Wednesday, April 14, 2010
A crazy New Zealander
Below is about an aging New Zealand climate scientist, Jim Salinger, who is still a Warmist despite all the recent new data -- which he appears to ignore -- and despite the fact that his own data show a warming from 1945 rather than the many years later that is usually alleged. So much of what he says is demonstrably wrong or unfounded that it would be pointless to rebut it so I simply follow the report below with an extended comment from Dr. Vincent Gray, an even more senior N.Z. climate scientist. I suspect that Salinger is not quite "all there". Or else he is a psychopathic crook
Dr Jim Salinger has been in the thick of it. Over the past few months, the veteran climate scientist – one of the most recognised men in New Zealand science – has staved off repeated criticism of his climate change work by sceptics, including Rodney Hide and the ACT Party.
His work, and that of other climate scientists, is repeatedly questioned in the debate about whether the planet is heating up, and if humanity's carbon-burning activities are responsible. Critics have even had a crack at his decades-old Victoria University PhD, which contributed statistics to Niwa's Seven Stations temperature series – research which showed an increase in temperatures around New Zealand.
"No, I'm not worried, because my research is based on facts, and I reach conclusions," the 62-year-old says confidently. "When my PhD thesis was done in 1981, I wanted to work out what was happening with New Zealand climate, particularly temperatures. In those times, we weren't considering `the greenhouse effect', and I thought `this is an interesting topic, see if New Zealand's climate has changed'," Salinger says.
"I proceeded to analyse the records, and discovered there was quite a bit of warming between 1945 and 1955 in New Zealand... the climate was warming slowly. And those facts still stand."
Salinger notes Niwa is likely to be re-checking his PhD work using modern techniques, and he's confident "they'll come up with the same conclusions".
He says that if temperature records showed a "cooling off over the last 10 years, I'd be saying so"....
Even during last year's Climategate email scandal, Salinger, a lead author on the IPCC's report's New Zealand section, was not concerned.
The seizing of University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit emails was, he argues, "an illegal activity", and critics went on to "pick out quotes out of context", selectively releasing one or two comments.
"I think it was a deliberate attempt to discredit the science and the scientists," he says. "Just think – the oil industry has huge amount of money, and a lot of these groups trace to the (political) right-wing in the US."
He quickly reels off figures: "We've now got 390 parts per million of carbon dioxide (in the atmosphere) – we used to have, before the industrial revolution, 270 parts per million – we've got double the methane ... Now, they're very effective greenhouse gases, and the theory was developed well more than 100 years ago – if you double your greenhouse gases, temperatures go up. All the evidence points to the fact land temperatures have warmed up. The globe is covered by two-thirds ocean, and now the measurements of those show a warming.
"These aren't figments of the imagination. Unless someone can find something else mysterious that might change the climate, I think it's all pretty solid. A few emails does not change scientific facts, I'm afraid."...
He did a science degree in physical geography and zoology at Otago University, then four years' work in medical research. He had a New Zealand-specific climate science piece published in the journal Nature, and was a junior lecturer at Victoria University between 1976 and 1979.
His New Zealand climate PhD was published in 1981. He "never imagined that 30 years later" it would be grabbing headlines.
After two years' work with the East Anglia University Climatic Research Unit, Salinger joined the climate research section of the New Zealand Meteorological Service in 1982, and his "public face" began to emerge. The climate researchers wereabsorbed into Niwa, and he worked for the crown research unit through until last year when his dismissal, due to a "management issue", also made the news.
Last year he was one the most high-profile people to join Greenpeace during its "Sign On" campaign, and he works in climate science as a weather commentator on Sky TV's The Country Channel. He has been president of the World Meteorological Organisation's commission for agricultural meteorology since 2006.
Comment from Vince Gray:
It is rather a convoluted story, but here goes. I might start with the paper published in New Zealand Journal of Science 1980 by Jim Hessell; the senior man at the New Zealand Met Office which dealt with New Zealand temperature data and showed they are not reliable or accurate enough to provide evidence for any upwards temperature trend.
Then Salinger arrived from The Medical Faculty in Dunedin, did a PhD at Wellington, published in 1981, which found that New Zealand temperatures, when corrected by his methods, did show warming. He summarized this in a paper in the New Zealand Journal of Science in 1982.
He subsequently became the most obvious spokesperson for New Zealand meteorology, and promoted a temperature record which showed warming, published many papers and got involved with the IPCC.
