Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events
Reload this Page >

The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Old 02-17-10, 05:09 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,007
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Adjusting Prague, or, Praguegate. Or Czechgate.


Czechgate: Climate scientists dump world’s second oldest ‘cold’ climate record
by Editor on February 16, 2010
contributed by John O’Sullivan

The latest independent analysis of world climate data by acclaimed skeptic blogger ‘Chiefio’ (aka E. M. Smith) and his blog contributors confirm that the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) has cynically dumped the world’s second oldest and reliable climate record at Prague in the Czech Republic for no scientific reason.

Climate skeptics claim the censoring of the Czech’s raw data has been perpetrated by climate scientists because the Prague records prove there has been no warming in Europe for over two hundred years.

Bloggers found that GHCN, based at Arizona State University, also cut out Prague’s warm 1940’s as it would make recent warming look unexceptional. This process of adjusting raw data by climatologists (almost always upwards) is known as ‘homogenization.’ Skeptics then found that climatologists had replaced the original Prague dataset from 1949 with a homogenized warmer series from another weather station in Praha/Ruzyne even though Prague had never stopped taking temperature readings.

Skeptic analysts are outraged because, after the Central England Temperature Record, the Czech records are the second oldest continous and reliable temperature record in the world and are known as the Central European Temperature Record. The data set has been kept uninterrupted since 1775 in Praha-Klementinum (Prague).

Interested readers looking to verify for themselves this outrageous deceit can check the records here, then search for “Praha/Ruzyne.“ The real Praha/Klementinum data may be found for the period 1770 to 2009 here.

From plain reading of the Czech data we see that for the past 200 years the temperature in this part of central Europe has warmed by a statistically insignificant 0.25° Centigrade per century.

The Prague raw temperatures correlate perfectly with those of the world’s oldest climate data set, found in the Central England Temperature Record (CET) that has been running continuously for 351 years.

Thus, the two oldest and most reliable raw thermometer records in the world are telling us there is not a shred of real world evidence to show any significant global warming. Rather, it the homogenized or faked data created artificially by climatologists in their laboratories that is consistently being shown as the source of such ‘warming.’

Source: Chiefo
Is it any wonder the CRU/NASA team hs hidden (or "lost") so much raw data and fought so hard to keep it secret?

With "adjustments" they changed a 1.18 degree C cooling to a 1.01 degree C warming for the last 130 years. While they're screaming about a supposedly scary global rise of .6 degrees C (sometimes said to be .7 or .8) in the last 100 years they "adjust" this location upward by three times as much or more. And this is hardly the only one as we have posted many other examples before (remember Darwin Airport? http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-wo...ml#post9877993).

As always, "adjustments" go only one way.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-17-10, 06:10 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,007
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Debate last night on Nightline. Shock: ABC has a skeptic on.

Part 1:

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=Xdnzpr8zSU" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=Xdnzpr8zSU" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>

Part 2:

<object width="518" height="419"><param name="movie" value="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=Xdnzpr8z6U" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><embed type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.eyeblast.tv/public/eyeblast.swf?v=Xdnzpr8z6U" allowfullscreen="true" width="518" height="419" /></object>
movielib is offline  
Old 02-17-10, 07:25 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,007
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Finally a hysterical global warming prediction that can be tested:


Climate hysteria won't last test of time
By Garth George
4:00 AM Thursday Feb 18, 2010

Reports of inaccuracies with global warming data will one day be a source of mirth for us

I am indebted to a reader for sending me a copy of an article which appeared in this newspaper and which I hadn't read.

Under the headlines "Man is making the earth too warm, Threat of melting polar caps", it quoted a prominent physicist as saying that the levels of the oceans could rise 12m and flood vast areas of the Earth in the next half century unless atmospheric temperatures were controlled.

The physicist, Dr Joseph Kaplan, professor of physics at the University of California, said such flooding could occur as a result of accelerated melting of the polar ice caps.

Should the oceans rise by 12m, their waters would roll through parts of New York, London, San Francisco and many other coastal cities.

Dr Kaplan said the melting of the ice caps was being speeded by man's tremendous use of oil and gas which was "changing the Earth's atmosphere".

The burning of fossil fuels was of such great magnitude that discharged gases were creating a "greenhouse" effect over the Earth.

The gases were warming the atmosphere as far up as 26km, and would have a great effect on the Arctic and Antarctic ice masses.

Dr Kaplan said heat control was an answer to the threat. "We are now working on a method of controlling man's environment and the temperature of the world.

We have already fired rockets into the upper atmosphere and discharged chemicals that affect the temperature of the atmosphere.

"Control by man of the Earth's weather and temperature is within the realm of practicability now. The end result of our studies of temperature control will be more important to the survival of man than atomic energy."

Now the reason I missed that story is that it appeared in this newspaper on Tuesday, April 9, 1957, at which time I was 16 years old and preparing to travel by ship to the United States on an American Field Service scholarship.

Dr Kaplan, meanwhile, was head of the National Committee for the 1957-58 International Geophysical year. He died in 1991.

The copy of the Herald containing his predictions was discovered during house renovations when some old carpet was lifted.

Since I last wrote on the subject, the activities of the International Panel on Climate Change have come under deep suspicion for their unscientific "research" basis and questionable sources of temperature data.

Last weekend, the London Sunday Times reported that more and more scientists are now persuaded that the IPCC's assessment, that the evidence of warming is "unequivocal" and by 2100 would have devastating impacts on humanity and wildlife, could no longer be sustained.

In fact, the Sunday Times report said new research, including work by British scientists, is casting doubt on such claims and some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

Their concern - as it is with the data provided by our own National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (Niwa) - is about the thousands of weather stations around the world which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.

These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site. This, of course, is the charge that has long been levelled at Niwa by a significant section of New Zealand's scientific community.

The Sunday Times report says that Ross McKitrick, professor of economics at the University of Guelph in Canada, who had been invited by the IPCC to review its last report, had after reading it become a strong critic who has since published a research paper questioning the IPCC's methods.

"We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC's climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias," Professor McKitrick told the Sunday Times.

Meanwhile, Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University in England, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be the result of random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases.

And an American study has revealed that many weather stations are sited in places where their readings are distorted by heat-generating equipment.

Some have been found near air-conditioning outlets; some on waste treatment plants including one next to a waste incinerator. And then there's the weather station at Rome airport, which catches the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets.

So, just as Dr Kaplan's predictions came to nought, so I believe will the scaremongering global warming predictions of today's climate doomsayers.

Perhaps 53 years from now someone will find an ancient copy of the Herald and laugh at the climate change paranoia which afflicted the world in 2010.
Wow, all wrong, who'da thunk it?
movielib is offline  
Old 02-18-10, 12:02 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,007
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

British government poured £9 million down the drain for climate "stunts."


Ministers lavished £9m on climate change stunts... but public opinion is left cold by global warming 'propaganda'
By Steve Doughty
Last updated at 1:53 AM on 18th February 2010

A disastrous series of failed climate change publicity stunts cost taxpayers £9million, it emerged yesterday.

The projects paid for by the Government’s Climate Challenge Fund did next to nothing to change public opinion, a Whitehall report found.

It said the initiatives were almost entirely preaching to the converted and that trying to drum up interest through sensationalism only put people off.

Flop: The 'experimental' climate change dome at a school was one failed project.

Schemes included a £40,000 DVD in which schoolchildren explained that in ten years everyone will have to wear sunglasses all the time, because the sun will be shining more.

