text:
About Us
About Climate Change
Climate Library
Our Amazon Store
Folks, I have been asked by members of a Pro Bono legal team, that has been involved for some time with CO2 regulation and the DC Circuit and Supreme Courts, to pass along to you their response to our Research Report commenters who have claimed that our proof of invalidity of the THS in real world has no bearing on the validity of EPA's Endangerment Finding.
As the attached document makes clear, this argument is also falsified by the evidence, in this case EPA's evidence given to the two highest courts of the land.
James P. Wallace III, Ph.D.
On September 21, 2016, a new Research Report by James P. Wallace, III, John R. Christy and Joseph S. D'Aleo, On the Existence of a "Tropical Hot Spot" & The Validity of EPA's CO2 Endangerment Finding, Abridged Research Report, was published on ICECAP. Applying statistical and econometric methods to data from the principal atmospheric temperature data sets, the Research Report claims to demonstrate that the hypothesized "Tropical Hot Spot" in the tropical upper troposphere does not exist. For the details of the analysis, consult the Report.
This so-called Tropical Hot Spot is a signature pattern of greenhouse gas warming in the tropical upper troposphere according to what EPA, the USGCRP (formerly US CCSP), and the IPCC claim is their basic physical understanding of the climate. The Tropical Hot Spot is thus fundamental to the theory of potentially catastrophic human-caused global warming.
If the Research Report is correct, it would invalidate EPA's "Endangerment Finding" ("EF") that Greenhouse Gases ("GHGs") endanger human health and welfare, a Finding that in turn is the basis for all of EPA's efforts to regulate CO2 emissions and the energy sector of the economy. In the EF, EPA attributes global warming to human GHG emissions based on what it calls three "lines of evidence." The first and most important "line of evidence" is stated by EPA to be "our basic physical understanding of the effects of changing concentrations of greenhouse gases, natural factors, and other human impacts on the climate system." See 74 Fed. Reg. 66518:3 ("attribution of observed climate change to anthropogenic activities is based on multiple lines of evidence") and 74 Fed. Reg. 66,523:2. (Link. See also Endangerment Finding Technical Support Document ("TSD"), p. 47 (listing the three lines of evidence).
But the authors of the new Research Report conclude that their findings invalidate all EPA's three lines of evidence, not just the physical understanding. This would in turn would invalidate EPA's attribution of warming to human emissions, and would leave the EF without support.
One of the early internet responses to the new paper has been to deprecate the importance of the Tropical Hot Spot to both the EF and to the vitality of AGW theory and modeling. See, e.g., link). The argument is that neither EPA's "physical understanding" line of evidence nor AGW theory generally rests upon the existence of the Hot Spot.
But examination of the Endangerment Finding itself, and of its supporting documents, as well as of the assessment literature on which EPA explicitly relies, makes crystal clear that the Hot Spot is in fact a critical and necessary component of the "physical understanding" of climate that EPA claims as the foundational line of evidence supporting the EF.
For example, the "physical understanding" of the atmospheric greenhouse mechanism set forth in U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1, Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere - Understanding and Reconciling Differences, ("SAP 1.1"), Chapter 1, 1.1, The Thermal Structure of the Atmosphere, p. 17-19: explicitly relies upon the Hot Spot:
The sense of the radiative-convective-dynamical balance above, together with the requirement of radiative balance at the top-of-the atmosphere (namely, equilibrium conditions wherein the net solar energy absorbed by the Earth's climate system must be balanced by the infrared radiation emitted by the Earth), can help illustrate the significance of long-lived infrared absorbing gases in the global atmosphere. The presence of such greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, halocarbons) increases the radiative heating of the surface and troposphere. As specific humidity is strongly related to temperature, it is expected to rise with surface warming (IPCC, 1990), The increased moisture content of the atmosphere amplifies the initial radiative heating due to the greenhouse gas increases (Manabe and Wetherald, 1967; Ramanathan, 1981). The re-establishment of a new thermal equilibrium in the climate system involves the communication of the added heat input to the troposphere and surface, leading to surface warming (Goody and Yung, 1989; IPCC, 1990; Lindzen and Emanuel, 2002). From the preceding discussions, the lapse rate can be expected to decrease with the resultant increase in humidity, and also to depend on the resultant changes in atmospheric circulation. In general, the lapse rate can be expected to decrease with warming such that temperature changes aloft exceed those at the surface. As a consequence, the characteristic infrared emission level of the planet is shifted to a higher altitude in the atmosphere.
(Emphasis added). The bolded text precisely describes the Hot Spot phenomenon, and clearly demonstrates that it is fundamental to the orthodox physical understanding of the greenhouse warming mechanism. The CCSP SAP 1.1 report depicted the Hot Spot graphically in figure 1.3, p. 25, as follows:
Similarly, the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) also states unequivocally that the Hot Spot is an integral feature of the "physical understanding" of the climate's hypothesized greenhouse warming mechanism. This is demonstrated by AR4 WG1, The Physical Science Basis, Chapter 9, Figure 9.1. Panel (c) shows the modeled effect of GHGs, and clearly depicts the hot spot:
The text accompanying this figure explains that "The major features shown in Figure 9.1 are robust to using different climate models." IPCC AR4 WG1 9.2.2. link). "Greenhouse gas forcing is expected to produce warming in the troposphere,..." Id.
In connection with its adoption of the EF, EPA explicitly placed primary reliance on the US CCSP reports and the IPCC AR4. See TSD Box 1.1, p 4. These assessments are cited thousands of times in the full set of documentation for the EF. EPA has well and truly bound itself to these reports.
Whether the Hot Spot exists has been a white-hot point of controversy in the climate debate for many years. The history of the controversy through 2011 is recounted in Tropospheric Temperature Trends: History Of An Ongoing Controversy, January 1, 2011. No one would care if the Hot Spot were not critically important to AGW theory and modeling.
The arguments over the Hot Spot have all been about data quality or interpretation. At no point have any of the participants said it would not matter if there were no Hot Spot, or otherwise deprecated the importance of the Hot Spot to the physical understanding of how GHGs are claimed to warm the climate.
Thus, the CCSP report cited above said if the Hot Spot were missing it would be a "potentially serious inconsistency." Yet it ultimately sided with those claiming the mismatch between observations and prediction was not fatal. SAP 1.1, p. 11. (Emphasis added).
Given the controversy over the Hot Spot, EPA could not ignore the issue. EPA's team, including Tom Karl, followed the lead of the CCSP (led by the same Tom Karl) and concluded there was no dispositive conflict between prediction and observation:
However, an important inconsistency may have been identified in the tropics. In the tropics, most observational data sets show more warming at the surface than in the troposphere, while almost all model simulations have larger warming aloft than at the surface (Karl et al., 2006). Karl et al. (2009) state that when uncertainties in models and observations are properly accounted for, newer observational data sets are in agreement with climate model results.
TSD p. 50 (emphasis added). To say the least, this was itself a controversial conclusion.
The New Research Report deals with this EPA's use of models to validate the Hot Spot as follows:
Section III. Research Design
Unlike some research in this area, this research does not attempt to evaluate the existence of the THS in the real world by using the climate models. This would constitute a well-known error in mathematics and econometrics in that such climate models obviously must include all relevant theories, possibly including some not even known today; many, if not all, of which could impact Tropical temperatures.
Thus, it is never mathematically proper to attempt to validate any theory embedded in a model using the model itself. Each such theory needs to be tested outside of the model construct.
Section IV. Tropical Hot Spot Hypothesis Testing
The proper test for the existence of the THS in the real world is very simple. Are the slopes of the three trend lines (upper & lower troposphere and surface) all positive, statistically significant and do they have the proper top down rank order?
Research Report, p. 14.
In summary, both EPA and the assessments on which it relies expressly recognize the importance of the Hot Spot and treat evidence that it does not exist as a "serious" or "important" "inconsistency" between theory and observation.
The Research Report is a powerful demonstration that the Hot Spot does not exist. The significance is obvious: definitive proof there is no Hot Spot would logically invalidate the physical understanding on which the EF, AGW theory and climate models are founded. This would, in turn, invalidate the entire edifice of U.S. and international climate policy.
Contact Info: firstname.lastname@example.com
Here is what Alan Carlin thinks of the analysis and his response to questions about the methodology.
The Importance and Unique Aspects of the New Wallace et al. Report
Alan Carlin
Although the very new Wallace et al. report focuses on a new approach to showing the critical absence of a tropical hot spot, which indeed has an important inference of invalidity for USEPA's principal "line of evidence" in their GHG Endangerment Finding, the report has even more interesting findings about other aspects of climate science. The absence of the tropical hot spot has been discussed for several years, and been ignored by climate alarmists despite the implication of this new finding that CAGW is invalid scientifically. I discussed some of these more interesting findings last week. The report provides considerable support to several of the new hypotheses highlighted here.
The importance of this new study is that the authors very carefully specified multiple simultaneous functional relationships between the most important climate science variables including the critical (in terms of alarmist science) possible dual relationships between CO2 and global temperatures and then allowed the available data to determine the importance of each variable. The report ends by asking why alarmists have apparently never used this approach to determine or assess their "science." Most of their "science" is based on alleged relationships between the variables based on their interpretations of physical science and particularly various computer models of their creation using these interpretations (despite the inherent inability of such models to accurately portray future climate due to the chaotic nature of climate).
The Wallace et al. 2016 study represents a new and interesting approach to climate science research which should yield very interesting and much more valid results since the weight given to each likely variable is determined by available evidence rather than the guesses of carefully selected "experts" and incorporated into their largely arbitrary computer models. As Wallace et al. 2011 said:
The simplest model that can characterize the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration levels and temperature levels must contain at least two simultaneous equations, one for each of these two state variables. Therefore, the climate system must be analyzed using simultaneous equation estimation techniques. Otherwise the parameter estimates of any structural equations will be both biased and inconsistent, which implies they are useless for policy analysis purposes. The existence of a robust atmospheric CO2 equation has been amply demonstrated, thus guaranteeing that ANY modeling system designed to forecast temperature must include at least two equations.
The much more appropriate simultaneous equation approach used in the Wallace et al. 2016 report is notable by its apparent absence (to my knowledge) in alarmist climate science despite the contribution it could and must make if climate science is ever to have any validity.
Francis Menton
In the list of President Obama's favorite things to do, using government power to save the world from human-caused "climate change" has to rank at the top. From the time of his nomination acceptance speech in June 2008 ("this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal..."), through all of his State of the Union addresses, and right up to the present, he has never missed an opportunity to lecture us on how atmospheric warming from our sinful "greenhouse gas" emissions is the greatest crisis facing humanity. Just a couple of weeks ago, while on his way in Air Force One to China to "ratify" his new climate non-treaty treaty, he stopped off to make two speeches on the subject, one in Nevada and the other in Hawaii. From the Guardian on September 1:
Obama embraced language that would not be out of place from an environmental group, calling on politicians "to be less concerned with special interests and more concerned about the judgment of future generations". He lamented the "withering" crops in the Marshall Islands and the fact that the government of Kiribati, another low-lying Pacific nation, has purchased land in Fiji to relocate its people due to the rising seas.
