Executive summary: Al Gore’s new book and movie, both titled An Inconvenient Truth, have been hailed by environmentalists–despite being filled with false or misleading claims about the science of global warming and related issues. This page details errors in the book (2006, Rodale Books), which in summary include:

• Misleading links between weather events and climate      change: Climate is the average of      weather conditions over long time periods; because the climate system is      inherently variable, individual weather events are not indicative of      trends. Nonetheless, Gore overwhelms the reader with many individual      events, claiming this is global warming in action: a European heatwave,      record daily highs in U.S. cities one summer, hurricane Katrina, floods in      Europe and China, and more. To address the issue of climate change, all      such events must be considered over time. As it turns out, in several      cases such analysis refutes any claims of recent trends (for example, with      regard to floods).
  In other cases, the scientific community is engaged in much research and      debate. Gore claims that there is “an emerging consensus” that      hurricane activity is on the upswing due to global warming. The reality is      that this is the subject of much debate in the scientific community:      different researchers have produced contradictory conclusions, but the      factors involved are far more complex than Gore admits, and research is      continuing.
• Misrepresentation of data: Of the various graphs and other data Gore presents,      some of it is misrepresented. Gore presents one graph, said to be      temperature data derived from ice cores, to support the controversial      claim of one research group–Mann et al.–that current temperatures are      higher than anytime in the last 1,000 years. The graph is not the ice core      data, however, but the Mann et al. data derived from tree rings and other      proxies. The broader claim is questioned by many scientists as well–much      research suggests that temperatures around 1100-1300 AD were about as warm      as today–as well as the methodology used to support such claims. Gore      uses another set of ice core data to claim that carbon dioxide      concentrations have driven global temperatures for the last 600,000 years.      He admits the actual relationship is “complicated”, which is as      close as he comes to admitting the fact that the temperature changes came      first, and probably helped drive the carbon dioxide changes.
  These aren’t the only cases of sloppiness with data: Gore claims the      hottest year on record was 2005, but in reality existing observations      don’t have the accuracy to discriminate between, say, 2005 and 1998, a hot      year due to an extreme El Nino event. He claims that the increasing      closures of the barrier’s on Britain’s Thames River show sea level is      rising, but doesn’t mention that the British government recently changed      the rules for such closures, including closing the barriers to deal with low      sea level; and he claims that a particular bird species is “in      trouble” in the Netherlands due to climate change, but researchers      report no change in this bird population. He cites a peak in tornadoes in      2004 as further evidence, but this peak came from new technology      permitting the counting of more weak tornadoes than ever before;      comparison of consistent data shows no trends in tornadoes.
• Exaggerations about sea level rise: Gore claims that potential melting of ice sheets in      Greenland and West Antarctic will force the “evacuation” of      millions of people to escape sea level rise of 6 meters (20 feet). This      flatly contradicts even the worst-case scenarios described by the scientific      community. Most research indicates that such melting, even if it could      occur, would take 1,000 to 5,000 years; the minimum timescale described by      any researcher for such melting is still centuries. Even the United      Nations’ IPCC, source of the “consensus” analysis which still      overestimates future warming, only predicts sea level rise of 0.1 to 0.8      meters (4 to 30 inches) in the next 100 years.
• Misleading claims about effects of climate change: Gore claims that the emergence of new diseases is related      to global warming, but most of the diseases he lists have little or no      relationship to climate. Even in the case of malaria, a disease with a      stronger link to climate, health experts cite the management of human      infrastructure and health systems as far more important factors. In other      cases Gore neglects the strong influence of human resource management, as      with linking occurrence of wildfires or pest outbreaks to global warming.      He also claims global warming is causing a “significant” number      of polar bear drownings, based on a report of four drowned polar bears;      however, other researchers report the polar bear population is generally      unchanged. Melting of glaciers on Mount Kilimanjaro and in Glacier      National Park are cited as consequences of global warming, but in both      cases these glaciers have been melting since the 1800s, when the Earth      emerged from a period of global cooling.
• Reliance on worst-case scenarios: An underlying problem is that Gore seizes upon      worst-case scenarios and presents them as fact–sometimes omitting      important qualifiers. Much of the claims about the consequences of future      global warming rely on climate models that Gore calls “evermore      accurate”, but significant questions about the reliability of these      models remain, and the effects cited by Gore presume that the worse-case      predictions of these models are the correct ones. More generally, climate      change should be considered at the regional or local level, where impacts      would variously be positive or negative–especially depending on how we      choose to respond. Gore consistently discusses the most negative impacts,      and even minimizes the possibility of positive change.
• False claims about scientific views on global warming: Gore asserts that the scientific community is in      essentially unanimous agreement with his interpretation of global warming,      and dismisses skepticism of global warming as an energy industry      conspiracy. Not only are such claims false, they severely misrepresent the      very process of science. Gore cites a flawed editorial from a science      journal to claim that all published research agrees with the      “consensus” view on global warming; in reality, much published      research contradicts Gore’s position on global warming, and a recent      survey of climate scientists found the community fairly split on the claim      that there is an imminent threat from human-caused global warming. Despite      the abundance of scientific research contradicting his position, Gore      instead concentrates on refuting a handful of skeptical claims from      outside the scientific community–and can’t even get the facts right on      those. To add insult to injury, Gore repeatedly impugns the motives of      scientists and non-scientists who question his “consensus” on      global warming. Rather than confront the scientific facts, he stereotypes      the critics and dismisses them based on imagined motives.
• Misleading claims about the responsibility of the      United States: Gore says the United States is      particularly to blame for the claimed global warming crisis, but doesn’t      give a fair view of the issues. He makes misleading comparisons of fuel      economy standards in the U.S. and other countries; also, he criticizes the      U.S. failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol without acknowledging the ways      in which the Protocol disproportionately targeted the U.S. economy. He      also understates the economic adjustments required to attain the goals he      sets.
• Conceptual errors:      Gore’s explanation of several topics, including the greenhouse effect, the      relationship of carbon dioxide and global temperature, decline in Arctic      Ocean pack ice, structure of the Greenland ice sheet, and ozone depletion,      contain conceptual errors. He may indeed have a correct understanding of      these issues, but what he communicates serves to perpetuate misconceptions      on these subjects. Combined with the low reading level of the text, this      tends to convey the lowest expectations of his readers.