A tent set up in shopping centres and labelled an ‘experiential climate dome’ was subsidised by Whitehall to the tune of nearly £400,000; a computer game cost £47 every time it was played; and a series of ‘ challenging pub quizzes’ about climate change cost more than £85,000.

Large grants went to councils, schools and youth groups for ‘ attitude modification’ programmes and to assure the public that man-made global warming is an established scientific fact.

And £200,000 went to Oxford University to ‘take climate change into the community’.

Details of the projects and the report for Ed Miliband’s Department of Energy and Climate Change – which was never published – were unearthed by the TaxPayers’ Alliance through Freedom of Information requests.

Matthew Sinclair, the group’s research director, said: ‘The Government has clearly crossed the line from public information to propaganda on climate change.

‘Many of the Climate Challenge Fund projects are utterly bonkers and misleading, and come with a huge price tag.

‘Despite a fortune having been spent on these projects, the fund has failed even on its own spuripeopleous terms. It is infuriating for taxpayers to see their money squandered on attempts to scare and indoctrinate the public.’

The report by consultants Brook Lyndhurst said the projects largely failed to produce any changes in the opinions among their target audiences. It judged that ‘the aggregate picture is one of neutral or very modest positive shifts’.

Future programmes should ‘avoid sensationalist or shocking imagery in climate change messages, since respondents are likely to find this off-putting’, it said.

The report added that those attracted to the projects were ‘already interested in climate change’. It suggested that in many cases organisations viewed the funding as ‘a way to secure additional resources’, and said the

running the projects often did not have ‘necessary skills’.

The money was paid to public organisations and voluntary groups between 2006 and 2008.

Details emerged after several other high-profile climate change failures in recent months.

The Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, which received £16,000 from the Climate Challenge Fund, has come under fire over leaked emails which show scientists attempted to hide data from sceptics.

And the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been found to have made exaggerated and ill-informed claims, for example over the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are melting. Its chief, Rajendra Pachauri, has faced calls to resign.
[Looks like there are some weird typos or formatting errors in the article.]

But of course it's the skeptics who are "well funded."

Another triumph for the FOIA.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-18-10, 12:39 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,007
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Followup to Post #23. 16 lawsuits have been filed against the EPA's CO2 endangerment finding.


16 'Endangerment' Lawsuits Filed Against EPA Before Deadline
Published: February 17, 2010

Industry groups, conservative think tanks, lawmakers and three states filed 16 court challenges to U.S. EPA's "endangerment" finding for greenhouse gases before yesterday's deadline, setting the stage for a legal battle over federal climate policies.

Filing petitions yesterday were the Ohio Coal Association, the Utility Air Regulatory Group, the Portland Cement Association, the state of Texas and the Competitive Enterprise Institute. Another was filed by a coalition that includes the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM), the American Petroleum Institute, the Corn Refiners Association, the National Association of Home Builders, the National Oilseed Processors Association, the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association, and the Western States Petroleum Association.

The lawsuits ask the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to review EPA's determination that greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare. That finding -- released in December in response to a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling -- allows the agency to regulate the heat-trapping emissions under the Clean Air Act. Observers expect the court to consolidate the petitions.

Many industry groups and states argue that forthcoming EPA regulations will have devastating economic consequences, while EPA and environmentalists say the agency is required by law to begin regulating greenhouse gas emissions. The agency is planning to finalize new greenhouse gas rules for automobiles and large stationary sources next month.

"If EPA moves forward and begins regulating stationary sources, it will open the door for them to regulate everything from industrial facilities to farms to even American homes," NAM President John Engler said in a statement. "Such a move would further complicate a permitting process that EPA is not equipped to handle, while increasing costs to the manufacturing sector. These costly burdens and uncertainty will stifle job creation and harm our competitiveness in a global economy."

Joe Mendelson, global warming policy director for the National Wildlife Federation, said the lawsuits represent "a continuation of the big polluters essentially trying to attack the science on climate change. They have consistently done that throughout this debate." Mendelson was the lead author on the original 1999 petition to EPA seeking regulations for greenhouse gases.

Ten other petitions have been filed by Alabama, Virginia, the American Iron and Steel Institute, Gerdau Ameristeel Corp., the American Farm Bureau Federation, the National Mining Association, Peabody Energy Co., the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, 13 House lawmakers and the Southeastern Legal Foundation, and the Coalition for Responsible Regulation (E&ENews PM, Feb. 16).

A coalition of 16 states and New York City has also asked to intervene on behalf of EPA in the endangerment case (Greenwire, Jan. 25).

EPA spokeswoman Adora Andy said the finding was made in response to the Supreme Court ruling and after an extensive review of scientific evidence.

"Even at the end of this exhaustive, transparent process, some special interests, and individuals who have made it their cause to deny the evidence before our own eyes, did not like EPA's answer," Andy said. "Instead of helping America become a leader in the new green economy, these defenders of the status quo are now turning to the courts in an attempt to stall progress."

Still, Andy added, "EPA is confident that the finding will withstand legal challenge and allow the agency to protect the American people from the significant dangers posed by greenhouse gases and carbon pollution."
This should be good.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-18-10, 03:00 AM
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 6,535
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Movielib...are you just talking to yourself in this thread? Seems like it.

Not saying I agree or disagree, just making a point.
FiveO is offline  
Old 02-18-10, 08:59 AM
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Unknown
Posts: 4,091
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Originally Posted by FiveO View Post
Movielib...are you just talking to yourself in this thread? Seems like it.

Not saying I agree or disagree, just making a point.
Absolutely not. I read this thread every day (and I know there are many others who do the same)...in fact it is the only thread I make sure to catch up on every day. Movielib does a great job of compiling some of the more important and interesting articles and news stories on this topic, and quite frankly it saves me a lot of time sifting through the muck. It's is certainly not the only thing I read on this topic, but it is consistently one of the best at pointing out a lot of stories that slip through the MSM cracks...

Also, every once in a great while, another one of us actually beats movielib to the punch on posting some of this stuff.
dave-o is offline  
Old 02-18-10, 09:11 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,007
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Originally Posted by dave-o View Post
Absolutely not. I read this thread every day (and I know there are many others who do the same)...in fact it is the only thread I make sure to catch up on every day. Movielib does a great job of compiling some of the more important and interesting articles and news stories on this topic, and quite frankly it saves me a lot of time sifting through the muck. It's is certainly not the only thing I read on this topic, but it is consistently one of the best at pointing out a lot of stories that slip through the MSM cracks...

Also, every once in a great while, another one of us actually beats movielib to the punch on posting some of this stuff.
There's so much stuff now, especially since Climategate, I've become much more selective, skipping many good articles simply because they are repetitive. Others I skip (and always have) because, even though they are on my side, they make too many scientific errors. And I wouldn't want this thread to be the only thing anyone reads on the subject. After all, it is rather one-sided.

I read the other side too.

As for those MSM cracks. They are more like gaping craters but they're getting a little smaller, at least in Britain.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-18-10, 09:16 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,007
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Nice short Russian TV interviews with John Christy and Pat Michaels.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cMNEGqNaNKs&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cMNEGqNaNKs&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Uigngy45dwk&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Uigngy45dwk&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Talk about Kyoto seems so quaint now.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-18-10, 09:23 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,007
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

No trend in US hurricane losses in eleven decades.


