Glacier calves: Warmists get aroused

Every time a big iceberg breaks off a glacier, Wamists in their illogical way hail it as a sign of global warming. But, if anything, it proves the opposite

1962: Chunk of Greenland ice shelf calves into 230 square-mile island.

2010: Second-largest Greenland glacier calves into 100 square-mile island.

With climate change being blamed for, gasp!, a hot summer, shouldn't these "islands of ice" be increasing in a so-called warming world? Sadly for alarmists (and CNN), this glacier is actually growing which causes increased calving!

That's because the Petermann Glacier, from which the latest ice island broke off, has been getting larger over the last 8 years, which is the primary cause for the creation of these floating islands of ice. They literally snap off under their own enormous weight. Just ask Obama's chief science advisor, John Holdren.

More HERE (See the original for links, graphics etc.)






Probably not the ‘hottest year’

Who needs those pesky thermometers?

James Hansen of NASA, an ardent believer in man-made warming, announced recently that “The 12-month running mean global temperature in the Goddard Space Institute analysis has reached a new record in 2010 . . . NASA, June 3, 2010. The main factor is our estimated temperature change for the Arctic region.” The GISS figures show that recent temperatures in the Arctic have been up to four degrees C warmer than the long-term mean.

Should we be alarmed? Probably not very.

My esteemed colleague Art Horn, at the Energy Tribune blog, has blown the whistle on Hansen and GISS. He points out that GISS has no thermometers in the Arctic! It has hardly thermometers that are even near the Arctic Circle. GISS estimates its arctic temperatures from land-based thermometers that supposedly each represent the temperatures over 1200 square kilometers. That’s a pretty heroic assumption.

Meanwhile, the Danish Meteorological Institute is publishing sea-surface temperatures from the Arctic showing a cooling trend in the Arctic oceans during melt season since about 1993. Clearly, we have no accurate measure of the real temperatures and trends in the Arctic at this moment. Probably that’s not very important. The Russians say that the Arctic has its own 70-year climate cycle. The files of the New York Times, in fact, are filled with stories from the 1920s and 1930s, clearly showing that the Arctic was as warm then as now.

But this is the moment when proposed energy taxes would start to scuttle 85 percent of the energy which powers the modern world and its lifestyles. Global climate alarmists, Hansen among them, are playing a desperate and short-sighted game of “pass the energy taxes.”

President Obama says energy taxes are a high priority—perhaps high enough to ramp up his “health care reform” strategy. In a lame-duck Congressional session, after the November elections, Congress persons who had already lost their seats, would vote to saddle America with energy taxes that would triple our electric bills and, according to a Harvard study, drive gas prices to $7 per gallon.

The energy taxes are intended to make fossil fuels expensive! The idea is to deliberately drive fossil fuel prices high enough to force us to stop using them. Then we’re supposed to depend on costly and erratic solar and wind power. (Biomass can never produce much energy: biofuel crops would take too much land, and we can’t make ethanol out of cellulose sources.)

The man-made global warming believers have invested 20 years in their campaign to convince us of CO2-driven climate calamity. To their chagrin, the earth’s temperatures started to trend downward in 2007.

The sunspot index, which has a much stronger correlation with our thermometer record than CO2 (79% versus 22%) started predicting the cooling in 2000. The sun is still in a long cold-predicting minimum.

In 2008, NASA itself told us that Pacific had shifted into its cooling mode. The history of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation indicates a 30-year cooling phase, the opposite of the 1976–1998 warming trend.

They’re panicked about losing the whole ball game. They feel they must get an energy tax on the books before the earth has a chance to resume the recent-and-predicted cooling trend. They imagine that if the law gets on the books, a restart of the cooling wouldn’t push the next Congress to repeal the energy tax!

They might even be right, though it seems a stretch given the American people’s already-massive Obama-debt and the demonstrated history that tax cuts grow the economy and tax increases strangle it.

It’s a desperate time, not for the earth, but for the global warming campaigners.

SOURCE






Statistician tests a central IPCC assertion

And finds that the data contradict it

Abstract

Gridded land surface temperature data products are used in climatology on the assumption that contaminating effects from urbanization, land-use change and related socioeconomic processes have been identified and filtered out, leaving behind a “pure” record of climatic change.

But several studies have shown a correlation between the spatial pattern of warming trends in climatic data products and the spatial pattern of industrialization, indicating that local non-climatic effects may still be present.