In 2008 he was sacked by NIWA (National Institute of Water and Air Research) for blatant refusal to carry out instructions. He is now a prominent Greenpeace advocate.
The actual data initially had to be purchased and were confidential but slowly became available. Two Climate Science people recently downloaded the seven station data which were supposed to provide the New Zealand temperature record, and when they put them together they showed no warming.
So NIWA were asked for an explanation. This was embarrassing because the "corrections" were only known by Salinger and he had been sacked. Since then the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition and the ACT Party in Parliament have kept up the pressure to find out how a set of data that show no warming have been converted into a set that do.
They ended up saying it was all in Salinger's Thesis. I got supplied with a copy. It has 862 pages!, much of it appendices. The actual "corrections" were exclusively concerned with site change. The two sites were compared with "neighbour" sites which had not changed. Everywhere in New Zealand was a "neigbour" of everywhere else. What we have not yet figured out is how this seemed always to provide a negative "correction" which was applied to the previous site. It all stopped anyway because no corrections at all have been applied since 1970 since when there has been minimal change, and we have been asking that there ought to be a correction when many were automated....
There were something like 100 stations shut down after 1960, but the published record involves only seven for the whole period.
There is an ongoing exchange between the NZ Climate Science Coalition and NIWA which is played out partly in Parliament and partly on their website.
Serbia volunteers to self-destruct
Notice the complaint about electricity being too cheap. Greenhouse ideology is a brain virus
Minister of Environmental Protection and Spatial Planning Oliver Dulic has stated at the gathering entitled “Climate changes and renewable energy” that Serbia has good chances of being the regional leader in the battle against climate changes and emission of damaging gasses that cause the greenhouse effect. More in the report of Aleksandra Novakovic.
Minister Dulic says that Serbia sees itself as part of the solution to the global problem in struggle against climate changes. He explains that the competent ministry and the Serbian Government have therefore passed several strategies and decrees, in order for Serbia to start solving this problems as successfully as possible.
“Our region is especially sensitive to climate changes, hence the need to consider various ways of creating the infrastructure, communication and strategies at the regional and state level, along with adaptations of the economy”, emphasized Dulic. According to him, there can be no European integrations without the obvious decrease in the greenhouse effect and activities aimed at the environmental protection in many fields – agriculture, technology, industry.
Serbia has accepted the framework adopted at the conference on climatic changes and decrease of damaging gasses emission, held in Copenhagen, so out country will do everything to meet the obligations in a timely manner. The rational electricity consumption, waste management and resolving the problem of dumps with damaging gasses might contribute to the solving of these issues, but at the same time attract investments, which would mean new working places.
Permanent representative of the UN Development Program in Serbia Daniel Infante has assessed that Serbia has low energy efficiency and in the future it must expand the utilization of renewable and alternative energy sources, because at the moment it is overly dependent of fuels such as oil and coal. He said it was necessary for Serbia to decrease the emission of gasses, thus preventing the possibility of being penalized in the future with 100 euro for every ton of waste substances, above the allowed limits.
Infante has specified that the insufficient energy efficiency in Serbia is the result of low electricity prices, which might be the lowest in the region. He added that the Serbian Government will have to aid the development of energy projects by investing in the utilization of biological fuels that do not pollute the environment.
In line with efforts in battling the climate changes, a three-day gathering is commencing in Bon, dedicated to this subject. Representatives of 175 countries will discuss these issues after the unsuccessful summit in Copenhagen. Namely, at that conference the world leaders failed to attain a new global agreement relating to the battle against climate changes, which should replace the Kyoto Protocol after 2012.
EPA puts a Mafia-style hit on sound science
In its finding that carbon dioxide emissions threaten public health and welfare – a necessary prerequisite to stepping in and regulating carbon dioxide – EPA’s scientific analysis essentially deferred to the scandal-ridden United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 report.
Yes, this is the same IPCC report in which key findings were supported solely by propaganda reports from the World Wildlife Fund, the same IPCC report in which the relative handful of lead authors included staff from Environmental Defense and Greenpeace, the same IPCC report in which these same lead authors rejected literally thousands of critical comments and suggested corrections from fellow IPCC contributors, and the same IPCC report that was shaped by the disgraced scientists is at the heart of the Climategate scandal.