And don't forget, Air Force One is two 747s, not just one. Hey, you wouldn't want the President to go crossing the Pacific without a backup 747, now would you? And while the President lectures us about our sins against the planet, his EPA and other agencies embark on the project to impose penance on us by forcing the closure of coal and other fossil fuel power plants, blocking pipelines, bankrupting the coal mining industry, subsidizing intermittent power sources that can't possibly run a fully operational electrical grid at reasonable cost, and multiplying our cost of electricity by an order of magnitude or so. To save the planet!
But is there actually any scientific basis for this? Supposedly, it's to be found in a document uttered by EPA back in December 2009, known as the "Endangerment Finding." In said document, the geniuses at EPA purport to find that the emissions of "greenhouse gases" into the atmosphere are causing a danger to human health and welfare through the greenhouse warming mechanism. But, you ask, is there any actual proof of that? EPA's answer (found in the Endangerment Finding) is the "Three Lines of Evidence". From page 47 of the Endangerment Finding's Technical Support Document:
The attribution of observed climate change to anthropogenic activities is based on multiple lines of evidence. The first line of evidence arises from the basic physical understanding of the effects of changing concentrations of GHGs, natural factors, and other human impacts on the climate system. The second line of evidence arises from indirect, historical estimates of past climate changes that suggest that the changes in global surface temperature over the last several decades are unusual (Karl et al, 2009). The third line of evidence arises from the use of computer-based climate models to simulate the likely patterns of response of the climate system to different forcing mechanisms (both natural and anthropogenic).
But, guys, have you actually checked the empirical data to see if your "lines of evidence" stand up? Climate skeptics have been carping for years that the serious studies that should have been done to back up the "lines of evidence" seem to be completely lacking. And now, this morning, we get this, first appearing at the ICECAP website: "The most important assumption in EPA's CO2 Endangerment Finding has been conclusively invalidated."
The news is that a major new work of research, from a large group of top scientists and mathematicians, asserts that EPA's "lines of evidence," and thus its Endangerment Finding, have been scientifically invalidated. Here is a relatively long quote from the summary:
On December 15, 2009, EPA issued its Green House Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding, which has driven very significant and costly regulations beginning with CO2. Focusing primarily on the time period since 1950, EPA's Endangerment Finding predicated on Three Lines of Evidence, claims that Higher CO2 Emissions have led to dangerously Higher Global Average Surface Temperatures.
The assumption of the existence of a "Tropical Hot Spot (THS)" is critical to all Three Lines of Evidence in EPA's GHG/CO2 Endangerment Finding.
Stated simply, first, the THS is claimed to be a fingerprint or signature of atmospheric and Global Average Surface Temperatures (GAST) warming caused by increasing GHG/CO2 concentrations[1]. The proper test for the existence of the THS in the real world is very simple. Are the slopes of the three temperature trend lines (upper & lower troposphere and surface) all positive, statistically significant and do they have the proper top down rank order?
Second, higher atmospheric CO2 and other GHGs concentrations are claimed to have been the primary cause of the claimed record setting GAST over the past 50 plus years.
Third, the THS assumption is imbedded in all of the climate models that EPA still relies upon in its policy analysis supporting, for example, its Clean Power Plan - recently put on hold by a Supreme Court Stay. These climate models are also critical to EPA's Social Cost of Carbon estimates used to justify a multitude of regulations across many U.S. Government agencies…
These analysis results [in this Report] would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA's claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world. Also critically important, even on an all-other-things-equal basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series data analyzed.
Thus, the analysis results invalidate each of the Three Lines of Evidence in its CO2 Endangerment Finding. Once EPA's THS assumption is invalidated, it is obvious why the climate models they claim can be relied upon, are also invalid. And, these results clearly demonstrate - 13 times in fact - that once just the ENSO impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no "record setting" warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no ENSO-Adjusted Warming at all. These natural ENSO impacts are shown in this research to involve both changes in solar activity and the well-known 1977 Pacific Climate Shift.
So the authors of this Report, operating without government or industry funding, compiled the best available atmospheric temperature time series from 13 independent sources (satellites, balloons, buoys, and surface records), and then backed out only ENSO (i.e., El Nino/La Nina) effects. And with that data and that sole adjustment they found: no evidence of the so-called Tropical Hot Spot that is the key to EPA's claimed "basic physical understanding" of the claimed atmospheric greenhouse warming model, plus no statistically significant atmospheric warming at all to be explained.
For those interested in all the gory technical details, here is a link to the full Executive Summary, and here is a link to the full 68 page Report, complete with zillions of charts and access to all the archived underlying data. Note that, in great distinction to the tradition of climate "science," where hiding data from adversaries is the norm, here the authors have made all data and methods fully available. Try to prove them wrong!
Well, back to you EPA! Do you mean that you're trying to impose hundreds of billions of dollars of costs on the American economy and citizens and the so-called "scientific" basis for your project never existed? You'd better come up with something pretty good and quick!
Meanwhile, Hillary is saying that she supports Obama's climate agenda because she "believes in science." Does she even know that science is a process of testing hypotheses against data, and not a set of enforced orthodox beliefs? Don't count on it.
See an excellent write-up on the issues in the weekly SEPP newsletter.
No Tricks Zone
Richard Burton in Camelot foretells the UN, EPA, and the administration policy on climate change. Obama and Kerry and the rest of the scientifically illiterates in control think they can control climate cycles simply by executive actions that would eventually leave us in the dark and cold and heat.
Like the (disputed) stories about the proclamations of King Canute that he could simply use his power to command waves and tides to stop rising:
4 New Papers: Anthropogenic Signal Not Detectable in Sea Level Rise
By Kenneth Richard
It is widely assumed that sea levels have been rising in recent decades largely in response to anthropogenic global warming. However, due to the inherently large contribution of natural oscillatory influences on sea level fluctuations, this assumption lacks substantiation. Instead, natural factors or internal variability override the detection of an anthropogenic signal and may instead largely explain the patterns in sea level rise in large regions of the global oceans.
Scientists who have recently attempted to detect an anthropogenic signal in regional sea level rise trends have had to admit that there is "no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming," or that the "sea level rise pattern does not correspond to externally forced anthropogenic sea level signal," and that sea level "trends are still within the range of long-term internal decadal variability."
Below are highlighted summaries from 4 peer-reviewed scientific papers published within the last few months.
1. Hansen et al., 2016
For the convenience of the readers, our basic results are shown in Figure 1. We identified five individual oscillations (upper panel), including a sea-level amplitude of 70 mm (top-bottom [t-b]) of the 18.6-year oscillation caused by the lunar nodal oscillation (LNO)… Together with a general sea-level rise of 1.18 mm/y, the sum of these five sea-level oscillations constitutes a reconstructed or theoretical sea-level curve of the eastern North Sea to the central Baltic Sea (Figure 1, lower panel), which correlates very well with the observed sea-level changes of the 160-year period (1849-2009), from which 26 long tide gauge time series are available from the eastern North Sea to the central Baltic Sea. Such identification of oscillators and general trends over 160 years would be of great importance for distinguishing long-term, natural developments from possible, more recent anthropogenic sea-level changes. However, we found that a possible candidate for such anthropogenic development, i.e. the large sea-level rise after 1970, is completely contained by the found small residuals, long-term oscillators, and general trend. Thus, we found that there is (yet) no observable sea-level effect of anthropogenic global warming in the world's best recorded region.
2. Palanisamy, 2016
Building up on the relationship between thermocline and sea level in the tropical region, we show that most of the observed sea level spatial trend pattern in the tropical Pacific can be explained by the wind driven vertical thermocline movement. By performing detection and attribution study on sea level spatial trend patterns in the tropical Pacific and attempting to eliminate signal corresponding to the main internal climate mode, we further show that the remaining residual sea level trend pattern does not correspond to externally forced anthropogenic sea level signal. In addition, we also suggest that satellite altimetry measurement may not still be accurate enough to detect the anthropogenic signal in the 20-year tropical Pacific sea level trends.
3. Hadi Bordbar et al., 2016
The tropical Pacific has featured some remarkable trends during the recent decades such as an unprecedented strengthening of the Trade Winds, a strong cooling of sea surface temperatures (SST) in the eastern and central part, thereby slowing global warming and strengthening the zonal SST gradient, and highly asymmetric sea level trends with an accelerated rise relative to the global average in the western and a drop in the eastern part. These trends have been linked to an anomalously strong Pacific Walker Circulation, the major zonal atmospheric overturning cell in the tropical Pacific sector, but the origin of the strengthening is controversial. Here we address the question as to whether the recent decadal trends in the tropical Pacific atmosphere-ocean system are within the range of internal variability, as simulated in long unforced integrations of global climate models. We show that the recent trends are still within the range of long-term internal decadal variability.
4. Dangendorf et al., 2016
The observed 20th century sea level rise represents one of the major consequences of anthropogenic climate change. However, superimposed on any anthropogenic trend there are also considerable decadal to centennial signals linked to intrinsic natural variability in the climate system.... Gravitational effects and ocean dynamics further lead to regionally varying imprints of low frequency variability. In the Arctic, for instance, the causal uncertainties are even up to 8 times larger than previously thought. This result is consistent with recent findings that beside the anthropogenic signature, a non-negligible fraction of the observed 20th century sea level rise still represents a response to pre-industrial natural climate variations such as the Little Ice Age.
Tom Wysmuller, formerly of NASA who is a member of coastal sea level committees in the northeast and lectures on sea-level commented on
Sea-Level Rise: There are parts of the world that are tectonically inert, i.e., where subsidence or uplift are not factors affecting coastal tide gauges. In those areas with long-term time gauge placement, a steady linear and unchanging minimal (1mm/yr) rise in sea level has been observed, in the face of CO2's relatively rapid acceleration (38% over the past 130 years). There is no CO2 driven visible sea level acceleration signal, whatsoever, to be seen in tectonically inert coastal regions.
Research Report Executive Summary
Relevance of this Research
Third, the THS assumption is imbedded in all of the climate models that EPA still relies upon in its policy analysis supporting, for example, its Clean Power Plan - recently put on hold by a Supreme Court Stay. These climate models are also critical to EPA's Social Cost of Carbon estimates used to justify a multitude of regulations across many U.S. Government agencies.
Objectives of the Research
The objective of this research was to determine whether or not a straightforward application of the proper mathematical methods would support EPA's basic claim that CO2 is a pollutant. Stated simply, their claim is that GAST is primarily a function of four explanatory variables: Atmospheric CO2 Levels, Solar Activity, Volcanic Activity, and a coupled ocean-atmosphere phenomenon called the El Nino-Southern Oscillation (ENSO.)
The first objective of this research was to determine, based on the very considerable relevant and credible tropical temperature data evidence, whether or not the assumed THS actually exists in the real world.
The second related objective was to determine whether, adjusting ONLY for ENSO impacts, anything at all unusual with the Earth's temperatures seemed to be occurring in the Tropics, Contiguous U.S. or Globally. It is a well-known meteorological fact that, other things equal, El Ninos lead to a global scale warming and La Ninas a global scale cooling, whose magnitudes are related to their ENSO strengths.
The third objective was to determine whether the rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations alone can be shown to have had a statistically significant impact on the trend slopes of often -publically-quoted temperature data.
