.
Extraterrestrial Global Warming?
"...Apparently, man-made global warming has gotten so out of hand due to SUVs and coal-chugging global warming skeptics that even the biggest planet in our solar system – Jupiter – is being affected by our addiction to carbon pollution. And that follows the other solar effects of our dependence on fossil fuels, including Mars losing its polar ice cap..."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/16/extraterrestrial-global-warming/
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Harvard astrophysicist dismisses AGW theory, challenges peers to 'take back climate science'
.
From Examiner.com - May 11th, 2010
In the following interview, Dr. Willie Soon, a solar and climate scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, questions the prevailing dogma of man-made global warming and challenges his peers to “take back climate science.” His remarks are his personal opinion based upon 19 years of scientific research.
Examiner.com: What drives climate change on Earth?
Dr. Soon: Most of the weather and climate variations we observed are essentially related to the sun and the changing seasons – not by CO2 radiative forcing and feedback. The climate system is constantly readjusting naturally in a large way – more than we would ever see from CO2. The CO2 kick [impact of CO2 emissions] is extremely small compared to what is happening in a natural way. Within the framework of a proper study of the sun-climate connection, you don’t need CO2 to explain anything.
Examiner.com: What is your opinion of the anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming theory?
Dr. Soon: It’s never been about the science – even from the very beginning. It’s based on confusion and a mixture of ideology. We should deal only in the facts that we do know.
Examiner.com: Many of the scientists promoting the global warming theory appear to be driven by politics rather than hard scientific data. What are your thoughts?
Dr. Soon: I am a scientist. I go where the facts take me. And the facts are fairly clear. It doesn’t take very long to discover that their views [of man-caused global warming] aren’t grounded in the facts. Why would any solid science need so much promotion and advertisement and the endless shouting about how the science has all been “settled”? And now we’re supposed to believe that the growing consensus on the street that humans are not responsible for global warming is due mainly to the confusion created by climate “deniers.”
Examiner.com: Many scientists like you (often referred to as “skeptics”) are ridiculed and isolated for challenging the dogma of man-made global warming. Many of your peers have been very successful in their efforts to marginalize anyone who deviates from the approved script? What is happening?
Dr. Soon: The pro-AGW supporters have become more and more confrontational in their attacks on scientists who challenge their views. For instance, Stephen Schneider [a professor of environmental studies at Stanford University], says that skeptics sell garbage and that we are playing games with science. He compares it to selling drugs and believes that we are criminals who should go to jail. Guess what? You don’t pull that sort of thing on people who know something about science.
Examiner.com: What needs to be done to combat the strong-arm tactics being used against scientists who disagree with the AGW theory?
Dr. Soon: Science needs to stand up. The AGW movement is killing science. It’s very unhealthy in many ways. They are corrupting science for material gain. It’s time for us to take back climate science.
Examiner.com: Many AGW scientists state with confidence that there is a very high probability that the earth is warming. Therefore, something must be done now to cut CO2 emissions. How accurate are their statistics?
Dr. Soon: Their probabilities are absolute crap. They are pulling these statistics out of thin air. It is completely anti-science. They talk about 90 percent probability. It sounds high, but would anyone fly in an airplane if it would crash once out of every 10 flights?
Examiner.com: The temperature data over the past eight years or so seem to indicate that we have entered a period of global cooling. Are we experiencing a cooling trend?
Dr. Soon: If you look at the data empirically, there is a cooling tendency. We’re already seeing signs. The possibility of a colder climate ahead is a very real thing.
Examiner.com: What is your opinion of Al Gore?
Dr. Soon: He’s somebody who needs to just shut-up and stop spreading nonsense. He has neither credibility on science nor moral standing.
Examiner.com: In its latest Assessment Report, the IPCC talks about a “water vapor feedback” that magnifies the warming of CO2 emissions. Does such a feedback exist?
Dr. Soon: There is some CO2-water vapor feedback. But it’s not operating on a global scale. The modellers cannot accurately separate water vapour from the effects of clouds and rainfall. In other words, they lack the detailed understanding of clouds required to construct atmospheric models. But they keep tuning their models and claiming they can accurately simulate the effects of water vapour, but how can you do this when you can’t model clouds or rainfall properly. Changes in clouds and rainfall can overwhelm what little effect CO2-water vapour has on temperature. CO2 can never be the climate driver they say it will be over the next 20 to 50 years.
Examiner.com: Which plays a stronger role in its impact on climate – atmospheric CO2 or changes in albedo?
Dr. Soon: If you change planetary albedo by as little as one or two percent, it has the same effect as doubling atmospheric CO2. The warming we’ve experienced in the late 20th century could just as easily be explained by small decreases in cloud cover – natural changes in the system –and have nothing to do with CO2.
Examiner.com: You have developed a theory showing a close correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the arctic and surrounding regions – and, perhaps, even globally. Would you like to explain it?
Dr. Soon: In 2005, I discovered a surprisingly strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic over the past 130 years. Since then, I have demonstrated similar correlations in all the regions surrounding the Arctic, including the U.S. mainland and China.
The close relationships between the abrupt ups and downs of solar activity and of temperature that I have identified occur locally in coastal Greenland; regionally in the Arctic Pacific and north Atlantic; and, hemispherically, for the whole circum-Arctic, suggesting that changes in solar activity drive Arctic and perhaps even global climate.
There is no such match between the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the often dramatic ups and downs of surface temperatures in and around the Arctic.
I recently discovered direct evidence that changes in solar activity have influenced what has been called the “conveyor-belt” circulation of the great Atlantic Ocean currents over the past 240 years. For instance, solar-driven changes in temperature, and in the volume of freshwater output from the Arctic, can cause variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic five to 20 years later.
The hallmark of good science is the testing of a plausible hypothesis that is then either supported or rejected by the evidence. The evidence in my paper is consistent with the hypothesis that the sun causes climatic change in the Arctic.
It invalidates the hypothesis that CO2 is a major cause of observed climate change – and raises serious questions about the wisdom of imposing cap-and-trade or other policies that would cripple energy production and economic activity, all in the name of “preventing catastrophic climate change.”
Thanks, Dr. Soon, for taking the time to speak to Examiner.com.
.
From Examiner.com - May 11th, 2010
In the following interview, Dr. Willie Soon, a solar and climate scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, questions the prevailing dogma of man-made global warming and challenges his peers to “take back climate science.” His remarks are his personal opinion based upon 19 years of scientific research.
Examiner.com: What drives climate change on Earth?
Dr. Soon: Most of the weather and climate variations we observed are essentially related to the sun and the changing seasons – not by CO2 radiative forcing and feedback. The climate system is constantly readjusting naturally in a large way – more than we would ever see from CO2. The CO2 kick [impact of CO2 emissions] is extremely small compared to what is happening in a natural way. Within the framework of a proper study of the sun-climate connection, you don’t need CO2 to explain anything.
Examiner.com: What is your opinion of the anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming theory?
Dr. Soon: It’s never been about the science – even from the very beginning. It’s based on confusion and a mixture of ideology. We should deal only in the facts that we do know.
Examiner.com: Many of the scientists promoting the global warming theory appear to be driven by politics rather than hard scientific data. What are your thoughts?
Dr. Soon: I am a scientist. I go where the facts take me. And the facts are fairly clear. It doesn’t take very long to discover that their views [of man-caused global warming] aren’t grounded in the facts. Why would any solid science need so much promotion and advertisement and the endless shouting about how the science has all been “settled”? And now we’re supposed to believe that the growing consensus on the street that humans are not responsible for global warming is due mainly to the confusion created by climate “deniers.”
Examiner.com: Many scientists like you (often referred to as “skeptics”) are ridiculed and isolated for challenging the dogma of man-made global warming. Many of your peers have been very successful in their efforts to marginalize anyone who deviates from the approved script? What is happening?
Dr. Soon: The pro-AGW supporters have become more and more confrontational in their attacks on scientists who challenge their views. For instance, Stephen Schneider [a professor of environmental studies at Stanford University], says that skeptics sell garbage and that we are playing games with science. He compares it to selling drugs and believes that we are criminals who should go to jail. Guess what? You don’t pull that sort of thing on people who know something about science.
Examiner.com: What needs to be done to combat the strong-arm tactics being used against scientists who disagree with the AGW theory?
Dr. Soon: Science needs to stand up. The AGW movement is killing science. It’s very unhealthy in many ways. They are corrupting science for material gain. It’s time for us to take back climate science.
Examiner.com: Many AGW scientists state with confidence that there is a very high probability that the earth is warming. Therefore, something must be done now to cut CO2 emissions. How accurate are their statistics?
Dr. Soon: Their probabilities are absolute crap. They are pulling these statistics out of thin air. It is completely anti-science. They talk about 90 percent probability. It sounds high, but would anyone fly in an airplane if it would crash once out of every 10 flights?
Examiner.com: The temperature data over the past eight years or so seem to indicate that we have entered a period of global cooling. Are we experiencing a cooling trend?
Dr. Soon: If you look at the data empirically, there is a cooling tendency. We’re already seeing signs. The possibility of a colder climate ahead is a very real thing.
Examiner.com: What is your opinion of Al Gore?
Dr. Soon: He’s somebody who needs to just shut-up and stop spreading nonsense. He has neither credibility on science nor moral standing.
Examiner.com: In its latest Assessment Report, the IPCC talks about a “water vapor feedback” that magnifies the warming of CO2 emissions. Does such a feedback exist?
Dr. Soon: There is some CO2-water vapor feedback. But it’s not operating on a global scale. The modellers cannot accurately separate water vapour from the effects of clouds and rainfall. In other words, they lack the detailed understanding of clouds required to construct atmospheric models. But they keep tuning their models and claiming they can accurately simulate the effects of water vapour, but how can you do this when you can’t model clouds or rainfall properly. Changes in clouds and rainfall can overwhelm what little effect CO2-water vapour has on temperature. CO2 can never be the climate driver they say it will be over the next 20 to 50 years.
Examiner.com: Which plays a stronger role in its impact on climate – atmospheric CO2 or changes in albedo?
Dr. Soon: If you change planetary albedo by as little as one or two percent, it has the same effect as doubling atmospheric CO2. The warming we’ve experienced in the late 20th century could just as easily be explained by small decreases in cloud cover – natural changes in the system –and have nothing to do with CO2.
Examiner.com: You have developed a theory showing a close correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the arctic and surrounding regions – and, perhaps, even globally. Would you like to explain it?
Dr. Soon: In 2005, I discovered a surprisingly strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic over the past 130 years. Since then, I have demonstrated similar correlations in all the regions surrounding the Arctic, including the U.S. mainland and China.
The close relationships between the abrupt ups and downs of solar activity and of temperature that I have identified occur locally in coastal Greenland; regionally in the Arctic Pacific and north Atlantic; and, hemispherically, for the whole circum-Arctic, suggesting that changes in solar activity drive Arctic and perhaps even global climate.
There is no such match between the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the often dramatic ups and downs of surface temperatures in and around the Arctic.