This, in turn, could bias measurements of the amount of global warming and its attribution to greenhouse gases. The 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) set aside those concerns with the claim that the temperature-industrialization correlation becomes statistically insignificant if certain atmospheric circulation patterns, also called oscillations, are taken into account. But this claim has never been tested and the IPCC provided no evidence for its assertion. I estimate two spatial models that simultaneously control for the major atmospheric oscillations and the distribution of socioeconomic activity. The correlations between warming patterns and patterns of socioeconomic development remain large and significant in the presence of controls for atmospheric oscillations, contradicting the IPCC claim. Tests for outlier influence, spatial autocorrelation, endogeneity bias, residual nonlinearity and other problems are discussed.....

Conclusions

Direct testing refutes the IPCC’s assertion that “the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant” upon controlling for atmospheric circulation patterns.

The correlations are quite robust to the inclusion of atmospheric circulation indicators, confirming the presence of significant extraneous signals in surface climate data on a scale sufficient to account for about half the observed upward trend over land since 1980.

As discussed in the underlying papers by deLaat and Maurellis and McKitrick and Michaels, socioeconomic activity can lead to purely local atmospheric modifications (such as temporary increases in local particulates and aerosols) as well as land-surface modifications and data inhomogeneities, and these can cause apparent trends in temperature data that should not be interpreted as general climatic changes. As was noted half a century ago by J. Murray Mitchell Jr., “The problem remains one of determining what part of a given temperature trend is climatically real and what part the result of observational difficulties and of artificial modification of the local environment.” (Mitchell Jr., 1953).

The results herein show that this longstanding concern is likely still relevant, and the hypothesis used by the IPCC to dismiss it cannot be supported by the data. A substantial fraction of the post-1980 trends in gridded climate data over land are likely not “climatically real” but result from data quality problems and local environmental modifications.

Statistics, Politics, and Policy, 2010





Greenpeace as a criminal organization

Slandering the Alberta oilsands is a very profitable business for Greenpeace

They must have had a good laugh over at Greenpeace’s headquarters in Amsterdam when they heard about the Alberta government’s latest plan to defend the oilsands. Last week, Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach announced a $268,000 advertising campaign to counter global anti-oilsands propaganda.

Just to put that in perspective, the government of Alberta will reap more than $7 billion in energy taxes this year. So Stelmach is spending 0.0038% of that to defend the oil industry. For comparison, Stelmach spent $22 million — almost a hundred times as much — designing a fancy new logo and slogan as part of a three-year “rebranding” of the province.

Even more bizarre is that most of the ads will run in Alberta — pretty much the last place that needs convincing. But even if the ads ran in America, $268,000 is a joke. A single 30-second ad during the Super Bowl, for example, costs more than $3 million.

Greenpeace is more effective. The day after Stelmach announced his master plan, Greenpeace activists climbed out of the top of the Calgary Tower and unfurled a huge anti-oil banner. The news and pictures instantly spread around the world, earning millions of dollars worth of free media coverage.

As always, Greenpeace immediately asked for donations for their stunt. Its websites around the world published breathless accounts of their bravery — with a call for money on every page.

This isn’t their first oilsands trespass-for-dollars scheme. Last fall, Greenpeace activists broke into several oilsands mines and a processing plant, getting free publicity every time. Expect more.

So how should Alberta fight back? Debating Greenpeace doesn’t work. They’re not interested in other opinions. The answer is simple: Follow the money. Greenpeace’s budget last year was nearly $270 million. They need to bring in more than $700,000 a day just to keep the lights on.

Slandering the oilsands is very profitable for them — and it doesn’t carry the risks that campaigning against Saudi Arabia’s oil fields would, or China’s nuclear plants. Which is why Greenpeace doesn’t try stunts there.

If their oilsands break-ins had costly consequences, Greenpeace would move onto other, more lucrative projects. Oilsands producer Suncor had the right idea when they sued Greenpeace for $1.5 million over their 2009 trespass.

But there is a legal tool Stelmach has that Suncor doesn’t: The Criminal Code. Currently, only the little people at Greenpeace are ever charged, for minor crimes like mischief and, in the case of the Calgary Tower, break and enter. Many of those arrested are in their 20s, and are let off with a slap on the wrist.

In the meantime, Greenpeace makes enormous profits off the scheme. They can always find more cannon fodder to do their dirty work.