Simply deferring to IPCC is hard to justify given the ongoing IPCC scandals and the calls even from IPCC participants for major reforms in the IPCC process. Worse yet, in its Response to Public Comments, EPA flippantly dismissed competing scientific findings that were compiled without the scandal and bias of IPCC. This flippant dismissal of inconvenient science demonstrates extreme bias, extreme stupidity, or both. We have sadly witnessed the equivalent of a La Cosa Nostra-style federal government hit on sound science and objective scientific research.
In response to many submitted public comments urging EPA to give equal weight to Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change, EPA argued, “EPA has reviewed and considered the NIPCC report and found that it lacks the rigorous procedures and transparency required to serve as a foundation for the endangerment analysis. A review of the NIPCC Web site indicates that the NIPCC report was developed by “two co-authors” and “35 contributors and reviewers” from ‘14 countries’ (See here). The organization does not appear to have established any procedures for author selection and provides no evidence that a transparent and open public or expert review was conducted.”
Let’s take a look at the authors and procedures involved in the writing of Climate Change Reconsidered: The Report of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), and compare them to the IPCC paper to which EPA defers.
The two are authors of the NIPCC report are S. Fred Singer and Craig Idso, both of whom are giants in the climate research community. Singer is President of the Science & Environmental Policy Project and distinguished professor emeritus of environmental science at the University of Virginia. His previous government and academic positions include Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987- 89); Deputy Assistant Administrator for Policy, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-71); Deputy Assistant Secretary for Water Quality and Research, U.S. Department of the Interior (1967- 70); founding Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-67); first Director of the National Weather Satellite Service (1962-64); and Director of the Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Maryland (1953-62).
Singer has received numerous awards for his research, including a Special Commendation from the White House for achievements in artificial earth satellites, a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for the development and management of the U.S. weather satellite program, and the first Science Medal from the British Interplanetary Society. He has served on state and federal advisory panels, including five years as vice chairman of the National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres.
Idso is the founder and former president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change and currently serves as chairman of its board of directors. He has published scientific articles on issues related to data quality, the growing season, the seasonal cycle of atmospheric carbon dioxide, world food supplies, coral reefs, and urban carbon dioxide concentrations, the latter of which he investigated via a National Science Foundation grant as a faculty researcher in the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University. He has lectured in meteorology at Arizona State University. He is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Geophysical Union, American Meteorological Society, Arizona-Nevada Academy of Sciences, Association of American Geographers, and Ecological Society of America.
The NIPCC report contains more than 800 pages of scientific findings supported by hundreds of references to the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Its 35 contributors and reviewers include impeccably credentialed university professors and researchers from around the world. Neither Environmental Defense nor Greenpeace (nor oil or coal groups, for that matter) were represented as lead authors.
EPA claims the NIPCC report “lacks the rigorous procedures and transparency” of IPCC. The IPCC report, however, is rigorous and transparent only in its clear and blatant bias, nefarious attempts to tamper with and misrepresent science, internal dissent regarding its published findings, and reliance on discredited junk science.
How EPA can, in the wake of Climategate, Glaciergate, Amazongate, etc., call IPCC a model of rigorous procedures and transparency would be laughable if not for the serious negative impacts heavy-handed EPA regulation will have on the American economy. Perhaps the federal government should be building a RICO charge against itself.
Faulty European wind farms sinking into the sea
And this comes on top of the many abandoned land-based windfarms in California and elsewhere
HUNDREDS of offshore wind turbines could be suffering from a design flaw that makes them sink into the sea.
Energy company engineers are urgently investigating the extent to which their offshore wind farms are affected, after flaws were discovered on a Dutch wind farm last year.
The problem could cost ₤50million ($83m), said Renewables UK, the industry body that represents wind farm developers. It says that almost all of the 336 offshore turbines that have been erected could be affected as these were built to European standards now in question.
The problem arises in the concrete used to fix the turbine to its steel foundation. Shell found that some of the turbines at Egmond aan Zee, its Dutch wind farm, had moved a few centimetres.
Centrica, owner of British Gas, and Dong Energy, the Danish wind group, admitted potential problems with some of their UK farms, but added that there was no safety or operational issue.
Peter Madigan, head of offshore renewables for Renewables UK, said: "A fault has been identified and has been shared with the industry, which has moved to see if there is a larger problem."
If repairs are necessary, energy companies will do them one turbine at a time to keep energy losses down.