I recently discovered direct evidence that changes in solar activity have influenced what has been called the “conveyor-belt” circulation of the great Atlantic Ocean currents over the past 240 years. For instance, solar-driven changes in temperature, and in the volume of freshwater output from the Arctic, can cause variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic five to 20 years later.
The hallmark of good science is the testing of a plausible hypothesis that is then either supported or rejected by the evidence. The evidence in my paper is consistent with the hypothesis that the sun causes climatic change in the Arctic.
It invalidates the hypothesis that CO2 is a major cause of observed climate change – and raises serious questions about the wisdom of imposing cap-and-trade or other policies that would cripple energy production and economic activity, all in the name of “preventing catastrophic climate change.”
Thanks, Dr. Soon, for taking the time to speak to Examiner.com.
.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
The Graham-Kerry-Lieberman global warming bill
.
Good article, interesting take -
WorldMag.com - May 08, 2010
The unemployment rate is almost 10 percent, food prices are rising, and the price of oil is back over $80 per barrel.
It is in this economic environment that three U.S. senators—Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn.—are planning to introduce a bill that would in all likelihood increase utility prices.
The three lawmakers have been putting together a global warming bill this spring, and their proposal is due to be unveiled the week of April 26. Early reports indicate that it will jettison an economy-wide cap-and-trade scheme in favor of one aimed—at least at first—at the electric power industry. In a further effort to bring wary senators aboard, the proposal would allow for more oil and natural gas production and include incentives for the nuclear power industry.
But some conservatives suspect that these add-ons won't amount to much. A much-hyped announcement in March from President Obama about increased offshore oil drilling, for example, left out California and other oil-rich areas. The incentives for building nuclear power plants may also be weak: "From what I've heard there is no meaningful nuclear component," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Business Week. "I've repeatedly said I would not support any proposal that didn't have a robust nuclear power component."
Most analysts say getting to the needed 60 votes for the bill in the Senate will be a daunting task for Democratic leaders. "Some would suggest that as you try to bring certain members on to an initiative, for every one you get on, you have two that leap out of the wheelbarrow," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.
The bill also faces an increasingly skeptical public. In the wake of the recent Climategate controversy, in which leaked or hacked email messages showed some leading climate scientists trying to manipulate data and the peer-review process, the public seems to be shifting the burden of proof onto those who say global warming will be catastrophic.
In March, a Gallup poll found that 48 percent of Americans think global warming fears are "generally exaggerated," up from 30 percent in 2006 and 35 percent in 2008. A Pew survey in January showed global warming ranking last among 21 priorities for the president and Congress. Only 28 percent of the public thought fighting climate change should be a top priority.
One irony: As senators debate a bill that would raise energy costs to fight global warming, Americans are already paying more for food. A smaller than normal vegetable crop helped increase food prices by 2.4 percent in March, the biggest jump in 26 years. One of the reasons for the bad vegetable crop: a colder than normal winter.
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/16678
Good article, interesting take -
WorldMag.com - May 08, 2010
The unemployment rate is almost 10 percent, food prices are rising, and the price of oil is back over $80 per barrel.
It is in this economic environment that three U.S. senators—Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn.—are planning to introduce a bill that would in all likelihood increase utility prices.
The three lawmakers have been putting together a global warming bill this spring, and their proposal is due to be unveiled the week of April 26. Early reports indicate that it will jettison an economy-wide cap-and-trade scheme in favor of one aimed—at least at first—at the electric power industry. In a further effort to bring wary senators aboard, the proposal would allow for more oil and natural gas production and include incentives for the nuclear power industry.
But some conservatives suspect that these add-ons won't amount to much. A much-hyped announcement in March from President Obama about increased offshore oil drilling, for example, left out California and other oil-rich areas. The incentives for building nuclear power plants may also be weak: "From what I've heard there is no meaningful nuclear component," Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Business Week. "I've repeatedly said I would not support any proposal that didn't have a robust nuclear power component."
Most analysts say getting to the needed 60 votes for the bill in the Senate will be a daunting task for Democratic leaders. "Some would suggest that as you try to bring certain members on to an initiative, for every one you get on, you have two that leap out of the wheelbarrow," said Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska.
The bill also faces an increasingly skeptical public. In the wake of the recent Climategate controversy, in which leaked or hacked email messages showed some leading climate scientists trying to manipulate data and the peer-review process, the public seems to be shifting the burden of proof onto those who say global warming will be catastrophic.
In March, a Gallup poll found that 48 percent of Americans think global warming fears are "generally exaggerated," up from 30 percent in 2006 and 35 percent in 2008. A Pew survey in January showed global warming ranking last among 21 priorities for the president and Congress. Only 28 percent of the public thought fighting climate change should be a top priority.
One irony: As senators debate a bill that would raise energy costs to fight global warming, Americans are already paying more for food. A smaller than normal vegetable crop helped increase food prices by 2.4 percent in March, the biggest jump in 26 years. One of the reasons for the bad vegetable crop: a colder than normal winter.
http://www.worldmag.com/articles/16678
Saturday, July 24, 2010
Christian Theologian on Earth Day: ‘Climate Change Is the Totalitarian’s Dream Come True’
.
Good Article in full...
CNSNews.com - Thursday, April 22, 2010
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer
For E. Calvin Beisner and his colleagues at the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation (CASC), every day is Earth Day because Christians are called by God to be good stewards of the planet and its inhabitants.
Beisner believes that it is not carbon emissions but global warming activism and international climate treaties that are a threat to the nation’s future and the world’s poorest populations.
“Climate change is the totalitarian’s dream come true,” Beisner, founder of the CASC, said at a conference on Thursday at the Family Research Council in Washington. “It offers a rationale for government intrusion into every aspect of life for every person on Earth.”
Beisner, who is also the national spokesman for the CASC, is a teacher and author who frequently speaks on the connection between religion and environmentalism.
Beisner painted a chilling picture of what would happen if the United States signed on to the kind of international climate-change treaty proposed at a United Nations conference in Copenhagen last year.
“Global warming alarmists see each new human being in terms of his or her ‘carbon footprint,’ and already many are saying that the best way to fight global warming is for everyone to have just one child so that the population will shrink,” Beisner said.
The enforcement of a U.N.-style treaty would mean a global government’s intrusion into how people live their private lives – “everything from the temperature at which you keep your house to whether to drive a large, crash-worthy vehicle or a small car that conserves fuel but is a death trap in an accident,” Beisner said.
In his speech, Beisner said that Christians should be concerned about global warming policies because they affect myriad issues, such as the sanctity of human life, individual liberty, the survival of free enterprise and free markets in the United States, compassion for the poor around the world, and a sovereign America with the kind of limited government envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
Christians are commanded by God to care for the poor, which Beisner said would suffer the most from the kind of environmental controls and alternative energy plans proposed by both the United Nations and the U.S. Congress.
“The Bible requires us to care for the poor,” he said, detailing how the policies focused on cutting the use of fossil fuels, for example, will hurt the poorest people by increasing the cost of energy and limiting its availability in the world’s poorest places where access to abundant energy supplies can prevent disease and premature death.
“Global warming legislation is part of a concerted effort to push environmentalism to the fore in American politics and culture,” Beisner said. “And environmentalism is hardly limited to good stewardship of God-given natural resources.
“Secular environmentalism, in contrast to creation stewardship, is at heart a false religion,” Beisner said.
“It degrades human beings, the crown of God’s creation, deifies nature in its untouched state as the ideal – contrary to God’s mandate for man to fill, subdue, and rule the Earth – and disregards the poor, who often are harmed by environmental policies like banning DDT, a cheap and safe insecticide that could largely eliminate the malaria-bearing mosquitoes that cost millions of lives every year in the Third World,” he added.
Beisner also said the cap-and-trade legislation proposed by Democrats in Congress to limit carbon emissions and allow the trading of “carbon credits” will harm an already struggling economy by killing jobs and slowing or even reversing economic growth.
Beisner said his organization late last year released a comprehensive research project, “A Renewed Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Examination of the Theology, Science, and Economics of Global Warming.”
This project, he said, “provides solid Biblical, scientific, and economic basis for not only rejecting belief in dangerous manmade global warming, but also for rejecting policies meant to fight it.”
Beisner concluded by citing one of the founding principles of the CASC, which states that the Earth is not a fragile entity made randomly by chance but the creation of an almighty God, who sustains it.
“Raising the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from 27 thousandths of one percent to 39 thousandths of one percent, or even to 108 thousandths of one percent, is not going to cause catastrophic global warming that will, as Al Gore puts it, threaten to destroy human civilization and wipe out 90 percent or more of all species,” Beisner said.
“Our God is a more intelligent designer than to make a system so fragile, and a better judge to call such a system ‘very good’ after he made it,” Beisner said.
Read More http://cnsnews.com/news/article/64598
.
Good Article in full...
CNSNews.com - Thursday, April 22, 2010
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer
For E. Calvin Beisner and his colleagues at the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation (CASC), every day is Earth Day because Christians are called by God to be good stewards of the planet and its inhabitants.
Beisner believes that it is not carbon emissions but global warming activism and international climate treaties that are a threat to the nation’s future and the world’s poorest populations.
“Climate change is the totalitarian’s dream come true,” Beisner, founder of the CASC, said at a conference on Thursday at the Family Research Council in Washington. “It offers a rationale for government intrusion into every aspect of life for every person on Earth.”
Beisner, who is also the national spokesman for the CASC, is a teacher and author who frequently speaks on the connection between religion and environmentalism.
Beisner painted a chilling picture of what would happen if the United States signed on to the kind of international climate-change treaty proposed at a United Nations conference in Copenhagen last year.
“Global warming alarmists see each new human being in terms of his or her ‘carbon footprint,’ and already many are saying that the best way to fight global warming is for everyone to have just one child so that the population will shrink,” Beisner said.
The enforcement of a U.N.-style treaty would mean a global government’s intrusion into how people live their private lives – “everything from the temperature at which you keep your house to whether to drive a large, crash-worthy vehicle or a small car that conserves fuel but is a death trap in an accident,” Beisner said.
In his speech, Beisner said that Christians should be concerned about global warming policies because they affect myriad issues, such as the sanctity of human life, individual liberty, the survival of free enterprise and free markets in the United States, compassion for the poor around the world, and a sovereign America with the kind of limited government envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
Christians are commanded by God to care for the poor, which Beisner said would suffer the most from the kind of environmental controls and alternative energy plans proposed by both the United Nations and the U.S. Congress.
“The Bible requires us to care for the poor,” he said, detailing how the policies focused on cutting the use of fossil fuels, for example, will hurt the poorest people by increasing the cost of energy and limiting its availability in the world’s poorest places where access to abundant energy supplies can prevent disease and premature death.
“Global warming legislation is part of a concerted effort to push environmentalism to the fore in American politics and culture,” Beisner said. “And environmentalism is hardly limited to good stewardship of God-given natural resources.
“Secular environmentalism, in contrast to creation stewardship, is at heart a false religion,” Beisner said.