It should be noted that in carrying out this research project, every effort was made to minimize complaints that this analysis was performed on so-called "cherry picked temperature data". To avoid even the appearance of such activity, the authors divided up responsibilities, where Dr. Christy was tasked to provide temperature data sets that he felt were most appropriate and credible for testing the THS as well as the two other EPA Endangerment Finding hypotheses. All told, thirteen temperature time series (9 Tropics, 1 Contiguous U.S. and 3 Global) were analyzed in this research. The econometric analysis was done by Jim Wallace & Associates, LLC, and when completed, cross checked by the two other authors as well as seven reviewers.
Findings of the Research
These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt but that EPA's claim of a Tropical Hot Spot (THS), caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world. Also critically important, even on an all-other-things-equal basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 critically important temperature time series data analyzed.
Moreover, on an all-other-things-equal basis, the research strongly implies that there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures.
Finally, regarding the credibility of these research findings, the temperature data measurements that were analyzed were taken by many different entities using balloons, satellites, buoys and various land based techniques. Needless to say, if regardless of data source, the results are the same, the analysis findings should be considered highly credible.
PDF of this Executive Summary here.
See full abridged 68 page report here. The authors and reviewers all highly recommend that you read the PREFACE which explains the methodology and will help you better understand the detailed temperature analyses.
Study Authors & Reviewers
Dr. James P. Wallace III
Jim Wallace & Associates, LLC
50 Years Mathematical Modelling Team Management
Ph.D., Economics, Minor in Engineering, Brown University
M.S., Mechanical Engineering, Brown University
B.S., Aeronautical Engineering, Brown University
Dr. John R. Christy
Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, Alabama State Climatologist and Director of the Earth Science System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville.
Lead Author, Contributing Author and Reviewer of United Nations IPCC assessments.
Awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement.
Elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society in 2002
Joseph S. D'Aleo
Certified Consulting Meteorologist
Elected AMS Fellow
BS, MS Meteorology University of Wisconsin
ABD NYU Air Resources, Honorary Doctorate VSC
45 years operational and research meteorology
Dr. Alan Carlin
Retired Senior Analyst and manager, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Author, Environmentalism Gone Mad, Stairway Press, 2015.
Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA.
BS, Physics, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA.
Dr. Harold H. Doiron
Retired VP-Engineering Analysis and Test Division, InDyne, Inc.
Ex-NASA JSC, Aerospace Consultant
B.S. Physics, University of Louisiana - Lafayette
M.S., Ph.D., Mechanical Engineering, University of Houston
Dr. Theodore R. Eck
Ph.D., Economics, Michigan State University
M.A, Economics, University of Michigan
Fulbright Professor of International Economics
Former Chief Economist of Amoco Corp. and Exxon Venezuela
Advisory Board of the Gas Technology Institute and Energy Intelligence Group
Dr. Craig D. Idso
Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change
Ph.D., Geography, Arizona State University
M.S., Agronomy, University of Nebraska, Lincoln
B.S., Geography, Arizona State University
Dr. Richard A. Keen
Instructor Emeritus of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences, University of Colorado
Ph.D., Geography/Climatology, University of Colorado
M.S., Astro-Geophysics, University of Colorado
B.A., Astronomy, Northwestern University
Dr. Anthony R. Lupo
IPCC Expert Reviewer
Professor, Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri
Ph.D., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
M.S., Atmospheric Science, Purdue University
Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen
Ph.D., Physics, M.I.T.
B.S., Physics, M.I.T.
Dr. George T. Wolff
Former Chair EPA's Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
Ph.D., Environmental Sciences, Rutgers University
M.S., Meteorology, New York University
B.S., Chemical Engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology
Research Report Endorsement
The authors of this research are very much interested in knowing the names and credentials of individuals who would like to add their names to the list of scientists whose names already appear in the report under the following statement:
"The Undersigned Agree with the Conclusions of this Report."
After reading and thinking about this research report, if you would like to have your name added to such a list, please send your name and credentials in a fashion similar to those listed in the report.
Please send this information to the following dedicated email address: email@example.com
[1] See U.S. Climate Change Science Program, Synthesis and Assessment Product 1.1, Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere - Understanding and Reconciling Differences, Chapter 1, p. 18-19, PDF
Both President Obama and Hillary Clinton have rolled out new plans to combat global warming by increasing power generated by renewable energy sources. But who's going to pay for them? We decided to find out what America thinks.
Most voters still consider global warming a serious problem. In response, President Obama earlier this month announced an energy plan that requires a 32% drop in carbon dioxide emissions from power plants by 2030 and a 28% increase in the amount of power generated by renewable sources by 2025. But just 33% of voters think his plan will do a lot to combat global warming, and 56% expect it to increase energy costs.
At the same time, 56% also think Clinton's equally ambitious plan to increase the amount of electricity generated by renewable energy sources will be good for the economy.
But are voters willing to shell out to put these plans into action? Not really. Forty-one percent (41%) say they're not willing to pay anything more in taxes and utility costs to generate cleaner energy and fight global warming. Another 24% are willing to spend only $100 more per year.
Of course, it probably doesn't help that 52% think there is still significant disagreement within the scientific community about global warming. Just 34% believe scientists are in general agreement over how serious a problem it really is.
Note in Europe where the greens pushed an agenda like the one the EPA and the Clinton DNC plans call for, energy prices skyrocketed, driving many into energy poverty (especially pensioners). High energy drove industry to relocate in countries with lower energy costs. Countries like Spain had unemployment reach over 27%.
Two must see videos from the Doctors of Disaster Preparedness meeting:
It's not climate change. It's science being manipulated to drive and justify energy policy.
Joseph D'Aleo, CCM, AMS Fellow, Master Resource
My philosophy when I taught college was to show my students how to think - not what to think. As Socrates said, "Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel."
I told my students that data is king, and models are only useful tools. Any model's output or any theory needed to be examined and validated using data, and must always be used with caution.
The great Nobel Laureate Physicist Richard Feynman taught students: If a theory or educated guess or hypothesis disagrees with experiment or data or experience,
"it's wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It doesn't make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it doesn't matter how smart you are, or what your name is...If [your hypothesis] disagrees with experiment, it's wrong.'
Einstein schooled his fellow scientists:
"A model or a hypothesis cannot 'prove' anything. But data can invalidate a hypothesis or model. It takes only one experiment to prove me wrong."
The "greenhouse theory" being used to change the world fails the test in many ways.
Applying Feynman and Einstein to "climate science"
First of all, many scientists question CO2 as being 'the climate driver' and a danger to humanity.
Dr. Patrick Moore, PhD Ecologist and co-founder of Greenpeace, testified before a US Senate committee in February 2014.
"When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago," he pointed out, "CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished… It also flourished when an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today."
What then makes it an absolute law of nature that carbon dioxide levels above 350 parts per million (0.035 percent of Earth's atmosphere) will be catastrophic, as so many alarmists now say?
The "more than 350 ppm CO2 will cause planetary disaster "hypothesis" was put to the test with observations. A large team of unbiased climate scientists and I examined the three main tenets of the model-based "science" that EPA uses to justify its energy and climate regulations. We reported to the Supreme Court in a brief that each one has failed the test.
* There has been no warming for close to 19 years, according to satellite and weather balloons measurements, despite an increase of over 10% in atmospheric CO2.
* The strong warming that all the climate models forecast in the tropical high atmosphere and the tropical oceans simply does not exist.
* Even NOAA and the IPCC have now admitted that there has been no upward or downward trend in droughts, floods, hurricanes and tornadoes. Only snow has increased - and the models had projected that snowfalls would be the only extreme weather event that would decline.
However, pressured by the White House, the EPA, NOAA and NASA continue to use these faulty models to predict a dire future and move us away from fossil fuels. And thanks to unprecedented funding of billions of dollars, university scientists are gladly supporting this effort and the dire forecasts.
This is something Eisenhower warned about in his Farewell address:
"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present - and is gravely to be regarded."
NOAA recently warned of an increase in heat waves and heat wave deaths. The reality is the heat peaked in the first half of the twentieth century and has been declining since then. In fact, 23 of the 50 states' all-time record highs occurred in the 1930s, with 38 coming before 1960. There have been more all-time cold records than heat records since the 1940s. As the graphs demonstrate, the number of 95-degree F days and widespread heat waves has been trending down since the 1930s. For every continent, the all-time heat records were set in the 1800s to mid 1900s.
Dubious "Dangerous Warming" Claims
Also totally ignored is the inconvenient fact that cold kills more people than heat. A rigorous study published last year in the medical journal Lancet examined more than 74 million deaths in 384 locations across 13 areas: cold countries like Canada and Sweden, temperate nations like Spain, South Korea and Australia, and subtropical and tropical ones like Brazil and Thailand. It found that 20 times more people worldwide died from cold than from heat.
Government reports, writers of opinion pieces, and bloggers posting graphs purporting to show rising or record air temperatures or ocean heat, are misleading you. This is not actual raw data. It is plots of data that have been "adjusted" or "homogenized" (ie, manipulated) by scientists - or it is output from models that are based on assumptions, many of them incorrect.
UK Meteorological Office researcher Chris Folland makes no apologies for this.
"The data don't matter," he claims. "We're not basing our recommendations [for reductions in carbon dioxide emissions] upon the data. We're basing them upon the climate models."
"Rather than seeing models as describing literal truth," added Oxford University climate modeler David Frame, "we ought to see them as convenient fictions which try to provide something useful."
But models are useful and valid only if their outputs or forecasts are confirmed by real-world observations. What's more, these data plots were prepared by the same organizations that are responsible for producing the model forecasts. The fox is running the hen house.
Actual, original data have been changed so much and so often that they are almost unrecognizable from the original entries. For example, the 0.7 degree Celsius (1.3F) of cooling between 1940 and the 1970s - which had the world worried about another Little Ice Age - has simply "disappeared" in these corrupted-computer-model re-writes of history.
Important perspectives on warming claims
In 1978, the late Leonard Nimoy of Star Trek fame warned audiences, "The worst winter in a century" occurred last year. "Climate experts believe the next ice age is on its way. According to recent evidence, it could come sooner than anyone had expected. At weather stations in the far north, temperatures have been dropping for 30 years. Sea coasts, long free of summer ice, are now blocked year-round."
Within a few more years, though, temperatures began to rise - and suddenly "climate experts" were warning that fossil fuels were going to warm the planet uncontrollably. Arctic sea coasts, they began to say, had far less ice and were in danger of being ice-free year-round.
To underscore their concern, they exaggerate warming charts, by stretching the scale, to make any recent warming look far more significant than it actually is. Moreover, the claimed 1-degree-plus-or-minus warming needs to be put into perspective.
Here in the north, air temperatures often change more than 30 degrees F in a single day, monthly average temperatures vary more than 50F from January to July, and highest and lowest temperatures can vary as much as 125 F.
If you plot these normal temperature variations on a graph that also shows the global temperature change between 1850 and 2015 (based on data gathered by the institution that the UN trusts the most - the UK Hadley Center, or HADCRUT), the asserted average planetary warming is virtually imperceptible. It is certainly not "dangerous."
Part 2 Policy and Intent
Who is pushing this end-of-hydrocarbon-energy to prevent an end-of-world-calamity agenda? The list is long and includes politicians and UN globalists (look up Agenda 21) who seek more power and control over every aspect of your life.
