By Fred Singer, AmericanThinker

Global warming has re-entered public consciousness in recent days, partly because of the buzz surrounding the release of warming results from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project. The reaction of the "warmistas" has been jubilant, yet hilariously wrong. Will they ever learn?

They've latched on to the BEST result as their last best hope for rescuing misbegotten schemes to control emissions of the greenhouse gas CO2. Leading the pack has been the Washington Post (Oct. 25), whose columnist tried to write off Republican presidential candidates Bachmann, Cain, and Perry as "cynical diehards," deniers, idiots, or whatever.

I sent the WP a letter pointing out obvious errors, but I got a peculiar response. It turned out that they were willing to publish my letter, but not my credentials as emeritus professor at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. Apparently, they were concerned that readers might gain the impression that I knew something about climate.

Unfortunately, it has become expedient (for those who condemn CO2 as the cause of warming) to deride their opponents with terms like "climate deniers." A complacent and inattentive media has made the problem worse, by giving the impression that anyone who doesn't buy the CO2 hypothesis doesn't believe that climate changes, and hence is a total Luddite. Even the WSJ got carried away. Prof. Richard Muller, the originator and leader of the BEST study, complained to me that some eager editor changed the title of his op-ed (Oct. 21) to "The Case Against Global-Warming Skepticism" from his original "Cooling the Global Warming Debate. "

Read the rest of the article here.

Unadjusted data of long period stations in GISS show a virtually flat century scale trend

Abstract
The GISS dataset includes more than 600 stations within the U.S. that have been in operation continuously throughout the 20th century. This brief report looks at the average temperatures reported by those stations. The unadjusted data of both rural and non-rural stations show a virtually flat trend across the century.

The Goddard Institute for Space Studies provides a surface temperature data set that covers the entire globe, but for long periods of time contains mostly U.S. stations. For each station, monthly temperature averages are tabulated, in both raw and adjusted versions.

One problem with the calculation of long term averages from such data is the occurrence of discontinuities; most station records contain one or more gaps of one or more months. Such gaps could be due to anything from the clerk in charge being a quarter drunkard to instrument failure and replacement or relocation. At least in some examples, such discontinuities have given rise to "adjustments" that introduced spurious trends into the time series where none existed before.

It seems like scientists keep rediscovering something that was discovered over 230 years ago

By Elmer Beauregard

Since I've been doing this blog I keep posting study after study about the effects of CO2 on plants. Another study just came out today put out by the University of Michigan. Last week there was this study about how plants gobble up more CO2 than thought. I think these are good studies and I agree with them because they show that CO2 is not a pollutant but rather a trace gas without which there would be no life on this planet. But didn't Joseph Priestley and others prove that in the late 18th century?

I remember learning about photosynthesis and the carbon cycle in 8th grade science and I thought it was the coolest thing. To me it showed that our planet was designed with very intricate and symbiotic systems that could produce and sustain life, surely these systems couldn't have happened by accident. But why after all this time does science seem to be questioning the integrity of these systems?

It could be they are just doing it for the money, they know that politicians are gullible and are easily scared into forking over big dollars to "save" the planet. But after talking to a few true believers at the AGS Convention, I think there may be another reason.

By Elmer Beauregard

I don't know about you but I am getting tired of the lame stream press saying that the skeptics don't believe in science. Like this article at the Voice of America, by the way they only have one comment posted and its by a warmist. I tried commenting and it hasn't been "approved" yet.

The NIPCC just released what I think is a very scientific study dispelling a lot of the Global Warming fear mongering. On the other hand I recently came across this video of Lisa Jackson, EPA head, where she says, "Greenhouse gases are pollution".

Who is more scientific? Does Lisa know that if there were no Greenhouse Gasses there would be no life on this planet? The earth would be like Mars.

By James Talylor, Forbes via Yahoo News

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.

Read the rest of the story here.

Paul Joseph Watson, Prison Planet.com

Physicists ordered not to draw conclusions from study which seeks to confirm that the sun drives climate change

In a shocking illustration of how the man-made climate change establishment has seized control of the scientific process, physicists at the CERN lab in Geneva were gagged from drawing conclusions about data that seeks to replicate studies which prove the sun is the main driver of climate change, after their boss told them that such heresy was politically incorrect.