Dong Energy said that three of its offshore wind farms were affected, including Gunfleet Sands, which has 30 turbines off the Essex coast, and Burbo Bank, which has 25 turbines in Liverpool Bay.
Centrica said that it was investigating its Lynn and Inner Dowsing wind farm in the North Sea but that its Barrow offshore farm was not affected.
However, the industry must revise its design standards before the next round of wind farm construction. Installation of 175 turbines on the giant London Array offshore wind farm off the Essex coast, in which Dong Energy and E.ON are partners, was due to take place this year.
When completed, it is hoped that London Array will provide half the government's target of providing 15 per cent of UK electricity from renewable sources by 2015.
A spokesman for Dong Energy said that an appropriate solution would be found for London Array and that Dong was talking to its lawyers about who should pay for the problem.
The offshore wind industry has been at the heart of the UK economy's shift to low carbon by Labour, but the cost of developing it, although it is heavily subsidised, is high and planning consents have proved difficult to obtain.
Experts say that although the UK coast is one of the windiest in the world, wind farms do not provide the sort of flexible power that Britain will need when its coal-fired and nuclear generators begin to close over the next decade.
Brilliantly Exposing Climategate
By Alan Caruba
Over the years, I have read dozens of books by eminent scientists, climatologists and meteorologists, that exposed the lies that support the greatest fraud ever perpetrated in the modern era, “global warming.” I have always wanted to read one that anyone could understand without having sufficient knowledge of the rather complex science involved.
I finally found that book and, would you believe it, the author is a friend! Every month I put aside time to talk with Brian Sussman, a former award-winning television meteorologist turned conservative talk show host on KSFO, San Francisco.
Like myself, Brian has long known that “global warming” is a bunch of horse hockey and, bless him, after the November 2009 revelations contained in several thousand leaked emails among the handful of perpetrators supplying the phony data to support “global warming”, Brian sat down and wrote Climategate, published by WND Books and the best $24.95 you will ever spend because it is the best book on the topic I have ever read.
Its official publication date is Earth Day, April 22.
To put it plainly, Brian got it right and he does so on every page as he walks the reader through what is often a complex topic. He does this by drawing on more than twenty years as a meteorologist and science reporter. In 2001, he shocked San Francisco viewers with a career change to become a conservative talk radio host.
What all the “global warming” fear-mongering is about is not climate science because “global warming” has nothing to do with climate and everything to do with a political agenda conjured up by Karl Marx and set in motion by Lenin and Stalin.
Brian initially takes the reader through the history of communism-socialism in order to put the environmental agenda in context. “It’s all a lie. The earth is not warming, and climate always changes—and they know it.”
“Global warming is the grandest of all tyrannical schemes”, says Brian and he has the credentials and knowledge to back it up. The first chapter of “Climategate” is worth the price of the book, but it just keeps getting better after that as he identifies the key players in a succession of environmental hoaxes that include, for example, the banning of DDT. Without this chemical miracle, an estimated 96 million people have needlessly died from malaria since 1973.
The most difficult thing to comprehend about the environmental movement is its fundamental hatred of mankind.
Environmentalism is a spawn of communism. The book will help you make the connection between the millions who died under the regimes that embraced it and the tsunami of lies that maintains environmentalism to this day.
It is no accident that Earth Day, April 22, is also the birth date of Vladimir Lenin, the Marxist who led the Russian revolution that led to the establishment of communism in 1917. The Soviet Union, a nation Ronald Reagan called “the evil empire”, finally collapsed in 1991 from its inherent oppression and inability to produce real jobs, real goods, and a life free of an all-powerful state.
“Earth Day,” writes Brian, “has never been a celebration of God’s wonderful creation; instead it’s always been an assault on man.” That is why the central message of environmentalism is that man is a “cancer” on the earth and responsible for climate change. That is why its leading advocates want to reduce the earth’s population by any means possible.
Neither mankind, nor the bogyman of carbon dioxide has anything to do with climate change. Right now the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency is moving to regulate CO2 as “a pollutant” and it has the authority under the Clean Air Act as the result of one of the worst Supreme Court decisions in modern times.
Regulating CO2 would make about the same sense as regulating oxygen on the grounds that it produces rust or that it is a component of fire. Regulating CO2 is crazy!
Climategate is the best book to date about this massive fraud, those who have lined their pockets advancing it, and the political agenda behind it; masterminded out of the bowels of the United Nations.
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 blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here
Posted by JR at 6:53 PM