Scientists, environmentalists, green NGOs and corporations are all chasing the $1.5 trillion per year that feeds the climate crisis and renewable energy industry. The lengthy list also includes scientifically illiterate population control socialists and Hollywood cause seekers, who are all supported by environmental journalists who never question any "green" causes or scare stories.
Many use the "precautionary principle" to justify drastic actions that perversely have truly drastic consequences, intended or unintended. Eco-fanaticism has already pummeled Europe.
Impacts of bad policy
In the past ten years, the price of electricity in Europe has climbed by an average of 63 percent.
Polling indicates that 38% of British households are cutting back essential purchases like food, to pay high and rising energy bills. Another 59% of homes are worried about how they will pay energy bills when the Paris accord is enforced. Poor and middle class families are impacted worst of all.
Families and businesses in the "Blue States" in the Northeast already pay the highest electricity prices in the United States - twice that of some other states. The changes the EPA and this administration are pushing could double those rates - and the rates in other states.
The thousands of dollars that an average Northeastern family saved on gasoline and heating oil in 2015, thanks to fracking and drilling on private land, was truly welcomed as the only 'raise' that many families got in many a year.
However, that too will be a memory, if the EPA's plans are not blocked by the courts - or a President Trump. Moreover, if elected president, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders both plan to eliminate fracking, as well as most conventional oil and gas drilling and production.
With a Hillary Clinton administration and newly Democrat Congress promising to kill fracking and eliminate, hyper-regulate and/or over-tax fossil fuels, energy costs per family would increase thousands of dollars a year. This happened in Europe when the greens took control.
Moreover, soaring energy prices ripple through the entire economy, affecting the cost of all goods and services - including products and services provided by factories, hospitals, schools, small businesses and the shipping of food and other products. Soaring energy prices kill jobs and depress living standards, as companies and communities find they must come up with thousands to millions of extra dollars every year, just to keep the lights, heat and air conditioning on and machinery humming.
That means more industries will head overseas, where energy costs and workers' wages are far lower, while millions of Americans will be relegated to part-time positions, service jobs at far less than they had been getting, or welfare and unemployment benefits for the newly and perhaps permanently jobless.
Meanwhile, the United States will be expected to send billions of dollars to poor countries and emerging economies, as climate change "reparation, mitigation and adaptation" payments, under the new Paris climate treaty. And those now relatively poor nations, including China and India, will be still burning fossil fuels and taking away our jobs, to lift their people out of poverty.
All the sacrifices by Americans, Europeans and families in other now-developed, now-rich countries will be for naught.
This is what the so-called "progressives" want and are marching in the streets to get.
The Climate Alarmists' Real Goals
Former Washington State Democratic governor Dixy Lee Ray saw the second Treaty of Paris coming many years ago.
"The future is to be [One] World Government with central planning by the United Nations," she said. "Fear of environmental crises - whether real or not - is expected to lead to compliance."
Last year, UN Climate Chief Christiana Figueres stated bluntly:
Our aim is not to save the world from ecological calamity but to change the global economic system… This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history.
In simpler terms, she intends to replace free enterprise, entrepreneurial capitalism with UN-controlled, centralized, socialized One World government and economic control.
In November 2010, IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer presented an additional reason for UN climate policies.
"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy," he said. It is not. It is actually about how "we redistribute de facto the world's wealth."
In addition to everything else that is wrong, destructive and simply perverse about energy and climate policies, these are truly scary developments. And to top it all off, the Obama administration's Justice Department is now seriously considering the idea of joining state attorneys general in prosecuting companies, organizations and individuals who dare to think independently and refute claims that human-driven global warming is the greatest danger of all to our future well-being.
All of this sounds a lot more like pre-world war two Germany than the United States of America. It is certainly a trend that we should worry about far more than any honestly conceivable threat from any nearly imperceptible human contribution to the climate changes that have always buffeted humanity and our planet.
Joseph D'Aleo is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and Fellow of the American Meteorological Society. He was a college professor and First Director of Meteorology at the Weather Channel. He has authored books and papers on how natural factors drive seasonal weather and long-term climate trends.
We with a large team of scientists and economists and lawyers recently published a detailed scientific brief to the courts battling bad science. It was the 5th such brief the last 5 years, all of them pro-bono like with these postings elsewhere like Master Resource, Patriot Post and the local weeklies in New England as we try to educate as many people as we can to the truth and the pains associated with the punitive regulations and policies pushed by the radical environmentalists and politicians. Please help us if you can through your donations (button on the left).
New Report Definitively Shows UN CAGW Hypothesis and IPCC Reports Invalid and Thus CPP and Paris Treaty Total Wastes
Alan Carlin
As discussed in my book, Environmentalism Gone Mad, two of the reasonable inferences from the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) hypothesis (the scientific basis for the world climate scare pushed by the United Nations and the Obama Administration) are that atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels should affect global temperatures, and that the resulting heat generated should be observable by a hot spot about 10 km over the tropics. In fact, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UNIPCC) argues that both should exist and the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) uses the hot spot as one of its three "lines of evidence" for justifying its Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Endangerment Finding (EF).
The EF, in turn, is used by EPA to justify all its climate regulations, including its ultra-expensive so-called "Clean Power Plan" (CPP} requiring that many coal plants be replaced with wind and solar-generated electric power at huge expense to ratepayers in terms of outlays and reductions in reliability as well as to taxpayers for government subsidies. The 2016 Democratic Party Platform last July now carries this approach to a new extreme by advocating that all use of fossil fuels be ended by 2050, which is highly unlikely to even be achievable at any cost.
Climate skeptic scientists have long questioned whether the effects of relatively minor (compared to other CO2 sources and sinks) human-caused emissions of CO2 have more than a minor effect on global temperatures and some have even questioned whether the UN and USEPA have even gotten the causation backwards (i.e., because on balance global temperatures affect atmospheric CO2 levels). A very interesting new study shows that their skepticism has been more than justified. By using sophisticated econometric/statistical methods on 13 different climate databases for the years 1959 to 2015 where available, the study concludes that the changes in CO2 have no measurable net effects on global temperatures but that global temperatures affect CO2 levels. The real advance in the new study is that it assumes that global temperatures may affect atmospheric CO2 levels in addition to assuming that CO2 may affect global temperatures (as assumed by UNIPCC and USEPA). This introduces complexity to the analysis but is a crucial improvement over most earlier studies.
New Research Findings Support Earlier Research by Skeptics
This conclusion is exactly what Dr. Murry Salby has independently concluded in recent years. Unfortunately, his conclusions resulted in the loss of his professorship at Macquarie University in Australia in 2013 and the confiscation of his research notes by climate alarmists at the University. As a result, his research has not been published to date in journal format as far as I know. The absence of any measurable effect of CO2 on global temperatures and the resulting missing hot spot invalidates the CAGW hypothesis in terms of the Scientific Method, and thus the EPA EF as well as the basis for the UN IPCC physical science reports and thus the scientific basis for the Paris Treaty of 2015 as well as the USEPA CPP. Alarmist scientists have tried to argue that the hot spot is actually present, but have failed to make a convincing case.
The new research report is consistent with the findings of Environmentalism Gone Mad that CAGW is invalid because reasonable inferences from it are not supported by comparisons with real world data (as required by the scientific method), but goes beyond it by providing still another, and a more sophisticated, basis for rejecting the UNIPCC/USEPA CAGW hypothesis.
The new econometric/statistical report shows that that the minor increases in global temperatures can be entirely explained by natural factors. By subtracting temperature changes due to the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) the report shows that there is no role for human emissions of CO2 as a cause of global warming.
The Role of ENSO in Determining Global Temperatures
It has long been evident even to a casual observer that global temperatures vary with ENSO since these temperatures consistently increase when El Nino conditions prevail and fall when La Nina conditions prevail. The alarmists have generally tried to ignore this reality, but in the last year or two even they have finally begun to recognize the role of ENSO in global temperatures and eagerly awaited the expected increase in global temperatures (the so-called highest recorded temperatures resulting from the 2016 El Nino) in order try to justify their now invalidated CAGW hypothesis.
Atmospheric CO2 levels, on the other hand, have been increasing fairly steadily and bear no obvious similarity to global temperatures. Previous skeptic studies have simply looked for the hot spot and not found it. But the new study shows that the current warming can be fully explained by including ENSO variations in the analysis and that while changes in CO2 levels must be considered in the analysis, it turned out that they can safely be ignored, which is even more than most skeptics have long argued.
The authors believe that ENSO is a natural phenomenon and I agree. There is no basis I know of for arguing that the gradual and fairly steady increases in atmospheric CO2 levels would bring about the ENSO fluctuations in the vast Central Pacific Ocean. ENSO has been observed over long periods and predated humans. The authors believe that ENSO appears to be influenced by changes in solar activity, so such oscillations are highly unlikely to be human influenced. Thus there is no basis to blame human activities for global temperature changes as the alarmists claim. And there is thus no basis for claiming that humans must reduce their CO2 emissions in order to avoid CAGW at the cost of hundreds of trillions of dollars, much less reliable energy supplies, and significantly lower economic growth by using wind and solar energy.
In the words of the new report:
These analysis results would appear to leave very, very little doubt that EPA's claim of a Tropical Hot Spot [THS], caused by rising atmospheric CO2 levels, simply does not exist in the real world. Also critically important, even on an all-other-things-equal basis, this analysis failed to find that the steadily rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations have had a statistically significant impact on any of the 13 temperature time series analyzed.
Thus, the analysis results invalidate each of the Three Lines of Evidence in its CO2 Endangerment Finding. Once EPA's THS assumption is invalidated, it is obvious why the climate models they claim can be relied upon, are also invalid. And, these results clearly demonstrate - 13 times in fact - that once just the ENSO impacts on temperature data are accounted for, there is no "record setting" warming to be concerned about. In fact, there is no ENSO-Adjusted Warming at all. These natural ENSO impacts involve both changes in solar activity and the 1977 Pacific Shift.
Moreover, on an all-other-things-equal basis, there is no statistically valid proof that past increases in Atmospheric CO2 Concentrations have caused the officially reported rising, even claimed record setting temperatures. To validate their claim will require mathematically credible, publicly available, simultaneous equation parameter estimation work. Where is it?
So it is time to pursue other ways to improve the environment and not waste further time and resources on the scientifically invalid CAGW hypothesis. It is a failed hypothesis, nothing more. (Although it is true that conventional pollutants may be reduced by decreasing coal use, there are much cheaper ways to control such pollutants than reducing coal use if and when there should be a need for further such controls.) Accordingly, there is now definitive evidence that the Paris Treaty and actions taken in response to it will serve no useful purpose and should be abandoned.
Enjoy this video of a congressman exposing Obama's climate change advisor.
Massive Cover-up Exposed: 285 Papers From 1960s-'80s Reveal Robust Global Cooling Scientific 'Consensus'
By Kenneth Richards on NoTricksZone
Beginning in 2003, software engineer William Connolley quietly removed the highly inconvenient references to the global cooling scare of the 1970s from Wikipedia, the world's most influential and accessed informational source.
It had to be done. Too many skeptics were (correctly) pointing out that the scientific "consensus" during the 1960s and 1970s was that the Earth had been cooling for decades, and that nascent theorizing regarding the potential for a CO2-induced global warming were still questionable and uncertain.