17 February 2010
Normalized US Hurricane Losses 1900-2009
[Roger A Pielke, Jr]

The figure above shows normalized US hurricane losses for 1900 to 2009. It shows an estimate of what hurricane damages would be if each hurricane season took place in 2009. The dark line shows the linear best fit from Excel. Obviously, there is no trend. This makes sense as there has also been no trend in U.S. landfall frequencies or intensities over this period (in fact, depending on start date there is evidence for a slight but statistically significant decline, source in PDF).

One indication that our methodology does a good job adjusting for societal change is that the resulting time series matches up with the time series in landfall frequencies and intensities. If there were a significant bias in our methods (for whatever reason) it would show up as a deviation between the normalized trends and the geophysical trends. We see no such deviation. Other reasons for confidence in our analysis is that it has been independently replicated on several occasions and that we (and others) can also recover an ENSO signal in the data (e.g., PDF).

You can play around with the data from the ICAT Damage Estimator. Details on the analysis can be found in the following paper:

Pielke, Jr., R. A., Gratz, J., Landsea, C. W., Collins, D., Saunders, M., and Musulin, R., 2008. Normalized Hurricane Damages in the United States: 1900-2005. Natural Hazards Review, Volume 9, Issue 1, pp. 29-42.
Again, the alarmist's weakest scare story is shot down.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-18-10, 09:36 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,007
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

UN climate bigwig resigns (not Pachauri).


PARIS (AFP) – Yvo de Boer, head of the UN's climate change convention, will resign as of July 1, his office announced on Thursday.
February 18, 2010

De Boer, who is executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, will join the consultancy group KPMG as global advisor on climate and sustainability and work with a number of universities, the UNFCCC secretariat said.

The announcement came nearly two months after the Copenhagen summit on climate change, widely seen as either a disappointment or a chaotic failure.

The UNFCCC, an offshoot of the 1992 Rio summit, gathers 194 nations in the search for combatting the causes of man-made climate change and easing its effects.

Its key achievement is the Kyoto Protocol, the only international treaty that requires curbs in heat-stoking greenhouse gases blamed for disrupting the climate system.
Looks like he got a better alarmosphere job where he'll take less heat.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-18-10, 11:24 AM
nemein's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: 1bit away from total disaster
Posts: 34,142
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Here's another article about it...

AMSTERDAM – Top U.N. climate change official Yvo de Boer told The Associated Press on Thursday that he was resigning after nearly four years, a period when governments struggled without success to agree on a new global warming deal.

His departure takes effect July 1, five months before 193 nations are due to reconvene in Mexico for another attempt to reach a binding worldwide accord on controlling greenhouse gases. De Boer's resignation adds to the uncertainty that a full treaty can be finalized there.

De Boer is known to be deeply disappointed with the outcome of the last summit in Copenhagen, which drew 120 world leaders but failed to reach more than a vague promise by several countries to limit carbon emissions — and even that deal fell short of consensus.

But he denied to the AP that his decision to quit was a result of frustration with Copenhagen.

"Copenhagen wasn't what I had hoped it would be," he acknowledged, but the summit nonetheless prompted governments to submit plans and targets for reigning in the emissions primarily blamed for global warming. "I think that's a pretty solid foundation for the global response that many are looking for," he said.

De Boer told the AP he believes talks "are on track."

He recommended the next talks take a different tack. Rather than convene several negotiating sessions involving nearly 200 countries, Mexico, which is chairing the negotiations throughout this year, should prepare the November conference to work in smaller groups to lay the groundwork of a deal.

The Mexicans should "engage more intensively early in the process, so that you don't only rely on formal meetings but through bilateral contacts and frequent meetings in a smaller setting and an earlier understanding of how the process can be advanced," he told AP.

"At the moment, it tends to be very much a stop-and-start affair with everything concentrated in the formal negotiations, where I think a much more continuous engagement by (Mexico) is needed."

The partial agreement reached in Copenhagen, brokered by Obama, "was very significant," he said. But he acknowledged frustration that the deal was merely "noted" rather than formally adopted by all countries.

"We were about an inch away from a formal agreement. It was basically in our grasp, but it didn't happen," he said. "So that was a pity."

The media-savvy former Dutch civil servant and climate negotiator was widely credited with raising the profile of climate issues through his frequent press encounters and his backstage lobbying of world leaders.

But his constant travel and frenetic diplomacy failed to bridge the suspicions and distrust between developing and industrial countries that barred the way to a final agreement at the climate change summit in Copenhagen in December.

People who know de Boer say he was more disheartened by the snail-paced negotiations than he was ready to admit.

"I saw him at the airport after Copenhagen," said Jake Schmidt, a climate expert for the U.S.-based Natural Resources Defense Council. "He was tired, worn out." The summit "clearly took a toll on him."

Schmidt, speaking from Washington, said the Dutch diplomat was "very effective in pushing the envelope" and winning attention for climate change. "He's done a powerful job ... in getting the world to focus on this."

During de Boer's tenure, climate talks rose "to a standing item on the agenda of political leaders," said Oxfam International, a nonprofit group that monitors the talks and advises delegations. World leaders "could learn much from de Boer's perseverance as well as his uncompromising commitment to do what's necessary — not just what's easy."

The German Green Party said de Boer's departure presented a chance for a strategic reorientation of his U.N. office.

"The failure of the Copenhagen climate conference was due partly to bad preparation and organization," the Greens' climate change specialist Hermann Ott said in a statement. "Now a credible and experienced successor has to be found to make sure the international process to combat climate change continues without delay."

De Boer, 55, was appointed in 2006 to shepherd through an agreement to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which required industrial countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions an average 5 percent.

He said the high point of his efforts was the agreement by developing countries, reached at the 2007 conference in Bali, Indonesia, to join in efforts to contain global warming in return for financial and technical help from the wealthy nations.

The Bali meeting was so intense that during its final meeting, when he was accused of mishandling negotiating arrangements, de Boer walked off the podium in tears. He came back later to an ovation from the thousands of delegates.

His assertiveness sometimes led to accusations that he was overstepping the bounds of a neutral U.N. facilitator.

"They are absolutely right. I did that because I felt the process needed that extra push," he told the AP.

When he was hired, he said, he told U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan, "If you want someone to sit in Bonn and keep his mouth shut then I'm not the right person for the job."

Yet De Boer habitually put a positive spin on events. Though he occasionally chastised governments, he did it in diplomatic tones. At times when his aides were describing him as "furious" — especially with the administration of George W. Bush — de Boer kept his public comments so modulated that it sounded like praise.

De Boer said he will be a consultant on climate and sustainability issues for KPMG, a global accounting firm, and will be associated with several universities.

"I have always maintained that while governments provide the necessary policy framework, the real solutions must come from business," he said in a statement released later Thursday. "Copenhagen did not provide us with a clear agreement in legal terms, but the political commitment and sense of direction toward a low-emissions world are overwhelming. This calls for new partnerships with the business sector and I now have the chance to help make this happen," he said.

De Boer, who comes from a diplomatic family, was born in Vienna and traveled the world before attending a British boarding school. He studied social work at university in The Hague, and one of his early jobs was as a parole officer. He worked for the United Nations in Canada and Kenya, then joined the Dutch housing ministry. He has been involved in climate change issues since 1994, and three years later became the chief climate delegate for the Netherlands.
nemein is offline  
Old 02-18-10, 12:48 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,007
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Originally Posted by nemein View Post
And so we can see how truly sincere and sensitive he is, this 2007 story describes how he wept for the planet when things didn't go his way in Bali (much nicer climate than Copenhagen in December):


Floods of tears as climate change 'hard man' breaks down at summit
Last updated at 00:13 16 December 2007

He is known as the "hard man" of climate-change negotiation.