Gore’s portrayal of the subject of global warming is scientifically unsupportable; even some scientists who accept the premise of global warming have been willing to call him on some errors. His portrayal of scientific skepticism regarding global warming is shameful; science requires healthy criticism to progress. The effect of attempts by Gore and others to silence dissent is harmful to scientific understanding as well as its application by society. The effort to use such twisted science to further a political agenda is such a harm.

The BBC recently admitted to tilting the climate change discussion by giving preferential reporting to stories supporting global climate change.  This situation is a perfect example of the larger debate over climate change– of how political correctness can lead to scientific theory becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Science runs on grant funding.  Every grad student, post-doc, assistant professor, and tenured faculty depends on grants to pay the bills– and to impress the establishment where they are working to offer academic advancement.  To get funding, one must know where the money is– and where it is not.  Asking for funding to show the ABSENCE of climate change is a sure path to poverty– and to being labelled a heretic.

On the other hand, asking for money to show evidence for the emperor’s new clothes will guarantee that the money will flow in.  This creates a systemic bias where only one outcome is expected and published– and negative findings are ignored.  Twenty years ago, everyone knew that breast implants caused autoimmune disorders;  nobody did research to prove the opposite, and if you study anything long enough, you’ll have a few positive findings.  For those who don’t know the rest of the story, after 2 billion dollars were paid out to ‘survivors’ and attorneys, the matter was put to rest– with a huge study that showed very clearly that there was NO actual connection between implants and autoimmune disease.  Science is filled with similar examples.  Climate change is only another.

UPROAR AS BBC MUZZLES CLIMATE CHANGE SCEPTICS

THE BBC was criticised by climate change sceptics yesterday after it emerged that their views will get less coverage because they differ from mainline scientific opinion.

In a report by its governing body, the BBC Trust, the corporation was urged to focus less on opponents of the “majority consensus” in its programmes.

It said coverage should not be tailored to represent a “false balance” of opinion if one side came from a minority group.

The report was partly based on an independent review of coverage by Steve Jones, Professor of Genetics at University College, London.

Although he found no evidence of bias in BBC output, he suggested where there is a “scientific consensus” it should not hunt out opponents purely to balance the story.

He highlighted climate change as an example along with the controversy over the Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine potentially leading to autism.

On climate change, Professor Jones said there had been a “drizzle of criticism of BBC coverage” arising from “a handful of journalists who have taken it upon themselves to keep disbelief alive”.

The report says: “In its early days, two decades ago, there was a genuine scientific debate about the reality of climate change. Now, there is general agreement that warming is a fact even if there remain uncertainties about how fast, and how much, the temperature might rise.”

But critics accused Professor Jones of using the report as a cover to “push the BBC’s green agenda”.

Among them are former Tory Chancellor Lord Lawson, who was accused by the Government’s chief scientific adviser, Sir John Beddington, of making “incorrect” claims in An Appeal To Reason, the peer’s book on climate change.

Lord Lawson, chairman of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said the fact that carbon dioxide levels were rising leading to global warming was not under dispute. However, he added, its extent and effect could not be explained by majority scientific opinion alone.

He said: “The BBC is already extremely one-sided on this issue. They have a settled view which is politically correct.

“The idea that because scientific opinion falls largely on one side you can’t have a debate is outrageous. Because there’s a strong majority in basic science doesn’t mean the issue is off the table, yet the BBC says it should be.”

The foundation’s director, Dr Benny Peiser, said the report would lead to biased coverage of climate change and stifle any real debate.

He said: “This is nothing the BBC has not been doing for the past 10 years, however. They are completely biased on the issue of climate change and this is nothing more than an effort to push their green agenda.”

Dr David Whitehouse, the foundation’s editor and a former BBC science correspondent, said the corporation had “lost the plot” when it came to science journalism.

He said the corporation was “grouping sceptics with deniers” which would result in a lack of valid scientific input to its reports.

He said: “A sceptic is not a denier, all good scientists should be sceptics. The BBC has got itself into a complete muddle.

“In seeking to get the science right it has missed the journalism which is about asking awkward questions and shaking the tree.”

But the BBC Trust defended the report. A spokesman said: “The report is not suggesting that climate change sceptics will not have a place on the BBC in future.

“The point Professor Jones makes is that the scientific consensus is that it is caused by human activity. Therefore the BBC’s coverage needs to give less weight to those who oppose this view, and reflect the fact that the debate has moved on to how to deal with climate change.”

In the article below, the climate research center—an oxymoron these days—was exposed for fudging their numbers, to make sea level elevation appear 20% higher than actual.  The researchers argue that the oceans are getting bigger because of shifting continents, and so they should add to the sea level—since if the continents weren’t moving, the level would be higher.

In other words, the sea levels aren’t increasing as much as they say, but if the continents were not shifting, the levels would be higher—so they will just pretend that they are higher.

Very strange logic.  But what would you expect from climate scientists, who used to argue that the planet was warming, until data showed that it isn’t—so they instead argue that the planet is cooling and warming at the same time, which is why we can’t measure it.

The actions of these ‘researchers’ show why political zealots and science don’t mix.  To lefties, the ends always justify the means—so the research doesn’t really matter, since they already know what the planet needs.  Not to mention that writing grants for ‘climate change’ has become the low-hanging fruit in the quest for funding.

I’ve always said that the lefties have a major problem—that copies of Gore’s movie will eventually be as serious as ‘reefer madness’, as people watch him talk about the countries that will be under water—while standing in the countries in the years that they are supposed to be gone.  I wonder—will there be calls for Al to give back the Nobel Prize?  Maybe he can take Obama’s Peace Prize with him, and drop them both off to save the taxpayers the cost for the trip…

The article:

Is climate change raising sea levels, as Al Gore has argued — or are climate scientists doctoring the data?

The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters — or about the thickness of a fingernail — every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.

“Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring,” said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.

Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

“We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger… water volume is expanding,” he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

Taylor calls it tomfoolery.

“There really is no reason to do this other than to advance a political agenda,” he said.

Climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said that the amount of water in the ocean and sea level were two different things.

“To me… sea level rise is what’s measured against the actual coast,” he told FoxNews.com. “That’s what tells us the impact of rising oceans.”

Taylor agreed.

“Many global warming alarmists say that vast stretches of coastline are going to be swallowed up by the sea. Well, that means we should be talking about sea level, not about global water volume.”

In e-mails with FoxNews.com, Nerem indicated that he considered “sea level rise” to be the same thing as the amount of water in the ocean.

“If we correct our data to remove [the effect of rising land], it actually does cause the rate of sea level (a.k.a. ocean water volume change) rise to be bigger,” Nerem wrote. The adjustment is trivial, and not worth public attention, he added.

“For the layperson, this correction is a non-issue and certainly not newsworthy… [The] effect is tiny — only 1 inch over 100 years, whereas we expect sea level to rise 2-4 feet.”

But Taylor said that the correction seemed bigger when compared with actual sea level increases.

“We’ve seen only 7 inches of sea level rise in the past century and it hasn’t sped up this century. Compared to that, this would add nearly 20 percent to the sea level rise. That’s not insignificant,” he told FoxNews.com.

Everything changes– including, perhaps especially, our weather.  Over the last couple years, climate change alarmists have realized that the facts regarding ‘global warming’ do not support their economic and political aims (which include income redistribution and larger government).  So they have seized upon a quirk of human nature to trick people into supporting their cause– the tendency to assign reasons for random events.

When a significant weather event occurs that supports a person’s ideas, those ideas gain strength.  Events that are inconsistent with those ideas are discarded, rather than being applied to the ideas to introduce change and knowledge.  This is just how we are, and how we will always be;  we are more comfortable with reasons– even incorrect reasons– than with randomness.

This quirk of human nature is what spawned the change in strategy by the left, from talking about ‘global warming’ to instead talking about ‘climate change’.  They recognized that there is one thing about climate that will always be true– it changes.  And with their new strategy, they can post headlines for any weather event.  Too hot?  Must be ‘global climate change.’  Too cold?  climate change!  Too wet?  Too dry, too….. perfect?  Climate change!

Watch for this strategy going forward.  And be aware of your own tendency to see reason for things that are random.  The following editorial presents evidence for a climate that is changing–just as it always has.

The Weather is Not Getting Weirder

By ANNE JOLIS

Last week a severe storm froze Dallas under a sheet of ice, just in time to disrupt the plans of the tens of thousands of (American) football fans descending on the city for the Super Bowl. On the other side of the globe, Cyclone Yasi slammed northeastern Australia, destroying homes and crops and displacing hundreds of thousands of people.

Some climate alarmists would have us believe that these storms are yet another baleful consequence of man-made CO2 emissions. In addition to the latest weather events, they also point to recent cyclones in Burma, last winter’s fatal chills in Nepal and Bangladesh, December’s blizzards in Britain, and every other drought, typhoon and unseasonable heat wave around the world.

As it happens, the project’s initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. “In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years,” atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. “So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871.”

In other words, researchers have yet to find evidence of more-extreme weather patterns over the period, contrary to what the models predict. “There’s no data-driven answer yet to the question of how human activity has affected extreme weather,” adds Roger Pielke Jr., another University of Colorado climate researcher.

We do know that carbon dioxide and other gases trap and re-radiate heat. We also know that humans have emitted ever-more of these gases since the Industrial Revolution. What we don’t know is exactly how sensitive the climate is to increases in these gases versus other possible factors—solar variability, oceanic currents, Pacific heating and cooling cycles, planets’ gravitational and magnetic oscillations, and so on.

Given the unknowns, it’s possible that even if we spend trillions of dollars, and forgo trillions more in future economic growth, to cut carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels, the climate will continue to change—as it always has.

That’s not to say we’re helpless. There is at least one climate lesson that we can draw from the recent weather: Whatever happens, prosperity and preparedness help. North Texas’s ice storm wreaked havoc and left hundreds of football fans stranded, cold, and angry. But thanks to modern infrastructure, 21st century health care, and stockpiles of magnesium chloride and snow plows, the storm caused no reported deaths and Dallas managed to host the big game on Sunday.

Compare that outcome to the 55 people who reportedly died of pneumonia, respiratory problems and other cold-related illnesses in Bangladesh and Nepal when temperatures dropped to just above freezing last winter. Even rich countries can be caught off guard: Witness the thousands stranded when Heathrow skimped on de-icing supplies and let five inches of snow ground flights for two days before Christmas. Britain’s GDP shrank by 0.5% in the fourth quarter of 2010, for which the Office of National Statistics mostly blames “the bad weather.”

Arguably, global warming was a factor in that case. Or at least the idea of global warming was. The London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation charges that British authorities are so committed to the notion that Britain’s future will be warmer that they have failed to plan for winter storms that have hit the country three years running.

A sliver of the billions that British taxpayers spend on trying to control their climes could have bought them more of the supplies that helped Dallas recover more quickly. And, with a fraction of that sliver of prosperity, more Bangladeshis and Nepalis could have acquired the antibiotics and respirators to survive their cold spell.

A comparison of cyclones Yasi and Nargis tells a similar story: As devastating as Yasi has been, Australia’s infrastructure, medicine, and emergency protocols meant the Category 5 storm has killed only one person so far. Australians are now mulling all the ways they could have better protected their property and economy.

But if they feel like counting their blessings, they need only look to the similar cyclone that hit the Irrawaddy Delta in 2008. Burma’s military regime hadn’t allowed for much of an economy before the cyclone, but Nargis destroyed nearly all the Delta had. Afterwards, the junta blocked foreign aid workers from delivering needed water purification and medical supplies. In the end, the government let Nargis kill more than 130,000 people.

Global-warming alarmists insist that economic activity is the problem, when the available evidence show it to be part of the solution. We may not be able to do anything about the weather, extreme or otherwise. But we can make sure we have the resources to deal with it when it comes.