"The chief of the world's leading physics lab at CERN in Geneva has prohibited scientists from drawing conclusions from a major experiment. The CLOUD ("Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets") experiment examines the role that energetic particles from deep space play in cloud formation. CLOUD uses CERN's proton synchrotron to examine nucleation," reports the Register.

The experiment is likely to confirm data from earlier studies which found cosmic rays are pivotal in the formation of clouds and that, "Tiny changes in the earth's cloud cover could account for variations in temperature of several degrees," an impact massively more significant than the comparatively minor level of warming caused by man-made CO2 emissions.

Suggesting that the data in the yet to be published study has validated this hypothesis, physicists involved in the project were gagged from making any interpretations of the data by their boss, not because of problems with accuracy, but because such a conclusion was not politically correct as it did not fit with the "consensus" that man is the main culprit behind climate change.

In an interview with Welt Online, Rolf-Dieter Heuer, Director General of CERN, stated, "I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them."

Heuer's reason for gagging his own scientists is that their conclusions would enter, "Immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate."

In other words, Heuer doesn't want the data to circulate freely in the public domain because it presumably contradicts the notion that man is the main driver of climate change.

Read the rest of the article.

DICK AHLSTROM, Irish Times

IT MAY seem perverse but cleaning up our air pollution problem is going to increase global warming. The cleaner the air over our cities, the more pronounced the warming effect, according to research.

An Irish scientist at NUI Galway originally initiated the research into how air pollution has a hidden beneficial side. It shows the haze that forms due to pollution, the tiny particles discharged by motor transport, and smoke from burning help to reflect back some of the solar radiation that is warming our climate.

If we manage to clean up the pollution we may also ramp up warming, said Prof Colin O'Dowd, professor of physics at Galway and also director of the Centre for Climate and Air Pollution Studies at the Ryan Institute.

By Joseph D'Aleo, IceCap

As we reported, the eco-pressure group, the Union of Concerned Scientists, as part of a continuing misinformation campaign sponsored a teleconference yesterday with a very confused Jeff Masters of Weather Underground, opportunist Mark Serreze of NSIDC and a UCS environmentalist. Their performance was a scientific disappointment to say the least as one scientist wrote me "Masters lost all my respect. Serreze never had it". He didn't mention the UCS. It is the crazy uncle no one talks about.

The Union of Concerned Scientists recall had sponsored a workshop on Mt. Washington in 2007 in which they promised ski areas that snow would be hard to come by even in northern areas and they might consider another profession. That very winter, northern New England set a record for the greatest seasonal snow and ski areas had the best year in their history. Across the hemisphere that winter was surpassed only by 1977/78, 2009/10. Through January this winter, the Northern Hemisphere had more snow than any of those years and will rank likely in the top 5.

Read the rest of the article.

Here is a great post by Donna Laframboise, the creator of NOconsensus.org (Toronto, Canada)

This is a great article about the IPCC and how it should be defunded.

Here is an excerpt:

PROBLEMS #1, 2, and 3

The IPCC's conclusions are not based solely on painstaking studies. Nor is the IPCC's source material all published in peer-reviewed journals. In fact, 30% of the references in the IPCC's 2007 report (5,587 out of 18,531) are to grey literature - including press releases, magazine articles, and advocacy material produced by groups such as Greenpeace. Furthermore, the genuinely peer-reviewed material cited by the IPCC amounts to several thousand studies. Simple arithmetic indicates that only a fraction could possibly have appeared in the world's leading journals.

Read the complete article here.

By Elmer Beauregard

You've all probably seen this chart from Mauna Loa by now, it shows how the earth's CO2 is ever increasing. It goes from 315 ppm to 385 ppm in 50 years, an increase of about 70 PPM.

What you may not know is, mankind is only responsible for 3% of that increase, nature produced the rest, the oceans being the worst culprit by far.

If you take 70ppm and multiply it by .03 (3%) you get 2.1 or 2 parts per million, which is all that mankind is responsible for. That's it, that's what all the hubbub is about.

The magic number set by the Greeny Weenies is to get CO2 levels back down to 350 PPM, like it was in the mid 80's. But if you were to totally eliminate mankind off the face of the earth it would only bring it down 2PPM to 383 which is what it was in 2008.

