Friday, April 13, 2012

Even Warmist "scientists" don't mention any scientific facts in defense of their beliefs

Warmists normally defend their beliefs by saying "The experts tell us" and speak of "The science" but never mention any actual scientific facts. But surely "The experts" themselves have some facts to put forward? Nope. I reproduce below the full screed put out by none other than "hockeystick" Mann in defense of his position. It too is full of accusations and complaints but references not one scientific fact. He claims that the globe is warming etc. but gives no evidence for that assertion. He can't, of course -- because it isn't. So it's no surprise that he doesn't even give a link to any report that would support his assertions

As scientists, we are used to having our work questioned.

Anyone who has ever attended a scientific meeting knows that scientists are hardest on themselves. When we present a new research paper at a conference, colleagues often interrupt us with sharp, pointed questions. Those questions are asked in good faith, in an attempt to make our work better and advance scientific knowledge.

But scientists who work on climate change are increasingly finding our work questioned by politicians and ideologues who simply don’t like our findings. Too often, politicians start with their conclusion, then work backwards to find the evidence — any evidence, regardless of its quality — to back up their preferred policy positions. And the fossil fuel industry is happy to fund those who attack our work, because our research has pointed to the burning of their products — oil, coal, and natural gas — as the primary drivers of climate change.

For more than a decade, I’ve found myself targeted and attacked by political interests who feel threatened by some facts my colleagues and I uncovered The findings that made us targets have only been further validated as the world continues to warm. about our changing climate. We have received menacing e-mails, including anonymous death threats. I’ve received a package containing an Anthrax-like white powder (the FBI determined that it was a hoax), and someone threw a dead rat on the doorstep of another colleague. As the political conversation around climate change has become more polarized, the attacks have intensified.

Now, however, my colleagues and I are fighting back, a task that is made easier because the findings that have made us the targets of climate change deniers have only been further validated as CO2 levels continue to rise and the world continues to warm. This is also true when it comes to the research behind the so-called “hockey stick” graph, which is what first prompted attacks on me and my colleagues.

That graph, unveiled in a 1998 paper, showed global temperatures level or decreasing for 1,000 years (the shaft of the stick) and then spiking upward in the past century (the upturned blade.) Those rapidly rising temperatures tracked increases in atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, which coincided with the world’s growing use of fossil fuels.

For better and worse, our graph became an icon of climate change because it was relatively easy to understand. That made it a threat to opponents of dealing with global warming, who invested significant time and resources attacking our research. At first, my colleagues and I responded as we would to any scientific question. We evaluated the claims about our data and methods and responded in the scientific literature. But instead of questioning our claims in good faith, our critics approached the hockey stick like a politician approaches a piece of legislation he or she doesn’t like. Their goal was to dismantle our findings, regardless of the facts. By 2005, U.S. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), one of the biggest recipients of fossil fuel funding in the House of Representatives, sent my colleagues and me letters demanding that we open our professional and personal lives to an investigation from his committee.

These attacks obscure the bigger picture. Climate science is like a vast puzzle. Individual papers like ours are a single piece of that puzzle. Scientists are still filling in pieces the puzzle, but we can see a relatively complete picture of our climate that tells us the Earth is warming, human activity is the cause, and Our critics approached the ‘hockey stick’ like a politician approaches legislation he or she doesn’t like. that we are locking in substantial rises in sea level, increasingly intense heat waves and floods, and threats to global fresh water and food resources as we continue to burn fossil fuels.

But politicians and ideologues try to make climate science out to be a house of cards. Remove one card and the whole thing falls down. The hockey stick papers, they decided, must be one of those cards and their response was to attack our research and challenge our integrity. I call it the “Serengeti strategy,” in which predators look for what they perceive as the most vulnerable animals in a herd.

In 2005, U.S. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-New York) had the courage to stand up to Joe Barton. Boehlert asked the National Academy of Sciences — an institution created by Abraham Lincoln to advise the government on scientific matters — to evaluate the “hockey stick” and related studies. The academy found our conclusions to be valid and appropriately understood them to be one piece of the puzzle. In fact, dozens of “hockey stick” studies using different data and methods have verified and extended our original findings in the past several years.