Miss Jolis is an editorial page writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe

Those not taken in by the great swindle are aware of the multiple influences on global temperature and climate.  We are also aware of the cyclical nature of climate; the fact that the Earth has been much warmer than it is now many times throughout history, and that the earth will be colder than it is now– perhaps markedly so, if those who follow solar activity are correct.

There is a large body of evidence that solar activity is the greatest source of variation in the Earth’s climate, and we are currently coming out of a period of increased activity to enter into the opposite– a period of reduced solar activity and reduced temperatures here on Earth.

The climate zealots use ‘climate change’ to raise taxes, fund personal enterprises, and redistribute income on a global basis.  There are some in that camp who recognize that ‘global warming’ is a myth, who have prepared for the coming cool-down by changing the lexicon to ‘global climate change.’  How silly that ‘climate change’ would be the focus of attention–  the climate has ALWAYS changed!

As the Earth enters the period of cooling, don’t be taken in by the thought that this is somehow ‘unique’ or is caused by the actions of mankind.  We are entering a NORMAL variation that is, essentially, the ‘same as it ever was.’

New about the cool-down:

2010 South Florida Weather Year in Review

December 30th, 2010: Temperature and precipitation extremes marked the weather of 2010 across South Florida. A cool and wet January through March was followed by the hottest summer on record, and then concluded with the coldest December on record for the main climate sites in South Florida (details on the above mentioned periods will be included below).

The main culprit behind the cold temperatures in December 2010 was the same one which caused the cold winter of 2009-2010; a strongly negative North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Arctic Oscillation (AO). When these atmospheric oscillations are in the strong negative phase, they essentially “flip” the weather pattern across North America, with upper-level high pressure and relative warmth over Greenland and Northeastern Canada and upper-level low pressure and cold over the eastern Continental United States, including Florida (Figure 1). This pattern forces the jet stream to plunge south from northern Canada into the southeastern U.S., transporting Arctic air masses into Florida.

A pronounced shift in the ENSO (El Niño Southern Oscillation) phase was noted in 2010, from a strong El Niño, or warm, phase to a borderline strong La Niña, or cold, phase. While this may appear at first glance to be a key contributor to the temperature extremes noted across South Florida during 2010, it is believed that it was the strongly negative NAO and AO, not the ENSO phase, which contributed to the cold temperatures in early and late 2010. A strongly phased NAO/AO operating on shorter time scales can override the longer-term ENSO phase.

As mentioned above, South Florida experienced its hottest summer on record in 2010 (with the exception of Naples which recorded its second hottest recorded summer). Despite the record hot summer, average yearly temperatures at the main climate sites will end up around 1 degree below normal, which will be the coolest calendar year since the early and mid 1980s, and among the top 10 on record (except for Miami). At secondary sites Miami Beach and Moore Haven, it was the coolest year on record.

Some other interesting 2010 temperature statistics:
- Miami International Airport (MIA) observed 103 days of temperatures at or above 90 degrees, the 4th most on record. The average number of 90+ degree days per year is 51. MIA also had a record 45 days of low temperatures of 80 degrees or higher, besting the previous record of 39 set in 2009. The average number of 80+ degree low temperature days per year is 13. On the other end of the thermometer, MIA had 6 mornings with low temperatures below 40 degrees. This ties the 5th most number of sub-40 degree days on record. The average yearly number of sub-40 degree days is 2.
- Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport (FLL) observed 9 days of low temperatures below 40 degrees. This ties the 4th most number of sub-40 degree days on record. The average yearly number of sub-40 degree days is 3.
- Palm Beach International Airport (PBI) observed 106 days of temperatures at or above 90 degrees, the 8th most on record. The average number of 90+ degree days per year is 56. PBI also had a record 34 days of low temperatures of 80 degrees or higher, crushing the previous record of 17 set in 1900 and 2002. The average number of 80+ degree low temperature days per year is 6. On the other end of the thermometer, PBI had 18 mornings with low temperatures below 40 degrees. This easily breaks the previous record of 10 days set in 1920 and 1981. The average yearly number of sub-40 lows at PBI is 3. Six of the 18 days occurred in December, which breaks the previous monthly record for December of 5 set in 1962.
- Naples Regional Airport (APF) observed 125 days of temperatures at or above 90 degrees, the 12th most on record. The average number of 90+ degree days per year is 109. Naples also observed 13 days of low temperatures below 40 degrees. This ties the 5th most number of sub-40 degree days on record. The average yearly number of sub-40 degree days is 3. Eight of the 13 days occurred in December, which breaks the previous monthly record for December of 7 set in 1981.

By MATT PATTERSON

If this keeps up, no one’s going to trust any scientists.

The global-warming establishment took a body blow this week, as the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change received a stunning rebuke from a top-notch independent investigation.

For two decades, the IPCC has spearheaded efforts to convince the world’s governments that man-made carbon emissions pose a threat to the global temperature equilibrium — and to civilization itself. IPCC reports, collated from the work of hundreds of climate scientists and bureaucrats, are widely cited as evidence for the urgent need for drastic action to “save the planet.”

But the prestigious InterAcademy Council, an independent association of “the best scientists and engineers worldwide” (as the group’s own Web site puts it) formed in 2000 to give “high-quality advice to international bodies,” has finished a thorough review of IPCC practices — and found them badly wanting.

For example, the IPCC’s much-vaunted Fourth Assessment Report claimed in 2007 that Himalayan glaciers were rapidly melting, and would possibly be gone by the year 2035. The claim was actually false — yet the IPCC cited it as proof of man-made global warming.

Then there’s the IPCC’s earlier prediction in 2007 — which it claimed to have “high confidence” in — that global warming could lead to a 50 percent reduction in the rain-fed agricultural capacity of Africa.

Such a dramatic decrease in food production in an already poor continent would be a terrifying prospect, and undoubtedly lead to the starvation of millions. But the InterAcademy Council investigation found that this IPCC claim was also based on weak evidence.