Here is my version of the Mauna Loa Chart where I pan out to show a whopping 1% of the earth's atmosphere. By zooming out to show more of the atmosphere it shows that this increasing CO2 is maybe not so bad after all. Especially because it's what makes plants grow which in turn make Oxygen for us.

By Elmer Bearegard

The mainstream press is doing a good job of pushing the latest piece of Global Warming propaganda that 2010 is the warmest year ever. To prove their pont they show this chart, which shows a gradual increase in temperature of one degree over the last 130 years.






The thing that bugs me about these charts that show how "bad" global warming is, is that they zoom in extremely close to exaggerate how bad the problem is. If you look at the left side of the chart they are measuring in tenths of a degree. That is why I made the above chart which zooms out and shows more the earth's temperature range.

The average temperature on Earth is about 13ºC. The highest recorded has been 56.7ºC and lowest -89ºC. For my chart I zoomed in on an 80 degree range form +40º to -40º which still only shows 55% of the earth's recorded temperature range. By the way the temperature in Minnesota got down to -46º F yesterday, which is off this chart.

Of course all of this "horrible" global warming is caused by the increased CO2 in the earth's atmosphere. In the last 50 years CO2 has gone from 315 to 385 PPM. which stands for PARTS PER MILLION.










To show this increase they always show this chart from the Mauna Loa Observatory. Notice how they zoom in to show a very small part of the earth's atmosphere which makes it look like it's increasing at an alarming rate. That's why I made the above chart which gives a a bigger picture of what that increase really looks like. My chart still only shows 1% of the earth's atmosphere, which is still exaggerating the "problem" a hundred times.

Keep in mind that greenhouses usually have CO2 levels at 1,000 parts per million for better plant growth.

by Joseph D'Aleo, January 14, 2011 Full Report in PDF form.

NOAA and NASA announced this week that 2010 was tied for the warmest year.

NOAA's Dr. Lubchenko, when she was president of AAAS in 1999, urged "Urgent and unprecedented environmental and social changes challenge scientists to define a new social contract ... a commitment on the part of all scientists to devote their energies and talents to the most pressing problems of the day, in proportion to their importance, in exchange for public funding."

NOAA and NASA are receiving big dollars $437M (NOAA) and $438M (NASA) in climate research funding and are expected to provide the information needed to support environmental, social and political agendas. NOAA and NASA also benefited from funding for climate change research from the Recovery Act of 2009 with up to $600 million. You can see how quickly the political operatives and the media enablers respond to those press releases (Hill story here).

The pressure has been mounting. The public doubt about global warming has been increasing in recent years given Climategate, and how promises of warm snowless winters failed. After cold and snowy winters in 2007/08 and 2008/09, the winter of 2009/10 was the coldest ever in parts of the southeast, and in parts of Siberia and the coldest since 1977/78 or 1962/63 in many parts of the United States, Europe and Asia. This past December was the second coldest in the entire Central England Temperature record extending back to 1659. It was the coldest ever December in diverse locations like Ireland, Sweden, and Florida. Reluctantly, alarmists changed their tune and the promise of warm and snowless winters as recent as 4 years ago morphed into global warming means cold and snowy winters.

Now that we're winning the war on the Global Warming hoax, maybe its time to set our sights on a new target "Chemtrails". Here is an excellent documentary about Chemtrails called "What In the World Are They Spraying".

It's called "Geoengineering" and its being done under the guise of cooling down the planet, but the cure seems to be worse than the disease. Most everyone agrees increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is actually good for plantlife, but putting 39,000 ppb of Aluminum into the atmosphere to prevent "Climate Change" as stated in this movie, is actually killing the planet not saving it.

Paul Douglas a local Meteorologist is even beginning to ask questions. Although he still believes in "Global Warming" he seems to have an open mind on this issue.

www.geoengineeringwatch.org

Marc Morano, Climate Depot

Climate Depot Exclusive: 321-page 'Consensus Buster' Report set to further chill UN Climate Summit in Cancun

Link to Complete 321-Page PDF Special Report

More than 1000 dissenting scientists (updates previous 700 scientist report) from around the globe have now challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2010 320-page Climate Depot Special Report -- updated from 2007's groundbreaking U.S. Senate Report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming "consensus" -- features the skeptical voices of over 1000 international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated 2010 report includes a dramatic increase of over 300 additional (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the last update in March 2009. This report's release coincides with the 2010 UN global warming summit in being held in Cancun.

