Sunday, June 03, 2012

On seeing what you want to see: Warmists definitely have the eye of faith

Warmist Eric Steig claims that the graph above demonstrates that the the late 20th century was unusually warm. Can you see it? I can't. I think it shows that the Medieval warm period was warmer. I had a previous laugh at the Gergis study on May 20. Below is what Steig says, for what it is worth -- JR:

In the Northern Hemisphere, the late 20th / early 21st century has been the hottest time period in the last 400 years at very high confidence, and likely in the last 1000 – 2000 years (or more). It has been unclear whether this is also true in the Southern Hemisphere. Three studies out this week shed considerable new light on this question. This post provides just brief summaries; we’ll have more to say about these studies in the coming weeks.

First, a study by Gergis et al., in the Journal of Climate uses a proxy network from the Australasian region to reconstruct temperature over the last millennium, and finds what can only be described as an Australian hockey stick. They use an ensemble of 3000 different reconstructions, using different methods and different subsets of the proxy network. Worth noting is that while some tree rings are used (which can’t be avoided, as there simply aren’t any other data for some time periods), the reconstruction relies equally on coral records, which are not subject to the same potential (though often-overstated) issues at low frequencies. The conclusion reached is that summer temperatures in the post-1950 period were warmer than anything else in the last 1000 years at high confidence, and in the last ~400 years at very high confidence.


History ignored once again

It's hard to believe that the title on the article below is: "Climate change will create a toxic brew for herbivores". That the much warmer age of the dinosaurs supported some HUGE herbivores is completely ignored. Theory trumps fact every time among the Green/Left

A WARMER world might be a poisoned one. A compilation of studies suggests that as temperatures rise, herbivorous mammals will suffer greater effects from the toxins they eat, with animals living in dry regions at particular risk.

Mammals can maintain a constant body temperature and so are thought to be less vulnerable to temperature changes than cold-blooded animals like reptiles. But Denise Dearing at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City has found evidence that mammals feel the heat in subtle ways.

Plants produce toxins to defend themselves against animals that eat them. In response, herbivores limit the amount of toxins they eat, often by eating a wide range of plants.

That strategy may need some adjusting as climate change pushes temperatures up. Dearing found a number of lab studies scattered through the scientific literature showing that animals kept at higher temperatures become less able to process toxins (Journal of Comparative Physiology B, DOI: 10.1007/s00360-012-0670-y).

In one study in mice, raising the temperature from 26 °C to 36 °C made them more vulnerable to caffeine: they died after receiving just one-fifth of the normal lethal dose. Meanwhile, in the wild, white-throated woodrats often eat juniper, which is toxic, but they eat less of it in summer even though the juniper is readily available.


Another severe pratfall for the Warmist religion

If it’s not the global warming schemers deserting the cause, and global warming profiteers going belly up, and real life contradicting the premise, it’s another bulletin of bad news. Where will it all end for the global warming worshippers?

Here’s the latest, which just happens to devastate another assumption of the warming theorists (emphasis ours):

“A paper published today in Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics finds that clouds located in the stratosphere over the poles act to cool the stratosphere by adiabatic cooling, which is the cooling of air parcels as they rise and expand, rather than by ‘trapping heat’ below the clouds resulting in ‘radiative cooling’ of the stratosphere above. This finding contradicts a tenet of AGW theory, which predicts that infrared radiation from greenhouse gases will ‘trap heat’ to create a ‘hot spot’ in the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. This study finds that cooling of the stratosphere is instead due to rising air parcels rather than a decrease in radiation due to heat ‘trapped by greenhouse gases’.”

As if it weren’t bad enough that European schemers are jumping off the bandwagon, and Spanish profiteers are failing at profiteering, and real life disproves the theory that CO2 brings devastating heat…

…now we find that the stratosphere could be cooling, not heating, things up.

Gee, who knew all this would lead nowhere, bankrupt the players and be based on fraud and wrong-headed science? Oh wait. Yeah. That’s what we’ve been saying for about a decade now.

Of course, more and more folks are coming around, recognizing this obsession is counterproductive and a more productive path would be to help poor people become better off, not deny them cheap electricity.

And more and more folks are understanding that the “science-is-settled” crowd that shouts down dissenters isn’t better informed. Just louder.

And of course, more and more folks are accepting the fact: there is no global warming crisis. Period.