Overall, the IAC slammed the IPCC for reporting “high confidence in some statements for which there is little evidence. Furthermore, by making vague statements that were difficult to refute, authors were able to attach ‘high confidence’ to the statements.” The critics note “many such statements that are not supported sufficiently in the literature, not put into perspective or not expressed clearly.

Some IPCC practices can only be called shoddy. As The Wall Street Journal reported, “Some scientists invited by the IPCC to review the 2007 report before it was published questioned the Himalayan claim. But those challenges ‘were not adequately considered,’ the InterAcademy Council’s investigation said, and the projection was included in the final report.”

Yet the Himalayan claim wasn’t based on peer-reviewed scientific data, or on any data — but on spec ulation in a phone interview by a single scientist.

Was science even a real concern for the IPCC? In January, the Sunday Times of London reported that, based in large part on the fraudulent glacier story, “[IPCC Chairman] Rajendra Pachauri’s Energy and Resources Institute, based in New Delhi, was awarded up to 310,000 pounds by the Carnegie Corp. . . . and the lion’s share of a 2.5 million pound EU grant funded by European taxpayers.”

Thus, the Times concluded, “EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognize as bogus.”
All this comes on top of last year’s revelation of the “Climategate” e-mails, which revealed equally shoddy practices (and efforts to suppress criticism) by scientists at the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia — perhaps the single most important source of data that supposedly proved the most alarming claims of global warming.

Al Gore and many other warming alarmists have insisted that “the debate is over” — that the science was “settled.” That claim is now in shreds — though the grants are still flowing, and advocates still hope Congress will pass some version of the economically ruinous “cap and trade” anti-warming bill.

What does the best evidence now tell us? That man-made global warming is a mere hypothesis that has been inflated by both exaggeration and downright malfeasance, fueled by the awarding of fat grants and salaries to any scientist who’ll produce the “right” results.

The warming “scientific” community, the Climategate emails reveal, is a tight clique of like-minded scientists and bureaucrats who give each other jobs, publish each other’s papers — and conspire to shut out any point of view that threatens to derail their gravy train.

Such behavior is perhaps to be expected from politicians and government functionaries. From scientists, it’s a travesty.

In the end, grievous harm will have been done not just to individual scientists’ reputations, but to the once-sterling reputation of science itself. For that, we will all suffer.

Matt Patterson is editor of Green Watch, a publication of the Capital Research Center .

Don’t you wish we had honest news in the US?  An interesting article from the BBC:

By Pallava Bagla in Delhi

The UN panel on climate change warning that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035 is wildly inaccurate, an academic says.

J Graham Cogley, a professor at Ontario Trent University, says he believes the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years.

He is astonished they “misread 2350 as 2035″. The authors deny the claims.

The Himalayan Glacier: Around for another 300 years

Leading glaciologists say the report has caused confusion and “a catalogue of errors in Himalayan glaciology”.

The Himalayas hold the planet’s largest body of ice outside the polar caps – an estimated 12,000 cubic kilometres of water.

They feed many of the world’s great rivers – the Ganges, the Indus, the Brahmaputra – on which hundreds of millions of people depend.

‘Catastrophic rate’

In its 2007 report, the Nobel Prize-winning Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said: “Glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate.

“Its total area will likely shrink from the present 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2035,” the report said.

It suggested three quarters of a billion people who depend on glacier melt for water supplies in Asia could be affected.

But Professor Cogley has found a 1996 document by a leading hydrologist, VM Kotlyakov, that mentions 2350 as the year by which there will be massive and precipitate melting of glaciers.

“The extrapolar glaciation of the Earth will be decaying at rapid, catastrophic rates – its total area will shrink from 500,000 to 100,000 square kilometres by the year 2350,” Mr Kotlyakov’s report said.

Mr Cogley says it is astonishing that none of the 10 authors of the 2007 IPCC report could spot the error and “misread 2350 as 2035″.

“I do suggest that the glaciological community might consider advising the IPCC about ways to avoid such egregious errors as the 2035 versus 2350 confusion in the future,” says Mr Cogley.

He said the error might also have its origins in a 1999 news report on retreating glaciers in the New Scientist magazine.

The article quoted Syed I Hasnain, the then chairman of the International Commission for Snow and Ice’s (ICSI) Working group on Himalayan glaciology, as saying that most glaciers in the Himalayan region “will vanish within 40 years as a result of global warming”.

When asked how this “error” could have happened, RK Pachauri, the Indian scientist who heads the IPCC, said: “I don’t have anything to add on glaciers.”

The IPCC relied on three documents to arrive at 2035 as the “outer year” for shrinkage of glaciers.

They are: a 2005 World Wide Fund for Nature report on glaciers; a 1996 Unesco document on hydrology; and a 1999 news report in New Scientist.

Incidentally, none of these documents have been reviewed by peer professionals, which is what the IPCC is mandated to be doing.

Murari Lal, a climate expert who was one of the leading authors of the 2007 IPCC report, denied it had its facts wrong about melting Himalayan glaciers.

But he admitted the report relied on non-peer reviewed – or ‘unpublished’ – documents when assessing the status of the glaciers.

‘Alarmist’

Recently India’s Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh released a study on Himalayan glaciers that suggested that they may be not melting as much due to global warming as it is widely feared.

He accused the IPCC of being “alarmist”.

Mr Pachauri dismissed the study as “voodoo science” and said the IPCC was a “sober body” whose work was verified by governments.

But in a joint statement some the world’s leading glaciologists who are also participants to the IPCC have said: “This catalogue of errors in Himalayan glaciology… has caused much confusion that could have been avoided had the norms of scientific publication, including peer review and concentration upon peer-reviewed work, been respected.”

Michael Zemp from the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich also said the IPCC statement on Himalayan glaciers had caused “some major confusion in the media”.

“Under strict consideration of the IPCC rules, it should actually not have been published as it is not based on a sound scientific reference.

“From a present state of knowledge it is not plausible that Himalayan glaciers are disappearing completely within the next few decades. I do not know of any scientific study that does support a complete vanishing of glaciers in the Himalayas within this century.”

Pallava Bagla is science editor for New Delhi Television (NDTV) and author of Destination Moon – India’s quest for Moon, Mars and Beyond. 