Barton took a different tack. He commissioned a statistician from George Mason University to produce a report for his committee to misrepresent our research. When the National Academy of Sciences issued its report, which validated our findings, fossil fuel industry allies in Congress like Sen. James Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) falsely claimed that the report disproved our research. Inhofe has named me and 16 others scientists as people he’d like to investigate if he again gains control of a committee in the Senate. Inhofe has just published a book detailing the “global warming conspiracy” he believes is behind climate science research. As a climate scientist, I can assure everyone that my colleagues and I simply aren’t that organized.

Like Barton, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli issued a subpoena in 2010 demanding personal correspondence from me and dozens of other scientists from my time at the University of Virginia. Thankfully, groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists, the American Association of University Professors, and several free speech organizations urged the university to fight Cuccinelli’s demands, and the university did. Cuccinelli lost his case before the Virginia Supreme Court last month. While we don’t know how much Cuccinelli’s office spent on this witchhunt, the university spent more than $600,000 in private funds defending scientists’ right to privacy.

Inhofe and Cuccinelli both drew their inspiration from an incident in November 2009, when climate scientists had their emails stolen from the University of East Anglia and misrepresented through a coordinated public relations campaign orchestrated by a who’s who of climate denial front groups. Why attack the University of East Anglia? It is one of four major government and academic centers that track global temperatures. Again, the Serengeti strategy at work: no matter that all the data from these four institutions tell us the world is rapidly warming, and that numerous independent investigations later concluded that the scientists whose e-mails had been hacked, including mine, had not engaged in fraud or scientific misconduct.

Despite these attacks, reality is catching up to our national conversation about climate change, and it is becoming harder to deny what the science has been telling us. Since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Despite these attacks, reality is catching up to our national conversation about climate change. (IPCC) reports in 2007, new scientific findings have indicated that global warming is generally worse than we thought. Carbon emissions are higher than the IPCC projected, Arctic sea ice is melting at a faster-than-expected clip, and observed and projected sea levels are increasing. At the same time, advances in climate science have more definitively linked climate change to an increasing likelihood of many types of extreme weather events.

Many local and state governments are prudently preparing for a changing climate and have also adopted policies that can drive down greenhouse gas emissions. But for other vulnerable regions, climate change isn’t on the agenda or is considered verboten for ideological reasons.

The price of politicizing science is high. In addition to the distraction it creates, it exacts a personal toll on scientists, taking time away from our work, our friends, and our families. If it’s any comfort, I’ve told colleagues who’ve faced similar attacks that they should wear it as a badge of honor. But my greatest fear is that it might discourage younger scientists from entering areas of research that vested interests have declared to be “off limits.”

Luckily, scientists are increasingly standing up for themselves. Scott Mandia, a meteorology professor at the State University of New York, was disturbed by the legal battle being waged over scientists’ personal emails in Virginia. He Widespread, bad-faith assaults on science have no place in a functioning democracy. kicked off a fundraising effort that led to the creation of a Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, which aims to help scientists foot the significant legal bills that can add up when they are attacked by ideologues. Mandia, along with a John Abraham, a physics professor at the University of St. Thomas in Minnesota, also helped create a Climate Science Rapid Response Team, which connects journalists with scientists.

The Union of Concerned Scientists has redoubled its efforts to defend climate scientists. It organized academics in Virginia to speak out against Cuccinelli’s investigation and has helped scores of scientists improve their ability to communicate with the media and policymakers – skills that simply aren’t part of many scientific educations. Scientific societies like the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Geophysical Union are also condemning attacks on their colleagues and helping scientists communicate their work in a difficult media and policy environment.

Widespread, bad-faith assaults on science have no place in a functioning democracy. We should be able to have a national discussion about climate change that is informed by a shared understanding of the scientific facts that generations of researchers have uncovered.