But there is a section of the Criminal Code designed for such a conundrum: Section 467.1, which allows for the prosecution of a “criminal organization.” A criminal organization is defined as one whose main activity is the “commission of one or more serious offences that, if committed, would likely result in the direct or indirect receipt of a material benefit, including a financial benefit, by the group.” Break and enter, for example, is considered a “serious offence.”

Greenpeace operatives have been charged dozens of times in Alberta alone. The law is clear. To be convicted under Section 467.1, the crime organization’s leaders don’t need to know the exact details of the offences being committed, or even the identity of the people involved.

The list of factors for courts to consider includes the repeated use of a name (Greenpeace banners always feature their logo); the receipt of a benefit (Greenpeace always fundraises off their stunts); and repetition of these activities (almost a half-dozen times in the past two years). The law applies to members of the organization anywhere around the world.

What do you think would make Greenpeace’s executives stop laughing? A few amateur newspaper ads, and arresting some college kids? Or the prosecution of senior Greenpeace executives here in Canada — and in Amsterdam, too?

SOURCE






GLOBAL WARMING IS A PSEUDO SCIENCE

The latest news is most countries in the world are backing out of the pseudo scientists' wishes for limits on greenhouse gases and global warming legislation. Most industrial countries realize it is too expensive an endeavor to partake in at a time when the world's economy is teetering on collapse, since over two hundred billion dollars would be needed from wealthy countries to help poor countries conform to proposed climate change rules. Poor countries also do not need any more restrictions on industrialization than they now have which would limit what little growth they may have.

The actual quote of money needed from industrial countries is one hundred billion dollars, but all realize that the cost is expected to double or even triple in the coming years if all were to get on board. Such fantastic amounts of money have to come mostly from the American taxpayers in the form of double gasoline prices, tax amounts equal to energy use amounts of all energy bills, higher prices for all goods and services and across the board tax State and Federal tax hikes for all Americans.

In this time of having the worst economy since the Great Depression with most people just scraping by from day to day and some not making it at all, it is insane for any rational individual to even consider anything which would lessen what economy we have.

The whole premise of this pseudo science movement relies on the pretext of cutting carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. CO2 isn't even a pollutant, but a natural gas existing in the atmosphere. The greatest CO2-making machines in the world are human beings, which breathe out CO2 after each breath of air. There are currently about eight billion people living on the face of this planet and billions of other species of air-breathing creatures living along with us, which says in itself that biological entities are the largest emitters of CO2, with all else coming in a very distant second. So to go along with the global warming pseudo science is inane since air breathing entities are the main culprits of greenhouse gases.

We would be in essence accepting taxation on a deliberately invented problem which cannot be resolved other than eliminating half of the world's population.

The global warming idiots still want us to believe that climate change is responsible for all of the Earth's extreme weather phenomena over the past few decades. However for those who know weather and climate and have a lifetime of observation to compare over the years find that there have always been extremes in weather multiple times in any given year and records prove that. There may be record breaking heat, massive flooding, and many devastating storms occurring in the world today, but the fact is such extreme weather has been going on since the planet developed an atmosphere. Most weather records of extremes in all categories were recorded many decades ago.

Recently global warming pseudo scientists have said the world's warming is definitely human caused and the sun has nothing to do with it because solar activity has been in a low period for decades. This is an outright lie since we have had more solar activity happening in the last fifteen years than at any time in previous history.

Their claim of the world having been warmer over the last two decades is also a lie since actual records differ with their predisposed computer generated models of the same time period.

The polar ice packs vary from year to year and have since we have been keeping records, and today's ice packs are well within the range of variance showing no real actual receding ice. The same can be seen in many mountainous areas where glacier ice packs are. In all instances, any reduction of ice is caused by lack of precipitation rather than temperature.

This brings us to the fact that climates are in constant flux and have been since the beginning of time. The only difference between weather and climate is the fact that weather constantly changes, whereas climate changes over the course of many years. This can be seen in Egypt where the area of the Pyramids show a much wetter and more moderate temperate climate in the area thousands of years ago.

Of course there is more CO2 in the atmosphere today than even fifty years ago because much of the world's great rain forests have been cut, thus allowing more CO2 to remain in the atmosphere since no trees are there to breathe it in and convert it into oxygen.

This whole global warming lie is really all about making money from citizens who have very little to give. It is also part of a larger plan involving government control over the world's masses, which will boil down to how many children we are allowed to have, what type of transportation we will use, the type of food we eat, our life style, and ultimately who will be selected for a euthanasia program, under the guise of protecting the whole by eliminating the few who are no longer productive in society.