Mr Pachauri dismissed the study as “voodoo science” and said the IPCC was a “sober body” whose work was verified by governments.

But in a joint statement some the world’s leading glaciologists who are also participants to the IPCC have said: “This catalogue of errors in Himalayan glaciology… has caused much confusion that could have been avoided had the norms of scientific publication, including peer review and concentration upon peer-reviewed work, been respected.”

Michael Zemp from the World Glacier Monitoring Service in Zurich also said the IPCC statement on Himalayan glaciers had caused “some major confusion in the media”.

“Under strict consideration of the IPCC rules, it should actually not have been published as it is not based on a sound scientific reference.

“From a present state of knowledge it is not plausible that Himalayan glaciers are disappearing completely within the next few decades. I do not know of any scientific study that does support a complete vanishing of glaciers in the Himalayas within this century.”

Pallava Bagla is science editor for New Delhi Television (NDTV) and author of Destination Moon – India’s quest for Moon, Mars and Beyond.

I have been too busy lately to do my part to keep readers entertained, and I am sorry for that. There is so much nonsense in the world lately that it is getting more and more difficult deciding where to start! There have been a number of events consistent with the things I have written about on my companion web site ’Warmal Globing’… for example, I write on one of the pages about the way science works, or more importantly the way scientific funding works. As a former scientist and former grant applicant, I know that one must apply for the right things if one is to get funded. The applicant ALWAYS looks at who is funding the grant, and what that agency ‘wants’ to find. Yes, the grants always come with wording like ‘unrestricted funding’, but all scientists know the ‘nudge nudge wink wink’ behind that statement! And sure enough– we recently found that a number of very respected scientists have engaged in ‘unscientific’ behavior by covering up or distoring data, hiding messages that admit to doubts caused by the REAL findings– the findings that they can’t report, for fear of losing the golden goose that is global warming. Just think about it– can you imagine how much money will be lost by so many people, if global warming turns out to be a crock?! And it is a crock, of course. And eventually the truth will come out, because as much as Al Gore wants it to happen, the low-lying areas of the world will not be inundated with the floods– beyond the floods that they have ALWAYS been inundated by.

Which brings up another point that is also on my web site… the global warming zealots get to blame everything on ‘warming’! We recently had a cold spell and nasty snowstorm across the southeast US– in fact, it shut DC down for several days, just as they were getting ready to pass more carbon taxes ‘to stimulate the economy’ (you truly cannot make this stuff up). One of the Kennedy clan had just penned an op-ed about the good old days when it snowed so much more…. suggesting that it snows less now because of ‘global warming’. BTW, even the smart people out there who are idiots about global warming will admit that what they refer to as the current ‘climate change disaster’ has nothing to do with the snow that a Kennedy is writing about– that all of the local phenomena people tend to point to as they nod their heads in reality have nothing to do with ‘climate change’. But as he pens this piece, this massive snowstorm hits. But what does the mainstream media do? They BLAME GLOBAL WARMING FOR THE SNOW!!! They truly get it both ways– because in their odd world, warming causes cooling. Yes, I understand what they are saying- that the contrast in temps and the increased ‘thermal energy’ somehow causes storms that include snow and ice….. but it is not reasonable for them to claim that warming causes less snowstorms (ala Kennedy) and at the same time say that the snow is FROM the warming. And besides– also on my web site there is a copy of the Newsweek article from the 1970′s about the coming disaster of global cooling, and in that article the same scientists who are cited now were saying that the Earth would have increased glaciers and tornados and snowstorms, all from ‘global cooling’.

The other thing that happened just recently was that another leading global warming alarmist announced ‘never mind’, admitting that the Earth’s temp has not changed significantly in over 15 years.  Never mind.  Think about all the money wasted over the last few years, and the raised taxes, the increased government control, the sagging economy, the disastrous election of Democrats–  all over something that doesn’t exist.  Can we sue Al Gore?  Maybe he and Obama can travel to Stockholm together and both give their silly awards back at the same time!  You know what?  They are both so shameless that they would each give a speech about why it is OK flying separately, now that ‘they were right all along that the Earth wasn’t warming’.  And people would actually believe them, and some would credit them for finding out that global warming is a myth.

Another realist’s thoughts on the issue of global warming were sent my way.  Here is the link:  75 reasons to be skeptical of global warming

I used to be quite Left in my thinking.  My views changed midway through the Clinton Presidency when I could no longer overlook the hypocrisy of my position.  People wedded to liberalism avoid the truth like subway-dwellers avoid the glare of bright sunlight, but at some point the light is bright enough to shine through the thickest sunglasses!  I am often surprised at how much hypocrisy the Left can ‘overlook;’ in the Clinton era a liberal needed only a bit of hubris to ignore the media double-standards, but now huge distortions of logic on the level of delusional thought are required in order to maintain the liberal argument!  As I try to understand how an entire country can fall victim to ‘folie a deux’,  I find order by dividing the delusional Left into two groups– the ‘low insight Left’ and ‘high insight Left.’   I will use a practical example to explain the difference.

Obama promised that HIS administration would be much more open than the Bush administration.  He said that all bills winding through Congress toward his desk would be debated and discussed openly on C-span (something that was already happening under Bush, by the way, but that has largely disappeared under the Democratic ownership of the government).  Obama promised there would be no back-door sessions, no private meetings with lobbyists, no kickbacks or bribes, and that every new piece of legislation would be published for at least 5 days on the internet for all citizens with a computer to see and review.  He promised to seek bipartisanship and to listen to the ‘middle’ of the country.  Of course anyone with even half a mind knows what has INSTEAD happened  (and if you don’t already know all of this, you must have quite a blind spot!!).  We can look at the ‘stimulus’ bill– a piece of legislation that spent more money than 99% of the bills that ever pass through the legislature.  Obama sent it to Congress demanding passage, without allowing time for even Congress or the Senate to review the bill– let alone the American people!  There was no bipartisanship, and no allowing for debate.  Anyone from private industry who stood in the way was called out publicly by the President in a way that I have not witnessed during my 50 years—and in a way I hope I never have to see again.  Obama literally provoked death threats against bankers and company executives—openly, without complaint by the media!  Given the way it was thrown together, it is not surprising that studies of the ‘Stimulus’ Bill show that most of the money goes to districts where Democrats hold power.  Even worse, more money goes to wealthy Congressional districts than to poor districts!  Secret meetings with lobbyists were not disclosed, and that the press did not asked about them.  The process was more secretive than ever before– forget ‘more open!’  The result was a mess;  pay-offs to liberal groups and spending that occurs years after the recession ends, rather than targeted stimulus.   And not surprisingly we have had no job creation beyond what happens after every recession– perhaps even lower job production from the fear of higher taxes for businesses instilled by Obama spending a trillion extra dollars.  It is one thing to avoid trimming government too far during a recession, but another thing to waste of massive sums of money, resulting in deficits four times higher than the worst deficits under Bush (Obama also promised to trim the ‘immoral’ Bush deficits, by the way). 