“It degrades human beings, the crown of God’s creation, deifies nature in its untouched state as the ideal – contrary to God’s mandate for man to fill, subdue, and rule the Earth – and disregards the poor, who often are harmed by environmental policies like banning DDT, a cheap and safe insecticide that could largely eliminate the malaria-bearing mosquitoes that cost millions of lives every year in the Third World,” he added.
Beisner also said the cap-and-trade legislation proposed by Democrats in Congress to limit carbon emissions and allow the trading of “carbon credits” will harm an already struggling economy by killing jobs and slowing or even reversing economic growth.
Beisner said his organization late last year released a comprehensive research project, “A Renewed Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor: An Evangelical Examination of the Theology, Science, and Economics of Global Warming.”
This project, he said, “provides solid Biblical, scientific, and economic basis for not only rejecting belief in dangerous manmade global warming, but also for rejecting policies meant to fight it.”
Beisner concluded by citing one of the founding principles of the CASC, which states that the Earth is not a fragile entity made randomly by chance but the creation of an almighty God, who sustains it.
“Raising the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from 27 thousandths of one percent to 39 thousandths of one percent, or even to 108 thousandths of one percent, is not going to cause catastrophic global warming that will, as Al Gore puts it, threaten to destroy human civilization and wipe out 90 percent or more of all species,” Beisner said.
“Our God is a more intelligent designer than to make a system so fragile, and a better judge to call such a system ‘very good’ after he made it,” Beisner said.
Read More http://cnsnews.com/news/article/64598
.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’
.
By Jay Richards - Tuesday, March 16, 2010
A December 18 Washington Post poll, released on the final day of the ill-fated Copenhagen climate summit, reported “four in ten Americans now saying that they place little or no trust in what scientists have to say about the environment.” Nor is the poll an outlier. Several recent polls have found “climate change” skepticism rising faster than sea levels on Planet Algore (not to be confused with Planet Earth, where sea levels remain relatively stable).
Many of the doubt-inducing climate scientists and their media acolytes attribute this rising skepticism to the stupidity of Americans, philistines unable to appreciate that there is “a scientific consensus on climate change.” One of the benefits of the recent Climategate scandal, which revealed leading climate scientists manipulating data, methods, and peer review to exaggerate the evidence of significant global warming, may be to permanently deflate the rhetorical value of the phrase “scientific consensus.”
Even without the scandal, the very idea of scientific consensus should give us pause. “Consensus,” according to Merriam-Webster, means both “general agreement” and “group solidarity in sentiment and belief.” That pretty much sums up the dilemma. We want to know whether a scientific consensus is based on solid evidence and sound reasoning, or social pressure and groupthink.
Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are not immune to the non-rational dynamics of the herd. Many false ideas enjoyed consensus opinion at one time. Indeed, the “power of the paradigm” often shapes the thinking of scientists so strongly that they become unable to accurately summarize, let alone evaluate, radical alternatives. Question the paradigm, and some respond with dogmatic fanaticism.
Good Article to continue reading in Full....
Read More http://www.american.com/archive/2010/march/when-to-doubt-a-scientific-consensus
Jay Richards frequently writes for the Enterprise Blog and is a contributing editor of THE AMERICAN.
FURTHER READING: Richards wrote “Greed Is Not Good, and It’s Not Capitalism” and “The Miser versus the Entrepreneur” on why Ayn Rand is so popular today. The American Enterprise Institute’s Steven Hayward explains why many are “In Denial” about Climategate, while Kenneth Green suggests “The Beginning of the End for Cap-and-Trade?”
.
By Jay Richards - Tuesday, March 16, 2010
A December 18 Washington Post poll, released on the final day of the ill-fated Copenhagen climate summit, reported “four in ten Americans now saying that they place little or no trust in what scientists have to say about the environment.” Nor is the poll an outlier. Several recent polls have found “climate change” skepticism rising faster than sea levels on Planet Algore (not to be confused with Planet Earth, where sea levels remain relatively stable).
Many of the doubt-inducing climate scientists and their media acolytes attribute this rising skepticism to the stupidity of Americans, philistines unable to appreciate that there is “a scientific consensus on climate change.” One of the benefits of the recent Climategate scandal, which revealed leading climate scientists manipulating data, methods, and peer review to exaggerate the evidence of significant global warming, may be to permanently deflate the rhetorical value of the phrase “scientific consensus.”
Even without the scandal, the very idea of scientific consensus should give us pause. “Consensus,” according to Merriam-Webster, means both “general agreement” and “group solidarity in sentiment and belief.” That pretty much sums up the dilemma. We want to know whether a scientific consensus is based on solid evidence and sound reasoning, or social pressure and groupthink.
Anyone who has studied the history of science knows that scientists are not immune to the non-rational dynamics of the herd. Many false ideas enjoyed consensus opinion at one time. Indeed, the “power of the paradigm” often shapes the thinking of scientists so strongly that they become unable to accurately summarize, let alone evaluate, radical alternatives. Question the paradigm, and some respond with dogmatic fanaticism.
Good Article to continue reading in Full....
Read More http://www.american.com/archive/2010/march/when-to-doubt-a-scientific-consensus
Jay Richards frequently writes for the Enterprise Blog and is a contributing editor of THE AMERICAN.
FURTHER READING: Richards wrote “Greed Is Not Good, and It’s Not Capitalism” and “The Miser versus the Entrepreneur” on why Ayn Rand is so popular today. The American Enterprise Institute’s Steven Hayward explains why many are “In Denial” about Climategate, while Kenneth Green suggests “The Beginning of the End for Cap-and-Trade?”
.
Friday, July 16, 2010
Climate Deal unlikely this year - Skirmishes at UN climate conference
.
Excerpts From Fox News - April 11, 2010
Climate talks had nearly ground to a halt in April, with delegates squabbling over how to conduct negotiations for the rest of the year on a new agreement to control global warming.
The talks about talks appeared near breakdown over minor procedures, but that was because of a deep divide over the hastily crafted political deal struck at the Copenhagen last December by President Barack Obama and a small group of other world leaders.
There you go. Our arrogant president, making things easy for everyone...yet again.
The lengthy battle was supposedly over the authorization of a committee chairwoman to prepare a draft negotiating text for the next meeting in June. But down deep, the rancor during Copenhagen had not faded and the split between industrial and developing countries continues.
The agreement they are trying to prepare for is meant to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which had provisions capping greenhouse gas emissions in developed countries. It expires in 2012. The new deal would be expanded to include emissions by swiftly developing countries like China, which has already passed the US as the world's biggest polluter.
The Copenhagen "accord," thrown together in the final 36 hours at Copenhagen, now means little or nothing to anyone. It set a goal of limiting the increase in the Earth's average temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) from preindustrial levels, but did not specify how that would be done.
Of course not. That would take actual thought. Obama and the others were only there to look good for the cameras.
Many countries — even among the 120 countries that supported the Copenhagen Accord — denounced the closed-door manner in which it was done (although that was standard operating procedure for Obama) and voiced disappointment that its emissions requirements were voluntary.
Bolivian delegate Pablo Solon also protested the cutoff of funds from the U.S. Global Climate Change initiative as "a very bad practice" and an attempt to put pressure countries to support the agreement. Solon said Bolivia would not change its policies.
So...American citizens aren't the only ones feeling forced into things by Obama...
Read More http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/11/official-climate-deal-unlikely-year/
Excerpts From Fox News - April 11, 2010
Climate talks had nearly ground to a halt in April, with delegates squabbling over how to conduct negotiations for the rest of the year on a new agreement to control global warming.
The talks about talks appeared near breakdown over minor procedures, but that was because of a deep divide over the hastily crafted political deal struck at the Copenhagen last December by President Barack Obama and a small group of other world leaders.
There you go. Our arrogant president, making things easy for everyone...yet again.
The lengthy battle was supposedly over the authorization of a committee chairwoman to prepare a draft negotiating text for the next meeting in June. But down deep, the rancor during Copenhagen had not faded and the split between industrial and developing countries continues.
The agreement they are trying to prepare for is meant to succeed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which had provisions capping greenhouse gas emissions in developed countries. It expires in 2012. The new deal would be expanded to include emissions by swiftly developing countries like China, which has already passed the US as the world's biggest polluter.
The Copenhagen "accord," thrown together in the final 36 hours at Copenhagen, now means little or nothing to anyone. It set a goal of limiting the increase in the Earth's average temperature to below 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) from preindustrial levels, but did not specify how that would be done.
Of course not. That would take actual thought. Obama and the others were only there to look good for the cameras.
Many countries — even among the 120 countries that supported the Copenhagen Accord — denounced the closed-door manner in which it was done (although that was standard operating procedure for Obama) and voiced disappointment that its emissions requirements were voluntary.
Bolivian delegate Pablo Solon also protested the cutoff of funds from the U.S. Global Climate Change initiative as "a very bad practice" and an attempt to put pressure countries to support the agreement. Solon said Bolivia would not change its policies.
So...American citizens aren't the only ones feeling forced into things by Obama...
Read More http://www.foxnews.com/world/2010/04/11/official-climate-deal-unlikely-year/
Monday, July 12, 2010
Increase in Arctic ice confounds Global Warming Nuts
.
From Daily Mail - 3rd April 2010
Is Al Gore wrong again?
Makes you kind of doubt he'll stand in front of large groups spouting rhetoric much anymore.
- Well, he really doesn't need to, anyway. He's pretty well set, financially, for the rest of his life. The inconvenient truth about his newest energy-eating mansion is that it comes with a swimming pool, spa, fountains, six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine baths. He's just continuing his "cut-down-on-your carbon-footprint" hypocrisy. This world-class rat already had a Mansion in Tennessee that burned 12 times the rate of the ordinary U.S. household and uses more electricity in one month than most American homes use in a year. It included energy-eating features that such as floodlights to highlight his trees...
ANYWAY - We digress.
The amount of sea ice covering the Arctic dramatically increased in March, reaching levels, they say, that had not been seen at that time of year for nearly a decade.
Returning ice - after years of declining cover - astonished the climate scientists.
Dr David Whitehouse, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation think-tank, said: 'The recent observations make the 2007 projections that the region would be ice free by 2013 look very unrealistic.'
Read More http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1263207/Increase-Arctic-ice-confounds-doomsayers.html
.
From Daily Mail - 3rd April 2010
Is Al Gore wrong again?
Makes you kind of doubt he'll stand in front of large groups spouting rhetoric much anymore.
- Well, he really doesn't need to, anyway. He's pretty well set, financially, for the rest of his life. The inconvenient truth about his newest energy-eating mansion is that it comes with a swimming pool, spa, fountains, six fireplaces, five bedrooms and nine baths. He's just continuing his "cut-down-on-your carbon-footprint" hypocrisy. This world-class rat already had a Mansion in Tennessee that burned 12 times the rate of the ordinary U.S. household and uses more electricity in one month than most American homes use in a year. It included energy-eating features that such as floodlights to highlight his trees...
ANYWAY - We digress.
The amount of sea ice covering the Arctic dramatically increased in March, reaching levels, they say, that had not been seen at that time of year for nearly a decade.
Returning ice - after years of declining cover - astonished the climate scientists.
