Sunday, May 03, 2009

Review of evidence that reefs formed during the last interglacial period suggest that 3 m jumps in sea level in a few decades could be expected today

By Don J., Easterbrook, Professor of Geology, Western Washington Univ., Bellingham, WA 98225, pointing to absurdities in a Warmist panic paper

Blanchon et al. (Nature, 2009) contend that 3 m differences in the elevation of two former Yucatan reefs occurred in a few decades and that by analogy, similar 3m jumps of sea level in a few decades could occur today. However, the evidence they provide fails far short of demonstrating such events.

230Th dating of the upper (6m) reef and lower (3m) reef indicate that the two reefs formed during the last interglacial period about ~120,000 years ago. The authors claim that “these reliable 230Th ages confirm that both reef tracts are contemporaneous.” The authors claim an accuracy of ± 2,000 yrs.for the dates (0.001%), although admitting “that the δ234U(T) criterion alone is insufficient to identify all corals affected by open-system diagenesis and that >50% of 230Th ages with reliable isotope values can have discordant 231Pa age.”

Although the authors claim that the 230Th dates show that the two reefs are contemporaneous, the 230Th dates cannot possibly demonstrate that. In fact, what is most significant about the dates is just the opposite―the dates show that the reefs are not within a few decades of one another in age. The 230Th dates of the lower reef range in age from ~139,000 yrs. to ~107,000 yrs. but even using only dates considered “strictly reliable” (because their δ234U(T) values are similar to modern corals), dates from the lower reef vary from 134,000 to 139,000 yrs, whereas dates from the upper reef range in age from 117,000 to 128,000 yrs. The difference in age between the youngest date from the lower reef (134,000 yrs.) and the oldest date from the younger reef (128,000 yrs.) is 5,000 yrs., which precludes the possibility of contemporaniety of the two reefs.

In the same stratigraphic section, a coral date of 119,600 yrs. lies stratigraphically above coral dated at 117,700 yrs. In addition, corals at the same elevation in the upper reef were dated at 117,700 yrs. and 125,400 yrs. Instead of proving that the two reefs are contemporaneous, the 230Th dates show that two reefs are not contemporaneous.

Blanchon et al. contend that “differences in biofacies and elevation confirm that the two reefs are contemporaneous and had a back-stepping pattern of development.” However, their stratigraphic sections do not support this claim. The two reefs do not appear in the same cross–section but rather in sections separated by a considerable distance, making correlations highly tenuous. The cross–section of the upper reef shows that the base of the upper reef lies at the same elevation as the top of the lower reef, which they contend was killed by a 3m sea level rise. If a 3m rise in sea level killed the lower reef, how could the upper reef begin growing at the same level? That makes no sense at all. Also, why would a sea level rise of 3m kill the lower reef? Coral reefs live today at greater water depths than that.

The only logical conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence presented is:

1. As shown by the 230Th dates, the lower reef is about 5,000 years older than the upper reef, not contemporaneous.

2. The stratigraphic sections do not support the contention that the two reefs are within a few decades of one another in age.

3. No evidence is presented to show that a 3m sea level rise killed the lower reef while coral at the base of the upper reef began to grow at the same level.

4. No evidence is presented to demonstrate sudden melting of polar ice.

5. The last interglacial period has been dated from ~127,000 yrs. to ~100,000 yrs., so the 120,000 yr. age of the reefs was not “at the close of the last interglacial” but rather in the early part of the interglacial.

6. The contention that the two reefs provide evidence of a sudden, 3m jump in sea level over a few decades and that such a jump is possible today is not demonstrated in the paper.

Paper received via email. Enquiries to the author at

A letter from a weather forecaster to the responsible Minister in the UK government

To HM Environment Secretary Hilary Benn MP

Re: Long Range Flood Forecasts to assist Flood Warnings for the UK

Congratulations on your continuing work as Her Majesty's Environment Minister.

I am writing from WeatherAction long range weather and climate forecasters to offer practical help to your new Flood Forecast Centre. Our long range forecasts would decisively improve flood warnings and help enable advanced measures to be put in place which will reduce potential disruption and loss of life caused by floods in the UK.

In the recent announcement of the new Flood Centre which arose from recommendations in the Pitt Review into the devastating summer flood of 2007 you said "[It] will help provide the best possible information and support to existing flood warnings and weather warning services".

This statement must mean that you should use the best available long range forecasts to help the public and it follows that you must move beyond that which has been exclusively relied on hitherto and that our forecasts are required. However despite the fact that we can now supply valuable detailed forecasts about flood and other extreme weather risk in the coming months and years we have not as yet been requested for such. As you may know WeatherAction's long range forecasts successfully predicted - in detail - from many months ahead - the serious flood events in both 2007 and 2008 as well as the very costly snow and ice events of winter 08/09. On the other hand the Met Office long range forecasts for summer 08, summer 09 and winter 08-09 were dismal failures and disarmed you, the emergency services and the public at great human and financial cost. Please see attachments and links below for letters to Gordon Brown and various MPs on these matters (1).