But after 12 exhausting days of trying to reach a worldwide agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, it was suddenly all too much for Yvo de Boer.

As the 200-nation Bali conference wrangled over a minor procedural matter, the Dutch diplomat in charge of the talks burst into tears and had to be led away by colleagues.

The crying Dutchman: Emotion overwhelms Yvo de Boer

Moments earlier, Mr de Boer had been warning delegates that failure to reach an agreement on global warming could "plunge the world into conflict".

Officials from China, which feels Western countries should do more to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, accused UN negotiators of ignoring conference protocol.

Mr de Boer, distinctively dressed in a floral shirt, stepped up to the microphone to defend his staff - only to find that the words would no longer come.

As his unfinished sentences trailed away, he broke down and walked off the platform to supportive applause.

"He wasn't just wiping his eyes, he was in floods of tears," said one observer.

"Three colleagues - one of them a woman - formed a protective group around him and escorted him out of the hall. It was all very dramatic."

Mr de Boer's breakdown came after nearly a fortnight of squabbling over proposals to cut carbon emissions.

The European Union went to the conference demanding that industrialised nations commit to cuts in CO2 emissions of 25-40 per cent by 2020, a stance which was strongly opposed by the US, Canada and Japan.

America's representatives had also been jeered for insisting on firmer commitments from developing countries --despite President Bush's refusal to sign up to the previous targets laid down in the Kyoto Protocol in 2001.

In the end, a compromise was reached with a text that did not mention specific targets but acknowledged that "deep cuts in global emissions will be required".

A wave of relief swept the hall as US delegation chief Paula Dobriansky finally declared: "The United States is very committed to this effort and just wants to really ensure we all act together.

"With that, Mr Chairman, let me say to you we will go forward and join consensus."

The resulting treaty, known as the "Bali road map", sets in motion a two-year process of negotiations designed to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012.

Under the deal, a new pact will be agreed at a meeting in Copenhagen in 2009.

By then, members of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change - the organisation of which de Boer is executive secretary - should have agreed on a comprehensive plan involving wealthy and developing nations.

Environment Secretary Hilary Benn hailed the Bali deal as "an historic breakthrough" and a "huge step forward" in tackling climate change.

But Prime Minister Gordon Brown sounded a note of caution. "The Bali road map agreed today is just the first step," he said. "Now begins the hardest work."

The deal will come as a relief to Mr de Boer, who is known in the Netherlands for his passionate advocacy on the subject.

His reputation as an incisive --and tireless - negotiator has earned him the "hard man" tag.

However, former colleagues said his behaviour in Bali was not entirely out of character.

Political adviser Matthijs Spits said: "We Dutch can become quite emotional --surprisingly so for other nations who think we are cold."
Other picture of de Boer:

"I'm going to take my
thermometer and go home"

Last edited by movielib; 02-18-10 at 01:20 PM.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-18-10, 01:14 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,007
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Dutch newspaper admits Dutch CAGW skeptic "was right after all."

Vindication -- Dutch global warming denier "was right after all"
Posted: February 18, 2010, 12:10 PM
by Lawrence Solomon

De Telegraaf, the Netherlands' largest daily newspaper, has totally vindicated the country's most prominent global warming denier in a prominent article entitled "Henk Tennekes - He was right after all."

Tennekes was the director of the Netherlands Meteorological Institute, KNMI, until the early 1990s, when his skepticism of the climate science coming out of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change led to his forced resignation. A translation into English of De Telegraaf's vindication appears here [Note by movielib: It's too difficult to reproduce here]:

In the Headline:

Sacked KNMI Director wiped the floor with the climate know-it-alls as early as the 1990s.

Hank Tennekes - He was right after all.

IPCC is an intimate clique of only a few dozen people.


The times they are a-changin'.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-18-10, 06:36 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,007
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

movielib is offline  
Old 02-18-10, 07:05 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,007
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

My new theme song:

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/IbmnODQPFcM&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/IbmnODQPFcM&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

movielib is offline  
Old 02-19-10, 07:58 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,007
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Following up on Post #22, here is Chris Horner's part 2 (of 4) of his NASA Climategate series:


Climategate 2.0 — The NASA Files: U.S. Climate Science as Corrupt as CRU (PJM Exclusive — Part Two)

Horner looks further into the NASA emails, and finds stunning examples of politicized science and institutional hypocrisy
February 18, 2010
by Christopher Horner

(On December 31, 2009, NASA finally provided the Competitive Enterprise Institute with the documents I requested from them with an FOIA in August 2007. My request asked NASA to release their internal discussions regarding errors of theirs materially effecting their temperature claims caught by Steve McIntyre. NASA had stonewalled my request for more than two years.)

Dr. James Hansen has an extraordinary history of alarmism and dodgy claims: He has testified in support of the destruction of private property in the name of global warming alarmism and referred to coal rail cars as the equivalent of Nazi death trains, all while insisting that any president named George Bush was muzzling him. He has proven himself a global warming zealot leading a taxpayer-funded institute.

On August 11, 2007, James Hansen emailed the New York Times’ Andrew Revkin:
As for the future in the US, you can look for the warming to become more obvious during the next decade or two.
However, observations and projections in the refereed literature which take into account the past decade of no warming, shifts in oceanic currents, and other, obviously dominant climate “forcings” have since turned the other direction.

Getting it dead wrong is close enough for government work, and it’s pretty clear that Hansen is only protected and still employed because he is a government employee who gets things wrong in a way that supports a politically favored agenda. Hansen’s nuttiness is acceptable nuttiness. He is a sacred cow despite years of questionable practices and avocations.


Spinning madly in his defense during the August 2007 kerfuffle started by Steve McIntyre, Hansen repeatedly dismisses that NASA had ever presented 1934 as being warmer than 1998. In the process, he serially refers to a 2001 paper with other NASA colleagues of which he was lead author.

Ruedy wrote to Hansen on August 23, 2007, apparently seeking to stop their office’s highest-profiled scientist from continuing to embarrass himself — and them:
The US temperature graph in our 1999 paper, based on GHCN data, shows 1934 0.5C warmer than 1998; 1998 was in 5th place behind 1921, 1931, 1938, 1953.

In the corresponding graph in our 2001 paper, now based on the carefully corrected [euphemism alert!] USHCN data, 1934 and 1998 are in first, 1921 in third place (NOAA who provided the USHCN data had 1998 slightly ahead of 1934).

The US table we had posted during all of 2006 showed 1998 and 1934 even at 1.24C (I got a copy from a journalist in Brazil, we don’t save the data).
In fact, the paper referenced here, Hansen et al. (2001), showed 1934 a whopping half a degree warmer than the next closest year, 1998.

After being embarrassed internally, Hansen says:
I think we want to avoid getting into more and more detail about ranking of individual years.
Yes. I suppose he would feel that way.

Not only was data maintenance not all that great a concern — despite NASA’s pronouncements of certainty and integrity, historical and otherwise — Hansen and NASA spent a good portion of August 2007 attempting to completely rewrite history. Particularly their own.

Ruedy emailed a NASA PR person named Leslie McCarthy, copying Hansen, on August 10, 2007. Ruedy advised McCarthy of the spin they would use to combat Steve McIntyre:
[McIntyre] concentrates on US time series which US covering less than 2% of the world is so noisy and has such a large margin of error that no conclusions can be drawn from it at this point.
The error Ruedy refers to is 0.5 Celsius, per Ruedy himself in his August 10, 2007, email to Kris French of National Geographic. In that email, Ruedy slurs McIntyre as a “global warming denier.”