Dr David Whitehouse, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation think-tank, said: 'The recent observations make the 2007 projections that the region would be ice free by 2013 look very unrealistic.'
Read More http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1263207/Increase-Arctic-ice-confounds-doomsayers.html
.
Thursday, July 8, 2010
CRU cleared of wrong doing? NOT: Parliamentary Trickery
.
On March 31, 2010, after one day of hearings in London, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published its report on the disclosure of climate data from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, (CRU). The Committee concluded that there was no basis for accusations of dishonesty and no attempt to mislead on the part of the scientists.
Hogwash.
Steve McIntyre explains why the decision by the House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee to vindicate Phil Jones and his crew after just one day of inquiry is bogus. Tree Ring data was some of what was hidden and discarded by the Climatic Research Unit.
Steve McIntyre, posted on Mar 31, 2010 at 1:30 AM
"their suggestion that Jones and others were doing nothing more than “discarding data known to be erroneous” is simply absurd. There was no testimony to the Committee (nor has it ever been suggested) that the tree ring data was measured incorrectly or that the data was “erroneous” – the data is what it is. The tree ring data goes down instead of up – but that doesn’t make it “erroneous”. It only means that the data is a bad proxy – something that was concealed from IPCC readers. It is discouraging to read such bilge."
One commenter posted, "….”it was merely the deletion of inconvenient data”….
What a wonderfully powerful technique! Just think of the new horizons this opens up for scientific progress"
Read More http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/31/tricking-the-committee/
.
On March 31, 2010, after one day of hearings in London, the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee published its report on the disclosure of climate data from the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit, (CRU). The Committee concluded that there was no basis for accusations of dishonesty and no attempt to mislead on the part of the scientists.
Hogwash.
Steve McIntyre explains why the decision by the House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee to vindicate Phil Jones and his crew after just one day of inquiry is bogus. Tree Ring data was some of what was hidden and discarded by the Climatic Research Unit.
Steve McIntyre, posted on Mar 31, 2010 at 1:30 AM
"their suggestion that Jones and others were doing nothing more than “discarding data known to be erroneous” is simply absurd. There was no testimony to the Committee (nor has it ever been suggested) that the tree ring data was measured incorrectly or that the data was “erroneous” – the data is what it is. The tree ring data goes down instead of up – but that doesn’t make it “erroneous”. It only means that the data is a bad proxy – something that was concealed from IPCC readers. It is discouraging to read such bilge."
One commenter posted, "….”it was merely the deletion of inconvenient data”….
What a wonderfully powerful technique! Just think of the new horizons this opens up for scientific progress"
Read More http://climateaudit.org/2010/03/31/tricking-the-committee/
.
Monday, July 5, 2010
NASA Data Worse Than Climate-Gate Data, Space Agency Admits
.Excerpts From Fox News - March 30, 2010
And the problems with Climate change data continue: NASA put a man on the moon, but it can't tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA's temperature records are worse than the Climate-gate data.
...NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) - the source of leaked Climate-gate e-mails - and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center...
"NASA's temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA," wrote Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the e-mails. Horner is skeptical of NCDC's data as well, stating plainly: "Three out of the four temperature data sets stink."
Global warming advocates have argued that minor flaws in "Climate-gate" data aren't important, since all the major data sets arrive at the same conclusion -- Global warming. But skeptics say there's a good reason for that: They all use the same data.
James M. Taylor, senior fellow of environment policy at The Heartland Institute. said,
"There is far too much overlap among the surface temperature data sets to assert with a straight face that they independently verify each other's results."
"The different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to understand different conclusions when they arise," said Dr. James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in the same 2007 e-mail thread. GISS had previously stated that separate analyses by the different agencies "are not independent, as they must use much of the same input observations." (Dr. James Hansen is also one of the head scientists that Senator Inhofe has wanted to call in for questioning in relation to falsified data.)
...Corrections are needed, Dr. Jeff Masters, director of meteorology at Weather Underground, said, "since there are only a few thousand surface temperature recording sites with records going back 100+ years." As such, climate agencies estimate temperatures in various ways for areas where there aren't any thermometers, to account for the overall incomplete global picture.
...But NASA is less confident, having quietly decided to tweak its corrections to the climate data... In an updated analysis of the surface temperature data released on March 19, 2010, NASA 'adjusted' raw temperature station data to account for inaccurate readings caused by heat-absorbing paved surfaces and buildings in a slightly different way.
Wrong placement of the temperature stations is a problem repeatedly underscored by meteorologist Anthony Watts on his SurfaceStations.org Web site. Last month, Watts told FoxNews.com that "90 percent of them don't meet [the government's] old, simple rule called the '100-foot rule' for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence. Ninety percent of them failed that, and we've got documentation."
Read More http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/
.
And the problems with Climate change data continue: NASA put a man on the moon, but it can't tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA's temperature records are worse than the Climate-gate data.
...NASA concluded that its own climate findings were inferior to those maintained by both the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) - the source of leaked Climate-gate e-mails - and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Climatic Data Center...
"NASA's temperature data is worse than the Climate-gate temperature data. According to NASA," wrote Christopher Horner, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute who uncovered the e-mails. Horner is skeptical of NCDC's data as well, stating plainly: "Three out of the four temperature data sets stink."
Global warming advocates have argued that minor flaws in "Climate-gate" data aren't important, since all the major data sets arrive at the same conclusion -- Global warming. But skeptics say there's a good reason for that: They all use the same data.
James M. Taylor, senior fellow of environment policy at The Heartland Institute. said,
"There is far too much overlap among the surface temperature data sets to assert with a straight face that they independently verify each other's results."
"The different groups have cooperated in a very friendly way to try to understand different conclusions when they arise," said Dr. James Hansen, head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in the same 2007 e-mail thread. GISS had previously stated that separate analyses by the different agencies "are not independent, as they must use much of the same input observations." (Dr. James Hansen is also one of the head scientists that Senator Inhofe has wanted to call in for questioning in relation to falsified data.)
...Corrections are needed, Dr. Jeff Masters, director of meteorology at Weather Underground, said, "since there are only a few thousand surface temperature recording sites with records going back 100+ years." As such, climate agencies estimate temperatures in various ways for areas where there aren't any thermometers, to account for the overall incomplete global picture.
...But NASA is less confident, having quietly decided to tweak its corrections to the climate data... In an updated analysis of the surface temperature data released on March 19, 2010, NASA 'adjusted' raw temperature station data to account for inaccurate readings caused by heat-absorbing paved surfaces and buildings in a slightly different way.
Wrong placement of the temperature stations is a problem repeatedly underscored by meteorologist Anthony Watts on his SurfaceStations.org Web site. Last month, Watts told FoxNews.com that "90 percent of them don't meet [the government's] old, simple rule called the '100-foot rule' for keeping thermometers 100 feet or more from biasing influence. Ninety percent of them failed that, and we've got documentation."
Read More http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/
.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Happy Birthday to an Exceptional Man
Roland John Morris, Sr.
July 1, 1945 – June 9, 2004
Roland Morris, Sr., 58, ascended to heaven on Wednesday, June 9th after a four year fight with cancer. Roland, a member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, was born July 1, 1945, in Cass Lake, MN. Ojibwe was his first language, and he grew up fishing, hunting, and gathering wild rice with family and friends. He also played intramural basketball, worked hard in the woods, spent time in a foster home and various jails, drank, smoked, and played guitar with friends at various bars.
Roland went to college in Kansas and was a draftsman for a short time before becoming an upholsterer. While he struggled with many difficulties in his early years, he was a perfectionist with upholstery and throughout his life performed his craft well.
After a life changing spiritual experience with Jesus in 1988, Roland moved his second family to Ronan, Montana to be near his cousin and Christian evangelist, Frank (Scotty) Butterfly. There, in 1992, Roland and his wife, Elizabeth, created Montana’s first patient transportation service, Mission Valley Medicab. They also helped instigate the Montana Passenger Carriers Association and the charitable organization, Valley Missions, Inc., all without tribal assistance.
Roland taught his children about wild ricing, hunting, fishing, and a little of the Ojibwe language. But the biggest, strongest desire of his heart was that his children, grandchildren, and entire extended family come to the saving knowledge and acceptance of Jesus Christ. Having watched many friends and relatives die physically, spiritually, and emotionally from alcoholism, violence, and suicide, Roland could no longer stand aside and do nothing. He was concerned for the children and felt distress at the attitudes of many adults within his community. He wanted the self-destruction to stop.
Roland’s relationship with Jesus coupled with his conviction that much of the reservation system was harmful led him to some amazing life experiences. Actively opposing much of federal Indian policy, Roland served as President of the Western Montana organization All Citizens Equal, was a board member and Vice-Chairman of the national organization; Citizens Equal Rights Alliance, was the Secretary of Citizens Equal Rights Foundation.
He also ran as a Republican candidate for the Montana House of Representatives in the 1996 and testified before the US Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in April,1998, the Minnesota Attorney General in 2000, and numerous Mont. State committees. With his family, he also had a private meeting with a member of the President’s Domestic Policy Council May, 2002 in Washington DC.
As time progressed, Roland became more convinced of the importance of Jesus in his life. So in 2000 he attended a year of training at the Living Faith Bible College, Canada. Over the last three years, he and/or his family went on mission trips in Canada and Mexico. During a 2003 trip to a children’s home in Juarez, Mexico, he fixed most of their dining hall chairs, taught 6 boys how to upholster, donated materials, and preached a Sunday street service.
Through the years, he has appeared in numerous newspaper articles across the country. The last article he appeared in was on Friday, May 14th, in the Washington Times. Reporter Jennifer Lehner wrote, “the ICWA [Indian Child Welfare Act] protects the interests of others over [Mr. Morris'] grandchildren,” and “Mr. Morris said that once children are relocated to the reservations, they are subject to the corrupt law of the tribal government. Instead of preserving culture, he said, the tribal leadership uses the ICWA to acquire funds provided through the legislation.” Ms. Lehner quoted Mr. Morris as saying that the law is “supposed to help children, but instead it helps tribal governments.”
Finally, in February, 2004, he and his wife founded the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare. The purpose of this was to encourage preaching, teaching and fostering of the growth of the Christian Faith in all places, encourage accountability of governments to families with Indian heritage, and educate the public about Indian rights, laws, and issues.
Roland praised God to the very end. When his final struggle began, several of his friends and family were praying with him. When those present sang old-time hymns, he raised his hand in the air for as long as he could. When “I Surrender” was sung, he sang the echo. While Pastor Kingery sat next to Roland, holding his hand, Roland looked him straight in the eyes and pointed his other hand up to heaven. When he passed on to greater life, his good friend Marvin Bauer was softly playing Gospel songs for him on his accordion.
Roland is survived by his wife, nine children, twelve grandchildren and a great grandson. Also important to his heart was his “special” son, Jesus Garcia, in Juarez, Mexico. Surviving brothers include Harry Morris and Steven Jones; and sisters include Clara Smith, Bernice Hurd, Sharon Goose, and Christine Jones, as well as numerous nephews and nieces and his great cousin, Scotty Butterfly.