The low-insight Left can be divided again into ‘true believers’ and ‘simple idiots.’  The true believers WANT to tell the truth, and really mean it when they say they want things to be truthful and open– but they believe so strongly in their liberal principles that things that aren’t liberal causes don’t ‘count’.  They don’t consider it lying; they think that keeping our own money instead of paying it to the government is a selfish, silly idea– and so fair and open debate doesn’t need to include that opinion.  Similarly, they believe that the Earth is going to be destroyed, so the climate debate doesn’t need to be ‘fair’– in fact, they think that evil businesses fight dirty, so they CAN’T be fair in return– that NO serious, ‘good’ person would even EXPECT fairness when dealing with evil business people.  The minds of true believers simply dismiss opinions that differ from what THEY believe to be true, but still consider themselves open, honest and fair, even if every counter opinion is suppressed—because the counter opinions are not ‘valid’ enough to count.  If a respected scientist makes a discovery that causes his/her opinion to change to the counter-argument, the true believer actually believes that the person was paid off or became mentally ill– and so the ideas don’t deserve ‘fair and open’ expression.  The other half of the low-insight group– the idiots– believe whatever they hear without question, as long as the messenger fits a certain image.  Obama was the perfect messenger to appeal to this group, and they continue to buy into him hook, line, and sinker.  Emphasis on sinker.

The high-insight Left can also be further divided into the ‘manipulators for a cause’ and the power-hungry egomaniacs.  Rahm Emanuel is probably in the first group, and I would put some of Hollywood into this category— at least the few Hollywood and media types who have a decent education.  These people know they are being hypocritical, but justify their hypocrisy by believing that the ends justify the means.  Tom Daschl’s book about reforming health care displays this type of thinking very clearly.  The reform is needed, so lying, cheating, breaking promises, and double-speak are all OK as long as they lead toward the correct goal.  They cannot trust leaving such complicated decisions in the hands of regular people, because they consider regular people to be a bunch of fools that they push this way and that way around election time.  Their contempt for average Americans was obvious during the TEA Parties, when Nancy Pelosi literally cried at the thought of meeting up with those unwashed masses.  The insight of this group of liberals is somewhat limited, as they cannot see the self-righteousness that their position requires.  They see people as good or bad depending only on party affiliations.  When someone from the Right gets into trouble, these liberals scream from rooftops about hypocrisy.  But when someone on the Left does something far worse, the transgression is a ‘fluke’– devoid of any meaning or importance.  Packwood, to these liberals, was a ‘serial groper’.  Clinton on the other hand was ‘victimized by a right-wing conspiracy’.  Go figure!

Finally, there are the high-insight liberals who don’t even care about the cause; they only care about the power that the cause can bring.  We know that Obama is in this group because of his efforts to distort the meaning of words and phrases to try to look good, without any effort to really DO good.  Measures to prevent privacy while voting about unions are called ‘Free Choice Acts.’  Pay-offs for favors from unions are called ‘stimulus acts.’  Government takeover of health care is called ‘insurance reform’ or ‘healthcare reform’, depending on the polls.  Worst of all are the outright lies.  Obama is not an idiot, so he surely knows that the passage of his health care bill will raise insurance premiums and eventually destroy the insurance industry—and the competition that it brings.  Obama knows that the bill cuts Medicare spending, and he knows that it will reduce the freedom to choose one’s own doctor.  But his speeches claim the exact opposite!  He claimed that the bill will LOWER premiums (watch yours and see), PROTECT Medicare (watch that as well), and INCREASE choice (good luck!).  Everybody watching the game knows by now that Obama couldn’t care less about the content of health care legislation– he just wants a win.  He doesn’t care that all of his promises will be untrue, as long as people keep believing him.  I used to put him in the first group of high-insight liberals, thinking he was saving up his ‘honesty’ for something important.  Before that I even gave him credit as a ‘true believer.’  But we have seen him lie about pretty much every issue!  There are no more issues to ‘save up for.’  He does not care about the future of the planet, the future of the economy, or the future of health care in America.  He just wants his applause.  He goes to the Middle East and bends over, in order to get a roomful of people to stand up and applaud him– even if there are others in the basement of the same building working to destroy us.   Obama’s lies are too complete to be accidental.  He has become utterly reliable in what he says, as long as you just substitute the opposite.  If he says ‘I will cut spending,’ you know that he is planning on a major spending increase, and is simply preparing for the response. He uses the forgetfulness and ignorance of the American people to avoid being found out– and members of the press are true believers, so they don’t call him on it.  Obama could give a speech claiming that the sun rises in the West every morning, and the press would either ignore the comment or print it as true, boycotting any stories that claim the opposite.

Many of the climate types are in this group, by the way.  How else do you explain people like Al Gore living with Carbon footprints the size of Rhode Island, while selling books and movies about cutting back?  I chuckled at the stories about the shortage of limos in Copenhagen–  they were shipping limos in from thousands of miles away, rather than forcing attendees at the climate summit to drive hybrids– or take the bus!!  Many scientists have hopped onto this gravy-train for years, knowing that any research proposal with ‘warming’ in the title is more likely to win support than a proposal seeking only the truth.  I put Soros in this latter group as well.  Streisand and Huffington are probably true believers or simple idiots.  Pelosi is probably in the low-insight group somewhere;  I used to thing she was smarter, but after watching the ‘deer in the headlights’ look in response to the Town Hall meetings and TEA parties, I have to assume that the insight isn’t there.

