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.

From the UK Telegraph:

30 Aug 2011

Much of Britain suffered the coldest summer for almost two decades, Met Office statistics show.

As Britons return to work today after a soggy Bank Holiday weekend, official weather data reveals that average temperatures were significantly down on recent years.

The UK’s average temperature from June 1 to August 15 was only 57F (13.9C) – the lowest for 13 years.

For central England the average was 59F (15C), making it the coolest summer since 1993.

Helen Waite, a Met Office forecaster, said: “The average temperature for central England this summer has been just 15C – this sort of temperature is normally typical of September.

“Generally speaking, you would expect to see temperatures of at least 17C for this time of year.”

Personal comments:  Funny how THESE stories are never picked up by the Associated Press.  Science calls this type of error a ‘selection bias,’ where only one outcome receives attention, and outcomes that refute the desired hypothesis are discarded as irrelevant.  This is but one reason that journalists should be educated– and one glaring proof that they tend not to be, at least anymore.  I hate to say it, but people are doing the right thing by abandoning their subscriptions, as you are more likely to be misinformed than informed by media from this time in history.

As I’ve often written, the mainstream media hypes stories about heatwaves as evidence for global warming, and buries stories about record cold weather.  Warming zealots have even tried to eliminate the impact of global cooling on their cause by claiming that the issue is ‘climate change’– i.e. that global warming INCLUDES global cooling!  They bolster their cause by relying on the one thing that is true about weather– that it changes!

Don’t be a sucker.  The news from down under:

Further snowfalls expected tonight

6:34 PM Tuesday Aug 16, 2011

Many areas of New Zealand – including the hills surrounding Wanganui – have been smothered in snow over the past few days.

The bitterly cold blast that has hit New Zealand this week should ease off over the coming days, but heavy snow is still expected overnight in many areas, including Wellington and Christchurch.

Snow returned to the nation’s capital this afternoon, with a late afternoon surge seeing the the temperature plunge to just above freezing with a wind chill of -5, according to weatherwatch.co.nz

The polar surge in the capital forced police to close roads, including the Rimutaka Hill Road, Wainuiomata Hill Road, Paekakariki Hill Road, and State Highway 58 between State Highway 2 to Moonshine Road and Blue Mountains Road in Upper Hutt.

Police said driving conditions were treacherous and people should only travel if it was essential.

Extreme caution was needed on all roads in and around the Hutt Valley.

Head weather analyst Philip Duncan said the snow will spread across the lower North Island tonight, although some main centres to the north west of the city may avoid the worst snowfalls.

“Snow is expected to be heavy around Wellington, Upper Hutt and Wairarapa tonight with a moderate risk of snow flakes returning to low levels of the lower North Island like Wanganui and Taranaki”.

Heavy snow in Wellington is expected to come and go all night with snow easing tomorrow morning.

While Gisborne took the national high with 13 degrees today, snow is forecast to move into the Hawkes Bay and Gisborne regions, to 100 or 200 metres.

Mr Duncan said that the city and region had so far missed the worst of the weather but the southerly will fire up the east coast of the North Island across Hawkes Bay and Gisborne tomorrow.

Christchurch and other coastal parts of Canterbury are also expected to see more snow tonight.

Weather analyst Richard Green said snow showers may return to the city tonight, but should ease in the early hours of tomorrow morning.

Snow isn’t expected to be as heavy as it was yesterday with passing snow flurries, but he said there was still a strong chance there would be some falls.

“The freezing level has lifted just enough so that Christchurch, Timaru and Ashburton are all on the borderline of snow. It’s an extremely fine line between sleet, rain and snow for those centres tonight but we don’t expect the falls to be long lasting and heavy as they were last night”.

A few brief snow flurries are possible further south in Dunedin, but conditions there should be easing, while Auckland’s chance of seeing more snow is quickly fading.

Graupel and sleet fell in some areas this afternoon, while snow was confirmed on the tops of the Waitakere Ranges.

Light rain showers are expected to move in to the city again tonight as a very small low tracks by but snow is not predicted in the CBD.

Farmers and their stock coping in snow

The polar blast is making life difficult for farmers but they are coping, despite some having to work their stock in thick snow for the first time, Federated Farmers adverse events spokesman David Rose says.