Roland was preceded in death by his parents, Jacob and Susan Jones; siblings Thomas and Wallace Morris, Robert, Martin, Caroline, Frances, Barbara and Alvina Jones, Loretta Smith, and grandson Brandon Kier.
Roland’s loving friend, Jim Ball, crafted a beautiful casket for him as a gift. Funeral services were at the CMA Church in Ronan, MT, on Sunday, June 13, 2004 and the CMA Church in Cass Lake, MN, Tuesday, June 15. Internment was at Prince of Peace Cemetery. He is strongly remembered for his strength, character, and love for the Lord Jesus.
Roland, our husband, father, grandfather, brother, uncle, cousin, and friend; We Love you and Miss you so very much. You are with God now.
Gi gi wah ba min me na wah
Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare
Independent Indian Press
.
July 1, 1945 – June 9, 2004
Roland Morris, Sr., 58, ascended to heaven on Wednesday, June 9th after a four year fight with cancer. Roland, a member of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, was born July 1, 1945, in Cass Lake, MN. Ojibwe was his first language, and he grew up fishing, hunting, and gathering wild rice with family and friends. He also played intramural basketball, worked hard in the woods, spent time in a foster home and various jails, drank, smoked, and played guitar with friends at various bars.
Roland went to college in Kansas and was a draftsman for a short time before becoming an upholsterer. While he struggled with many difficulties in his early years, he was a perfectionist with upholstery and throughout his life performed his craft well.
After a life changing spiritual experience with Jesus in 1988, Roland moved his second family to Ronan, Montana to be near his cousin and Christian evangelist, Frank (Scotty) Butterfly. There, in 1992, Roland and his wife, Elizabeth, created Montana’s first patient transportation service, Mission Valley Medicab. They also helped instigate the Montana Passenger Carriers Association and the charitable organization, Valley Missions, Inc., all without tribal assistance.
Roland taught his children about wild ricing, hunting, fishing, and a little of the Ojibwe language. But the biggest, strongest desire of his heart was that his children, grandchildren, and entire extended family come to the saving knowledge and acceptance of Jesus Christ. Having watched many friends and relatives die physically, spiritually, and emotionally from alcoholism, violence, and suicide, Roland could no longer stand aside and do nothing. He was concerned for the children and felt distress at the attitudes of many adults within his community. He wanted the self-destruction to stop.
Roland’s relationship with Jesus coupled with his conviction that much of the reservation system was harmful led him to some amazing life experiences. Actively opposing much of federal Indian policy, Roland served as President of the Western Montana organization All Citizens Equal, was a board member and Vice-Chairman of the national organization; Citizens Equal Rights Alliance, was the Secretary of Citizens Equal Rights Foundation.
He also ran as a Republican candidate for the Montana House of Representatives in the 1996 and testified before the US Senate Committee on Indian Affairs in April,1998, the Minnesota Attorney General in 2000, and numerous Mont. State committees. With his family, he also had a private meeting with a member of the President’s Domestic Policy Council May, 2002 in Washington DC.
As time progressed, Roland became more convinced of the importance of Jesus in his life. So in 2000 he attended a year of training at the Living Faith Bible College, Canada. Over the last three years, he and/or his family went on mission trips in Canada and Mexico. During a 2003 trip to a children’s home in Juarez, Mexico, he fixed most of their dining hall chairs, taught 6 boys how to upholster, donated materials, and preached a Sunday street service.
Through the years, he has appeared in numerous newspaper articles across the country. The last article he appeared in was on Friday, May 14th, in the Washington Times. Reporter Jennifer Lehner wrote, “the ICWA [Indian Child Welfare Act] protects the interests of others over [Mr. Morris'] grandchildren,” and “Mr. Morris said that once children are relocated to the reservations, they are subject to the corrupt law of the tribal government. Instead of preserving culture, he said, the tribal leadership uses the ICWA to acquire funds provided through the legislation.” Ms. Lehner quoted Mr. Morris as saying that the law is “supposed to help children, but instead it helps tribal governments.”
Finally, in February, 2004, he and his wife founded the Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare. The purpose of this was to encourage preaching, teaching and fostering of the growth of the Christian Faith in all places, encourage accountability of governments to families with Indian heritage, and educate the public about Indian rights, laws, and issues.
Roland praised God to the very end. When his final struggle began, several of his friends and family were praying with him. When those present sang old-time hymns, he raised his hand in the air for as long as he could. When “I Surrender” was sung, he sang the echo. While Pastor Kingery sat next to Roland, holding his hand, Roland looked him straight in the eyes and pointed his other hand up to heaven. When he passed on to greater life, his good friend Marvin Bauer was softly playing Gospel songs for him on his accordion.
Roland is survived by his wife, nine children, twelve grandchildren and a great grandson. Also important to his heart was his “special” son, Jesus Garcia, in Juarez, Mexico. Surviving brothers include Harry Morris and Steven Jones; and sisters include Clara Smith, Bernice Hurd, Sharon Goose, and Christine Jones, as well as numerous nephews and nieces and his great cousin, Scotty Butterfly.
Roland was preceded in death by his parents, Jacob and Susan Jones; siblings Thomas and Wallace Morris, Robert, Martin, Caroline, Frances, Barbara and Alvina Jones, Loretta Smith, and grandson Brandon Kier.
Roland’s loving friend, Jim Ball, crafted a beautiful casket for him as a gift. Funeral services were at the CMA Church in Ronan, MT, on Sunday, June 13, 2004 and the CMA Church in Cass Lake, MN, Tuesday, June 15. Internment was at Prince of Peace Cemetery. He is strongly remembered for his strength, character, and love for the Lord Jesus.
Roland, our husband, father, grandfather, brother, uncle, cousin, and friend; We Love you and Miss you so very much. You are with God now.
Gi gi wah ba min me na wah
Christian Alliance for Indian Child Welfare
Independent Indian Press
.
Monday, June 28, 2010
Germans Giving Up on Global Warming
.
Partially from Fox News via Der Spiegel - March 29, 2010
Germans citizens are losing faith in global warming following Climate-gate scandals, according to a new report in Der Spiegel.
The report indicates that just 42 percent of Germans are worried about global warming, down from the 62 percent in 2006.
German news site The Local analyzed the results from the poll. Many people have little faith in the information and prognosis of climate researchers, The Local explained, with a third questioned in the survey not giving them much credence.
This is largely due to mistakes and exaggerations propagated in a report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
- Following a leak of thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, an endless catalog of mistakes, lies, coverups, and faulty assumptions by scientists working on the IPCC's report has been detailed in the past few months, all lumped under the name Climategate.
According to The Local, Germany’s Leibniz Community, an umbrella organization including many climate research institutes, broke ranks by calling for the resignation of IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri.
Read More http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/29/achtung-germans-giving-global-warming/?test=latestnews
Partially from Fox News via Der Spiegel - March 29, 2010
Germans citizens are losing faith in global warming following Climate-gate scandals, according to a new report in Der Spiegel.
The report indicates that just 42 percent of Germans are worried about global warming, down from the 62 percent in 2006.
German news site The Local analyzed the results from the poll. Many people have little faith in the information and prognosis of climate researchers, The Local explained, with a third questioned in the survey not giving them much credence.
This is largely due to mistakes and exaggerations propagated in a report by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
- Following a leak of thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit, an endless catalog of mistakes, lies, coverups, and faulty assumptions by scientists working on the IPCC's report has been detailed in the past few months, all lumped under the name Climategate.
According to The Local, Germany’s Leibniz Community, an umbrella organization including many climate research institutes, broke ranks by calling for the resignation of IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri.
Read More http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/29/achtung-germans-giving-global-warming/?test=latestnews
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Eat Less Meat, Reduce Global Warming -- Not!
.
From Fox News - March 23, 2010
The largely reported link between global warming and cattle farming -- pushed by a United Nations report on "Livestock's Long Shadow" -- was also largely inaccurate, explains one scientist.
Dr. Frank Mitloehner of the University of California said in a presentation before a national meeting of the American Chemical Society that the misleading claims came from a 2006 U.N. report. That report stated livestock was "responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions," describing the figure as "a larger share than transportation."
According to Mitloehner, the claim is inaccurate because the numbers for livestock were calculated differently from the transport figures.
"This lopsided analysis is a classical apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue," he said.
He argued that these claims distract society from effective solutions to global climate change, citing campaigns for "meatless Mondays" and a European campaign, called "Less Meat = Less Heat," launched late last year.
Numerous other mistakes in U.N. reports have been uncovered in recent months, following the leak of thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia' Climate Research Center in England, a scandal labeled "Climate-gate."
- In Climategate, scientists at the Climate Research Center were caught covering up data that showed global warming has not occurred for the last 15 years. Then, the UN's IPCC researchers were forced to admit that their forecasts of melting Himalayan glaciers, disappearing polar ice caps, and dwindling Amazon rainforests were based on junk science and data obtained by activists, not scientists.
Read More http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/23/eat-meat-reduce-global-warming/
.
From Fox News - March 23, 2010
The largely reported link between global warming and cattle farming -- pushed by a United Nations report on "Livestock's Long Shadow" -- was also largely inaccurate, explains one scientist.
Dr. Frank Mitloehner of the University of California said in a presentation before a national meeting of the American Chemical Society that the misleading claims came from a 2006 U.N. report. That report stated livestock was "responsible for 18 per cent of greenhouse gas emissions," describing the figure as "a larger share than transportation."
According to Mitloehner, the claim is inaccurate because the numbers for livestock were calculated differently from the transport figures.
"This lopsided analysis is a classical apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue," he said.
He argued that these claims distract society from effective solutions to global climate change, citing campaigns for "meatless Mondays" and a European campaign, called "Less Meat = Less Heat," launched late last year.
Numerous other mistakes in U.N. reports have been uncovered in recent months, following the leak of thousands of e-mails from the University of East Anglia' Climate Research Center in England, a scandal labeled "Climate-gate."
- In Climategate, scientists at the Climate Research Center were caught covering up data that showed global warming has not occurred for the last 15 years. Then, the UN's IPCC researchers were forced to admit that their forecasts of melting Himalayan glaciers, disappearing polar ice caps, and dwindling Amazon rainforests were based on junk science and data obtained by activists, not scientists.
Read More http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/23/eat-meat-reduce-global-warming/
.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
A Pending American Temperaturegate
.
Good Article...
From American Thinker, February 24, 2010
"We have been repeatedly told (perhaps "lectured" is a better word) the past twenty years that global warming is occurring. With Climategate and subsequent confessions and bailouts by scientists at the CRU, Penn State, Arizona State, IPCC, et al., we are learning that little to none of the factual content in their "peer reviewed" articles is true. The Medieval Warming Period did occur, and it was warmer than currently; the oceans are not going to flood the plains; and the Arctic Ocean may not be turning into a summer water park. Of course, the mainstream media, especially in the United States, has reported little of this news, and President Obama appears not to be well-informed. But now the global warming story grows more interesting because here in America, we may have our own little "gate." I will call it ATG, for "American Temperaturegate."
