nd, 2009 by John Draper

One of the fallacies in almost any argument is that people will point to the person and accuse them of being biased because they have something to gain or because they have a hidden agenda.  The fallacy is that the argument is wrong because of the motive.  If black is black and not white, then it does not matter who says so or why he does.  If something can be backed with evidence then it should be listened to even if it’s a minority opinion.  And if the media is known to be biased (e.g. Fox has a right wing bias), the facts or information could still be correct (or not) – it depends on the facts, not on who says them.

I felt I had to introduce the video below with these comments because anyone who disagrees will immediately dismiss it because it’s FOX.  But it is just an interview with Senator Inhofe and although he has always been a skeptic, that does not make his comments wrong.  It seems to me his comments should be taken seriously.

His bottom line: now that Climategate has happened, there’s no chance that Obama’s Cap & trade bill will get through the Senate. Interesting stuff.

Australia drops cap & trade – for now

December 2nd, 2009 by John Draper

The Australian Senate  killed off the emissions trading scheme (ETS) put forward by the Australian Government led by Labour Party Prime Minister Kevin Rudd.  He will now go to the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen in 2 weeks without his legislation (just like Obama) since parliament has now recessed for the southern summer.

Tony Abbott

Tony Abbott

Recently, the opposition Liberal party elected a new leader, Tony Abbott, and he said from the beginning that he opposed the legislation. He has now dumped an ETS from Liberal policy at the next election and opened the debate on nuclear power. However, he is still pledging to cut emissions by 5 per cent by 2020 although he promises “no new tax”.

The Government has not given up and says it is giving the Liberal Party the summer to think about climate change before it brings its emissions trading legislation back into Parliament in February.

The Senate has rejected the ETS legislation twice, at least three months apart, and the Government can now call an election on the issue if it wants although it’s not clear if they will.

Australia’s action are important since it had been the leader in introducing emissions reduction legislation. But now Climategate has made many Australian politicians doubt that the science is settled.  Further, Tony Abbott realistically sees that Australia’s effort without participation by China and the U.S. would be meaningless.  He also advocates implementing clean nuclear power.

The Copenhagen talks are now expected to be just that – talks.  With no outcome other than some rhetoric that says more talks will follow.  I expect the focus to be on what the under-developed countries want as compensation from developed countries.

Climategate disgust is spreading

November 27th, 2009 by John Draper

In many ways, Australia has been a leader on the rhetoric about climate change and now it may be leading the way to sanity.  Australians are more concerned than most about climate change because they have recently experienced unusual warming and droughts.  It’s very tempting to believe that something can be done to stop this so when “scientists” said it was man-caused, they were happy to agree and then convinced their politicians to “do something”.  The Australian Government, like the U.S. government, has a Cap & Trade bill almost ready to be passed and this had been expected to pass in time for the Copenhagen talks.

But now the release of emails, now dubbed “climategate” (see previous post),  has let the cat out of the bag and there is proof of cooking the data.  The bill was to be supported by the main opposition party (the Liberal Party) but now news sources in Australia report that the Liberal Party is in turmoil with the resignations of five frontbenchers from their portfolios in protest against the emissions trading scheme.  Tony Abbott, Sophie Mirabella, Tony Smith and Senators Nick Minchin and Eric Abetz have all quit their portfolios because they cannot vote for the legislation. Senate whip Stephen Parry has also relinquished his position.

And in the U.S., the climategate scandal is spreading like wildfire.  Right-wing Fox news is taking delight in spreading the news since it is a vocal critic of President Obama.  However, Fox is the most watched news network so the American Public is now becoming convinced it’s skepticism was well founded.

To help spread the word, Skeptic U.S. Senator James Inhofe has written to all the relevant US Government agencies, acquainting them with the nature of the e-mails. It is now widely believed on Capitol Hill that Obama’s Cap and Trade climate legislation is toast.  The shoe is now on the other foot and it’s the turn of warming alarmists to be defensive.

In Canada, Jim Prentice (Minister of the Environment) is openly saying that the Copenhagen convention expects only to lead to “…a political agreement that can generate the momentum required to forge a broader, more specific and comprehensive document over the course of 2010″.  He also said that Canada would follow the U.S. lead since our economies are so closely tied and that without a move by China and the U.S., the whole thing would not be effective.  Hopefully he will soon see that the best course of action is to plan for mitigation, if required, and not impossible “prevention”.

The skeptics are vindicated

November 25th, 2009 by John Draper

David Warren of The Ottawa Citizen has written a column (headlined like this post) which summarizes the current situation. Below is an edited version of his column. See the original longer version here.

“A computer hacker in England has done the world a service by making available a huge quantity of evidence for the way in which “human-induced global warming” claims have been advanced over the years.