Of course I appreciate that you may be concerned that our rigorous scientific analysis has led us to support something other than the 'Climate Change policy' of HM Government. Contrary to the ideology which underlies that policy we fully support the peer-reviewed scientific evidence - using official data going back thousands and even millions of years - that neither CO2 in general nor mankind's CO2 in particular have been, are, or ever will be net drivers of world temperatures or climate change. And on this we note that the IPCC predictions for ongoing warming this century have all failed while all the contrary forecasts of WeatherAction and others for continuing cooling have been confirmed.

You may have been led to believe that the difference between the 'Climate Realist view' which WeatherAction supports and the IPCC ideology is just about differing peer-reviewed 'opinions' over the interpretation of data. This is not so. The peer-reviewed interpretations of the extensive available data all refute the CO2/man-made view. The IPCC on the other hand has no peer-reviewed data evidence which supports their view. They have films produced by politicians and numerous peer-reviewed papers on computer models, theories and opinions that say many things which they often quote, but none which show that their models, theories and opinions have passed the fundamental scientific tests of consistency with the extensive past data or of making confirmed predictions for world temperature change. On this it is notable that the UN/IPCC have still failed to respond to requests for such evidence from an international group of well-qualified scientists including three IPCC expert Reviewers - see (2).

Whatever your view, we must be very clear, that you do not have to agree with anything we have concluded about 'Global Warming' or 'Climate Change' to use our forecasts. For the good of the economy and safety of the public I beg you, in this the year of the 400th anniversary of Galileo sighting mountains on the Moon, to not repeat the errors of those times; and to put science before ideology, public safety before politics and as the Prime Minister has often said use all the best knowledge available for the greatest good.

Above received by email. Enquiries to Piers Corbyn on +44(0)7985734471 or Site here

A farmer’s view on carbon credits

I have changed my mind about participating in the carbon credit program. And have resolved to give the money I received to St Jude’s Children’s Hospital. Here is why.

Recently I sat in the fire hall with a few dozen farmers. We had been invited to hear how we can get paid for carbon credits. The speaker explained how their satellites can measure the carbon in our land individually and how much money we could get. Then asked for questions. I asked “what is the source of this money”?

The presenter said it comes from big companies that pollute. I asked “where do they get this money”? He had no answer.

So I answered for him, asking, “won’t it come from everyone who pays their power bill”? He then agreed and said “that could be”.

I then said isn’t this about the theory of man made global warming? he said “we are not going to talk about that”. Here they are on the prairie soliciting land for carbon credits tempting us with free money.

I believe that agreeing to take their money means you agree with taxing cattle gas also, because methane is a greenhouse gas 20 times more powerful than carbon. I believe taking this money without considering its source makes us no better than the bankers who lent money to people, knowing they could not pay it back. Collecting their fees then selling the bad loans in bundles to someone else. They did not care where the money came from either.

Let’s be clear. Carbon is not a new commodity! No new wealth is being created here! Is this the way we want to make a living? Let me ask you, what if their satellites determine that your land has lost carbon? You will get a bill, not a check, right? If you make a tillage pass you will get a bill for emitting carbon, is this not correct?

It is also a fact that this income will, in short order, get built into your land cost. You will keep very little and be left with the burden of another bureaucratic program.

Let’s be honest, we feel compelled to take this money because of the need to be competitive, however we also need to hold true to our values and lead by example that means placing our principals ahead of money.

No good citizen is opposed to using the earth’s resources wisely, however, wisdom means a person who has both intelligence and humility. In my view many of the proponents of man made global warming have the first and lack the second. We are able to exercise our freedom in this country because we have abundant, reliable and affordable power. It is ironic that we sat in front of the flag in that fire hall and considered trading our liberty for money.

I’ll leave you with a quote from Roy Disney: “Decision making becomes easier when your values are clear to you”


NYT and Reporter Revkin Issue 'Correction' – Admit 'Error' in Front Page Global Warming Article Touted By Gore!

The New York Times has issued a “climate correction” for an “error” in an April 23, 2009 high profile front page global warming article that was touted by former Vice President Al Gore during his Congressional testimony as proof that industry was clouding the science of climate change.

But just little more than a week after publishing the front page article, The New York Times and reporter Andrew Revkin have now admitted the article “erred” on key points. Revkin wrote about the now defunct Global Climate Coalition and documents that suggest the group had scientists on board in the 1990's who claimed “the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.” Revkin's article came under immediate fire from scientists and others who called into question the central claims and the accuracy of the story.