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) informs us, based on their "Adjusted Data" for the period from the last decade of the 19th century to 2006, that the temperature for the contiguous U.S. has increased at a rate of 0.69oC/century. NCDC arrives at this conclusion by massaging raw data from a set of meteorological stations located in the contiguous U.S. which they selected on the basis of a 2.5-degree latitude- and 3.5-degree-longitude grid.
The most-asked question, most recently by D'Aleo and Watts, is whether the NCDC's reported increase is correct. Perhaps the value is due to a dominant use (over-selection) of stations in urban locations or because of other issues, such as leaving out stations at higher altitudes for the more recent history and retaining them for the more distant past.
Here, one aspect is considered -- that of the Urban Heat Island Effect, which is tagged as UHIE.
We selected two sets of meteorological stations (48 each, with one station per each of the lower 48 states) from the NCDC master list. The stations in one set were at rural locations -- a rural set. The stations in the other set were at urban locations -- an urban set. The NCDC latitude and longitude station coordinates were used to "fly over" the locations on a computer, using a GPS map application to confirm the rural and urban characteristics. For each of the 96 stations, the NCDC's raw and adjusted temperature data were entered into a spreadsheet application and studied. The "raw" data are the annual average temperatures of the measured data. The "adjusted" data are the annual average temperatures the NCDC derived from the raw data by making a set of "corrective" assumptions for time of day, type of instrument, etc. and guessing the temperature at stations for missing data based on temperatures of other stations at the same latitude and/or region. For a more in-depth understanding of the NCDC protocols for converting raw data to adjusted data, click here. A summary of the findings is in the following table. The values in the table show that the NCDC's rate of increase of temperature, 0.69oC/century, is based on an over-selection of stations with urban locations.
Station Set oC/Century, 11-Year Average Based on the Use of
Raw Data
Adjusted Data
Rural (48)
0.11
0.58
Urban (48)
0.72
0.72
Rural + Urban (96)
0.47
0.65
The values in the table highlight four important considerations:
1) The rate of increase for rural locations, based on as-measured (raw) values, is small (if not, in effect, zero) at 0.11 oC/century.
2) There is definitely a UHIE in that the urban raw data has a rate of increase of 0.72oC/century. This tells us that man has caused warming in urban locations. This finding should not surprise anyone. On the other hand, because the rural value is 15% of the urban value, the UHIE has not caused warming in the rural locations, and it certainly has not caused a global sense of warming other than the aspect that the urban location values when averaged with the rural values produce an average increase which is larger than that of the rural alone.
3) The rural + urban value for the adjusted data, 0.65oC/century, is still less than the 0.69oC/century published by the NCDC. Thus, likely, there are more urban than rural sites used by the NCDC.
4) And this is the "Temperaturegate" aspect: The NCDC's massaging -- they call it "adjusting" -- has resulted in an increase in the rural values, from a raw value of 0.11oC/century to an adjusted value of 0.58oC/century, and no change in the urban values. That is, the NCDC's treatment has forced the rural value to look more like that of the urban. This is the exact opposite of any rational consideration, given the growth of the sizes of and activities within urban locations, unless deception is the goal.
The criticism this makes of the NCDC's treatment of historical data for the contiguous U.S. is the same as a recent Russian paper made of the HadCRUT treatment of historical temperature data for Russia.
Edward R. Long holds a Ph.D. in physics. He is a retired NASA scientist who is a consultant on radiation physics for space flight and on energy/climate in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Read more http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/a_pending_american_temperature.html
,
Good Article...
From American Thinker, February 24, 2010
"We have been repeatedly told (perhaps "lectured" is a better word) the past twenty years that global warming is occurring. With Climategate and subsequent confessions and bailouts by scientists at the CRU, Penn State, Arizona State, IPCC, et al., we are learning that little to none of the factual content in their "peer reviewed" articles is true. The Medieval Warming Period did occur, and it was warmer than currently; the oceans are not going to flood the plains; and the Arctic Ocean may not be turning into a summer water park. Of course, the mainstream media, especially in the United States, has reported little of this news, and President Obama appears not to be well-informed. But now the global warming story grows more interesting because here in America, we may have our own little "gate." I will call it ATG, for "American Temperaturegate."
NOAA's National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) informs us, based on their "Adjusted Data" for the period from the last decade of the 19th century to 2006, that the temperature for the contiguous U.S. has increased at a rate of 0.69oC/century. NCDC arrives at this conclusion by massaging raw data from a set of meteorological stations located in the contiguous U.S. which they selected on the basis of a 2.5-degree latitude- and 3.5-degree-longitude grid.
The most-asked question, most recently by D'Aleo and Watts, is whether the NCDC's reported increase is correct. Perhaps the value is due to a dominant use (over-selection) of stations in urban locations or because of other issues, such as leaving out stations at higher altitudes for the more recent history and retaining them for the more distant past.
Here, one aspect is considered -- that of the Urban Heat Island Effect, which is tagged as UHIE.
We selected two sets of meteorological stations (48 each, with one station per each of the lower 48 states) from the NCDC master list. The stations in one set were at rural locations -- a rural set. The stations in the other set were at urban locations -- an urban set. The NCDC latitude and longitude station coordinates were used to "fly over" the locations on a computer, using a GPS map application to confirm the rural and urban characteristics. For each of the 96 stations, the NCDC's raw and adjusted temperature data were entered into a spreadsheet application and studied. The "raw" data are the annual average temperatures of the measured data. The "adjusted" data are the annual average temperatures the NCDC derived from the raw data by making a set of "corrective" assumptions for time of day, type of instrument, etc. and guessing the temperature at stations for missing data based on temperatures of other stations at the same latitude and/or region. For a more in-depth understanding of the NCDC protocols for converting raw data to adjusted data, click here. A summary of the findings is in the following table. The values in the table show that the NCDC's rate of increase of temperature, 0.69oC/century, is based on an over-selection of stations with urban locations.
Station Set oC/Century, 11-Year Average Based on the Use of
Raw Data
Adjusted Data
Rural (48)
0.11
0.58
Urban (48)
0.72
0.72
Rural + Urban (96)
0.47
0.65
The values in the table highlight four important considerations:
1) The rate of increase for rural locations, based on as-measured (raw) values, is small (if not, in effect, zero) at 0.11 oC/century.
2) There is definitely a UHIE in that the urban raw data has a rate of increase of 0.72oC/century. This tells us that man has caused warming in urban locations. This finding should not surprise anyone. On the other hand, because the rural value is 15% of the urban value, the UHIE has not caused warming in the rural locations, and it certainly has not caused a global sense of warming other than the aspect that the urban location values when averaged with the rural values produce an average increase which is larger than that of the rural alone.
3) The rural + urban value for the adjusted data, 0.65oC/century, is still less than the 0.69oC/century published by the NCDC. Thus, likely, there are more urban than rural sites used by the NCDC.
4) And this is the "Temperaturegate" aspect: The NCDC's massaging -- they call it "adjusting" -- has resulted in an increase in the rural values, from a raw value of 0.11oC/century to an adjusted value of 0.58oC/century, and no change in the urban values. That is, the NCDC's treatment has forced the rural value to look more like that of the urban. This is the exact opposite of any rational consideration, given the growth of the sizes of and activities within urban locations, unless deception is the goal.
The criticism this makes of the NCDC's treatment of historical data for the contiguous U.S. is the same as a recent Russian paper made of the HadCRUT treatment of historical temperature data for Russia.
Edward R. Long holds a Ph.D. in physics. He is a retired NASA scientist who is a consultant on radiation physics for space flight and on energy/climate in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Read more http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/a_pending_american_temperature.html
,
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
More Americans Agree: Global Warming Is Exaggerated
.
The Christian Post, Thursday, March 11
48 percent of the public think that global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41 percent in 2009 and 31 percent in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question. Gallup noted that the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is generally overblown is the highest on its record.
“The last two years have marked a general reversal in the trend of Americans’ attitudes about global warming,” reported Gallup. “[T]he public opinion tide turned in 2009, when several Gallup measures showed a slight retreat in public concern about global warming. This year, the downturn is even more pronounced.”
There was also a change in opinion on what causes global warming. Exactly half of the public believes that human activities are mainly responsible for the increase in the Earth’s temperature over the last century. This is a significant drop from the 61 percent in 2007 that held this view and the 58 percent in 2008.
The percentage of Americans who believe the warming of the Earth is mostly due to natural changes in the environment has steadily increased in recent years. In 2010, 46 percent hold this view, up from 38 percent in 2008 and 35 percent in 2007.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100311/more-americans-think-global-warming-is-exaggerated/index.html
.
The Christian Post, Thursday, March 11
48 percent of the public think that global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41 percent in 2009 and 31 percent in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question. Gallup noted that the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is generally overblown is the highest on its record.
“The last two years have marked a general reversal in the trend of Americans’ attitudes about global warming,” reported Gallup. “[T]he public opinion tide turned in 2009, when several Gallup measures showed a slight retreat in public concern about global warming. This year, the downturn is even more pronounced.”
There was also a change in opinion on what causes global warming. Exactly half of the public believes that human activities are mainly responsible for the increase in the Earth’s temperature over the last century. This is a significant drop from the 61 percent in 2007 that held this view and the 58 percent in 2008.
The percentage of Americans who believe the warming of the Earth is mostly due to natural changes in the environment has steadily increased in recent years. In 2010, 46 percent hold this view, up from 38 percent in 2008 and 35 percent in 2007.
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100311/more-americans-think-global-warming-is-exaggerated/index.html
.
Saturday, June 12, 2010
'Archaic' Network Provides Data for Global Warming Theory
.
From Fox News, March 02, 2010
American climate data that provides the basis for trillion-dollar global warming legislation is obtained by a 120-year-old weather system.
The Historical Climatology Network consists of volunteers who take daily surface temperature readings and send their reports in by snail mail to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Volunteers take readings at different times of day, round the temperatures to the nearest whole number, and mark the measurements on paper forms.
It is very kind of these volunteers to do this; they're expected to take measurements 365 days a year. But they aren't scientists, and their reports are sometimes a hodgepodge.
Anthony Watts, a meteorologist, has been cataloging problems in the 1,218 weather stations since 2007.
"When the network was put together in 1892, it was mercury thermometers and paper forms. Today it's still much the same," he said.
Requirements aren't very strict: Volunteers need decent vision in at least one eye and a small amount of training to qualify.
Expecting volunteers to be strict about collection of data several times a day 365 days a year in our current busy society is insane. As one would expect, some volunteers don't bother to collect data when they go on vacation or are sick. Watts told FoxNews.com that one volunteer filled in missing data with local weather reports from the newspapers that stacked up while he was out of town. It's highly likely that most, if not all, do that type of thing.
"You've got this kind of a ragtag network that's reporting the numbers for our official climate readings," said Watts. He added that 90 percent of the stations violated governmental guidelines for location, and poor placement compromises data.
They are supposed to be situated in empty clearings, but many are close to heat sources, such as exhaust pipes, trash-burning barrels, chimneys, barbecue grills, and hot asphalt.