“It’s very unusual for a storm to affect absolutely the whole country. In some areas, particularly in the lower North Island, farmers wouldn’t have had to deal with a weather event like this before,” he said.

In some regions, particularly Canterbury and Wairarapa, farmers would be hoping the snow cleared before it turned to ice, which would make it impossible for stock to graze.

“They’ll be hoping for a bit of sun or even, dare I say it, a bit of rain, which actually gets rid of snow quite quickly,” he said.

“The worst thing that could happen is if it freezes. If that happens it will take a lot of warming up before it melts. If we get a lot of overcast days and it stays ice they’ll have to feed their stock completely on supplement, and that’s a huge job.”

Lambing had started in some areas so there would have been some stock losses.

It was fortunate the storm didn’t hit later in the season, which could have had devastating consequences, Mr Rose said.

With calving also beginning to get underway, dairy farmers were putting their cows behind shelters and doing what they could to protect them from the elements.

“Lambs and calves are incredibly robust. Even if it’s cold for us humans, it takes just a few days of settled weather for them to find their feet.”

Better weather expected

The bitterly cold polar blast that blanketed much of the South Island in snow and brought record low temperatures to Auckland is set to ease over the next few days, forecasters say.

Metservice said threats of intense snow will lower as a ridge approaches from the Tasman Sea and moves onto southern New Zealand tomorrow.

Snow showers were still likely in higher areas between Gisborne and Canterbury but were not expected to reach warning levels by Friday, it said.

What’s the current weather forecast? Click here for the latest.

A weather historian says the polar blast has been a ‘once in a life time’ event.

Erick Brenstrom told Newstalk ZB the recent snow falls are similar to the massive storm of 1939, but temperatures were “a wee bit colder and the sheer quantity of snow was a lot worse” in the 1930′s event.

“In Auckland, for example, in 1939 you had 5cm of snow lying on top of Mt Eden, as well as snow falling in the suburb like Ponsonby, Remuera. And it also snowed at the lighthouse at the very top end of the North Island. It snowed in Dargaville, Ruapekapeka up in Northland. There was also three hours of snow Gisborne City – so there were snowball fights there. In Banks Peninsula and Otago we had snow drifts of 10 metres.”

“That one was worse than the one we’re having now.

Lucky tourists

Two American tourists have had a lucky escape out of a snow-covered Whirinaki Forest Park in the central North Island.

The pair had spent a night in the Central Whirinaki Hut but efforts to get to another hut were hampered by the cold conditions.

Two off-duty police officers heading out for an overnight hunting trip located the pair and were able to call for assistance.

Detective Sergeant John Wilson says without local knowledge it would have been almost impossible to successfully negotiate the maze of roads.

He says another night in such conditions may have had serious consequences.

Closed for business

Both Lincoln and Canterbury University were closed today.

Airports in Queenstown, Dunedin and Christchurch were closed this morning, but all have since reopened, albeit with some delays.

Wellington Airport was operating, but its website homepage crashed earlier this morning under an onrush of travellers and the airport advised them to contact their carrier.

MetService head forecaster Peter Kreft told NZPA yesterday the polar blast was “of the order of a 50 year” event and warned it could last for several more days.

Some NZ Bus services were cancelled in the capital this morning.

The New Zealand Blood Service is calling on people in Nelson and North Island to come in and donate this week if they are eligible, to make up for collections lost after disruptions yesterday.

The Christchurch and Dunedin Donor Centres were closed yesterday and Westport and Mosgiel mobile collections were cancelled as a result of bad weather.

Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority closed access to the city’s quake-damaged red zone and would reassess the situation this morning.

Power outages

Heavy snow cut power to 1000 houses amid bitterly cold conditions in rural Canterbury, Orion confirmed.

Areas including Rakaia, Westmelton, Leeston and Greendale were hit by the outages last night.

Orion General Manager Commercial Rob Jamieson said trees and branches falling on overhead lines were the main cause of cuts.

Crews had been assessing the damage since dawn this morning, he said.

About 750 homes in south Taranaki, Wanganui, Manawatu and Wairarapa also spent the night without power after high winds and snow caused trees and branches to tear down overhead lines.

And around 450 homes in Upper Hutt were without power this morning.