Not only did Connolley - a co-founder (along with Michael Mann and Gavin Schmidt) of the realclimate.com blog - successfully remove (or rewrite) the history of the 1970s global cooling scare from the Wikipedia record, he also erased (or rewrote) references to the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age so as to help create the impression that the paleoclimate is shaped like Mann's hockey stick graph, with unprecedented and dangerous 20th/21st century warmth.
A 2009 investigative report from UK's Telegraph detailed the extent of dictatorial-like powers Connolley possessed at Wikipedia, allowing him to remove inconvenient scientific information that didn't conform to his point of view.
"All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn't like the subject of a certain article, he removed it - more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred - over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley's global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia's blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement."
After eviscerating references to 1970s global cooling scare and the warmer-than-now Medieval Warm Period from Wikipedia, and after personally rewriting the Wikipedia commentaries on the greenhouse effect to impute a central, dominant role for CO2, Connolley went on to team up with two other authors to publish a "consensus" manifesto in 2008 that claimed to expose the 1970s global cooling scare as a myth, as something that never really happened.
Peterson, Connolley, and Fleck (2008, hereafter PCF08) published "The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus" in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, hoping to quash once and for all the perception that there were scientists in the 1960s and 1970s who agreed the Earth was cooling (and may continue to do so), or that CO2 did not play a dominant role in climate change.
The Concoction Of 'Consensus' Achieved Via Exclusion
The primary theme of PCF08 can be summarized in 4 succinctly quoted sentences from the paper:
"[T]he following pervasive myth arose [among skeptics]: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent. A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false… During the period from 1965 through 1979, our literature survey found 7 cooling, 20 neutral, and 44 warming papers...There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age. Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated the peer-reviewed literature even then."
William Connolley and colleagues claimed that the determination of scientific "consensus" regarding global cooling and the influence of CO2 on climate during the 1970s could be divined by counting scientific publications that fell into arbitrarily-defined categories which allowed them to intentionally exclude hundreds of papers that would undermine the alleged myth-slaying purpose of the paper.
The PCF08 authors decided that when "quantifying the consensus" (by counting publications), a scientific paper could only be classified as a "cooling" paper if it projected that future temperatures would (continue to) decline, or that a "full-fledged ice age was imminent." Papers published during the arbitrarily chosen 1965-'79 era that affirmed the climate had already been cooling for decades, that this cooling wasn't a positive development, and/or that the effects of CO2 on climate were questionable or superseded by other more influential climate change mechanisms… were not considered worthy of classification as a "cooling" paper, or as a paper that disagreed with the claimed "consensus" that said the current (1960s-1970s) global cooling will someday be replaced by CO2-induced global warming.
Of course, the global cooling scare during the 1970s was not narrowly or exclusively focused upon what the temperatures might look like in the future, or whether or not an ice age was "imminent". It was primarily about the ongoing cooling that had been taking place for decades, the negative impacts this cooling had already exerted (on extreme weather patterns, on food production, etc.), and uncertainties associated with the causes of climatic changes.
By tendentiously excluding 1960s and 1970s publications that documented global cooling had been ongoing and a concern, as well as purposely excluding papers that suggested the climate's sensitivity to CO2 forcing is weak or questionable relative to other mechanisms, the authors could brazenly claim that there were only 7 papers published in the scientific literature between 1965 and 1979 that disagreed with the "consensus" opinion that global warming would occur at some point in the future (due to CO2 increases). According to PCF08, there were 44 papers that fell into the latter warming-is-imminent-due-to-CO2 category from 1965-'79, ostensibly entitling them to claim that dangerous anthropogenic global warming projections "dominated" the scientific literature even then.
An 83% Global Cooling/Weak CO2 Influence Scientific 'Consensus' During 1960s, '70s
As will be shown here, the claim that there were only 7 publications from that era disagreeing with the presupposed CO2-warming "consensus" is preposterous. Because when including the papers from the 1960s and 1970s that indicated the globe had cooled (by -0.3C between the 1940s and '70s), that this cooling was concerning (leading to extreme weather, drought, depressed crop yields, etc.), and/or that CO2's climate influence was questionable to negligible, a conservative estimate for the number of scientific publications that did not agree with the alleged CO2-warming "consensus" was 220 papers for the 1965-'79 period, not 7. If including papers published between 1960 and 1989, the "non-consensus" or "cooling" papers reaches 285.
Again, these estimates should be viewed as conservative. There are likely many dozen more scientific papers from the 1960s-'70s cooling scare era that would probably fall into the category of a "cooling" paper, but have not yet been made available to view in full online.
But let us say that the PCF08 claim is true, and that there were indeed only 44 papers published between 1965-'79 that endorsed the position that the Earth's climate is predominately shaped by CO2 concentrations, and thus the Earth would someday start warming as the models had suggested. Interestingly, if we were to employ the hopelessly flawed methodology of divining the relative degree of scientific "consensus" by counting the number of papers that agree with one position or another (just as blogger John Cook and colleagues did with their 2013 paper "Quantifying the Consensus.." that yielded a predetermined result of 97% via categorical manipulation), the 220 "cooling" papers published between 1965-'79 could represent an 83.3% global cooling consensus for the era (220/264 papers), versus only a 16.7% consensus for anthropogenic global warming (44/264 papers).
The 1970s Global Cooling Scare Was Not Mythological
In reviewing the available scientific literature from the 1960s-'80s, it is plainly evident that there was a great deal of concern about the ongoing global cooling, which had amounted to -0.5C in the Northern Hemisphere and -0.3C globally between the 1940s and 1970s.
Of course, this inconvenient global-scale cooling of -0.3C between the 1940s and 1970s has necessarily been almost completely removed from the instrumental record by NASA (GISS) and the MetOffice (HadCRUT). After all, the observations (of cooling) conflicted with climate modeling. Overseers of the surface temperature datasets (such as the MetOffice's Phil Jones or NASA's Gavin Schmidt) have recently adjusted the -0.3C of cooling down to just hundredths of a degree of cooling. NASA GISS, for example, has reduced (via "adjustments") the global cooling down to about -0.01C between the 1940s and 1970s, as shown below. It is likely that, during the next few years of adjustments to past data, the mid-20th century global cooling period will disappear altogether and mutate into a warming period.
For those who actually experienced the non-mythological cooling scare during the 1960s and 1970s (that has since been made to disappear from graphs), the consequences of the -0.5 Northern Hemispheric cooling (especially) were frequently discussed in scientific publications. There were geoengineering strategies proposed by scientists to melt Arctic sea ice. Droughts and floods and extreme weather anomalies/variability were blamed on the ongoing global cooling. Glaciers were advancing, even surging at accelerated rates during this period. Sea ice growth and severe Arctic cooling meant that the oceans were much less navigable. Crop growth and food production slowed as the Earth cooled, which was of great concern to world governments. Severe winters in the 1960s and 1970s led many climatologists to assume that the Earth was returning to an 1800s-like Little Ice Age climate. Observations of mammals migrating to warmer climates during the 1960s and 1970s due to the colder temperatures were reported in scientific papers.
For those who actually experienced the non-mythological cooling scare during the 1960s and 1970s (that has since been made to disappear from graphs), the consequences of the -0.5 Northern Hemispheric cooling (especially) were frequently discussed in scientific publications. There were geoengineering strategies proposed by scientists to melt Arctic sea ice. Droughts and floods and extreme weather anomalies/variability were blamed on the ongoing global cooling. Glaciers were advancing, even surging at accelerated rates during this period. Sea ice growth and severe Arctic cooling meant that the oceans were much less navigable. Crop growth and food production slowed as the Earth cooled, which was of great concern to world governments. Severe winters in the 1960s and 1970s led many climatologists to assume that the Earth was returning to an 1800s-like Little Ice Age climate. Observations of mammals migrating to warmer climates during the 1960s and 1970s due to the colder temperatures were reported in scientific papers.
Synonyms for the 1960s-'70s climate cooling conditions commonly used in the literature were words such as deterioration, recession, detrimental, and severe. In contrast, warming periods such as during the warmer Medieval times or the warm-up during the first half of the 20th century were referred to positively, or as optimum (i.e., the Medieval Warm Period was referred to as the "Little Optimum").
According to Stewart and Glantz (1985), in the early 1970s it was the "prevailing view" among scientists that the Earth was headed into another ice age. It wasn't until the late '70s that scientists changed their minds and the "prevailing view" began shifting to warming. This is in direct contradiction to the claims of PCF08, who allege warming was the prevailing view among scientists in the 1960s and early 1970s too. Furthermore, as recently as 1985, it was still acknowledged that "the causes of global climate change remain in dispute."
Stewart and Glantz, 1985
"The conclusions of the NDU study might have been predicted from a knowledge of the prevailing 'spirit of the times' (i.e., the prevailing mood in the science community) when the first part was conducted. This was an interesting time in recent history of climate studies. One could effectively argue that in the early 1970s the prevailing view was that the earth was moving toward a new ice age. Many articles appeared in the scientific literature as well as in the popular press speculating about the impact on agriculture of a 1-2C cooling. By the late 1970s that prevailing view had seemingly shifted 180 degrees to the belief that the earth's atmosphere was being warmed as a result of an increasing CO2 loading of the atmosphere. ... The causes of global climate change remain in dispute. Existing theories of climate, atmospheric models, and actuarial experience are inadequate to meet the needs of policymakers for information about future climate."
According to scientists reporting to the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (1974), 22 of 27 forecasting methods predicted a cooling trend for the next 25 years, and "meteorological experts" were thinking an 1800s climate was around the corner, with the concomitant return to monsoon failures, shorter growing seasons, and "violent weather".
U.S. Central Intelligence Agency,1974
Potential Implications of Trends in World Population, Food Production, and Climate
"According to Dr. Hubert Lamb - an outstanding British climatologist, 22 out of 27 forecasting methods he examined predicted a cooling trend through the remainder of this century. A change of 2-3 F. in average temperature would have an enormous impact… A number of meteorological experts are thinking in terms of a return to a climate like that of the 19th century. This would mean that within a relatively few years (probably less than two decades, assuming the cooling trend began in the 1960's) there would be brought belts of excess and deficit rainfall in the middle-latitudes; more frequent failure of the monsoons that dominate the Indian sub-continent, south China and western Africa; shorter growing seasons for Canada, northern Russia and north China. Europe could expect to be cooler and wetter… [I]n periods when climate change [cooling] is underway, violent weather - unseasonal frosts, warm spells, large storms, floods, etc. is thought to be more common."
See much more on the papers on NoTricksZone
See in Real Science how NOAA adjustments increased July warming by 1000% here.
NOAA's NCED (National Center for Environmental Disinformation) creates this warming by massively cooling the past. They got rid of the hot 1901 by cooling it 2.13 degrees. The cooled 1936 by by 1.13 degrees and cooled 1934 by 1.11 degrees. That is what it took to elevate 2012 to the hottest July.
See this post by Tony Heller.
Steve Goddard, NYT
NOAA shows July temperatures increasing at 1.0F per century since 1895, with 2012 tied with 1936 as the hottest July.
Climate at a Glance | National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI)
The actual raw temperature data they use to generate their graph, shows one tenth as much warming from 1895 to 2016, with 1901, 1936 and 1934 as the hottest years.
If 1895 is removed, there is no warming at all.