Scientists realize the stakes are high. People are hungry for information about what climate change means in their backyards, and scientists can help ensure that local decision-makers have the information they need to protect their constituents. Of course, more broadly, our “constituents” are our children. The decisions we make today about climate change will go a long way in determining the type of world they inherit from us.

The global challenge of climate change, Stephen Gardiner writes, poses a perfect moral storm — by failing to take action to rein in carbon emissions, the current generation is spreading the costs of its behavior far into the future. Why should people in the future pay to clean up our mess?
READ MORE In the wake of the manufactured East Anglia scandal, I was on vacation with my family in the Florida Keys. My four-year-old daughter was entranced by the mangrove forests, the dolphins, and the coral reefs, with their exotic and colorful fish. I couldn’t bear to tell her that climate change and an increasingly acidic ocean are slowly killing the reefs, that increasingly destructive hurricanes would subject them to further insult, and that projected sea level rise over the next century and beyond could submerge vast regions of the Florida Keys.

What to do about climate change necessarily involves questions about economics, fairness, and policy. But it also involves ethics. We are making decisions today that will impact the world our children and grandchildren inherit. What sort of legacy do we want to leave them?


Global warming 'hiatus' in recent years helps spur skepticism

For people who want more action on global warming, an inconvenient truth has arisen over the last decade: Annual average temperatures stayed relatively flat globally -- and dropped in the United States and Oregon -- despite mankind's growing release of greenhouse gases.

The hiatus in temperature increases may be contributing to higher public skepticism about warming, particularly in the United States. But it hasn't changed most climate researchers' opinions of likely substantial human-caused warming this century from releases of carbon dioxide and other gases.

It occurs at the high-end of a 100-year-long warming trend and follows record, El Niño-fueled highs in 1998, notes Phil Mote of Oregon State University, who headlines a global warming presentation Tuesday before the Oregon chapter of the American Meteorological Society.

The presentation by Mote and two other Oregon researchers comes after a panel of skeptics of manmade global warming presented to the Oregon chapter in January.

"We are at a level where it's a whole lot warmer than it used to be," Mote says. "The physical explanations are pretty convincing on why there has been a pause in global warming, and we have no reason to think it will last much longer."

Skeptics say the lack of temperature increases should heighten doubts about projections of severe warming. Computer climate models didn't predict the hiatus, notes Portland meteorologist Chuck Wiese, among the scientists who presented in January.

"It doesn't matter whether it's still warm compared to earlier periods," Wiese says. "The whole idea was it would get warmer as C02 went up. This is a very severe contradiction to everything they put in their climate (computer) code and they modeled."

Skeptics tend to focus on temperatures since 1998, a record hot year globally. The global average annual temperature has leveled since then. In the U.S., it has dropped at a rate of 0.85 degrees Fahrenheit a decade, according to the National Climatic Data Center. In Oregon, it has dropped 0.79 degrees a decade, thanks in part to a string of La Niñas, sparked by a relatively cold pool of water in the subtropical Pacific Ocean.

That's a short time, but also a sharp contrast to warming predictions. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts warming of 2 degrees to 11 degrees in the 21st century, depending in part on how much fossil fuel the world burns. In Oregon, predictions range from 3 degrees to 10 degrees through 2100.

Non-skeptics, including the bulk of climate researchers, note the overall trend is still up since 1895, when standardized U.S. records began. Oregon has warmed about 1 degree since then, according to NCDC data, and the globe has warmed about 1.5 degrees.


EPA Forces Bus Contractor to Pay Thousands for ‘Excessive Idling’

For once I agree with the EPA. Governmnent employees who leave their vehicles idling for extended peiods are utterly contemptuous of the taxpayer who pays for the fuel

As a part of their ongoing crusade to reduce everyone’s carbon footprint, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has come down hard on the nation’s second largest school bus contractor with fines and “mandatory environmental projects” amounting to approximately $500,000 as punishment for “excessive idling.”

“As part of a settlement for alleged excessive diesel idling in Connecticut, Massachusetts and Rhode Island, Durham School Services will commit to reduce idling from its school bus fleet of 13,900 buses operating in 30 states,” an EPA press release stated on Tuesday.