Unusual weather for Auckland

Climate scientist Georgina Griffiths of the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research said yesterday was the coldest day ever recorded in Auckland. The temperature got up to only 8.2C – compared with the previous lowest high of 8.7C, on July 4, 1996.

The last time snow settled on the ground in the city was 1939. It fell to ground level at the airport in 1976.

The snow caused waves of excitement in Auckland. Kevin Prohl saw a snow flurry as he was driving around Western Springs and described it as a fairy tale. “Looking at oncoming drivers and seeing their smiles as we were fascinated by this unusual occurrence – it was truly delightful to see, yet all too short.”

Richard Brown, 53, has lived in Auckland his entire life and had never seen snow in the city. “It was snow, I’m sure it was.”

There was even debate among weather experts as to what was actually falling.

MetService weather ambassador Bob McDavitt said most Aucklanders had witnessed “graupel” – effectively hail with a soft centre.

While many Aucklanders were delighted with the light flurry of snow – the result of weather MetService described as close to a one-in-50-year-event – the high winds created havoc. Four people were injured when a tree toppled on to a house in Pakuranga.

Not so fun for some

The cold snap also wreaked havoc further south including the quake-devastated eastern suburbs of Christchurch. Power was cut to hundreds of homes, mail postponed, schools were shut for the day and heavy snow made it too dangerous to drive on.

In the Wellington region, five main roads were closed and 24 crashes were reported yesterday.

“We’ve been getting calls from people getting stuck on the road, or cars sliding down the driveway and getting stuck in the gutter. We’ve got quite a lot going on,” Inspector Ken Climo of the police said.

Prime Minister John Key commented on “the very uncharacteristic weather” during his post-Cabinet press conference.

Describing the capital as a “winter wonderland”, Mr Key said it was the first time he could recall seeing snow fall in downtown Wellington.

“My wife tells me there is snow around our house [in Parnell, Auckland]. It’s very unusual, and the main message to New Zealanders is just to be cautious and a little bit careful – make sure they keep an eye out for their family and friends, and if they are aware of their neighbours living alone, it might be a good idea just to check up on them and make sure everything is OK.”

- NZPA, HERALD ONLINE

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.

Climate-change zealots have always seen the world through a warm and zany lens.  But as the Earth’s cooling becomes more obvious, the zealots  become more and more unhinged.

From the Daily Caller:

Hours after a massive earthquake rattled Japan, environmental advocates connected the natural disaster to global warming. The president of the European Economic and Social Committee, Staffan Nilsson, issued a statement calling for solidarity in tackling the global warming problem.

“Some islands affected by climate change have been hit,” said Nilsson. “Has not the time come to demonstrate on solidarity — not least solidarity in combating and adapting to climate change and global warming?”

“Mother Nature has again given us a sign that that is what we need to do,” he added.

Global warming enthusiasts have also taken to Twitter to raise awareness of the need to respond to the earthquake by finally acting on climate change. And the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Lee Doren compiled some of the best ones.

Some examples:

AliceTMBFan said “2 hours of geography earlier talking about Japan has left me thinking…maybe global warming is way more serious then we thought…”

Arbiterofwords tweeted “I’m worried that Japan earthquake, on top of other recent natural ‘disasters’, is a sign we’ve passed point of no return for climate change.”

MrVikas said “Events like the Japan earthquake and tsunami MUST keep climate change at forefront of policy thought: http://bit.ly/cZe8To #environment

Tayyclayy noted her frustration by tweeting “An earthquake with an 8.9 magnitude struck Japan.. And some say climate change isn’t real?!”

DanFranklin postulated “Never really believed all this global warming talk, but after the earthquake in NZ and today in Japan. Maybe we’ve ruined the world.”

And TeamIanHarding tweeted “While Japan witnessed an earthquake we were talking about the problems that global warming leads to in school. Think. Pray. And change.”

Do they have a point?

“Global warming alarmists will exploit any natural disaster to promote their anti-fossil fuel agenda,” Tom Borelli of the Free Enterprise Project told The Daily Caller, adding that the climate change reaction is a result of the “global warming spin machine.”

“First it’s global warming, then it’s climate change, now it’s probably tectonic instability — no doubt all caused by man,” he said.