Hansen emailed Dr. Donald E. Anderson, program manager at Earth Science Enterprise NASA Headquarters, on August 14, 2007:
If one wished to be scientific, instead of trying to confuse the public … one should note that single year temperatures for an area as small as the US (2% of the globe) are extremely noisy.
By this Hansen implicitly assesses NASA’s longstanding practice of touting temperature anomalies, U.S.-only and smaller than this, as being unscientific and designed to confuse the public. NASA had for years made great hay of U.S.-only temperatures as being somehow meaningful when a warming was claimed, even when that warming was less than the amount they now dismiss as meaningless. He pitched a directly contrarian perspective when U.S.-only temps threatened warming claims.
In an email to Andrew Revkin on August 24, 2007, Hansen states:
The contrarians are cleverly mixing up these two matters, global and U.S., thus completely confusing the public discussion.
But it was NASA, and indeed Hansen’s GISS, that emphasized U.S. temperatures all along. Not “contrarians.” NASA ranked individual years, then suddenly said the exercise was simply not worthwhile when the numbers contradicted it.

Hansen’s discourses on this included telling Andrew Revkin on August 24, 2007:
I think we want to avoid getting into more and more detail about ranking of individual years. As far as I can remember, we have always discouraged that as being somewhat nonsensical, other that (sic) the question of what is the warmest year.
Hansen offered no such examples of that kind of discouragement, and indeed NASA had actively engaged in the practice — even though on that apparent priority, NASA’s numbers, claims, and rankings swung wildly.

Hansen also told Revkin on August 23, 2007:
As far as I know we do not make such a list. We don’t like such lists, because the results are not significant and are certain to differ from one group to another [meaning there is no agreement on temperatures claimed as known -- and down to a hundredth of a degree!]. It is generally the media that makes a list. We look for a new record high ["look for" is a bit of an understatement] but note that it is a virtual tie if the difference is small.
Hansen’s memory is faulty. We have seen that substantial differences, such as that between 1934 and 1998 of up to 0.5 degrees Celsius, can subsequently, and rather magically, turn into a statistical tie of 0.02 degrees Celsius under NASA’s gentle ministrations.

An August 10, 2007, email from Ruedy to NASA’s Leslie McCarthy, copying Hansen, pleaded for McCarthy to pitch that:
The problem with rankings is that there are large clumps of years which are equal within the margin of error and rankings within these clumps are purely accidental.
Hansen emailed Revkin on August 23, 2007:
I believe we have clearly stated several times that the ranking [of years] does.
Old habits die hard, however, and later in this email, Hansen emphasizes 2005 as “the warmest year.”

Here is a selection of NASA press releases (links viewed on August 27, 2007):
“2005 Warmest Year in a Century”

“2006 was Earth’s Fifth Warmest Year”

“Top Four Warmest Years Worldwide Since the 1890s”

“The year 2003 is the third warmest year in the period of accurate instrumental data” (prominently mentions the two warmer years)

“The 2002 meteorological year is the second warmest year in the period of accurate instrumental data”
The efforts in August 2007 to reduce interest in NASA being caught making unsupportable claims about increasing U.S. temperatures were ad hoc tactics, used at the time because the U.S.-only and single-year measurements were the means in which Hansen and NASA were exposed as having sexed-up the temperature claims.

The Times’ Revkin diplomatically deferred responsibility for this focus, which NASA shared with a passion bordering on obsession, by writing to Hansen on August 10, 2007:
Given that quite a few folks (gore and some enviros particularly) have often used the US temp trends in arguments for action (string of record years) it’s hard for me to ignore the reanalysis of those annual temps — even though my own focus remains global temp. Essentially, should people always have paid less attention to US (48 state) trend as a meaningful signal of AGW? (now that all those earlier warm years intrude, it certainly makes the case that regional data can be a red herring).
“Regional data” has, of course, long been a mainstay of alarmist reporting on climate even though computer models are well-known as being simply incapable of making regional climate projections vs. global, due to the presence of oceans and mountains. “Regional climate” is a way to find localized trends and claim they are meaningful to the global, when all they are is politically useful anecdotes (when they are or at least can be portrayed as of the right sort: warming, very dry/very wet, etc.). Note also the recognized inconvenience of being caught, and the “intrusion” of “all those earlier warm years.” Given that Revkin had in the past transcribed NASA claims of the sort he here attributes to Gore, this is possibly little more than a bit of kissing up to Hansen, with an invitation for him to help massage and redirect the embarrassment.

Indeed — although Hansen essentially ducks Revkin’s question — Revkin dutifully transcribed Hansen’s line in a story in the New York Times downplaying “Hansen’s Y2k error.” In the article, as in his email responding to praise by Ruedy for the article, Revkin is almost apologetic for even writing it — a full two weeks after the story had broken — but the story had become too difficult for Revkin to ignore any longer.

NASA scientist Ruedy, in a private email to Brazilian journalist Leticia Francisco Sorg on August 15, 2007, also reaffirms how the hypocrisy is so great that NASA is willing to claim that even thirty years is a “brief” period for purposes of observing things — if during those thirty years the warming that occurred is warming they can’t attribute to Man. Otherwise, no — thirty years is plenty of time to draw conclusions.
As always in alarmoworld, double standards abound.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-19-10, 08:28 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,007
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

There's real world and Mann world.


Friday, February 19, 2010
Interview with Michael Mann
[Lubos Motl]

If you haven't seen a real nutcase for a little while, read
What I find amazing is the high degree of logical inconsistency in his reasoning. On one hand, he thinks that the alarmed climate scientists are the "David" who fights against a gigantic "Goliath" who is very well organized and funded (by the fossil fuel industry, of course!).

And the poor "David" is so weak and discriminated against... The media have never helped to promote the opinions of the alarmed climate scientists, as Michael Mann remembers the history of the last 20 years. Poor alarm about climate change: you know, the hypothetical threats have never been mentioned in the evil media, at least if you omit those 50,000 articles a month on Google News! There's a huge injustice by the "Goliath" and a suffocating conspiracy working against the nice "David" of the climate alarm.

On the other hand, he thinks that the opponents of the climate alarm are a couple of disorganized fringe lunatics.

Also, on one hand, he says that the science community doesn't have "a single politically driven motive" - very funny. On the other hand, he overwhelms us with tons of far-left notions about many kinds of political questions that everyone is supposed to agree with, e.g. that the opponents of Obama's socialist health care are an "irrational sort of conspiracy-driven lunatics". ;-)

He clearly proves that he has almost certainly never met a colleague who would disagree with Mann about any of these issues such as the healthcare reform. But you know, his community doesn't have a "single politically driven motive".

Also, he admits that there are billions of dollars circulating in the green industry and the climate propaganda ($300 million for Al Gore's commercials is mentioned as an example) - but he thinks that he has nothing to do with the money (those billions in grants from many sources that have been flowing to his inferior scientific discipline that has de facto become one of the most well-funded fields of current science are hidden from his eyes).