The case started two years ago when one of the unelected environmental watchdogs noticed buses of the Durham School Services would idle for what they felt were “excessive” amounts of time.

“State rules limit idling to three minutes in Connecticut and five minutes in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, where the infractions occurred,” writes CNS’ Elizabeth Harrington.

According to the EPA report, the buses would idle for up to two hours before disembarking to go pick up schoolchildren.

“Durham reached a settlement for the violation and agreed to pay $90,000 in penalties. It also agreed to pay for $348,000 worth of environmental projects, including implementing a national training and management program ‘to prevent excessive idling from its entire fleet of school buses,’ [emphases added]” Harrington writes.

Which means Durham has agreed to require its supervisors to “monitor idling in school bus lots, post anti-idling signs in areas where drivers congregate, and notify the school districts it serves of its anti-idling policy.”
Click here to find out more!

As mentioned in the above, the EPA’s enforcement of these fees and mandatory projects is part of a larger campaign to cut back on idling, thereby offsetting carbon footprints.

“By reducing the idling time of each bus in its fleet by one hour per day, Durham would reduce its fuel use by 1.25 million gallons per year and avoid emitting 28 million pounds of carbon dioxide per year,” the EPA release stated, adding, “Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change.”

But wait, this gets better. Harrington writes:

"According to the EPA, as of 2006, 30 states plus the District of Columbia had either state, county or local anti-idling regulations in place, with the city of Philadelphia setting the maximum allowable time for diesel powered motor vehicles at two consecutive minutes.

The EPA Web site even provides a “do it yourself kit” for those wishing to bring the anti-idling campaign to their school district, providing brochures, posters, a “Teacher’s Guide for use in reinforcing key messages of the Idle-Reduction campaign,” and pledge cards for drivers that read, “I’m doing my share for clean air.”

Also available for order are bus driver key chains “that can be used by bus drivers daily to remind them that they hold the key to a healthier ride,” and a five-minute training video entitled “Reducing School Bus Idling: The Key to a Healthier Ride.”

Also referenced is California’s 2003 anti-idling regulation that bus drivers must to turn off their vehicle within 100 feet of a school and must not turn the bus back on more than 30 seconds before beginning to depart – or face a minimum penalty of $100."

Diesel fumes pollute the air, waste fuel, cause “excess engine wear,” and are harmful to children’s health, the EPA claims.

“Children, especially those suffering from asthma or other respiratory ailments, are particularly vulnerable to diesel exhaust,” said Curt Spalding, regional administrator of EPA’s New England office.

“EPA is pleased with this settlement, which will dramatically limit school bus idling and help protect the health of school children in dozens of communities across the country,” he said.
Click here to find out more!


The measured rate of rise of sea levels is not increasing and climate models should be revised to match the experimental evidence

This is from last year but would seem of interest in the light of the recent Envisat "adjustments" of the sea-level record

Alberto A. Boretti, Research Professor, Missouri University of Science and Technology

The paper by Robert J. Nicholls et al. is pushing upward the already catastrophic predictions of sea level rise (SLR) by 2100 because of the anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions. The estimation of up to 2 m SLR by 2100 is made assuming the temperatures would increase proportional to the anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions, and the rate of rise of sea-levels will increase proportionally to the temperatures and therefore proportionally to the anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions.

The paper omits to consider the experimental evidence made of rates of rise of sea-levels not accelerating at all. Some recent papers [1-3] and data proposed in [4] and [5] provide numbers that contrast the general but wrong perception that the SLR is escalating at present supported by the authors. Analysis of nine long and nearly continuous sea level records over one hundred years (1903-2003) provided a mean value of SLR as 1.74 mm/year with higher values in the earlier part of the 20th century compared to the latter part in [1].