NOAA creates this warming by massively cooling the past. They got rid of the hot 1901 by cooling it 2.13 degrees. The cooled 1936 by by 1.13 degrees and cooled 1934 by 1.11 degrees. That is what it took to elevate 2012 to the hottest July.
A good measure of how fraudulent the NOAA adjustments are, is the percent of days over 90 degrees. July 1936, 1901, 1934, 1931, 1930 and 1954 all had more days over 90 degrees than 2012 did, yet NOAA shows 2012 as the hottest. The frequency of 90 degree days in the US has declined since the start of records in 1895. July 2016 (NASA's hottest July ever) was almost exactly average since 1895.
Another very good measure of how fraudulent the NOAA graph is, is the number of July daily maximum temperature records. The 1930's were much hotter than any recent years.
The claimed warming trend in the US is completely fake, and is altered by people at NOAA who are being paid to push the global warming agenda. Before they were paid to push anthropogenic warming, the very same people at NOAA (i.e. Tom Karl) knew that there was no US warming.
U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend - NYTimes.com
The US makes up less than 10% of the land surface, but contains the majority of the high quality long term temperature monitoring stations for this planet. The global surface temperature record is a farce, which is why the US data is so important.
By Anthony J. Sadar
This coming Sunday, India is to ratify the 2015 Paris climate accord. Earlier this month, in Hangzhou, China, President Obama accepted on behalf of all Americans--without the official approval of the people's duly elected representatives in Congress--the international climate agreement aimed at greatly reducing "greenhouse gas" emissions. The airy decree is more likely to greatly reduce American sovereignty and economic growth.
Poll after poll shows that potentially dangerous climate change is not high on the list of concerns by U.S. citizens. Instead, people fear lack of good jobs and recurring terrorist attacks.
The president, on the other hand, apparently fears not having yet another lasting legacy of his choosing, as if being president is about personal legacies rather than simply doing right by the electorate and let that be your legacy.
World powers like India, China, and Russia see the tremendous benefit in a climate agreement. Such agreement would further help hobble American influence on the world stage by misdirecting our efforts to ethereal problems rather than real-world challenges like international trade imbalance. While we chase dubious "carbon pollution" at home, polluting factories overseas can work overtime for their governments to amass their own global wealth and dominance.
What is needed is a refocusing and redoubling of efforts to strengthen America's commitment for good in the world. But, that's hard to do when so many of the decisions of the current administration look to be based on leftist elitist arrogance. Such arrogance seems to permeate so much of society--in academia, entertainment, media, and certainly politics.
And, a high level of condescension has overtaken, to a large extent, climate science.
The dominance of science from an ideological/political perch, whether from the right or from the left, is wrong. Such control emboldens strong intimidation and suppression of reasonable exploration of the real state of the planet.
A scientist must be free to explore any hypothesis or doubt. Great discoveries and theories are made by those who think outside the box--less so by those trapped inside. Furthermore, the truth is not the winner of a popularity contest or consensus-view pageant; nor is science so fragile that it cannot withstand sharp criticism, vigorous debate, and fiercely independent research.
Good scientists practice humility, understanding that arrogance leads to errors. They know that the purpose of science is to discover facts--not invent them.
Long-range, catastrophic climate change from increased "carbon pollution" is not a fact, it's a prediction based on a hypothesis. The prediction is a convenient one that is far enough out (the permanent sweltering of mid-latitude cities by mid-century, for example), that the hyping and embellishing of outrageous prognostications can only be endured not refuted.
In the meantime, lots of research grants and global power are to be reaped. And academic climate researchers and politicians worldwide are harvesting the ripened crop. As the saying goes, "Make hay while the sun is shining."
And as the sun shines, the world governments are certainly making hay of the profitable business of cataclysmic global warming.
Anthony J. Sadar is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and author of In Global Warming We Trust: Too Big to Fail (Stairway Press, 2016).
Craig Rucker
This week our civil rights were placed under direct attack on the floor of the U.S. Senate.
Rhode Island's Sheldon Whitehouse led a small group of senators who attacked a number of free-market think tanks for having the temerity to correct them on "climate change" science and policy.
These senators offered a resolution condemning the think tanks for speaking out, calling for them to "to cooperate with active or future investigations." Fortunately, these senators comprise a minority fringe in the Senate, yet their efforts to chill free speech is dangerous and must not go unchallenged.
CFACT President David Rothbard joined with the heads of twenty-one organizations who jointly fired off a powerful letter to the senators opposing this misuse of the their power. "Your threat is clear" the letter states, "There is a heavy and inconvenient cost to disagreeing with you. Calls for debate will be met with political retribution. That's called tyranny. And, we reject it." You can read the full letter at CFACT.org.
CFACT monitored what these senators said on the record, and came away surprised at how biased, shallow and flat out wrong was their understanding of the facts surrounding the climate debate.
Senator Whitehouse was particularly egregious. He repeatedly cited as his sources not scientific literature, nor the mainstream warming-compliant press, but rather such radical outlets as DeSmog Blog, the socialist magazine Mother Jones, a book entitled Poison Tea, and climate campaign and attack sites like Media Matters, Conservative Transparency Project, and Sourcewatch.
Whitehouse just read the climate-left's propaganda directly into the record and treated it as gospel.
If this is the best these senators' aids can do to inform them about climate science and prepare their remarks, the senators and their constituents are very poorly served. Yet this would explain the torrent of smugly presented, unscientific whoppers they brought forth.
New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen stated that "rising temperatures are affecting our tourism, our outdoor recreation and our agriculture industries and we're experiencing an onset of negative health impacts and increases of insect borne diseases, lyme disease is one of those, all of which can be tied to the effects of climate change."
Really, Senator Shaheen? Not cold enough for you or New Hampshire skiing? Have the people of New Hampshire forgotten so quickly that the winter of 2008 saw 115.2" of snowfall - the most in over a century? Have they forgotten that nearby Boston had its snowiest winter ever last year with 110.6"? A simple search of NOAA's historical climate records shows there is nothing abnormal about New Hampshire weather.
Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey went over the top stating that anyone under the age of 31 "watching the Senate floor tonight has never experienced in their life a month whose temperature was below the 20th Century average" Could the Senator's staffers not be bothered to check? NOAA data reveals that the people of Massachusetts experienced many recent months with temperature below the 20th century average. March was below average three times in the last five years. That's just March! That's the government temperature data fiddled and adjusted with to make it seem as warm as possible! Three of the last five Januaries and Februaries were below average in Massachusetts and two of the last five Aprils were below average as well. The data goes on and on.
Senator Bill Cassidy said that, "in New Mexico we are already seeing more extreme and prolonged drought conditions, larger wildfires, increased flooding. This is the reality now, not at some far off date in the future, and the longer that we wait to act the more difficult and more expensive the solutions will be." Can the Senator be unaware how little temperature has varied over the last century? It was certainly not enough to meaningfully alter drought, fires and floods - all of which are historically normal according to the data.
Likewise Senator Gary Peters of Michigan intoned that we have experienced "dramatic changes in weather." He is apparently unaware that today's weather is historically normal. Claims that today's weather has become more extreme are propaganda talking points unsupported by science or history. Take a look at the report debunking the extreme weather scare that CFACT's Marc Morano prepared for the UN climate summit in Doha, Qatar.
Climate models consistently project a warmer world than real-world measurements record. These Senators are either unaware of this fact, or want the rest of us to be. How's that for denial?
The sorry truth is that the radical Left chose "climate change" as its latest rationale for taking control of our energy supply and economy. Climate campaign organizations continually misrepresent and exaggerate the facts about the climate.
It is incumbent on those of us in touch with the facts to correct the record when we see it distorted and present what, in our opinions, are better-founded public-policy recommendations.
If Senator Whitehouse and company succeed in stifling the climate debate it will guarantee the inaccuracies and exaggerations of the climate campaign will go unchallenged. Useless and wasteful freedom and economy-crushing public policy will be the result.
That's why our Founding Fathers wrote free speech into our Constitution. So nice try Senators. But we are not intimidated. We will not be silenced.
Over 30,000 scientists say 'Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming' is a complete hoax and science lie
By Daniel Barker
NaturalNews) The highly-politicized climate change debate rages on as we approach the crucial 2016 U.S. presidential election, despite an ever-growing body of evidence revealing the fact that "catastrophic man-made global warming" is nothing more than an elaborate hoax.
And the November election may prove to be a victory for the hoaxers, according to experts who happen to be among those who dare to challenge the spurious climate change narrative.
One of these experts is Weather Channel founder John Coleman, who is now warning that the election could prove to be a "tipping point" in favor of people like Al Gore, who continue to amass vast fortunes based on the global warming scam.
In a recent interview with Climate Depot, Coleman said:
"Al Gore may emerge from the shadows to declare victory in the 'global warming' debate if Hillary Clinton moves into the White House. Yes, if that happens and the new climate regulations become the law of the land, they will be next to impossible to overturn for four to eight years."
Climate change proponents remain undeterred in their mission, ignoring numerous recent scientific findings indicating that there has been no warming trend at all for nearly two decades.
Al Gore's dire predictions of the melting of polar ice on a massive scale have proved to be completely false. In fact, in 2014 - a year that was touted as being "the hottest ever" in the Earth's history - there were record amounts of ice reported in Antarctica, an increase in Arctic ice, and record snowfalls across the globe.
Debunking the "97 percent" lie
On top of those "inconvenient truths," the White House's assertion that 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is real has been completely debunked. Several independently-researched examinations of the literature used to support the "97 percent" statement found that the conclusions were cherry-picked and misleading.
More objective surveys have revealed that there is a far greater diversity of opinion among scientists than the global warming crowd would like for you to believe.
From the National Review:
"A 2008 survey by two German scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, found that a significant number of scientists were skeptical of the ability of existing global climate models to accurately predict global temperatures, precipitation, sea-level changes, or extreme weather events even over a decade; they were far more skeptical as the time horizon increased."
Other mainstream news sources besides the National Review have also been courageous enough to speak out against the global warming propaganda - even the Wall Street Journal published an op-ed piece in 2015 challenging the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) pseudoscience being promulgated by global warming proponents.
And, of course, there are the more than 31,000 American scientists (to date) who have signed a petition challenging the climate change narrative and 9,029 of them hold PhDs in their respective fields. But hey, Al Gore and his cronies have also ignored that inconvenient truth, as well.
Many of those scientists who signed the petition were likely encouraged to speak out in favor of the truth after retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist John L. Casey revealed that solar cycles are largely responsible for warming periods on Earth - not human activity.
Al Gore and cronies continue getting richer from the global warming hoax
But the global warming crowd continues to push their agenda on the public while lining their pockets in the process. If you're still inclined to believe what Al Gore has to say about global warming, please consider the fact that since he embarked on his crusade, his wealth has grown from $2 million in 2001 to $100 million in 2016 - largely due to investments in fake "green tech" companies and the effective embezzlement of numerous grants and loans.
You might want to take all of this information into serious consideration before casting your vote in the November election.
Rising temperatures are causing Australian Central Bearded Dragons that are genetically male to hatch as females and give birth to other lizards
The cold-blooded Australian Central Bearded Dragon is widespread on red sandy areas in the semi-arid regions of eastern Australia. It occupies open woodland and is conspicuous when it perches high to warm in the early morning sunlight.