This guy is a stunning mixture of a complete lack of integrity and a complete lack of sanity.
To be fair, most alarmists live in a fantasy world where the media is against them, the skeptics have more funding than they do and the thousands upon thousands of legitimate scientist skeptics are a few nuts and corrupt hacks paid off by Exxon. It's a bizzaro world where black is white and 2+2=5.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-19-10, 03:23 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,007
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

movielib is offline  
Old 02-19-10, 06:27 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,007
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Continuing Rick Trzupek's series, "The Heretics," highlighting the top CAGW skeptics. This entry, the invaluable Steve McIntyre & Ross McKitrick.


The Heretics: McIntyre and McKitrick
Posted by Rich Trzupek
Feb 19th, 2010

When the infamous hockey-stick graph that purported to prove that human activities are causing runaway global warming was finally broken, there is some irony in the fact that a couple of Canadians did the breaking. Retired mining engineer Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, Professor of Economics at the University of Guelph, have been a thorn in the side of global warming alarmists for years. McIntyre, McKitrick and, more often, the acronym “M&M” to refer to the pair, are the subject of many discussions in the e-mails released from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) last November.

Reading the e-mails, it quickly becomes clear that leading alarmist scientists, like Michael Mann at Penn State and Phil Jones at the CRU, seemed positively obsessed – almost to the point of appearing deranged at times – with discrediting McIntyre and McKitrick. For example, when the pair published their first hockey stick busting paper in 2003, Mann sent an angry e-mail to his colleagues, telling them how to deal with MM: “The important thing is to deny that this has any intellectual credibility whatsoever and, if contacted by any media, to dismiss this for the stunt that it is.”

Raymond Bradley, a climatologist with the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and part of the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), went even farther, suggesting that CRU should provide the “independent” voice that would discredit McIntyre and McKitrick: “…if an “independent group” such as you guys at CRU could make a statement as to whether the M&M effort is truly an “audit”, and if they did it right, I think that would go a long way to defusing the issue… If you are willing, a quick and forceful statement from The Distinguished CRU Boys would help quash further arguments.”

What did McIntyre and McKitrick do to put these climatologists on the defensive? To understand the significance of their work, we have to delve into global warming theory a bit. The disaster scenarios that alarmists predict can not be proven in real time. These scenarios are based on computer models that are horrendously complex and, even if modeling results match up with actual data during this year or that, it still proves nothing in terms of long-term trends.

The only way to prove that the models are accurate is to demonstrate that recent climatic trends are unprecedented. To do that, there are two choices: 1) compare recent climatic trends to actual temperature records, or 2) compare them to historic temperature records inferred using other, secondary sources like ice cores and tree rings, generically known as proxy data. The problem with first approach is that humans have only been recording temperatures across the globe for about the last century and a half, and many of those records are dubious. In terms of natural climatic fluctuations, this is much too short a period of time to conclude anything. So we’re left with proxy data and, when the IPCC issued its first report back in 1990, the committee was left with an embarrassing problem: the proxy data showed that the earth’s recent warming trend isn’t all that unusual. Specifically, proxy data showed the Medieval Warm Period, which ran from about 1000 to 1400 A.D., was much warmer than it is today.

Mann, Bradley and others then set to work on dissembling that set of proxy data, creating a new historical temperature record that “disappeared” the Medieval Warm Period and made it appear that planetary temperatures have been relatively stable over the last 2,000 years until they suddenly took off precipitously starting about 1970. The hockey stick graph was born.

Making the Medieval Warm Period disappear was an exercise in statistical manipulation, choosing “valid” data, eliminating “bad” data and using mathematical techniques to fill in the gaps. It’s complicated work, but precisely the sort of analysis that McIntyre and McKitrick are used to performing. For example, as a mining engineer McIntyre would have to study sets of core samples in an attempt to draw sound conclusions about the likely location and extent of mineral deposits. McIntyre and McKitrick set about closely examining how Mann, Bradley et al. had done their work. The pair reached the conclusion that, by manipulating the data in order to reach a foregone conclusion, alarmist scientists had incorrectly made the Medieval Warm Period go away. They published their work in 2003 in Energy and Environment and followed that up with a second paper in 2005, published in Geophysical Research Letters. Those two papers were instrumental in exposing the cracks in the shaky foundation upon which global warming alarmism has rested. McIntyre and McKitrick, working on their own, did what good scientists are supposed to do: they challenged conventional wisdom and they found it wanting. Al Gore received an Oscar and Noble Peace Prize. Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick haven’t been given any awards, outside of the thanks from an increasingly grateful public. Both of them, in this scientist’s opinion, deserve a medal.

Today, while McKitrick mostly remains in the background, McIntyre remains on the front lines of skepticism, appearing in documentaries and on the news. The release of the CRU e-mail and data files last November vindicated much of what the pair had said and also proved a boon for McIntyre’s website: climateaudit.org. A few days after the CRU story broke, traffic at climateaudit exploded to the point that McIntyre had to move the site to a new host in order to accommodate all of the traffic. Perhaps it was inevitable that two Canadians would be so instrumental in exposing the flaws inherent to alarmist arguments. Like many residents of the Great White North, surely McIntyre and McKitrick would welcome warmer temperatures, but they need only look out of their windows half of the year to know that such relief is not forthcoming.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-19-10, 10:22 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,007
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Warming had absolutely nothing to do with record low sea ice in 2007.

Actually we already knew that. Way back then NASA said unusual winds blew ice further south than normal where it did what northerly ice does when it gets far enough south - it melts. Of course, after the initial NASA press release which the MSM ignored, it was always blamed on global warming by the alarmosphere. Now another factor has been identified by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL).


Missing 'Ice Arches' Contributed to 2007 Arctic Ice Loss

Large, thick floes of ice can be seen breaking off. Large, thick floes of ice can be seen breaking off of the Arctic sea ice cover before entering the Nares Strait in this Dec. 23, 2007 radar image from the European Space Agency's Envisat satellite
Credit: European Space Agency

Animated time lapse

February 18, 2010

PASADENA, Calif. - In 2007, the Arctic lost a massive amount of thick, multiyear sea ice, contributing to that year's record-low extent of Arctic sea ice. A new NASA-led study has found that the record loss that year was due in part to the absence of "ice arches," naturally-forming, curved ice structures that span the openings between two land points. These arches block sea ice from being pushed by winds or currents through narrow passages and out of the Arctic basin.

Beginning each fall, sea ice spreads across the surface of the Arctic Ocean until it becomes confined by surrounding continents. Only a few passages -- including the Fram Strait and Nares Strait -- allow sea ice to escape.

"There are a couple of ways to lose Arctic ice: when it flows out and when it melts," said lead study researcher Ron Kwok of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. "We are trying to quantify how much we're losing by outflow versus melt."

Kwok and colleagues found that ice arches were missing in 2007 from the Nares Strait, a relatively narrow 30- to 40-kilometer-wide (19- to 25-mile-wide) passage west of Greenland. Without the arches, ice exited freely from the Arctic. The Fram Strait, east of Greenland, is about 400 kilometers (249 miles) wide and is the passage through which most sea ice usually exits the Arctic.

Despite Nares' narrow width, the team reports that in 2007, ice loss through Nares equaled more than 10 percent of the amount emptied on average each year through the wider Fram Strait.

"Until recently, we didn't think the small straits were important for ice loss," Kwok said. The findings were published this month in Geophysical Research Letters.

"One of our most important goals is developing predictive models of Arctic sea ice cover," said Tom Wagner, cryosphere program manager at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "Such models are important not only to understanding changes in the Arctic, but also changes in global and North American climate. Figuring out how ice is lost through the Fram and Nares straits is critical to developing those models."