Tide gauge records over a period 1900-2006 provided a mean value of 1.56 mm/year with no statistically significant acceleration in sea level rise [2]. Same paper shows rates immediately before 2007 had been achieved or exceeded over similar time periods at other points during the 20th century with some decades even revealed a fall in global sea level over that period. Analysis of 57 tide gauge records each with a record length of 80 years which include 25 gauges with data from 1930-2010 provided no acceleration in SLR, but instead a small average deceleration of -0.0014 and -0.0123 mm/year2 [3].

The best source of global sea level data is The University of Colorado [4]. Since 1993, measurements from the TOPEX and Jason series of satellite radar altimeters have allowed estimates of global mean sea level (MSL). These measurements are continuously calibrated against a network of tide gauges. When seasonal and other variations are subtracted, they allow estimation of the global mean sea level rate. As new data, models and corrections become available, these estimates are continuously revised (about every two months) to improve their quality.

20 years of MSL data shows increments in SLR much smaller than the 20 mm/year necessary to produce a rise of 200 cm over a century and reducing especially over the last 10 years.

Worth of note is the huge deceleration of SLR considering only the last 10 years of about -0.285 mm/year2 that is clearly the opposite of what is being assumed by the models of SLR sharply accelerating. The average SLR of 2.7 mm/year is only 10% of the SLR needed for the prediction of 2 m rise to be correct.

The average SLR over the last 5 years is also much smaller than the average rate of rise over the last 20 years, and about 1.6 mm/year. The Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project [5] is designed to monitor sea level around the coast line of Australia. An array of SEAFRAME (SEA-Level Fine Resolution Acoustic Measuring Equipment) stations is used to measure the sea level very accurately and to record meteorological parameters.

These data also support the evidence of SLR absolutely not accelerating.20 years of measurements show increases in the MSL much smaller than the more than 10 mm/year, with all the stations actually having experienced a SLR on average much less than one half of the 10 mm/year. The SLR is also clearly reducing in the last 5 years.

MSL is increasing over the 20 years but without any significant acceleration. SLR is clearly not accelerating or decelerating over the 20 years. The maximum acceleration is 0.5 mm/year2, the minimum acceleration (deceleration) is - 1.2 mm/year2 and the average acceleration (deceleration) is -0.005 mm/year2. Reducing the numbers of years of data to be fitted to 10 and 5 years respectively, the average acceleration decreases (the deceleration increases).

All the data published in [1-3] and the others data proposed in [4] and [5] consistently present rates of rise of sea levels absolutely not accelerating over the last century and this portion of the new century. Therefore, climate models should be revised to match the experimental evidence.


[1] S.J. Holgate. On the decadal rates of sea level change during the twentieth century. Geophysical Research Letters. 2007; 34, L01602.

[2] M. Wenzel and J. Schr?ter. Reconstruction of regional mean sea level anomalies from tide gauges using neural networks. JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH - OCEANS. 2010; 115:C08013.

[3] J.R. Houston and R.G. Dean, Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses. Journal of Coastal Research. 2011; 27:409-417.

[4] [Internet]. [Cited 2011 July 12].

[5]. [Internet]. [Cited 2011 July 12].


The British government loses it

Christopher Booker's article in the Mail is extraordinary. The idea that we are intending to add massively to the cost of making home improvements by forcing people to complete a variety of other works at the same time is quite mindblowing.
Anyone thinking of building a new conservatory, replacing their old boiler or putting in new windows had better move fast.

If they wait a couple of years they could find themselves falling foul of a deluge of new ‘green’ red tape that will leave them having to pay thousands of pounds extra.

Under plans being discussed by the Government, revealed by yesterday’s Daily Mail, anyone hoping to make improvements to their home from 2014 may have to carry out a whole lot of additional works to show their property is ‘energy efficient’.

I find the idea that it will be forbidden to replace a broken down boiler without spending thousands more quite immoral. Are people supposed to sit in the cold if they can't afford it?

This is going to make ordinary people very, very angry.



Qld. Premier demands complete control over environmental assessments

He will be a formidable foe for the Federal Leftist government at the next election if they interfere with his moves -- and Qld. is the swing State that any Federal government must win. While any formal transfer of power is unlikely, the Feds will be very reluctant to thwart him by excercising the powers they do have

CAMPBELL Newman has demanded the Federal Government hand over complete control of environmental assessments to the state in a move designed to cut business costs.