"This is the first time we have proved that sex reversal happens in the wild in any reptile at all," said Clare Holleley of the University of Canberra, lead author of the study in the journal Nature Wednesday. The study, she said, 'is showing that climate extremes can very rapidly fundamentally alter the biology of an organism.' To understand what's happening, it helps to a have a quick lesson in the birds and the bees - and the bearded dragons and other reptiles. Some reptiles, like alligators and some turtles, have their genders determined not by sex chromosomes, like humans and other mammals, but by temperature during incubation.
Until now, bearded dragons had their gender based on chromosomes. Like birds, their sex chromosomes are Z and W instead of X and Y. Males are ZZ. Females are ZW. In humans, everyone has an X and the presence of Y makes a person genetically male. In bearded dragons, everyone has a Z and the presence of a W makes them a genetic female.
In the past, scientists have shown in the lab that hot temperatures can switch that natural chromosome-based gender. Holleley and colleagues examined the genetic sex markers of 131 wild-caught bearded dragons in Queensland province and found that 11 of them were female outwardly - even having offspring - but had the ZZ chromosomes of a genetic male. Their sex determination was 'switched into overdrive,' Holleley said. Holleley concedes 11 dragons is a small sample size, so she and colleagues will continue and expand their research.
The genetic-male-into-female dragons not only laid eggs, but in a way were better mothers than genetically determined females, laying more eggs, said study co-author Arthur Georges, chief scientist for the Institute for Applied Ecology at the University of Canberra. Until now, bearded dragons had their gender based on chromosomes. Until now, bearded dragons had their gender based on chromosomes.
The team also found that the offspring of these dragons no longer have their gender determined by chromosomes, but by temperature. "They're throwing away the equivalent of the Y, which we call the W, chromosome,' Georges said. 'If the climate warms not much more at all, the percentage of sex reversal will increase and the W chromosome will be lost from the population.' This is happening in an area that is one of the fastest warming places in Australia over the past 40 years, Holleley said.
Lab tests show that the switch from genetic sex determination to temperature sex determination seems to start at about 90 degrees Fahrenheit (32 degrees Celsius) and occurs 100 percent of the time at about 97 degrees (36 degrees Celsius), Holleley said. Outside scientist Frederic Janzen at Iowa State University praised the work as thorough and convincing. He said in an email that the study can help 'to better understand these remarkable animals in a rapidly changing world.'
Holleley said the heat could be transformative for more than these lizards: 'It certainly can happen to other species, but it's not going to happen to humans, more than likely.'
By David Wojick, Climate etc.
The "Climate Change Education Act" (S.3074) directs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to establish a climate change education program focused on formal and informal learning for all age levels.
When it comes to beating the climate change drum, Sen. Ed Markey is the Energizer Bunny. As a Congressman, Rep. Markey was Chairman of the now defunct House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming from 2007 to 2011. This time he is drumming on the education front. Markey has dropped the "Climate Education Act" into the Senate hopper. While the bill is unlikely to pass at this time, it is still important to object to, lest it be seen to be acceptable.
Sen. Markey's website summarizes the proposal as follows: "The "Climate Change Education Act" (S.3074) directs the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to establish a climate change education program focused on formal and informal learning for all age levels. The program would explore solutions to climate change, the dangers we face in a warming world, and relatively small changes in daily routines that can have a profound global impact. The legislation also establishes a grant program to support public outreach programs that improve access to clean energy jobs and research funds so local communities can address climate mitigation and adaptation issues."
There is a lot not to like here, beginning with the false scientific claims. The first is hyping the supposed dangers we face in a warming world, which simply do not exist. Nor are there small changes in daily routines that can have a profound global impact, because humans do not control the global climate. What is here being called Education is really just scaremongering and propaganda. Ironically, the Bill itself says one goal is to remove the fear of climate change, which it actually promotes.
What is really strange is the focus on so-called clean energy jobs and technology. The term "clean energy" is a misleading euphemism for renewable technologies. Thus the thrust of the Bill is not just on climate science education; rather it is on using the education system to promote renewables. NOAA has no expertise in this regard and no mission. They do things like running the National Weather Service. Promoting renewables and green workforce development is the Energy Department's job.
On the science side, NOAA has long been active in so-called "climate education," which basically means spreading the Government's biased view of climate change as human driven and dangerous. For example, the Climate Literacy and Energy Awareness Network (CLEAN) Portal was launched in 2010, co-sponsored by NOAA, NSF and the Energy Department. As of 2012, CLEAN has been syndicated to NOAA's climate.gov portal, where they offer over 600 educational materials, most of which are biased toward the scary Federal version of climate science.
In fact NOAA has led a Federal drive to redefine "climate literacy" as accepting the Government's biased position. According to their website, the stated Guiding Principle for climate literacy is "Humans can take actions to reduce climate change and its impacts." The reality is that humans can do little to change climate change and a little global warming is not harmful. It is probably beneficial.
What the proposed Climate Education Act would do is give statutory authority for NOAA's existing propaganda actions, something that is presently lacking. It also allows the agency to bribe states to use its stuff, which is pretty insidious.
It would also allow NOAA to go beyond simply providing online information, to begin writing actual curriculums to be used in the classroom. That is where the bribery really comes in. This curricular push coincides with the widespread deployment of the Next Generation Science Standards. Most states that adopt them need to develop new curriculums, because these science standards are very different from the existing state standards, especially in the area of climate change.
Beyond this, the Bill would put NOAA into the strange new business of promoting the renewable energy industry and training its workers. The Energy Department already does this, while NOAA has neither the mission nor the organization to do it.
In summary this so-called Climate Education Act does nothing that is good, for the climate or the students. It is based on false science and pushes NOAA in the wrong direction. NOAA should be trying to understand climate change, not promote renewable technologies in the name of dangerous global warming.
Nobel Laureate smashed Global Warming Hoax
Isaac Orr, Townhall
Anti-fracking activists who have been eagerly awaiting the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Science Advisory Board (SAB) findings on hydraulic fracturing must feel like those kids who rush downstairs to open their presents on Christmas morning, only to find out Santa gave them socks. Instead of determining hydraulic fracturing, commonly called fracking, to be dangerous, as the activists hoped, SAB essentially confirmed the conclusions of EPA's draft study, which found no evidence hydraulic fracturing has had widespread or systemic impacts on groundwater resources but wants EPA to show more data to back up these claims.
Fracking opponents had been hoping SAB would recommend the headline conclusion "hydraulic fracturing had not led to widespread, systemic impacts on water quality" be removed from the report. Instead, SAB stated if EPA retains this conclusion, it should provide a quantitative analysis that clearly supports the claim fracking is not having a widespread impact on water resources. This statement amounts to what our math teachers always told us: "I don't care if you have the right answer, show your work."
This is exactly the sort of recommendation a science advisory board should make, because in science, one cannot simply show the conclusion without explaining the methodology or presenting the evidence that led to that conclusion. And when it comes to fracking, the quantitative evidence shows environmental impacts are rare and the risks associated with this practice are manageable.
Evidence supporting the safety of fracking is abundant. Recent data from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection found absolutely no confirmed cases of stray methane migration in the Keystone State in 2015 and only five such cases in each of the two preceding years. This comes at a time when thousands of wells were drilled in the state (785 wells in 2015 and 1,373 in 2014). This means, incredibly, 99.77 percent of the wells drilled in Pennsylvania during the past two years have had zero leaks. This is the kind of quantitative analysis that can help people understand the risks associated with fracking.
A study published earlier in 2016 by the University of Cincinnati investigated the impact of fracking on water supplies in five Ohio counties over the course of three years. It found fracking had no effect on the quality of water. Similarly, a study by Yale researchers analyzed the impact of fracking on water supplies and concluded fracking does not contaminate drinking water. There are dozens of other studies that reach similar conclusions, making the hopes of activists who want to ban fracking look, at best, bleak.
It seems as though some of the most vocal opponents of fracking were hoping EPA is so lazy it would decide to retract its headline conclusion rather than supply quantitative evidence to support it. In an interview given for an article published by NPR's StateImpact, a representative from Food and Water Watch said, "[The new SAB report] makes clear that EPA could scrap the language altogether and avoid this issue of having to quantify widespread systemic impacts."
If anti-fracking crusaders are so confident additional data would support their position, they wouldn't need to hope for a lazy EPA.
SAB also encouraged EPA to discuss high-profile cases such as Pavilion, Wyoming and Dimock, Pennsylvania in which the public has expressed specific concerns about potential contamination. In Pavilion, Wyoming, state environmental regulators found EPA did not use proper methods to test for whether fracking had contaminated the water there, and further investigation conducted by the Wyoming Environmental Quality Board concluded fracking chemicals had not contaminated groundwater. In Dimock, Pennsylvania, a jury awarded a large settlement to a family suing a natural gas driller, even though the legal counsel for the family admitted there is no proof fracking fluids had entered the water.
An in-depth discussion of these two case studies would help to inform the public and alleviate the considerable confusion that still exists about whether fracking has impacted drinking water sources in these areas.
SAB was tasked with reviewing EPA's draft study, which examined over 3,500 sources of scientific information, and providing recommendations. Like all good scientists, SAB effectively said, "Show me the data," and hopefully, EPA does just that, because people living in areas where fracking is taking place - or could take place in the future - deserve to have a data-driven explanation of the actual risks of fracking, not more misinformation from anti-fractivists.
See how emails expose how green groups colluded with EPA on regulations and even fund raising here.
Heidi Cullen, Climate Evangelist, New York Times
July wasn't just hot - it was the hottest month ever recorded, according to NASA. And this year is likely to be the hottest year on record.
Fourteen of the 15 hottest years have occurred since 2000, as heat waves have become more frequent, more intense and longer lasting. A study in the journal Nature Climate Change last year found that three of every four daily heat extremes can be tied to global warming.
This map provides a glimpse of our future if nothing is done to slow climate change. By the end of the century, the number of 100-degree days will skyrocket, making working or playing outdoors unbearable, and sometimes deadly. The effects on our health, air quality, food and water supplies will get only worse if we don't drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions right away.
A reality check shows as usual, Heidi and her cult followers are wrong.
You can see the number of 90F and 100F days and heat waves have declined since the 1930s. Indeed of all the state all-time record highs, 23 occurred in the 1930s, 38 before 1960 and there have been all-time state lows than highs since the 1940s.
You can see the number of 100F days for all stations have declined. But the warmists don't look at actual data just their models which have failed miserably because their theory is bogus - 100% politically driven.
BTW, the highs and lows are unadjusted data. the graphs they love to show you are adjusted - homogenized by blending the bad data into the good stations instead of adjusting the bad UHI contaminated station data with the accurate rural area. They have inexplicably cooled off the past decades to make cyclical warming more worrisome. They can't do it with the record highs and lows which reside in too many other places and would expose their devious ways. Pass it on.
Update: see the whole story behind the story in their own words in Global Warming Quotes & Climate Change Quotes: Human-Caused Global Warming Advocates/Supporters by C3 Headlines.
Quotes by H.L. Mencken, famous columnist: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed - and hence clamorous to be led to safety - by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." And, "The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false face for the urge to rule it."