When contacted by TheDC, Dan Weiss, Director of Climate Strategy at the Center for American Progress, also expressed skepticism at the link between global warming and the earthquake in Japan.

“I am not a scientist,” said Weiss, “but I have never heard of a link between global warming and earthquakes.”

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

From Prison Planet.com Saturday, February 5, 2011 – Lies about Texas not being affected by draconian EPA rules on greenhouse gases. – Deception about clean burning coal-fired plants producing “carbon pollution”. – Spin in denying EPA and Obama administration have publicly stated and openly embarked on mission to destroy coal industry by blocking construction of new power plants. The White House has publicly responded to the controversy surrounding the Obama administration’s agenda to bankrupt the coal industry and its connection to this week’s blackouts across the country, by attempting to deny the link in a rebuttal that amounts to nothing more than a tissue of lies, deception and spin. In a blog that appears on the front page of WhiteHouse.gov, White House Communications Director Dan Pfeiffer begins by claiming that the story came from a “questionable” source and is “unquestionably false,” without even naming the source. Frightened that Americans might actually read the source and make their own minds up based on the facts, Pfeiffer fails to provide a link to our original article that was subsequently picked up by the Drudge Report, Fox News and numerous other media outlets. Pfeiffer then oversimplifies the debate by building a straw man argument based around the premise that “the Obama Administration is somehow responsible for the rolling blackouts in Texas,” before blaming the outages on cold weather. By framing the argument to make out as if we claimed Obama flipped a switch and the lights went out is completely deceptive. Of course the cold weather has shown that the country is vulnerable to blackouts, but that vulnerability is a direct result of the Obama administration’s stated goal to bankrupt the coal industry and its proven track record, through the enforcement of EPA regulations, of blocking power plants from being built that would be able to handle the extra demand. Pfeiffer then claims that the blackouts were a result of power plants experiencing “mechanical failures,” completely ignoring the fact that the blackouts were planned and were made necessary because of a lack of supply to meet increased demand. That’s why Texas had to rely on Mexico to meet its power shortfall, an offer that was subsequently suspended. Pfeiffer then attempts to counter the manifestly provable fact that desperately needed new coal-fired plants are being mothballed under the weight of draconian EPA regulations on CO2 emissions by claiming that Texas isn’t subject to such restrictions. Firstly, Texas supplies power to surrounding states that have been impacted by the new EPA regulations, leaving less energy to meet the demand of those living in the lone star state. Secondly, despite Texas’ best efforts to fight the new Clean Air Act standards, the EPA has aggressively enforced existing regulations, a process that has both delayed and prevented new plants in Texas from being built, such as the Las Brisas Energy Center, which has been the subject of a near three year battle between the EPA and state authorities. Indeed, a federal court ruling last month gave the EPA permission to proceed with greenhouse gas regulation in Texas, temporarily superseding Texas’ non-compliance with the new regulations which came into force on January 2. The White House’s claim that EPA regulations are not currently affecting Texas is a complete fabrication. The wider argument that the EPA is simply trying to implement reasonable measures to prevent “carbon pollution” is also a complete misnomer. Modern day clean burning coal-fired plants go to great lengths to remove all hazardous chemicals before any emissions leave the plant, through the use of sophisticated scrubbers and other techniques, to the point where the only emissions are water vapor and carbon dioxide. Watch the video below for a demonstration of these techniques. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the Obama administration has deliberately pursued a policy of bankrupting the coal industry by means of crippling EPA regulations. Candidate Obama himself explicitly stated this objective during a January 2008 interview. “So, if somebody wants to build a coal plant, they can — it’s just that it will bankrupt them, because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted,” he stated. This policy has led not only to new coal plants not being built, but also to existing coal plants being threatened with termination. EPA regulations are forcing power plants out of business across America – leaving the country vulnerable to more enforced blackouts and higher energy prices. – Back in July 2008, a Superior Court judge in Fulton County blocked the construction of a coal plant in Georgia, citing global warming concerns and the need to limit CO2 emissions. – In January 2009, the Obama EPA blocked approval for a coal-fired power plant in South Dakota, claiming the state, “didn’t meet requirements under the Clean Air Act in part of its proposed permit for the plant.” – As Governor of Kansas, Obama’s current Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius slapped a de facto ban on the construction of all new coal-fired plants across the state. – Last month, Senators in Obama’s home state of Illinois blocked the construction of a clean-burning coal gasification and power generating plant. – As a result of the EPA’s recent remand of air permits, Shell Oil announced this week that it has “dropped plans to drill in the Arctic waters of the Beaufort Sea this year and will concentrate,” ensuring more shortages and higher prices for Americans Last month Dayton Daily News reported that, “The power industry nationwide might have to spend more than $80 billion and retire 45,000 megawatts of coal-fired power plants over several years in adjusting operations to meet current and possible new EPA regulations.” The shortage of power plants to meet the demands of Texans and other Americans as cold weather grips the country is down to the EPA holding local utility companies hostage and blocking them from building desperately needed new power plants. Obama’s January greenhouse gas rules restricted the amount of emissions allowable for new power plants, while giving an exemption to General Electric, an intimate financial supporter of his administration. The Obama administration has crippled US infrastructure and its ability to meet the needs of Americans by declaring war on the coal industry. While smaller independent power plant companies are being squeezed out of existence by EPA rules, transnational giants are busy creating artificial scarcity to jack up prices and eliminate their competition. Indeed, we only have to recall how Enron shut down power plants on false pretenses during the 2001 blackouts in California as a ploy to raise prices to understand how the restriction of energy is used as a political and financial tool of oppression. Energy prices continue to skyrocket nationwide while the EPA prepares to shut down more plants, ensuring only higher prices in the years to come. The federal government’s siege against independent power companies’ efforts to build coal-fired plants is part of the unfolding globalist agenda to cripple American infrastructure even as China and Mexico build new power plants at ever accelerating speeds. The fact that the White House is so concerned that this agenda is being exposed that they feel the need to address it with a tissue of lies and deception on the front page of WhiteHouse.gov is a telling indication that the Obama administration is panicking about Americans becoming aware of the move to completely de-industrialize the United States.