In a May 2, 2009 post titled “A Climate Correction”, Revkin and the New York Times wrote:
“The article cited a 'backgrounder' that laid out the coalition's public stance, published in the early 1990s and distributed widely to lawmakers and journalists. However, the article failed to note a later version of the backgrounder that included language that conformed to the scientific advisory committee's conclusion. The amended version, which was brought to the attention of The Times by a reader, acknowledged the consensus that greenhouse gases could contribute to warming. What scientists disagreed about, it said, was 'the rate and magnitude of the 'enhanced greenhouse effect' (warming) that will result.'"

The New York Times also posted an “Editors' Note” on May 2 with the same correction.

In addition, the original Times article now has a May 2 “Editors' Note” , “describing an error in the news story.”

Australian Paleoclimate researcher Dr. Robert M. “Bob” Carter was the first to dismiss the NYT's Revkin article as “strange, silly even.”
Carter wrote to Climate Depot on April 23, 2009:
Revkin's latest article in the New York Times makes for strange reading; silly, even. For though the technical experts may have been advising (for some strange, doubtless self-interested reason) this: “even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted”, I'll eat my hat if anyone could show that was actually the case at any time since 1990. My guess is that Revkin -- like all other promulgators of AGW (anthropogenic global warming) hysteria throughout the media and scientific communities -- is starting to really feel the weight of the evidence that shows all too clearly that dangerous AGW is a myth, and is simply thrashing around in any and every direction to try to find a way of continuing to obfuscate the issue until December.

UK's Lord Christopher Monckton was even more outraged and accused the New York Times and Revkin of “deliberate misrepresentation” in climate article and of writing a “mendacious article.” Monckton wrote the following to New York Times Public Editor and Readers' Representative Clark Hoyt, Esq., on April 28, 2009:
“The New York Times guidelines for staff writers on 'Journalistic Ethics' begin by stating the principles that all journalists should respect: impartiality and neutrality; integrity; and avoidance of conflicts of interest. Andrew Revkin's front-page article on Friday, 24 April, 2009, falsely alleging that a coalition of energy corporations had for many years acted like tobacco corporations, misrepresenting advice from its own scientists about the supposed threat of "global warming", offends grievously against all of these principles.”


NYT obtains green strategy memo: Stop use of term 'global warming' - It 'turns people off - fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals'‏

'Don't confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like cap and cash back or pollution reduction refund'. Seeking to Save the Planet, With a Thesaurus

The problem with global warming, some environmentalists believe, is “global warming.” The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington.

Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund.”

EcoAmerica has been conducting research for the last several years to find new ways to frame environmental issues and so build public support for climate change legislation and other initiatives. A summary of the group’s latest findings and recommendations was accidentally sent by e-mail to a number of news organizations by someone who sat in this week on a briefing intended for government officials and environmental leaders.

Asked about the summary, ecoAmerica’s president and founder, Robert M. Perkowitz, requested that it not be reported until the formal release of the firm’s full paper later this month, but acknowledged that its wide distribution now made compliance with his request unlikely. The research directly parallels marketing studies conducted by oil companies, utilities and coal mining concerns that are trying to “green” their images with consumers and sway public policy.

Environmental issues consistently rate near the bottom of public worry, according to many public opinion polls. A Pew Research Center poll released in January found global warming last among 20 voter concerns; it trailed issues like addressing moral decline and decreasing the influence of lobbyists. “We know why it’s lowest,” said Mr. Perkowitz, a marketer of outdoor clothing and home furnishings before he started ecoAmerica, whose activities are financed by corporations, foundations and individuals. “When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument. When you say ‘global warming,’ a certain group of Americans think that’s a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues.”

The answer, Mr. Perkowitz said in his presentation at the briefing, is to reframe the issue using different language. “Energy efficiency” makes people think of shivering in the dark. Instead, it is more effective to speak of “saving money for a more prosperous future.” In fact, the group’s surveys and focus groups found, it is time to drop the term “the environment” and talk about “the air we breathe, the water our children drink.”

“Another key finding: remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology,” said the e-mail account of the group’s study. Mr. Perkowitz and allies in the environmental movement have been briefing officials in Congress and the administration in the hope of using the findings to change the terms of the debate now under way in Washington.

Opponents of legislation to combat global warming are engaged in a similar effort. Trying to head off a cap-and-trade system, in which government would cap the amount of heat-trapping emissions allowed and let industry trade permits to emit those gases, they are coaching Republicans to refer to any such system as a giant tax that would kill jobs. Coal companies are taking out full-page advertisements promising “clean, green coal.” The natural gas industry refers to its product as “clean fuel green fuel.” Oil companies advertise their investments in alternative energy.