We start with Mencken's quotes because they are so well known from the past, but yet still so relevant so many years later. His past insights to those whose lives are addicted to the seeking of power, or control, or fame, or money is still as valid today, as it was 70 years ago. Below are quotes from the powerful; the rich; the religious; the studious; the famous; the fanatics; and, the aspiring, all sharing a common theme of keeping "the populace alarmed" to further their own personal, selfish goals.
The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose their values and desires on others. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.
Once you read the below quotes, come back and re-read the previous paragraph. The threat to the world is not man-made global warming or climate change. The threat to the world, as is always the case, is a current group(s) of humans who want to impose an 'Agenda' based on their elite values and self-importance. The people below represent such a group, and they are not saints as individuals; in fact, quite the opposite, unfortunately.
See the quotes here.
Australia PM's adviser: climate change is UN hoax to create new world order
Maurice Newman, chairman of Tony Abbott's business advisory council, says UN is using debunked climate change science to impose authoritarian rule.
The Australian prime minister's chief business adviser has accused the United Nations of using debunked climate change science to lead a new world order - provocative claims made to coincide with a visit from the top UN climate negotiator.
Christiana Figueres, who heads the UN framework convention on climate change, touring Australia this week, urged the country to move away from heavily polluting coal production.
Under Tony Abbott's leadership, Australia has been reluctant to engage in global climate change politics, unsuccessfully attempting to keep the issue off the agenda of the G20 leaders' summit in Brisbane last year.
Maurice Newman, the chairman of Abbott's business advisory council and a climate change sceptic with a history of making provocative statements, said the UN was using false models showing sustained temperature increases to end democracy and impose authoritarian rule.
"The real agenda is concentrated political authority," Newman wrote in an opinion piece published in the Australian newspaper. "Global warming is the hook. It's about a new world order under the control of the UN....
"It is opposed to capitalism and freedom and has made environmental catastrophism a household topic to achieve its objective."
Figueres used an address in Melbourne to urge Australia to move away from coal, the country's second-largest export, as the world grapples with global warming.
"Economic diversification will be a challenge that Australia faces," she said.
Abbott has described coal as "good for humanity" and the "foundation of prosperity" for the foreseeable future.
Figueres also urged Australia to play a leading role at the climate summit in Paris in December, a call unlikely to be heeded given Abbott's track record.
At the Brisbane G20 meeting, he warned that the Paris summit would fail if world leaders decided to put cutting carbon emissions ahead of economic growth.
At home, Abbott, who in 2009 said the science behind climate change was "crap", repealed a tax on carbon pricing and abolished the independent Climate Commission advisory body.
Asked on the Canberra leg of her trip if the politics around renewable energy was as toxic elsewhere in the world, Figueres said: "No. At the global level what we see is increased participation of renewables, increased investment in renewables, increased excitement about renewables."
Abbott's office and the UN did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Derek Alker
From: Malcolm Roberts [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Friday, 24 April 2015 12:07 PM
To: UQ VC OFFICE
Cc: John Cook; Ove Hoegh-Guldberg; FORBES VIV; Carter Bob; Plimer Ian; Jennifer Marohasy
Subject: D15/7927: Complaint of serious corruption of science by UQ's John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg
Dear Professor Hoj:
As an honours engineering graduate from the University of Queensland I am inquiring of you as to the reasons our university supports the work of John Cook who serially misrepresents climate and science? Specifically, why is our university wasting valuable funds to mislead the public through a free course and by producing associated international video material? Course
Please refer to the lower half of page 4 of Appendix 5, here.
It details John Cook's fabrication of an unscientific 'consensus'. Science is not decided by claims of consensus. Resorting to claims of consensus is unscientific and contradicts the scientific process.
Fabricating false claims of scientific consensus is not honest.
Science is decided by empirical scientific evidence. John Cook has repeatedly failed to provide any such evidence that use of hydrocarbon fuels is causing the entirely natural climate variability we experience.
A succinct summary of John Cook's fabrication of a consensus, and of the corruption of science upon which his claims rely and that is furthered by his claims, and of the empirical scientific evidence he blatantly contradicts, are discussed in pages 6-18 of my report to federal MPs Senator Simon Birmingham and Bob Baldwin. It is available at this link.
My seven years of independent investigation have proven that there is no such empirical scientific evidence anywhere in the world. Climate alarm is unfounded and is a purely political construct pushing a political agenda. Please refer to Appendices 2, 6, 6a, 7 and 8 at this link.
John Cook's core public climate claims are false and blatantly contradict empirical scientific evidence. Please refer to appendix 4 at the same link.
Further, John Cook and / or his employer are receiving funds in return for his deceiving the public, politicians and journalists and I'm wondering if that would make his work a serious offense.
As you likely know, John Cook works closely with the university's Ove Hoegh-Guldberg who reportedly has many serious conflicts of financial interest surrounding his false climate claims. These are discussed on pages 54-59 of Appendix 9 at this link and briefly on pages 16 and 17 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin MP.
I draw your attention to my formal complain dated Wednesday 10 November 2010 to the university senate about the work of Ove Hoegh-Guldberg misrepresenting climate and science. That was not independently investigated by then Vice Chancellor Paul Greenberg who was subsequently dismissed over another event, reportedly for a breach of ethics. My formal complaint is discussed on pages 57 and 58 of Appendix 9 at this link.
Ove Hoegh-Guldberg's responses to my request for empirical scientific evidence of human causation of climate variability have repeatedly and always failed to provide such evidence.
This email is openly copied to both Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook and to reputable Australian scientists and academics expert on climate and to Viv Forbes an honours graduate in geology from our university. Viv Forbes understands the key facts on climate and on the corruption of climate science by beneficiaries of unfounded climate alarm perpetrated falsely by Ove Hoegh-Guldberg and John Cook.
Please stop John Cook's misrepresentations and restore scientific integrity to our university. I please request a meeting with you to discuss our university's role in deceiving the public and to discuss restoring scientific integrity. I would be pleased for that meeting to be in the company of John Cook and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg if that suits you.
Pages 19-26 of my report to Senator Birmingham and Bob Baldwin discuss the serious damage to our nation and to humanity and our natural environment worldwide as a result of unfounded climate alarm spread by our university's staff. I hope that you will fulfil your responsibility for investigating and ending such corruption. To neglect to do so will mean that you condone such damage and dishonesty. I seek confidence that you will restore the university's scientific integrity and look forward to your reply.
Yours sincerely,
Malcolm Roberts
BE (Hons) UQ, MB U Chicago, Member Beta Gamma Sigma Honours Society
Fellow AICD, MAIM, MAusIMM, MAME (USA), MIMM (UK), Fellow ASQ (USA, Aust)
The 97% "consensus" study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook's study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it,
"The '97% consensus' article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it."
Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)
Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus According to Breakdown of Cook et al study, say Friends of Science
In response to multiple inquiries from media and global warming advocates, Friends of Science issue this release to expose the statistical manipulation evident from the break down of the Cook et al paper. Friends of Science decry the linking of this flawed study with alleged danger from man-made carbon dioxide emissions (CO2) as there has been no global warming in 16 years despite a rise in CO2 levels; Friends of Science say the sun and oceanic oscillations are the main drivers of climate change, not CO2.
See faulty methodology of Cook study.
The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook's (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% "consensus" study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook's study is an embarrassment to science. See the list here.
See the Galileo Movement here. Visit Then click on the blue text: "9.2.12 Evidence of Political Fraud - Malcolm Roberts"
See Dr. Doug Hoyt's Greenhouse Scorecard on Warwick Hughes site here.
From Jack Black's Climate Change Dictionary
PEER REVIEW: The act of banding together a group of like-minded academics with a funding conflict of interest, for the purpose of squeezing out any research voices that threaten the multi-million dollar government grant gravy train.
SETTLED SCIENCE: Betrayal of the scientific method for politics or money or both.
DENIER: Anyone who suspects the truth.
CLIMATE CHANGE: What has been happening for billions of years, but should now be flogged to produce 'panic for profit.'
NOBEL PEACE PRIZE: Leftist Nutcase Prize, unrelated to "Peace" in any meaningful way.
DATA, EVIDENCE: Unnecessary details. If anyone asks for this, see "DENIER," above.
CLIMATE SCIENTIST: A person skilled in spouting obscure, scientific-sounding jargon that has the effect of deflecting requests for "DATA" by "DENIERS.' Also skilled at affecting an aura of "Smartest Person in the Room" to buffalo gullible legislators and journalists.
JUNK SCIENCE: The use of invalid scientific evidence resulting in findings of causation which simply cannot be justified or understood from the standpoint of the current state of credible scientific or medical knowledge
Speaking of junk science, see Lubos Motl's excellent point by point counter to the John Cook 104 talking points document attacking the skeptical science here.
See all the talks at the latest ICCC9 Conference in Las Vegas in 2014 here.
Heartland has the presentations and powerpoints posted for the Heartland ICCC IV. If you could not go, there is plenty to see there. Please remember the goldmine of videos and PPTs at the Heartland ICCC proceeding sites for 2008 NYC here, 2009 NYC here and 2009 DC here. Here is a PPT I gave at the Heartland Instutute ICCC Meeting in 2008 and here is the follow up in 2009. Here is an abbreviated PPT in two parts I presented at a UK conference last month: Part 1, Part 2.
See C3 Headlines excellent collection of graphs and charts that show AGW is nonsense here.
See Climate Theater with a collection of the best climate skeptic films and documentaries here. See additional scientific youtubes here.
The left loves to reference desmogblog.com when any skeptic produce an analysis or paper challenging CAGW - see the real story about this looney left green PR firm here.
1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming Alarm and here a list of 1000 stories suggesting global cooling has begun.
"The above papers support skepticism of "man-made" global warming or the environmental or economic effects of. Addendums, comments, corrections, erratum, replies, responses and submitted papers are not included in the peer-reviewed paper count. These are included as references in defense of various papers. There are many more listings than just the 900-1000 papers. Ordering of the papers is alphabetical by title except for the Hockey Stick, Cosmic Rays and Solar sections which are chronological. This list will be updated and corrected as necessary."
The less intelligent alarmists have written a paper allegedly connecting the scientists to Exxon Mobil. Here is the detailed response from some of the featured scientists. Note that though this continues to be a knee jerk reaction by some of the followers, there is no funding of skeptic causes by big oil BUT Exxon has funded Stanford warmists to the tune of $100 million and BP UC Berkeley to $500,000,000. Climategate emails showed CRU/Hadley soliciting oil dollars and receiving $23,000,000 in funding.
See still more annotated here.
Many more papers are catalogued at Pete's Place here.
The science and economics of global warming are not too complicated for the average person to consider and make up his or her own mind. We urge you to do that. Go here and view some of the articles linked under "What's New" or "A Primer on Global Warming." Or go here and read about the new report from the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC), which comprehensively rebuts the claims of the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Go here for the sources for the factual statements in the ads.
See the ICECAP Amazon Book store. Icecap benefits with small commission for your purchases via this link.
Go to and become a member of WeatherBell Analytics here.
Website of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) here. It's latest report (2013) details information from almost 4,000 papers.
Science and Public Policy Institute here.
Intellicast Dr. Dewpoint Library here.
RedNeck Engineer Energy and Innovation here.
The Weather Wiz here. See how they have added THE WIZ SCHOOL (UPPER LEFT) to their website. An excellent educational tool for teachers at all class levels. "Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel" - Socrates (470--399 BC)