We must realize the whole idea of global warming and climate change is a pseudo science motivated by a political agenda rather than fact-based hard science.

SOURCE





Australia: Are Greenies now experts on theology?

Greens' policies more Christian than Cardinal George Pell, says Greenie leader Bob Brown. I accept that Bob may be an expert on global warming theology but I suspect that a Cardinal knows more about Catholicism than Bob does.

Bob also seems to be a one-man opinion poll: Not good polling methodology

AUSTRALIA'S Catholic leader Cardinal George Pell has taken up the rhetoric of the extreme right and his views do not represent mainstream Christian thinking, Greens leader Bob Brown says.

Senator Brown says Australian Greens' policies are much closer to mainstream Christian ideals than the Sydney Archbishop's ideas. He was responding to criticism of the Greens by Cardinal Pell in an opinion piece published in News Ltd newspapers yesterday.

Cardinal Pell wrote the Greens were hostile to the notion of the family and the party would allow marriage regardless of sexuality or gender. He said the Greens were "thoroughly anti-Christian".

Senator Brown, in reply, said Cardinal Pell's "anti-Christian" claim was a lie, and that he had fallen out of touch with his people. "The good archbishop has forgotten the ninth commandment, which is 'thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour'," Senator Brown said. "He's lost the ethic of the golden rule and the Greens have kept it.

"The Greens are much closer to mainstream Christian thinking than Cardinal Pell. "That's why he's not standing for election and I am."

The Catholics the senator spoke to support an end to discrimination, he said. "They support compassion to asylum seekers and they support the BER (Building the Education Revolution) scheme, like the Greens do," he said. "Cardinal Pell opposes those things."

Senator Brown said the archbishop's views on gay marriage were "discriminatory and biased". "The majority of Catholics support equality in marriage (as do) the majority of Christians in Australia," he said.

"The Greens are with the majority but both the big parties, like Cardinal Pell, are opposed to 21st Century majority thinking in Australia. "He's lost contact with his own voters ... his own Catholic majority in this country."

In his article, Cardinal Pell wrote the Greens' once claimed that humans are simply another smarter animal - an ethic designed to replace Judeo-Christianity. He said some Greens are "like watermelons, green outside and red inside". "A number were Stalinists, supporting Soviet oppression," he wrote.

Senator Brown said Cardinal Pell had "taken up the rhetoric of the extreme right in Australia". "That is not new but he has become very politically active against the compassion and the environmental commonsense of the Greens policies," he said.

SOURCE

The column in the Sunday Telegraph by His Eminence does not now seem to be online at its original source so I excerpt it below. He headed his column with "The Greens are Anti-Christian". In answer to the question of how people should vote in the coming election, he replied:

First of all they should look at the policies and personal views of the individual candidates. Good and wise people are needed in the major political parties. Many, including myself, are concerned about the environment and so my second point was to urge my listeners to examine the policies of the Greens on their website and judge for themselves how thoroughly anti-Christian they are.

In 1996 the Green leader Bob Brown co-authored short book, The Greens, with the notorious philosopher Peter Singer (now at Princeton University) who rejects the unique status of humans and supports infanticide as well as abortion and euthanasia. They claimed humans are simply another smarter animal so that humans and animals are on the same or similar levels depending on the level of consciousness.

This Green ethic is designed to replace Judaeo-Christianity. Some Greens have taken this anti-Christian line further by claiming that no religious argument should be permitted in public debate. Not surprisingly they are often consistent on this issue, welcoming Christian support for refugees, but denying that any type of religious reasoning should be allowed on other matters.

One wing of the Greens are like watermelons, green outside and red inside. A number were Stalinists, supporting Soviet oppression. A few years ago they even tried unsuccessfully to use the privileges committee of the NSW Legislative Council to silence religious voices in public debate.

The Greens are opposed to religious schools and would destroy the rights of those schools to hire staff and control enrolments. Funding for non-government schools would be returned to the levels of 2003-04. Already in Canberra, Green pressure was one factor in the attacks on Calvary Hospital because they were not providing abortions.

We all accept the necessity of a healthy environment, but Green policies are impractical and expensive, which will not help the poor.

For those who value our present way of life, the Greens are sweet camouflaged poison.

More HERE

***************************************

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

*****************************************