To find out more about the ice motion in Nares Strait, the scientists examined a 13-year record of high-resolution radar images from the Canadian RADARSAT and European Envisat satellites. They found that 2007 was a unique year – the only one on record when arches failed to form, allowing ice to flow unobstructed through winter and spring.

The arches usually form at southern and northern points within Nares Strait when big blocks of sea ice try to flow through the strait's restricted confines, become stuck and are compressed by other ice. This grinds the flow of sea ice to a halt.

"We don't completely understand the conditions conducive to the formation of these arches," Kwok said. "We do know that they are temperature-dependent because they only form in winter. So there's concern that if climate warms, the arches could stop forming."

To quantify the impact of ice arches on Arctic Ocean ice cover, the team tracked ice motion evident in the 13-year span of satellite radar images. They calculated the area of ice passing through an imaginary line, or "gate," at the entrance to Nares Strait. Then they incorporated ice thickness data from NASA's ICESat to estimate the volume lost through Nares.

They found that in 2007, Nares Strait drained the Arctic Ocean of 88,060 square kilometers (34,000 square miles) of sea ice, or a volume of 60 cubic miles. The amount was more than twice the average amount lost through Nares each year between 1997 and 2009.

The ice lost through Nares Strait was some of the thickest and oldest in the Arctic Ocean.

"If indeed these arches are less likely to form in the future, we have to account for the annual ice loss through this narrow passage. Potentially, this could lead to an even more rapid decline in the summer ice extent of the Arctic Ocean," Kwok said.
Of course they have to try and turn it around and hint that the lack of arches itself (happening only one time since monitoring began in 1997) could have been caused by global warming (although they have no idea if that's the case) to keep the storyline alive.

So right now, there is abundant evidence that the 2007 event was the result of a couple of unusual events that there is no reason to believe will repeat at any time soon. And even if it does happen again there is no evidence global warming (which has been minimal, if at all in recent years) has much, if anything to do with it. But expect the myth to persist even if ice continues to grow as it did in 2008 and 2009.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-20-10, 09:58 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,007
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Followup to Posts #22 and #42: Part 3 (of 4) of Chris Horner's NASA Climategate series


Climategate 2.0 — The NASA Files: U.S. Climate Science as Corrupt as CRU (PJM Exclusive — Part Three)

When they show cooling, NASA dismisses temperature anomalies much larger than those hailed as ominous.
February 19, 2010
by Christopher Horner

(On December 31, 2009, NASA finally provided the Competitive Enterprise Institute with the documents I requested from them with an FOIA in August 2007. My request asked NASA to release their internal discussions regarding a series of errors in their claims of warming U.S. temperatures caught by Steve McIntyre. NASA had stonewalled my request for more than two years.)

A principal theme of these NASA emails — and one that is illuminating in its exposition of advocacy and hypocrisy at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) — is the insistence that what turned out to be a false warming of 0.15 degrees in the U.S. record is meaningless, even if covering merely seven years (2000-2006, as opposed to a decadal or longer trend).

In an August 7, 2007, email from GISS’ Dr. Reto Ruedy to GISS director Dr. James Hansen, Ruedy says the correction had “little impact” on the U.S. record. In an email to New York Times environmental reporter Andrew Revkin on August 9, 2007, Hansen characterizes the error as having been “well within the uncertainty bar we give” for the U.S. and “entirely negligible” globally. In an email to Dr. Donald E. Anderson — program manager, Earth Science Enterprise, NASA Headquarters — on August 14, 2007, Hansen used the terms “minor,” “negligible,” and “less than the uncertainty” to describe the previously touted warming which was now shown to be an error.

This did not explain why the warming merited all of the hype in the preceding seven years.

Further, a week later Hansen privately wrote to Revkin that “[we] can add an uncertainty” to actually do what Hansen had been spinning to Revkin that they already do:
Indeed we already include a bar at several points on our temperature curve, but we note that it only includes the largest source of uncertainty in the temperature change (incomplete spatial coverage).
To add some further, curious texture to Hansen’s remarkably flexible view of what magnitude of warming is meaningful, note how in an August 14, 2007, email to GISS’ Makiko Sato and Ruedy, Hansen describes a claimed, much smaller warming between 1934 over 1998 of 0.02 degrees Celsius — which Hansen’s own 2001 paper had shown to be 0.5 degrees Celsius, a full half degree — as being “slightly warmer.” It is fair to assume from the record of NASA GISS that, because 1934 is an older year, the disparity must be downplayed. But it is also rather troubling that Hansen had forgotten his own work, serially rejecting the notion that he ever said 1934 was warmer than 1998, and his newer, operative claim that the difference is actually only 0.02 degrees Celsius, “much less than the accuracy” of their instruments. Therefore, he says: “Of course, scientifically, this is all nonsense.”

There is indeed nonsense in the various double standards that the emails reveal about NASA GISS, over how much and what kind of anomalies (warm or cool) are meaningful. Though not as he suggests.
Hansen also dismisses what had previously been the substantial relative warmth of 1934 over 1998 in the rankings of temperatures in an email to Bloomberg journalist Demian McLean on August 14, 2007:
In our 2001 paper we found 1934 slightly warmer, by an insignificant hair over, 1998.
But in fact that paper declared 1934 to be a whopping half a degree warmer than 1998. This couldn’t, and didn’t, last.

In an August 9, 2007, email from Ruedy to Hansen, Ruedy suggests an alternative method of bringing their data in line — internally, at least — which would cool the claimed twentieth century warming of under a degree by nearly one-third of that (0.3C). This suggestion was repeated by Ruedy the same day in an email to Gavin Schmidt. Both missives revealed NASA’s new preferred tactic of not emphasizing the impact of U.S. temperatures in favor of emphasizing global temperatures, in order to diminish the importance of their U.S. temperature problem. This reveals a bias towards advocacy and activism as opposed to objective science, a highly questionable practice for a taxpayer-funded science office staffed with career employees.

Hansen emailed Times reporter Revkin on August 9, 2007:
[In fact] it is unclear why anyone would try to make something out of [the differences], perhaps not a light on upstairs?
This perspective ignores how Hansen’s office had for years aggressively made quite a lot out of such differences, smaller ones, in fact. Now, when caught overstating the warming, changing and even losing historical data, he claims the differences are immaterial — and only someone not possessing full mental faculties would try to do such a thing as Hansen’s office had long done, with much smaller anomalies. Because those earlier, smaller anomalies were in support of the desired warming and related agenda that requires there to be warming.

Ruedy also spun for Revkin, trying to diminishing the magnitude of Hansen’s error:
To be remarkable, an observed change has to be a multiple of that standard deviation; compared to that, the errors caused by “bad” stations, urban heat island effect, etc., are of little importance.
Here we see how one can learn, and even grow, on the job.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-20-10, 10:04 AM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,007
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

And here is Part 4:


Climategate 2.0 — The NASA Files: U.S. Climate Science as Corrupt as CRU (PJM Exclusive — Part Four)

Who pitches in to cover for NASA's FOIA release? Al Gore's cable TV station.
February 20, 2010
by Christopher Horner

(On December 31, 2009, NASA finally provided the Competitive Enterprise Institute with the documents I requested from them with an FOIA in August 2007. My request asked NASA to release their internal discussions regarding a series of errors in their claims of warming U.S. temperatures caught by Steve McIntyre. NASA had stonewalled my request for more than two years.)

In August 2007, I submitted two Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to NASA and its Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), headed by long-time Gore advisor James Hansen and his right-hand man Gavin Schmidt (co-founder of the climate alarmist website RealClimate.org).