The rest of the story.

CO2Science.org

In a new peer reviewed study at CO2Science.org. they found that warming of the coldest part of the year would actually save lives.

...there would have been 1.6 additional deaths per million people per year due to warming in the hottest part of the year over the period 1976-2005, but there would have been 47 fewer deaths per million people per year due to warming in the coldest part of the year, for a lives-saved to life-lost ratio of 29.4, which represents a huge net benefit of the warming experienced in England and Wales over the three-decade period of warming."

Read the complete article here.

latimes.com

The American Geophysical Union plans to announce that 700 researchers have agreed to speak out on the issue. Other scientists plan a pushback against congressional conservatives who have vowed to kill regulations on greenhouse gas emissions.

Reporting from Washington --
Faced with rising political attacks, hundreds of climate scientists are joining a broad campaign to push back against congressional conservatives who have threatened prominent researchers with investigations and vowed to kill regulations to rein in man-made greenhouse gas emissions.

The still-evolving efforts reveal a shift among climate scientists, many of whom have traditionally stayed out of politics and avoided the news media. Many now say they are willing to go toe-to-toe with their critics, some of whom gained new power after the Republicans won control of the House in Tuesday's election.

Read the rest of the article.

Guest post by Jeff Wiita

I have a 13-year-old daughter who is in the public school system. About a month ago, she came home and told me that the teacher showed a man-made global warming video. I asked her if it was Al Gore's movie and she said, "No, it was Bill Nye, The Science Guy."

The story does not start there. This is just the latest chapter. The story actually started four years ago when she was in 4th grade. She came home and asked me if I would help her on a science project. I said, "Sure, what was it on?" She said, "Man-made global warming." I told her that when I was in school, it was man-made global cooling. Let see what we can find.

Now, four years ago, the Internet was still in its adolescence stage. Remember, YouTube turned five on May 17, 2010. But, I said, "Let's see what we can find on the Internet. I remember an article in Newsweek and in Time Magazine warning the world of an upcoming man-made ice age. Maybe it will be on the Internet?"

With a few keystrokes, I found the Newsweek article dated April 28, 1975 and Time Magazine article dated June 24, 1974.

By Elmer Beauregard

If you're like me its hard to believe people like Al Gore when it comes to Global Warming, but would you believe aliens from outer space?




A newly-published book by a retired NORAD officer predicts October 13, 2010 as the tentative date for a fleet of extraterrestrial vehicles to hover for hours over the earth's principal cities. Author says the event to be the first in a series intended to avert a planetary catastrophe resulting from increasing levels of carbon-dioxide in the earth's atmosphere dangerously approaching a "critical mass."

Read the rest of the article.

HockeySchtick

California Climate change is caused by the Pacific Decadal Oscillation Not by Carbon Dioxide

ABSTRACT: The long term trends in monthly minimum temperature from 34 California weather stations have been analyzed. These trends can be explained using a variable linear urban heat island effect superimposed on a baseline trend from the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).

The majority of the prevailing California weather systems originate in the N. Pacific Ocean. The average minimum monthly temperature is a measure of the surface air temperature of these weather systems. Changes in minimum surface temperature are an indicator of changes in the temperature of the tropospheric air column, not the ground surface temperature. The PDO provides a baseline minimum temperature trend that defines the California climate variation.

This allows urban heat island effects and other possible anomalous temperature measurement effects to be identified and investigated. Some of the rural weather stations showed no urban heat island effects. Stations located in urban areas showed heat island effects ranging from 0.01 to over 0.04 C.yr-1. The analysis of minimum temperature data using the PDO as a reference baseline has been demonstrated as a powerful technique for climate trend evaluation. This technique may be extended to other regions using the appropriate local ocean surface temperature reference. The analysis found no evidence for CO2 induced warming trends in the California data. This confirms prior 'Null Hypothesis' work that it is impossible for a 100 ppm increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration to cause any climate change.

