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.

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

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 .

Is there any doubt about the real motivation behind Soros and Obama when they talk ‘climate’?  There shouldn’t be.  From Bloomberg:

By Alex Morales and Jim Efstathiou Jr. – Nov 5, 2010

At least $65 billion might be raised by taxing foreign-exchange transactions and auctioning pollution permits, a United Nations panel said today in a report recommending ways to finance aid for fighting global warming.

The panel, which includes billionaire investor George Soros and Larry Summers, director of President Barack Obama’s National Economic Council, said selling carbon-emissions permits would generate $38 billion and a financial transactions tax an additional $27 billion, according to the report released today.

The findings are intended to guide envoys at UN climate talks that start this month in Mexico as they seek ways to pay for $100 billion in climate aid that was pledged by 2020 to poor nations at last year’s summit in Copenhagen. The report found that the goal is “challenging but feasible” to achieve.

“Without agreement on finance, we will not be able to reach agreement on other issues for climate change,” Jens Stoltenberg, Norway’s prime minister and co-chairman of the advisory group, said at a press conference in New York. “Now we need the political will to take the decisions.”

UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon appointed the panel, called the High-Level Advisory Group on Climate Change Financing, in February. It’s led by Stoltenberg and Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. The 21-member group also includes Soros, Summers and Deutsche Bank AG Vice Chairman Caio Koch- Weser.

The report didn’t specify what financial transactions would be covered by the tax beyond saying the focus would be on international currency sales.

‘Court Of Government’

“The ball is really now in the court of governments to move forward on generating these resources,” David Waskow, senior adviser on climate finance for the development charity Oxfam International, said in a telephone interview from Washington. “One can raise substantial public finance from public sources and do it in a way that’s not going to place additional pressure on national budgets and taxpayers.”

The findings would add to the weight behind calls for a tax on financial speculation, sometimes termed a Tobin tax after James Tobin, the Nobel Prize-winning U.S. economist who first suggested the idea in 1971.

Former U.K. Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and labor groups including the U.K. Trades Union Congress have supported the idea. President Barack Obama’s administration opposes it. A tax of 0.05 percent on financial transactions may raise as much as $700 billion a year, according to WWF, a Washington-based global environmental activist group.

A financial transactions tax would be “difficult to implement universally” and therefore “only feasible to implement among interested countries,” the panel said in its report.

‘Most Exposed’

Developing nations are “the most exposed” to the impacts of warming, Nicholas Stern, former chief adviser on climate change to the U.K. government and a member of the advisory panel, said in a statement. The UN in 2007 found that while developing countries have contributed the least to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, they’re the most at risk from the effects of climate change, especially small, island states and nations in Sub-Saharan Africa.

“As Africans, we’ve contributed virtually nothing to the environmental mess our planet is in,” Meles said at the press conference by telephone from Ethiopia. “We will, however, suffer the most.”

The panel assumed a carbon price of as much as $25 a ton on emissions in the levy it suggested. An additional $5 billion might be gained from a tax on carbon offsets in the UN’s Clean Development Mechanism, which polluters buy to make up for emissions elsewhere, according to the study. Private offsets may generate as much as $14 billion.

‘Necessary Transformation’

“Concerted global action and a carbon price of at least $25 is required to achieve the necessary transformation in the global economy,” U.K. Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne said in a statement. Huhne is a member of the advisory group.

An additional $12 billion would come from a levy on shipping and aviation, the report showed. Waskow said the levies on transportation need to be structured so as not to harm developing nations.

Sources of finance identified in the report included direct contributions from government budgets, a measure it said may generate the full $100 billion while being politically “challenging.”

The panel also looked at a “wires charge” on electricity generation, which it said might provide $5 billion; the removal of fossil fuel-subsidies, which may raise $8 billion; and a carbon tax, which would garner $10 billion. Private finance could provide a net $24 billion, it said.

Soros Proposal Shelved

A proposal Soros made at last year’s climate summit in Copenhagen, that the richest nations use $100 billion of foreign-exchange reserves to help developing nations fight climate change, was deemed not “politically acceptable” by the panel. The money is denominated in what are called special drawing rights, the IMF unit of accounting based on the dollar, yen, pound and euro.

Special drawing rights, created in 1969 to replace gold for large cross-border exchanges, are used by the IMF and other international organizations to account for financial transactions in different countries.

“We are simply asking those who created the problem to stop before it becomes too late,” Meles said. “The prospects for sanity and justice do not appear good, but I refuse to give up.”

There goes el nino!

Politicians like to pretend that climate is pretty straightforward… especially when their climate predictions benefit their pet projects or campaign fund-raising.  This year especially, they like to pretend that there is such a thing as ‘big oil’– a faceless giant, destroying the planet, unless the President of the US sweeps in to save the day by ‘kicking ass.’  Of course, only OUR asses will end up being kicked, through the double-whammy of higher energy prices (from cap and tax legislation), higher unemployment (from higher business taxes and other expenses that stifle growth), and higher taxes at the gas pump and on April 15th.    Funny how something so unpredictable– like climate– is so closely paired with something so predictable– like the current administrations love for government and tax revenue.

I came across this paragraph this morning from the Browning Newsletter:  

Amazing. It was the vanishing act that completely changes this year’s climate. The El Niño disappeared!

More Amazing. Last winter’s El Niño has already been one for the record books. It usually takes a year or more for the Tropical Pacific to gradually warm up from a cool La Niña to a balmy El Niño. Instead, last year the ocean flipped from one to the other in only three months. By June, the trade winds had weakened, the ocean waters had warmed and the globe began to experience typical El Niño weather.

Amazing continues. Now, against all expectations, the Pacific waters have cooled equally rapidly.

To say that this development is a surprise is an understatement. It was completely unexpected. Until mid-March, most oceanologists were expecting the Pacific to cool and the El Niño to fade out by June. Most models then predicted that the Pacific would remain neutral for the rest of the year. Instead, the temperatures plummeted and the El Niño was gone by the end of March. By the end of April, the temperatures had dropped from above average to below average. By now, the temperatures are -0.9°C (-1.6°F) below normal – technically cold enough to be classified as a La Niña if the cool temperatures continue.

For the full report, click here.

You’ll note that the consequences of this dramatic cooling will include more intense weather in some parts of the country and world, and less intense weather elsewhere.  It’s complicated.  It’s too complicated, unfortunately, for reporters to understand, so it will be ripe for picking by those with an agenda.  The violent weather will be blamed on global warming– even when the actual cause is global cooling in another part of the world. 

Don’t assume, just because someone has a microphone, that he/she knows more than you;  If you read the Browning Newsletter, I promise you that you will know more than any newscaster you’ll see on television.

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