If numbers appear faulty or there are more than nine days missing from a month's tally, the whole month is thrown out. Then the Center uses a computer program to determine average temperatures at dozens of nearby stations to guess what the temperature might have been for the month at that station.
Further - the NCDC adjusts for biases caused by the time of day when measurements are taken, for differences between old and new equipment, and to account for flukes that might be caused by poor siting. As if...they can be sure that those bias adjustments are necessary (poor siting?) or that they are adjusting in the right direction...
The NCDC insists its adjusted numbers are an accurate representation of climatic reality, backed up by worldwide trends in air temperature, water temperature, glacier melt, plant flowering and other indicators of climate change.
The final, highly scientific and meticulously gathered numbers - no...wait... numbers that were initially altered by heat sources they were near, then rounded by volunteers, guessed at by the NCDC, then further adjusted to correct for "biases," including uneven times of day when measurements were taken -- ending up with a number that is 0.6 degrees warmer than raw data, which Watts believes is itself suspect...THESE numbers are then used by several top climate research centers, including the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia - all three of which have been implicated in Climategate.
Watts says that even a single step — the rounding of the daily temperature — creates a margin of error about as large as the entire global warming trend scientists are hoping to confirm.
But the NCDC says not to worry, the volunteer system is only part of how they gather data. They make sure that the volunteer numbers fit the numbers they've gathered by other methods.
So..why bother with the volunteer system, then? It will probably become moot within a decade anyway.
Lawrimore told FoxNews.com that 5 percent of the historical network has already been automated. Further, a digitally run "Climate Reference Network" (CRN), a system of 114 stations, went fully online in 2008.
Carefully sited in fields around the country, the CRN automatically records daily climate data and transmits it at midnight local time, sending it by satellite directly to NCDC; eliminating snail-mail delay, rounding of numbers and human error.
But NCDC says it will continue to rely on volunteer readings to gather climate data on the local level. (Ummm...why?)
Actually, it sounds to me like the volunteer program exists only to give a good public relations appearance that the NCDC is collecting local data several times a day and cares about that data. The way it really sounds, with all their adjustments - yet a lack of real concern for how the data is gathered - is that the NCDC has decided what the temperature should be, and if it's not...well, then it needs adjusting. Keeping an archaic system justifies manipulating the data.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/02/archaic-weather-network-run-with-volunteers/?test=latestnews
From Fox News, March 02, 2010
American climate data that provides the basis for trillion-dollar global warming legislation is obtained by a 120-year-old weather system.
The Historical Climatology Network consists of volunteers who take daily surface temperature readings and send their reports in by snail mail to the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). Volunteers take readings at different times of day, round the temperatures to the nearest whole number, and mark the measurements on paper forms.
It is very kind of these volunteers to do this; they're expected to take measurements 365 days a year. But they aren't scientists, and their reports are sometimes a hodgepodge.
Anthony Watts, a meteorologist, has been cataloging problems in the 1,218 weather stations since 2007.
"When the network was put together in 1892, it was mercury thermometers and paper forms. Today it's still much the same," he said.
Requirements aren't very strict: Volunteers need decent vision in at least one eye and a small amount of training to qualify.
Expecting volunteers to be strict about collection of data several times a day 365 days a year in our current busy society is insane. As one would expect, some volunteers don't bother to collect data when they go on vacation or are sick. Watts told FoxNews.com that one volunteer filled in missing data with local weather reports from the newspapers that stacked up while he was out of town. It's highly likely that most, if not all, do that type of thing.
"You've got this kind of a ragtag network that's reporting the numbers for our official climate readings," said Watts. He added that 90 percent of the stations violated governmental guidelines for location, and poor placement compromises data.
They are supposed to be situated in empty clearings, but many are close to heat sources, such as exhaust pipes, trash-burning barrels, chimneys, barbecue grills, and hot asphalt.
If numbers appear faulty or there are more than nine days missing from a month's tally, the whole month is thrown out. Then the Center uses a computer program to determine average temperatures at dozens of nearby stations to guess what the temperature might have been for the month at that station.
Further - the NCDC adjusts for biases caused by the time of day when measurements are taken, for differences between old and new equipment, and to account for flukes that might be caused by poor siting. As if...they can be sure that those bias adjustments are necessary (poor siting?) or that they are adjusting in the right direction...
The NCDC insists its adjusted numbers are an accurate representation of climatic reality, backed up by worldwide trends in air temperature, water temperature, glacier melt, plant flowering and other indicators of climate change.
The final, highly scientific and meticulously gathered numbers - no...wait... numbers that were initially altered by heat sources they were near, then rounded by volunteers, guessed at by the NCDC, then further adjusted to correct for "biases," including uneven times of day when measurements were taken -- ending up with a number that is 0.6 degrees warmer than raw data, which Watts believes is itself suspect...THESE numbers are then used by several top climate research centers, including the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia - all three of which have been implicated in Climategate.
Watts says that even a single step — the rounding of the daily temperature — creates a margin of error about as large as the entire global warming trend scientists are hoping to confirm.
But the NCDC says not to worry, the volunteer system is only part of how they gather data. They make sure that the volunteer numbers fit the numbers they've gathered by other methods.
So..why bother with the volunteer system, then? It will probably become moot within a decade anyway.
Lawrimore told FoxNews.com that 5 percent of the historical network has already been automated. Further, a digitally run "Climate Reference Network" (CRN), a system of 114 stations, went fully online in 2008.
Carefully sited in fields around the country, the CRN automatically records daily climate data and transmits it at midnight local time, sending it by satellite directly to NCDC; eliminating snail-mail delay, rounding of numbers and human error.
But NCDC says it will continue to rely on volunteer readings to gather climate data on the local level. (Ummm...why?)
Actually, it sounds to me like the volunteer program exists only to give a good public relations appearance that the NCDC is collecting local data several times a day and cares about that data. The way it really sounds, with all their adjustments - yet a lack of real concern for how the data is gathered - is that the NCDC has decided what the temperature should be, and if it's not...well, then it needs adjusting. Keeping an archaic system justifies manipulating the data.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/02/archaic-weather-network-run-with-volunteers/?test=latestnews
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Jail the Faux Scientists - Climategate: Senator Ask for DOJ Investigation
.
Excerpts from Pajamas Media - February 21, 2010- by Charlie Martin
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — ie Climategate: the actions of climate scientists and admissions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies are both of interest.
- Yeah, like the Obama Administration would do that.
Senator Inhofe also asked that Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify. Inhofe said, “In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted.”
- Well, that slime bucket will never subject himself to honest scrutiny. He'll only attend functions where he knows no one will confront him.
According to Pajamas Media, the Senator Inhofe minority staff report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee alleges:
Dr. Murari Lal, editor of the IPCC AR4 report, admitted to the London Daily Mail that he had known the 2035 date was false, but was included in the report anyway “purely to put political pressure on world leaders.”
Senator Inhofe wants an investigation into research misconduct and criminal acts by the researchers. Further, Inhofe wants the EPA to drop its "Finding" that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and Congress to withdraw funding for consideration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
- Of all the stupid, ridiculous things the EPA and Congress have ever done...What was next, deeming all humans and animals major polluters for breathing out CO2??
The staff report noted the four major issues revealed by Climategate:
- Are you kidding me? You mean there's a chance that they WON'T go to jail??)
Dr. Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit has already been forced to step aside because of the Climategate FOIA issues, and Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State is currently under investigation by the university for potential misconduct.
Senator Inhofe believes Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann should be “let go” from their posts “for the good of the institutions involved.”
- Excuse me, Senator Inhofe, but the lies of these men have affected the entire world. I pray that the conservatives in our government won't allow them to walk away with a slap on the hand.
- Of course, the Obama Administration probably won't even acknowledge Senator Inhofe's appeal. The Democratic majority has blocked previous attempts by Inhofe to investigate issues with climate science. We might have to wait and hope for a new administration before justice is done.
For more of PJM’s Climategate coverage, read Charlie Martin’s “Climategate: The World’s Biggest Story, Everywhere but Here.”
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-law-senator-inhofe-to-ask-for-congressional-criminal-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive/
.
Excerpts from Pajamas Media - February 21, 2010- by Charlie Martin
Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — ie Climategate: the actions of climate scientists and admissions by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies are both of interest.
- Yeah, like the Obama Administration would do that.
Senator Inhofe also asked that Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify. Inhofe said, “In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted.”
- Well, that slime bucket will never subject himself to honest scrutiny. He'll only attend functions where he knows no one will confront him.
According to Pajamas Media, the Senator Inhofe minority staff report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee alleges:
"[The] Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works believe the scientists involved may have violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, federal laws. In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC -backed “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes."According to Pajamas Media,
"The exposure of the "Climategate files" - ie leaked emails - has led to a reexamination of the IPCC Assessment Reports, especially the fourth report (AR4), published in 2007. The IPCC AR4 report was named by Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson as one of the major sources of scientific support for the agency’s Endangerment Finding, the first step towards allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant."The IPCC has been forced to retract a number of conclusions — such as that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 - and has been forced to admit that the report was based on reports from environmental activist groups instead of peer-reviewed scientific research.
Dr. Murari Lal, editor of the IPCC AR4 report, admitted to the London Daily Mail that he had known the 2035 date was false, but was included in the report anyway “purely to put political pressure on world leaders.”
Senator Inhofe wants an investigation into research misconduct and criminal acts by the researchers. Further, Inhofe wants the EPA to drop its "Finding" that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and Congress to withdraw funding for consideration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.
- Of all the stupid, ridiculous things the EPA and Congress have ever done...What was next, deeming all humans and animals major polluters for breathing out CO2??
The staff report noted the four major issues revealed by Climategate:
1.Scientists cooperated to obstruct the release of information and counter-evidence.The report also notes potential legal issues raised by Climategate:
2.Scientists manipulated data to reach predetermined conclusions.
3.Scientists colluded to pressure journal editors not to publish work questioning the “consensus.”
4.Scientists involved in the report assumed the role of climate activists attempting to influence public opinion while claiming scientific objectivity.
1.Scientific misconduct may violate the Shelby Amendment — requiring open access to the results of government-funded research — and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) policies on scientific misconduct.If proven, these charges could debar the Scientists from federally funded research and maybe to criminal penalties.
2.Potential for violations of the Federal False Statements and False Claims Acts, which may have both civil and criminal penalties.
3.Possibility of an obstruction of Congress in congressional proceeds, which may constitute an obstruction of justice.
- Are you kidding me? You mean there's a chance that they WON'T go to jail??)
Dr. Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit has already been forced to step aside because of the Climategate FOIA issues, and Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State is currently under investigation by the university for potential misconduct.
Senator Inhofe believes Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann should be “let go” from their posts “for the good of the institutions involved.”
- Excuse me, Senator Inhofe, but the lies of these men have affected the entire world. I pray that the conservatives in our government won't allow them to walk away with a slap on the hand.
- Of course, the Obama Administration probably won't even acknowledge Senator Inhofe's appeal. The Democratic majority has blocked previous attempts by Inhofe to investigate issues with climate science. We might have to wait and hope for a new administration before justice is done.