Read the rest of the article./a>

Download the study.

By Donna Bowater, www.express.co.uk

The world's leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a damning report into its research practices.

A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was "little evidence" for its claims about global warming.

It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made "substantive findings" based on little proof.

The review by the InterAcademy Council (IAC) was launched after the IPCC's hugely embarrassing 2007 benchmark climate change report, which contained exaggerated and false claims that Himalayan glaciers could melt by 2035.

Rest of the article.

Natural News

A recent report issued by the European Union has revealed that biofuels, or fuel made from living, renewable sources, is not really all that beneficial to the environment. Rather than reduce the net carbon footprint as intended, biofuels can produce four times more carbon dioxide pollution than conventional fossil fuels do.

Common biofuels like corn ethanol, which has become a popular additive in gasoline, and soy biodiesel, which is being used in commercial trucks and other diesel-fueled vehicles, are often considered to be environmentally-friendly because they are renewable. But in order to grow enough of these crops to use for both food and fuel, large swaths of land around the world are being converted into crop fields for growing biofuels.

In other words, millions of acres of lush rainforests are becoming corn and soy fields in order to provide enough of these resources for their new uses. The net carbon footprint of growing crops for fuel is far higher than what is emitted from simple fossil fuel usage.

Entire article here.

Anchored by Andrea Canning - Original Air Date: Monday July 12, 2010

ABC News Global Warming Debate Part 1:

Thanks to Climate Realists

Christopher Monckton has issued an extensive and detailed critique and refutation of a widely circulated 83-minute personal attack on him by one J.P. Abraham, a lecturer in fluid mechanics at the University of St. Thomas, Minnesota.

Professor Abraham's 83-minute lecture with 115 slides purported to demolish a talk about climate change that Lord Monckton had given in St. Paul, Minnesota, in October 2009. More than 2.5 million people have seen Monckton's talk on YouTube, making it one of the most popular viewings on the web.

In June 2010, John Abraham posted up an attack on the internet via the servers of the University of St. Thomas. Within a week, Monckton's response letter with its near-500 questions was in Abraham's hands, to which he has not responded as challenged.

Monckton publicly accuses Abraham of -

Bad faith in having "furtively" spent eight months preparing his savage personal attack behind Monckton's back, entirely contrary to accepted academic practice;

Malice in having made dozens of serious allegations about Monckton when he knew the allegations he had made were false in every material particular, or had no reason to believe the allegations were true;

Appealing to a false authority on the subject of the climate that, as a lecturer in fluid mechanics, he did not possess (Monckton demonstrates Abraham appears at times incompetent even in arithmetic);

Academic dishonesty in having repeatedly made up statements that Monckton had not made, having put those statements to other scientists, having obtained hostile responses from those scientists, and having included those hostile responses in his attack as though they were responses to what Monckton had said; and

Lying repeatedly by misstating what Monckton had said and then attacking those misstatements; by falsely and repeatedly alleging that Monckton had misrepresented scientists' results when Monckton had either accurately represented the results or not cited the scientists he was alleged to have misrepresented at all; by unjustifiably and repeatedly impugning Monckton's integrity, qualifications, experience, and competence in a manner that he knew to be inaccurate; and by repeatedly taking Monckton's words out of their context and making a willful nonsense of them.

Download Monckton's critique.

By Elmer Beauregard

The number of Scientist who still believe in global warming continues to drop.

There used to be 2,500 scientists who said they believed in man-made global warming, now in a new study done by the The National Academy of Sciences, that number is down to only 1,372. And of that number 3% now don't believe in man-made Global Warming anymore.

Of course this number pails in comparison to the 31,000 scientist who have signed a petition saying they don't believe in man-made global warming.

Let's see 97% of 1,372 is 1,330 who still believe in the myth, compared to 31,487 who don't. So only 1 out 24 scientists still believes in man-made global warming

By Bradley Fikes, nctimes.com

Turns out the award given to a 4th grader on her science report about global warming was a hoax.

Read more about it here.

note: keep in mind apparently everyone (including the girl, her family, and the school) have been scammed. The story was NOT a fake although the surrounding circumstances were, we later discovered. I don't know how this would help a skeptic or a true believers cause.