But Julia Gillard has vowed to retain the final say over high-risk and World Heritage area developments, warning Mr Newman's plan could allow Queensland to build a nuclear reactor without any input from the rest of the country.

Ms Gillard has struck to deal with all state and territory leaders to remove duplication of most environmental approvals as part of a drive to cut "green tape".

Liberal premiers including Mr Newman say they want the carbon tax on the table as part of the talks, which will continue at the Council of Australian Governments summit in Canberra today.

But Mr Newman has gone further than other Premiers and called for complete control over environmental assessments in the Sunshine State. "It's a bit rich for the Prime Minister to suggest that the states have to work with her to reduce that green tape when the Federal Government coming over the top in Queensland on major resource and tourism projects is causing huge delays and blocking the economic progress of Queensland," Mr Newman said.

The Premier told The Courier-Mail he did not want to see a repeat of the delays and inconsistent rulings that had held up ports, rail and coal mines in the Galilee Basin.

He also said the Federal Government's decision to overrule the Traveston Dam after it was approved by the Bligh government was "one of the most appalling decisions in the use of that Act".

Ms Gillard said her plan to streamline environmental rules with states would mean developers "don't go through double assessments".

But she said the Federal Government still had to oversee developments in World Heritage areas in Commonwealth waters and nuclear power.

Ms Gillard said Mr Newman's proposal would stop the Federal Government having a say if there was a plan for another nuclear reactor like the Lucas Heights plant in Sydney.

The COAG meeting in Canberra today is likely to sign off on a plan for guaranteed vocational education places, but states will also trade blows over the carve up of the GST and the impact of the mining tax.

Mr Newman also took a swipe at federal Labor's industrial relations laws, saying they had contributed to the increase in strikes in Queensland coal mines and were partly to blame for the closure of the Norwich Park coal mine.

Business leaders who met with Ms Gillard and premiers yesterday welcomed the plan to cut "green tape". BHP Billiton chief executive Marius Kloppers said the current overlap of state and federal rules was "tortuous".

Business Council of Australia chief Tony Shepherd called for governments to also scrap renewable energy targets.

But the Greens said the plan to streamline assessments could cut environmental protection.


Push to remove Qld. ports from World Heritage area

IN a move that has outraged environmentalists, the State Government is considering a push to remove several Queensland ports from the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area.

Deputy Premier Jeff Seeney claims the boundaries of the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area should be redrawn, with the embattled Gladstone Harbour the first port on his list of exclusion zones. Mr Seeney said the Government was committed to protecting the Great Barrier Reef but argued the Gladstone Harbour was not a part of it.

"If there is going to be a continual misrepresentation of those boundaries then I think that will build a case for the realignment of the boundaries," he said. "It is obviously a misrepresentation to talk about Gladstone Harbour being part of the Great Barrier Reef." Mr Seeney added other ports could be considered for exclusion from the area.

However, any such proposal would meet with resistance from the Federal Government, with Environment Minister Tony Burke saying the current boundaries were appropriate. "The Government has no plans to change the boundary of the property," he said.

Greens member and environmental medicine specialist Dr Andrew Jeremijenko was outraged by the suggestions. "There's a lot of rare and endangered species that use Gladstone Harbour," he said. "There's no gate at the end of the Great Barrier Reef Gladstone Harbour is used as a migratory place."

Dr Jeremijenko said the harbour was facing problems that could no longer be ignored. "Fishermen are coming forward and saying `the water's making me sick'," he said.

"What Jeff Seeney's saying is that he doesn't care about the fishing industry and the tourism industry he just wants this to be a developed harbour."



For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, 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 are mirrors of this site here and here


1 comment:

slktac said...

What happens to diesel school busses in the winter? Even changing to a different blend of diesel may not be enough to keep a diesel from gelling up in the cold. Diesels are designed to idle for long periods of time, unlike gasoline engines. Did anyone consider this when making the rule?