With all of that as a background, some of the people who are trying to follow the truth have come to the opinion that the climate nonsense is a front for something else– namely for control.  This was certainly in evidence at the Copenhagen Climate Summit—people talking about seizing global power that made Obama’s selfish desires seem amateurish in comparison!  I supposed the ‘one global government’ folks have their ‘true believers’ as well– those who picture a world ruled by one leader, with all people believing together in the same, noble goals.  They are the same people who hate the US, and want us to pony up trillions of dollars for ‘past carbon sins’—ignoring the amazing advances in technology and medicine that came from our enviable Capitalist system, and that raised the standard of living for every person on Earth.  But take away the true believers– the peace fairies and blind idealists– and you have a frightening group of people who are to the current world, as Hitler was to Europe.

We are lucky that the modern Left as a whole lack the intelligence and insight to go very far;  the most insightful are also the most power-hungry, preventing any meaningful collaboration as each new leader is eaten by the others who want to sit on the throne.  But the power-driven efforts of the insightful Left combined with the sheer mass of ‘useful idiots’ can easily cause damage to our economy that will take decades to repair.  We are already at a point where half of the population pays no Federal income tax, opening the door to confiscatory tax policies.  It would be asking too much for a large number of idiots to recognize the hypocrisy of the President who they elected.  But the rest of us should at least keep OUR eyes open!  Please join me at my blog, where I do my best to read between the lines of the weakest and most secretive government to rule our country in decades. 

I’m tired of writing– you can read more about this issue in an article by a gentleman named Monckton, a member of the British Parliament, using the link below.

British Peer:  Copenhagen Summit Has Established A World Government;  “Institutional framework” paves the way for unelected international bureaucracy

Today Drudge linked to an opinion piece by Froma Harrop of the Providence Journal, where she dragged out HER favorite scientist and explained why we all had better listen.  I have noticed since the advent of blogging that the world can be divided into two groups of people– blog writers and blog readers.  The same thing holds true for editorial writers;  they spend more time writing in support of their own opinions than reading anything that risks challenging those opinions.    I looked over her other opinion pieces over the years and had no trouble seeing her politics.   As a scientist (yes, Froma, with a real PhD) I instantly realize that view is good for little in regard to education–  but I read it anyway, as that is the only way to come to an accurate conclusion– that is, to challenge one’s self to new opinion on a regular basis.

Harrop says that HER expert on climate science coined the term ‘global warming’ way back in the 1970′s, which is interesting, given that anyone who was anyone in climate circles back then would have dismissed her expert faster than Hollywood dismissed Michael Crichton after ‘State of Fear’ was published!  Over on the web site you can read the Newsweek article from 1975 or see the graphic from Time Magazine from 1974, both from a time when the world’s climate scientists were warning us about impending disaster from global COOLING.  In fact, the articles described the recent spike up in tornadoes, and the shortened growing seasons in Europe, as evidence that the cooling was already having horrible effects on the earth.  The site mentions the controversial idea of covering the polar ice caps with soot to try to absorb more of the sun’s heat, musing whether that would be a bad idea.  Hmmm…..   makes you wonder what people will say about US in 30 years!

Read this report and more at WarmalGlobing.com

Harrop mentions the newspaper ad taken out awhile back signed by almost 100 climate ‘scientists’– a group of straw men for her expert to knock down.  She does NOT mention the fact the many of the original proponents of global warming or ‘anthropomorphic climate change’ have abandoned their earlier opinions or research, which is why one rarely hears scientists talking about the subject anymore.  Now all we hear from are the politicians and their ‘true believers’ (and of course teenagers, who always think that whatever THEY are doing is the most important thing in the world– so this MUST be a critical age for climate!).

Neither does Harrop mention the petition by well over 30,000 scientists that can be read at the Oregan Institute on Science and Medicine (I haven’t seen it for awhile, so it might have many more by now!).

Realize that scientists are slow to come around for at least two reasons.  First, ‘warming’ is where the money is- if you want funding, you don’t go out asking for funds to look at global cooling!  In fact, since most of the cash for research comes from advocacy groups (including the largest advocacy group of all, the US government– which has thousands of bureaucrats who rely on the hundreds of programs that ‘save the planet’), a researcher BETTER come up with the ‘correct’ findings– or good luck getting funded next year!!  The second reason for scientists to embrace ‘warming’ is because they have seen what happens to their colleagues who didn’t.  There is no news when a PhD fails to make tenure– but it happens all the time.  Universities tend to have a ‘with us or against us’ spirit on the inside, despite the claims of academic freedom to the outside.  It is not a coincidence that your children all become bleeding hearts by the end of four years of college!   And if the folks on the tenure committee don’t take you down, the media will get hold of one sentence that sounds absolutely crazy when placed in the wrong context, and down you’ll go!

It is so nice, by the way, to have John Stossel out there again.  He was viewed as brilliant by his media ‘friends’ until he started saying the WRONG truth– and suddenly ABC didn’t find his stories as interesting.  I’m glad we have one network left where the reporters are not taking marching orders from the government!

The worst thing about people like Harrop and the stories they write is that they are the reason that we get things wrong so often.  Had Newsweek and Time had their way years ago, we would now have black spots on each end of the planet.  Now we have the equivalent with writers like Harrop, the major networks, and Obama and the US government– three interest groups with power over our future, all with no knowledge of science.  Even worse, none of these groups even know how to critically evaluate science!  REAL science does NOT need cheerleaders like Harrop–  real science can take care of itself, and allow the truth to prevail.  The reason policies to control ‘global warming’ are floundering is because the science behind it is fatally flawed.  The public got a look at climate-gate last week– at least those members of the public who read newspapers outside of the United States!  We all saw the extent that true believers will go to promote their beliefs– and to be sure of a new round of funding!

Cooler Heads Prevail