Don’t let them fool you– this is not ‘crazy climate’ or ‘global climate change.’  This is normal Earth temperature variability, which has been on the high side for the past decade and not is swinging back down, known by stats lovers as ‘reversion to the mean.’  The short version is that the ‘global warming zealots’ were wrong;  Gore and others predicted a hot Earth by now, and instead we are getting the cool-down predicted by ‘cooler heads.”

By the way, today we learned that the link between autism and vaccines was all part of a scam, including a leading scientist paid hundreds of millions of dollars to falsify data.  Who is getting rich off the craziness about ‘global warming?’  (Besides big Al, that is!)

From AccuWeather.com, January 6th, 2011:

January Could Be Coldest for US since 1985

Jan 6, 2011; 12:00 PM ET

Winter has only just begun, and many people across the country are already sick of the cold. On the heels of a record-cold December, frigid weather will continue seizing areas from coast to coast through mid- to late January.

Based on this forecast, AccuWeather.com Chief Long Range Forecaster Joe Bastardi says this month could turn out to be the coldest January for the nation as a whole since 1985.

While there has been outstanding regionalized cold in January in recent years, Bastardi points out that the U.S. has not experienced this type of coast-to-coast cold since the 1980s.

Record-smashing cold already gripped a large portion of the West the first few days of the month with snow even falling in Las Vegas Monday. Bitter arctic air has also made a return to the northern Plains, while the East and South experienced a dramatic cooldown since the weekend.

More waves of arctic air will invade the country, starting late this week and continuing through next week and beyond. The period from Jan. 10-20 is when Bastardi expects the core of the cold to be in place, with the northern Plains in the heart of it.

He says places from Chicago to Denver could have one or two days with high temperatures below zero during this time. People in New York City may be looking at one day with highs in the teens, while temperatures potentially fail to rise out of the 20s in Dallas, Texas, and Jackson, Miss., for a day or two.

Bastardi also highlights the potential for rare snow in Seattle and Portland with the upcoming weather pattern.

The cold air coming to Texas starting early next week could affect the state’s citrus industry, according to Bastardi. He thinks Florida citrus, however, should be safe.

This past weekend, AccuWeather.com Expert Senior Meteorologist Alex Sosnowski started warning about the severe cold that is coming and provided more details on just how bad it will be.