Let us rend our garments! We have been condemned by a "spiritual author"

No wonder he quotes not one scientific fact

The Truthout website has published an article written by Richard Schiffman, who is described as " the author of two biographies as well as a journalist whose work has appeared in The New York Times, Salon, The Washington Post, The Christian Science Monitor, The Huffington Post, and on NPR and Monitor Radio."

In the article Schiffman, who maintains that "climate change is now virtually undisputed", joins the people who have condemned the Heartland Institute´s "offensive billboard campaign":
The science only gets better with time, and climate change is now virtually undisputed - by the people who are doing the science, at any rate. That it remains a "controversial issue" long after the results are in is thanks to a well-funded cabal of free-market think tanks, corporations and business groups that hope to win in the political arena a fight that they have long since lost in the halls of science. They are abetted by a media whose relish for conflict and a scientifically nonsensical sense of supposed "balance" has led them to give the deniers equal airtime.

In May, the Heartland Institute put up a billboard on the Eisenhower Expressway outside of Chicago comparing believers in climate change to the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski. A firestorm in the press quickly convinced the Institute to pull the plug on the offensive billboard campaign.

However, Schiffman himself thinks that it is quite OK to compare "denialists" to Holocaust deniers:
But the question remains: why is the media paying any attention to the discredited ideas of the denialists? We don't give Holocaust deniers equal time to vent their noxious views, so why offer it to the climate change deniers?

The analogy might seem far-fetched, but the findings of climate scientists tell us that it is apt. We are facing a potential holocaust for life on earth, which could destroy entire ecosystems, turn productive regions into dust bowls, multiply catastrophic weather events, wipe out a large proportion of the planet's species and cost us more in dollars (not to mention lives) than all the wars in history combined.

In order to understand what kind of a man this self proclaimed scientific expert is, it is perhaps good to know how Schiffman himself chooses to introduce himself:
"My name is Richard Schiffman. I am a spiritual author and a former journalist who started writing poetry a few years back."

"Spiritual poetry is an effort to find words for the wordless. As such, it is bound, in one sense, to fail. But, paradoxically, the effort to express the inexpressible can serve as "a finger pointing toward the moon," in the language of zen. That is to say, at its best spiritual poetry brings us to the edge of the Great Mystery in which we live and move."

[Sounds like he has tumbled over the edge -- JR]


Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia in Venice: "no relationship between CO2 emissions and climate change"

Below is the Google translation from an article in Italian. It is pretty rough but I don't have the time to tidy it up. I have however read it in the original Italian so will summarize it instead:

Carlo Rubbia shared the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1984 and he points out that CO2 emissions don't correlate with climate change. He is however diplomatic enough to say that this may be because "other" (vaguely specified) processes may be masking CO2 effects and says that we should therefore continue to work to reduce CO2 emissions. He shows his lack of enthusiasm, however, by saying that sustainable energy is a long way off and will will have to continue to use fossil fuels for a long time yet

"It's not found a relationship between climate change and CO2 emissions." He said today in Venice Prize laureate Carlo Rubbia. "The new situation - he explained - and 'that while emissions continue, by 2000, and' a decrease in temperature." The physical phenomenon and noted that 'due to an effect of' masking ', which plays a role such as the energy stored in the oceans. "You can not 'say that the CO2 does not count - he concluded - that we still have to decrease."

The Nobel Prize considers the decisions to be taken in the next 10-15 years on the sustainability of the 'energy' will have significant consequences in the field of energy security and climate change, as well as' on growth and jobs. Costs could be high - highlights - but the price of inaction 'it would be much more "'. The Nobel and 'spoke at the annual conference' The Creation of shared value: Sustainability and Finance ', organized by the BSI Gamma Foundation Auditorium Santa Margherita in Venice. "Go towards sustainability '- added the physical - implies a broadening of the definition of cost that goes far beyond' mere economic implications of short-term interests to include economic, environmental and social long-term. In order to reconcile economic growth and sustainable development, strategic choices must be made ​​consistent, they are based on real and innovative scientific and technological developments. "Rubbia, beginning his long speech he stated that" sustainable development means to respond to this without compromising future generations, "arguing that this" fossil energy sources will be needed for decades to come. "


Australia: UNESCO meddling aims to put the State of Queensland into a Greenie straitjacket

But neither State nor federal politicians are buying it

HALTING port and industry development along Queensland's coast to protect the Great Barrier Reef is not an option, Premier Campbell Newman says.