For more of PJM’s Climategate coverage, read Charlie Martin’s “Climategate: The World’s Biggest Story, Everywhere but Here.”
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-law-senator-inhofe-to-ask-for-congressional-criminal-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive/
.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Global warming is a "Scam"says Congressman Don Young:
.
In an interview with Matt Felling of KTVA TV, Congressman Don Young tells it like it is: Global warming is a 'Scam.'
Video - http://www.ktva.com/ci_14434574
In an interview with Matt Felling of KTVA TV, Congressman Don Young tells it like it is: Global warming is a 'Scam.'
Video - http://www.ktva.com/ci_14434574
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Vindicated: Global Warming denier "was right after all"
.
I like this guy. Honest, despite the huge consequences. There aren't many people like that in this world. God bless him.
National Post February 18, 2010, 7:10 AM by Lawrence Solomon
"De Telegraaf, the Netherlands' largest daily newspaper, has totally vindicated the country's most prominent global warming denier in a prominent article entitled "Henk Tennekes - He was right after all."
"Tennekes was the director of the Netherlands Meteorological Institute, KNMI, until the early 1990s, when his skepticism of the climate science coming out of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change led to his forced resignation.
A translation into English of De Telegraaf's no-holds-barred vindication appears here.
Excerpts:
"In the nineties, Henk Tennekes was made to clear his desk and resign as Director of the KNMI (Dutch Meteorological Institute). His sin? In a newspaper column the world-renowned meteorologist had disproved all the bold claims about climate change.
Rehabilitation of the country’s first CO2-exile
By Edwin Timmer
ARNHEM - “I worry a lot these days. I worry about the arrogance of scientists who blithely claim that they are here to solve the climate problem, as long as they receive massive increases in funding. I worry about the way they covet new supercomputers.
Others talk about ”stabilizing the climate“. I’m terrified of the arrogance, vanity
and recklessness of those words. Why is it so difficult to demonstrate a little humility?“
Is this a response to recent climate scandals? Sober criticism of the failed IPCC UN climate panel that exaggerated the melting of the glaciers?
No, these are extracts from a column which appeared exactly twenty(!) years ago in a British scientific journal. When the then Director of Policy Development at the KNMI
(Holland’s Met Office,) Henk Tennekes put the cat among the pigeons. Watch out for all the unsubstantiated claims about climate!
“My role as research director was regarded by the people around me as primarily that of provider of the next even bigger computer. But I wanted to get to the heart of the problem. Are these forecast models reliable?
Not funny, everyone thought. Looking for the truth? You must be mad! That means you have to accept the fallibility of these models. That’s much too dangerous. Most of the KNMI researchers were happy if they could just sit in the cafeteria with their like-minded colleagues.”
Greenhouse Theory
The now 73-year-old scientist still persists in his fundamental criticism of climate modelling, for instance the often-heard argument that ‘95 percent of the greenhouse
theory remains valid’.
Tennekes: “Why does the IPCC ignore the oceans? The top 2½ meters of all sea-water contain as much heat as the total amount of heat in the atmosphere. Why has the topmost kilometre of the oceans turned colder during the last five years? We don’t know. Until we understand what is happening with the heat in the oceans, the models
which aim to predict the climate are totally useless.
“I am much more anxious about the cooling of the earth. The ultimate fate of this planet is a new ice age. If the main wheat belts of the Northern hemisphere fail to
produce their much needed harvest, heaven knows how we will feed ourselves.
Well, it could be that warming will lead to a disaster. I still want to accept that. But you must weigh this unknown risk against other problems. Why should we spend insane amounts to prevent CO2 emissions, while the risk is uncertain and any potential benefits of the solution unsure? With much less money we could eradicate malaria from this planet. Or fight HIV, before the entire African population decimates itself“.
Intimate clique
“No, I’m not surprised about the fuss surrounding current climate research. This storm has been brewing for years. The contributions of climate sceptics disappear unnoticed in the rubbish bin.
IPCC is run by an intimate clique of only a few dozen people. I believe that Minister Cramer (Environment) is a victim of the spin-doctors who surround her, people who believe ’good causes’ are served best by evil means. But these green bureaucrats do not understand the meaning of the proverb. It is the road to HELL that
is paved with good intentions, not the road to HEAVEN. You can print that.“
Translation: Richard Sumner (UK)
A translation into English of De Telegraaf's full no-holds-barred vindication appears here.
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/02/18/lawrence-solomon-vindication-dutch-global-warming-denier-quot-was-right-after-all-quot.aspx
.
I like this guy. Honest, despite the huge consequences. There aren't many people like that in this world. God bless him.
National Post February 18, 2010, 7:10 AM by Lawrence Solomon
"De Telegraaf, the Netherlands' largest daily newspaper, has totally vindicated the country's most prominent global warming denier in a prominent article entitled "Henk Tennekes - He was right after all."
"Tennekes was the director of the Netherlands Meteorological Institute, KNMI, until the early 1990s, when his skepticism of the climate science coming out of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change led to his forced resignation.
A translation into English of De Telegraaf's no-holds-barred vindication appears here.
Excerpts:
"In the nineties, Henk Tennekes was made to clear his desk and resign as Director of the KNMI (Dutch Meteorological Institute). His sin? In a newspaper column the world-renowned meteorologist had disproved all the bold claims about climate change.
Rehabilitation of the country’s first CO2-exile
By Edwin Timmer
ARNHEM - “I worry a lot these days. I worry about the arrogance of scientists who blithely claim that they are here to solve the climate problem, as long as they receive massive increases in funding. I worry about the way they covet new supercomputers.
Others talk about ”stabilizing the climate“. I’m terrified of the arrogance, vanity
and recklessness of those words. Why is it so difficult to demonstrate a little humility?“
Is this a response to recent climate scandals? Sober criticism of the failed IPCC UN climate panel that exaggerated the melting of the glaciers?
No, these are extracts from a column which appeared exactly twenty(!) years ago in a British scientific journal. When the then Director of Policy Development at the KNMI
(Holland’s Met Office,) Henk Tennekes put the cat among the pigeons. Watch out for all the unsubstantiated claims about climate!
“My role as research director was regarded by the people around me as primarily that of provider of the next even bigger computer. But I wanted to get to the heart of the problem. Are these forecast models reliable?
Not funny, everyone thought. Looking for the truth? You must be mad! That means you have to accept the fallibility of these models. That’s much too dangerous. Most of the KNMI researchers were happy if they could just sit in the cafeteria with their like-minded colleagues.”
Greenhouse Theory
The now 73-year-old scientist still persists in his fundamental criticism of climate modelling, for instance the often-heard argument that ‘95 percent of the greenhouse
theory remains valid’.
Tennekes: “Why does the IPCC ignore the oceans? The top 2½ meters of all sea-water contain as much heat as the total amount of heat in the atmosphere. Why has the topmost kilometre of the oceans turned colder during the last five years? We don’t know. Until we understand what is happening with the heat in the oceans, the models
which aim to predict the climate are totally useless.
“I am much more anxious about the cooling of the earth. The ultimate fate of this planet is a new ice age. If the main wheat belts of the Northern hemisphere fail to
produce their much needed harvest, heaven knows how we will feed ourselves.
Well, it could be that warming will lead to a disaster. I still want to accept that. But you must weigh this unknown risk against other problems. Why should we spend insane amounts to prevent CO2 emissions, while the risk is uncertain and any potential benefits of the solution unsure? With much less money we could eradicate malaria from this planet. Or fight HIV, before the entire African population decimates itself“.
Intimate clique
“No, I’m not surprised about the fuss surrounding current climate research. This storm has been brewing for years. The contributions of climate sceptics disappear unnoticed in the rubbish bin.
IPCC is run by an intimate clique of only a few dozen people. I believe that Minister Cramer (Environment) is a victim of the spin-doctors who surround her, people who believe ’good causes’ are served best by evil means. But these green bureaucrats do not understand the meaning of the proverb. It is the road to HELL that
is paved with good intentions, not the road to HEAVEN. You can print that.“
Translation: Richard Sumner (UK)
A translation into English of De Telegraaf's full no-holds-barred vindication appears here.
Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2010/02/18/lawrence-solomon-vindication-dutch-global-warming-denier-quot-was-right-after-all-quot.aspx
.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Scientist admits "There has been NO global warming for 15 years"
.
Express.co.uk - Monday February 15,2010
The man at the center of the “Climategate” affair, Professor Phil Jones, Director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), finally admitted that there had been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.
His admission came as new research cast doubt on temperature records collected around the world. Those records had been used to support the crazy global warming theory.
Researchers admitted yesterday that warming recorded by weather stations was often caused by local factors rather than global change.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/158214
.
Express.co.uk - Monday February 15,2010
The man at the center of the “Climategate” affair, Professor Phil Jones, Director of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU), finally admitted that there had been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.
His admission came as new research cast doubt on temperature records collected around the world. Those records had been used to support the crazy global warming theory.
Researchers admitted yesterday that warming recorded by weather stations was often caused by local factors rather than global change.
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/158214
.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Dutch Find More Mistakes in U.N. Climate Report
,
Here's MORE!
A Dutch environment ministry spokesman, Trimo Vallaart, asked the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to 'rethink' its assertion that more than half of the Netherlands is below seal level.
Dutch authorities state that only 26 percent of the country is below sea level.
"According to an AFP story, IPCC experts calculated that 55 percent of the Netherlands was below sea level by adding the area below sea level -- 26 percent -- to the area threatened by river flooding -- 29 percent -- Vallaart said. "They should have been clearer," Vallaart pointed out, adding that the Dutch office for environmental planning, an IPCC partner, had the exact figures."
(Why does the IPCC have so much trouble with numbers?)
He noted that correcting the error had been "on the agenda several times" but had never actually happened.
(Why didn't the IPCC correct it?)
Vallaart told the AFP that he regretted the fact that proper procedure was not followed, adding that it should not be left to politicians to check the IPCC's numbers.
No. One would hope that a UN panel whose reports have such an impact on the world would be able to do its math properly.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/05/dutch-point-new-mistakes-climate-report/
Here's MORE!
A Dutch environment ministry spokesman, Trimo Vallaart, asked the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to 'rethink' its assertion that more than half of the Netherlands is below seal level.
Dutch authorities state that only 26 percent of the country is below sea level.
"According to an AFP story, IPCC experts calculated that 55 percent of the Netherlands was below sea level by adding the area below sea level -- 26 percent -- to the area threatened by river flooding -- 29 percent -- Vallaart said. "They should have been clearer," Vallaart pointed out, adding that the Dutch office for environmental planning, an IPCC partner, had the exact figures."
(Why does the IPCC have so much trouble with numbers?)
He noted that correcting the error had been "on the agenda several times" but had never actually happened.
(Why didn't the IPCC correct it?)
Vallaart told the AFP that he regretted the fact that proper procedure was not followed, adding that it should not be left to politicians to check the IPCC's numbers.
No. One would hope that a UN panel whose reports have such an impact on the world would be able to do its math properly.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/02/05/dutch-point-new-mistakes-climate-report/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)