By releasing into the Internet about a thousand internal e-mails from the servers of the Climate Research Unit in the University of East Anglia — in some respects the international clearing house for climate change “science” — he has (or they have) put observers in a position to see that claims of conspiracy and fraud were not unreasonable.

More generally, we have been given the materials with which to obtain an insight into how all modern science works when vast amounts of public funding is at stake and when the vested interests associated with various “progressive” causes require a particular scientific result.

There is little doubt that the e-mails were real. Even so warmist a true-believer as George Monbiot led his column in the Guardian yesterday with: “It’s no use pretending this isn’t a major blow. The e-mails extracted … could scarcely be more damaging. I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I’m dismayed and deeply shaken by them.”

…..(over the years) supporters of the (warming) hypothesis have been able to reverse the onus of proof. In the last resort, their argument comes down to: We say the planet is warming. And anyone who says the contrary must “prove the negative” beyond the faintest shadow of a doubt. And we will be their judges.
Nigel Lawson (a.k.a. Baron Lawson of Blaby), the former British chancellor of the exchequer, who is among prominent persons demanding a full and open public inquiry, summarized the content of the e-mails in this way:

“Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals. …
… the correspondence that has been hacked is not mere backroom gossip. It includes incriminating exchanges between some of the biggest names in the “global warming” business.

It is amusing to see mainstream media sources such as the New York Times, which thinks nothing of publishing purloined government documents that will endanger the lives of U.S. soldiers in the field, and compromise vital intelligence operations, suddenly become all jowly and uptight about publishing the e-mails in question because they were “illegally obtained.”

Other media — which have played a leading part for years in giving credibility to “global warming” claims — are now maintaining the silence of Iago on the revelations. We will see how long this can be sustained.”

My thanks to David Warren for clearly summarizing the situation. Maybe now we will get real answers to some of the objections raised to the seemingly faulty science instead of being subject to personal attacks which prove nothing.

No warming in last 10 years now confirmed by climatologists.

November 20th, 2009 by John Draper

The prestigious German magazine, Der Speigel, has published an article confirming that climate scientists are now certain that the world’s climate has not warmed at all between 1999 to 2008.  This despite the fact that the IPCC assumed it rose 0.2C in this time frame.

These same scientists say that the climate warmed by 0.7C from the late 1970’s to the late 1990’s but “At present, however, the warming is taking a break,” confirms meteorologist Mojib Latif of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in the northern German city of Kiel. Latif, one of Germany’s best-known climatologists, says that the temperature curve has reached a plateau. “There can be no argument about that,” he says. “We have to face that fact.”

This raises doubts about the predictive value of climate models and Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg says “We don’t really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point.”

According to Der Speigel, just a few weeks ago, Britain’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research added more fuel to the fire with its latest calculations of global average temperatures. According to the Hadley figures, the world grew warmer by 0.07 degrees Celsius from 1999 to 2008 and not by the 0.2 degrees Celsius assumed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. And, say the British experts, when their figure is adjusted for two naturally occurring climate phenomena, El Niño and La Niña, the resulting temperature trend is reduced to 0.0 degrees Celsius — in other words, a standstill.

Graph on warming trend - click for a larger version

Graph on warming trend - click for a larger version

The differences among individual regions of the world are considerable. In the Arctic, for example, temperatures rose by almost three degrees Celsius, which led to a dramatic melting of sea ice. At the same time, temperatures declined in large areas of North America, the western Pacific and the Arabian Peninsula. Europe, including Germany, remains slightly in positive warming territory.

Some scientists are trying to explain away the plateau but are concerned about their loss of credibility – surprise!

Source Der Speigel – translated into English

Canada is Pragmatic on Climate change

November 14th, 2009 by John Draper

Despite being accused of losing credibility on Climate change, Stephen Harper, Canada’s Prime Minister said at the APEC conference today that there is no point in Canada implementing any CO2 reduction program unless developing countries commit to some reductions.  As he pointed out, developing countries currently contribute half of the current emissions and if they do not participate, they will soon contribute two thirds.  Further, there is no point in Canada having a program that’s different to the U.S. since as a neighbour ten times larger, they dominate the North American emissions and economy.

However, it is becoming increasingly clear that the developing countries, particularly African countries plus China and India see the negotiations currently being conducted as mostly economic.  That is clearly the case since cutting back on emissions would be a major economic burden on everyone.  From their point of view, why should they limit themselves before they even reach the level of development of countries like Europe and Australia that are making all the noise?

It doesn’t help that it’s becoming clearer that the supposed consensus does not in fact exist and there are still many unanswered questions.  Although Arctic ice is melting, the Antarctic ice is not and world temperatures now seem to be dropping not rising.  And it’s far from clear that anything Canada, or for that matter Australia could do would make one jot of difference to CO2 let alone any possible warming.  And as Harper points out, any reductions we make would be swamped by increases from India , China and others.