Robert J. Brulle of Drexel University, an expert on environmental communications, said ecoAmerica’s campaign was a mirror image of what industry and political conservatives were doing. “The form is the same; the message is just flipped,” he said. “You want to sell toothpaste, we’ll sell it. You want to sell global warming, we’ll sell that. It’s the use of advertising techniques to manipulate public opinion.” He said the approach was cynical and, worse, ineffective. “The right uses it, the left uses it, but it doesn’t engage people in a face-to-face manner,” he said, “and that’s the only way to achieve real, lasting social change.”

Frank Luntz, a Republican communications consultant, prepared a strikingly similar memorandum in 2002, telling his clients that they were losing the environmental debate and advising them to adjust their language. He suggested referring to themselves as “conservationists” rather than “environmentalists,” and emphasizing “common sense” over scientific argument. And, Mr. Luntz and Mr. Perkowitz agree, “climate change” is an easier sell than “global warming.”


Some Green/Left hate speech

The guy below actually admits that he is a hater and says that others of his ilk are too! The writer is David Roberts who is described as a "staff writer" for Grist, a prominent Warmist blog.

Newt Gingrich is a douchebag and everyone hates him. Few figures in American politics (beyond Dick Cheney) are as discredited and unpopular as the bilious windbag Newt, whose renewed prominence as an “intellectual” on the right side of the aisle is the single best piece of evidence of irrevocable conservative decline. As Miles Grant reminded us last year:
If there’s anyone who proves time may not necessarily heal all wounds, it’s Newt. Nearly a decade after he resigned from the House with an approval rating of just 28 percent, a 2007 poll showed remarkable 54 percent of Americans still held an unfavorable opinion of Gingrich. Cheney was only slightly less popular, rated unfavorably by 57 percent of those polled.

It’s true that he blatantly contradicted himself in his Congressional testimony last week. It’s true that his “solution” to climate change is a transparently industry-beholden stew of corporate welfare. It’s true that he lies like he breathes. But do progressives have to panic and hold strategy meetings every time he burps up more gas?

No. Everybody hates the guy. He’s a spokesdouche you wouldn’t wish on your worst enemy.

Point number two:

Congressional Republicans are douchebags and everyone hates them. You might think from their program of uncompromising, unreasoning obstruction that they have some secret master plan to regain seats in Congress (which, as you might have noticed, they keep losing), but as Matt Yglesias points out, it’s not so. Even National Republican Senatorial Committee chair John Cornyn (TX) admits that it’s all but a fait accompli that Democrats will reach 60 votes in the Senate in 2010.

That’s because everyone likes Obama, and everyone hates Republicans. As Chris Bowers has documented in an ongoing series, they are less popular among the American public than Obama, Congressional Dems, marijuana legalization, Venezuela, China, and probably this new pig flu, though no one’s polled that yet. They screwed up the country, they don’t have credible solutions to any of its problems, and the only people who listen to their increasingly loopy rhetoric are part of the 30% remnant.

Point number three:

Marc Morano is a douchebag and most people don’t even give enough of a crap about him to hate him. Once James Inhofe’s Senate butt boy, which gave him a modicum of relevance and credibility, Morano is now the proprietor of an obscure Drudge-wannabe climate denial site. He is useful to the 30% and their Congressional representatives; he supplies their climate-related talking points. But those talking points are crazy, and everyone hates the people repeating them.

Morano scammed his way into an NYT profile, but only as a flat-earth clown. The only way he gets any ongoing press coverage outside the 30% is by baiting progressive bloggers and journalists, jumping into their comment sections and sending them email every time they so much as mention his name.

But the public at large, outside the ideological tribe? They don’t know. They don’t care. And if they knew, they’d hate him too, like other mouth-breathers preaching conspiracy theories.

The same can be said of the whole constellation of blogs and TV shows made by and for the 30%. There is simply no need to devote much attention to refuting the lies that pour forth from this revanchist remnant. Concern over climate change and support for action to address it is the mainstream position in America. Those writing and speaking in the mainstream ought to address themselves to the mainstream, helping to address its questions and concerns about the transition away from fossil fuels. (And there are plenty.)

Some time in the next hour, somebody will say something stupid on cable TV. Somebody will write an idiot op-ed. Somebody will be wrong on the internet. Let. It. Go.

Focus on wavering Dems and their constituents and their constituents’ jobs. Focus on how energy/climate legislation will make the country cleaner, healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous. The Newts can’t stop anybody, they can only distract and sap energy from those doing the work.

They are not Boogie men. They are douchebags, and everyone hates them.

SOURCE (See the original for links)

Quite comical in its febrile and juvenile rage! I'd guess the author's age as being about 13 -- JR


For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.


1 comment:

Joseph said...

David Roberts rhetoric reminds me of the political debate in "The Marching Morons."