I did this because Canadian businessman Steve McIntyre — a man with professional experience investigating suspect statistical claims in the mining industry and elsewhere, including his exposure of the now-infamous “Hockey Stick” — noticed something unusual with NASA’s claims of an ever-warming first decade of this century. NASA appeared to have inflated its U.S.temperatures beginning in the year 2000. My FOIA request asked NASA about their internal discussions regarding whether and how to correct the temperature error caught by McIntyre.

NASA stonewalled my request for more than two years, until Climategate prompted me to offer notice of intent to sue if NASA did not comply immediately. On New Year’s Eve, NASA finally provided CEI with the documents I requested in August 2007.

When I was almost finished reviewing the FOIA documents, I noticed that Al Gore’s Current news network was reporting that NASA had simultaneously published the documents. No press release had been issued — which NASA has also eschewed when correcting their cooked temperatures (after being caught). Yet in general, not issuing a press release on anything global warming-related is quite unlike NASA.

It was a tactic. What better way to take the sting out of revelations you hid for two years than to simply publish them at the same time — in non-searchable form, naturally — without a press release? And then have your allies dismiss the explosive data? “That’s old news … move on already!”

Indeed, for this and for reasons more specific to the “green” media, no one has yet written a story on the documents which achieved so much attention (and prompted so much green fury) less than a month prior. But there is no way to credibly claim “old news!” to avoid a discussion of these revelations — the emails include noteworthy admissions explaining NASA’s reticence to let the public see what the public is paying for.

Our litigation, which we plan to file when NASA, as we expect given their record of behavior, deny our appeal in this case, will expose more of these practices, in detail.

The Current “defense”

Al Gore’s web network ran a rather silly blog post to minimize the NASA release, titled: “It’s ClimateGate 2.0 ( … Not)”. The post invites further scrutiny — now unfolding through the legal process — by anxiously stating:
Clearly there was no metaphorical “smoking gun” in the emails, because the CEI didn’t crow about a likely Climategate 2.0 following the emails’ release.
Deliberate procession is alien to the global warming alarmist. We’ve thoroughly examined the emails, and we’re crowing now.

The Current post takes pains to portray Canadian businessman Steve McIntyre as the bad guy, rather than the deliberate professional he has been in uncovering inappropriate behavior. Revealingly, the Current TV author tips his hat to inspiration provided by Howard University’s Joshua Halpern (who hides as the source of his often vitriolic missives behind the name “EliRabbett”). The author of the Current post selects innocent passages from the NASA emails and presents them as somehow being representative proof that the hundreds of pages are benign. And this does not appear to be because he simply failed to encounter the damning information — rather, he clearly implies that he has read all of the emails.

Yet the Current TV author says something that is, at least in part, the truth:
Put simply, the emails show the GISS scientists acting professionally and in an open and transparent manner with reporters and McIntyre himself.
Yes, when dealing with McIntyre directly they were professional — though this followed internal, often nasty deliberations revealing a desire to deflect his legitimate inquiries. When dealing with the media they were quite unprofessional, showing either evasiveness (dodging very specific questions from reporters from New York to Brazil) or a too-cozy relationship with reporters friendly to their cause (as noted here).

Regarding any implication that these emails reveal these scientists acting professionally outside of their direct dealings with McIntyre, I see no need to further rebut this point by drawing additional attention to the alarmists’ preferred approach of focusing on ad hominem attacks and name-calling, of which there is plenty in the revealed pages. Because that is not the primary story the emails expose, though directing attention to such behavior was the preferred tactic to distract from Climategate, the original.

But why change the subject to the prurient when the subject itself is so fascinating?

Check with PJM in coming weeks for our update and specifics when we announce the litigation against NASA and one other taxpayer-funded climate office refusing the taxpayer access to that for which the taxpayer paid 100%. We will reveal numerous tactics which NASA and others used to hide public information from the public, protecting their highly lucrative franchise of global warming alarmism.

Last edited by movielib; 02-20-10 at 10:40 AM.
movielib is offline  
Old 02-20-10, 01:22 PM
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
B5Erik's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Southern California
Posts: 9,181
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

The temperature data itself gathered over the last 30 years may be significantly flawed...

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3P0NREwyS40&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3P0NREwyS40&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>
<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lCLrxiJhu_U&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lCLrxiJhu_U&hl=en_US&fs=1&color1=0x2b405b&color2=0x6b8ab6" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

While John & Ken are known to be rather loud and not too subtle, they tend to get their facts right much more often than not. After the e-mail scandal they ratcheted up their investigation into the global warming controversy, and have had on several experts as guests who have provided information that the mainstream media has ignored. Like the info provided in the interview above.

In California, especially, this is a big issue with the Global Warming Solutions Act that was passed 4 years ago that is already damaging the state's economy. Professors at Cal State Sacramento did a study and have projected over 1 MILLION job losses due to the implementation of this law. It's pretty scary stuff. The state is in a complete financial and economic meltdown, but the proponents of this law don't care - they don't want this slowed down at all, regardless of the costs to the economy of California (or all the lives affected by it).
B5Erik is offline  
Old 02-20-10, 06:50 PM
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,007
Re: The One & Only Global Warming Thread, Part 9 (-gates unlimited edition)

Eight Dem senators tell EPA to back off.


Coal-state Dems hit EPA on climate
By Juliet Eilperin
February 19, 2010

Sen. John D. Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) and several other coal-state Democrats sent a bluntly worded letter to Environment Protection Agency administrator Lisa P. Jackson Friday night challenging the agency's authority to regulate greenhouse gases from power plants and other industrial sources.

The Rockefeller letter--which was also signed by Democratic senators Mark Begich (Alaska), Robert C. Byrd (W.Va.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Pat Casey (Pa.), Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Carl Levin (Mich.), and Max Baucus (Mont.)--poses a serious challenge for the Obama administration. While the administration is still pushing for Congress to pass a climate bill this year, it has not ruled out controlling greenhouse gases through regulation.

In their letter, the Democratic senators do not object to the EPA regulating greenhouse gas emissions from cars and light-trucks, but they do question the agency's power to do anything else under the Clean Air Act. The letter asks Jackson clarify the EPA's timetable and suspend any regulations for coal-fired utilities and other industrial facilities until Congress acts on climate and energy legislation.

"We remain concerned about the possible impacts on American workers and businesses in a number of industrial sectors, along with the farmers, miners, and small business owners who could be affected as your agency moves beyond automobile emissions standards to implement regulations to curtail GHG pollution from stationary sources," reads the letter. "The President and you have been explicit in calling on Congress to pass comprehensive legislation that would enhance our nation's energy and climate security. We strongly believe this is ultimately Congress' responsibility, and if done properly, will create jobs, spur new clean energy industries, and greatly advance the goal of U.S. energy independence. If done improperly, these opportunities could be lost."

Rockefeller announced Friday he is drafting legislation that would block the EPA from moving ahead, but he'll have to wait in line--Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) has already introduced a resolution that would do just that. Murkowski and the U..S. Chamber of Commerce will be discussing that initiative in a conference call scheduled for Thursday.
The letter:


It looks to me like they could get a majority to pass such a bill. But even if they could also pass it in the House, Obama could veto it and there's no way they could override it.

But how long before there is an open revolt in Congress? Would the EPA keep going with such opposition? And then there are also sixteen (and counting?) lawsuits to stop the EPA.
movielib is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.