His comments come as the UN's environmental arm UNESCO released a report that says rapid coastal development is threatening the health of the reef.

The report warns the reef could be listed as a World Heritage site in danger unless substantial changes are made to its management, sparking calls from green groups for the government to put a moratorium on massive coal port developments.

Mr Newman told reporters on Saturday that his government was committed to protecting the reef and the environment. But he made it clear halting port and infrastructure development connected to the coal and liquified natural gas industry was not an option. "We will protect the environment but we are not going to see the economic future of Queensland shut down," Mr Newman said.

Later he added: "We are in the coal business. If you want decent hospitals, schools and police on the beat we all need to understand that."

Mr Newman said the previous governments over the past decade were to blame for the "haphazard" and "ad hoc" development of ports.

"The business and economic issues that we were concerned about are very similar to the environment issues UNESCO has identified," Mr Newman said. "Very clearly there needs to be a proper strategy, orderly progression of these developments. We shouldn't be building a multitude of new ports and we won't be." Cabinet will be discussing this on Monday, he said.

Australian Marine Conservation Society director Darren Kindleysides said the world expected Australia to look after the unique reef, which was worth $6 billion annually to the tourism industry. “The rush to ship coal and gas through the World Heritage Great Barrier Reef intensifies by the day," Mr Kindleysides said. "Australia must now put the brakes on the approval of any new port and infrastructure developments risking the Reef."

The UNESCO report recommends an independent review into the management of Gladstone Harbour, which is at the centre of a diseased fish outbreak.

Mr Newman said he was already in the process of developing a water management plan for Gladstone Harbour.

He said it would be similar to the "watersway partnership" in Moreton Bay, where universities, government agencies, local councils and natural resource management groups jointly monitor water quality in creeks and rivers.

Legal issues may stop reef report response

The federal government may not be able to meet a major recommendation of the UNESCO report on the Great Barrier Reef, Environment Minister Tony Burke says.

About 45 development applications are in the pipeline that could “potentially” affect the reef including LNG and other processing facilities, port expansions, dredging, tourism developments and aquaculture.

The busy coal terminals of Abbot Point and Hay Point in north Qld are also undergoing expansion while new port facilities are anticipated on Cape York and Balaclava Island in central Queensland.

Mr Burke said the state and federal governments were already undertaking the “most comprehensive and complex assessment” ever to have been done on the reef.

It’s due to be delivered to UNESCO by February next year.

“The Great Barrier Reef is one of the world’s greatest treasures, it is one of Australia’s most significant environmental places and has been recognised as one of the healthiest coral reef ecosystems, and best managed marine areas in the world,” Mr Burke said.

The Queensland Resources Council (QRC) has taken issue with key findings of the scathing UNESCO report about the management of the Great Barrier Reef.

The report, released on Saturday, noted the international body's "extreme concern" at the "unprecedented" rate of development along the Queensland coast, and warned the reef could be listed as a World Heritage site in danger.

But QRC chief executive Michael Roche said the industry was on a sustainable footing. "We believe that the scale of development is very much a steady-growth scenario, not unprecedented growth," he told AAP.

Mr Roche said he did not accept the figures about increases in shipping movements put forward by environmental group Greenpeace.

"We need to ensure that all of these comments and requests and recommendations from UNESCO are seen in the context of realistic estimates of development," he said.

Mr Roche said the industry was serious about the looking after the Great Barrier Reef. "Industry has long demonstrated its commitment to protection of the reef through direct funding of essential reef research," he said.

"(It has met) the exacting environmental protection standards of the state and federal governments in seeking project approvals."



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...

Schiffman and others ignore a major difference between holocaust deniers and climate deniers. The holocaust has happened, is documented and those who lived through it can attest to its reality. Climate change deniers are objecting to something that has NOT happened, there are no "survivors" or witnesses since nothing happened and the entire thing is based on a computer model. It's the difference between believing in gravity and believing we can colonize Mars because a computer model shows a nifty craft taking us there and building cities. Only a fool lives their lives waiting for the Martian colony or worse yet, selling all their assets and living in abject poverty so we can go Mars and colonize.