Quote of the Week
“In Nature’s infinite book of secrecy A little I can read.” Soothsayer in Antony and Cleopatra, William Shakespeare
As the winter weather continues to rage in much of the Northern Hemisphere in ways not expected, this week we have not witnessed any new, remarkable revelations on ClimateGates we saw over the past few months, but the internal turmoil these revelations created continues. Even the New York Times appears to be resigned that it is unlikely the interested parties will have a grand climate change treaty ready for the December Conference of Parties meeting in Mexico. Three months ago many thought such a treaty was inevitable by then if not before. If only the New York Times will tell its readers exactly why.
The UN chief negotiator for a treaty has resigned, IPCC Chairman R.K. Pachauri is under fire, surface temperature data are being investigated, and exaggerations in the IPCC reports are coming to the fore. Of course IPCC defenders dismiss the issues as exaggerations from a few dissident skeptics or, as US Senator Bernie Sanders claims, Nazi deniers.
The leaders of the UN Environmental Program (EP), made up of delegates from 58 countries, are weathering the storms huddled up in Bali with special interest groups scheming Plan B. Early reports indicate EP is making a major effort to be ready for the 2012 World Summit on Sustainable Development in Rio de Janeiro which is timed to be the 20th Anniversary of the “Earth Summit” in Rio that led to the Kyoto Protocol which will expire that year. No doubt more news will follow.
The US EPA has thus far responded to the petitions for reconsideration of its finding that carbon dioxide emissions endanger human health and welfare as expected: with a resounding NO! “The science is settled.” Or as the headline of one article puts it: “Fifteen Years With No Global Warming Doesn’t Mean There’s No Global Warming, Says EPA Chief.” No doubt this story will also develop further.
One characteristic that is common to the advocates is their scientific certainty and how appalled they act should anyone should question them. Thus, they dismiss any major errors of fact, data, or conclusions as only a few misplaced words in some 3,000 pages of text.
The “News You Can Use” begins with meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo’s [ICECAP.us] explanation of the wild winter then continues with three articles on polar ice caps. After this are a collection of articles on current UN IPCC and EP activities as well as EPA issues. Following this are more articles on climate change and other topics.
Several articles deserve special mention. One is the article on the Vermont Senate voting to not extend the operating license of a nuclear power plant that provides one-third of the state’s electricity. The license expires in 2012. The issue is tritium leakage (tritium is an isotope of hydrogen). The second article of special mention is astronaut Buzz Aldrin’s defense of abandoning a mission to the Moon in favor of going to Mars.
Science editorial #7-2010 (Feb 27, 2010)
By S. Fred Singer, President, Science and Environmental Policy Project
[Note: This is another of a series of mini-editorials on the “junk science” influencing the global warming issue. Other topics will include the UN Environmental Program, and some individuals heavily involved in these matters.]
Junkscience #9. ClimateGate (CG) and other’Gates’ undermine the credibility of the IPCC and of AGW
The reports of the UN-IPCC have long provided the basis of the so-called ‘scientific consensus.’ Climate statements of assorted national academies of sciences, including the venerable Royal Society, turned out to be nothing more than rehash of the IPCC conclusions, rather than independent assessments. Similarly, the statements issued by various professional societies simply relied on the IPCC – without adding any analyses of their own.
In turn, this apparent consensus misled not only the media and the public but also the wider scientific community, which had remained largely unaware of the ongoing debate and of the work of the many reputable climate experts who disagreed with the IPCC. Thanks to the e-mails of ClimateGate (CG), we now know of the efforts by a small clique to suppress publication of such dissenting views by subverting the scientific peer-review process – often with the connivance of the editors of leading professional journals.
All this is now changing. The e-mails leaked from the University of East Anglia server strongly suggest that the basic temperature data had been manipulated, yielding the reported strong surface warming of the past 30 years. Again, we had long suspected this, because the data from weather satellites showed little warming trend of the atmosphere since 1979. Available proxy data seemed to confirm this result (see “Hot Talk Cold Science”  — HTCS Fig 16). But according to theory – and every greenhouse climate model — tropospheric trends should be substantially greater than surface trends.
This disparity between the trends derived from weather station data and from satellite data was already apparent in 1996 (see HTCS Fig 9), and was amply confirmed in a special study of the US National Academy of Sciences [“Reconciling observations of global temperature change” 2000].
The NAS report could not reconcile the disparity and never explained its cause. But it has become evident now that the cause may be a greatly exaggerated surface trend – brought about by the CG cabal. We will learn the details once we unravel just how the data were manipulated.
The ‘manufacture’ of a ‘man-made’ warming trend, when there is none, likely involved (i) selection of stations that showed a trend, and (ii) inadequate correction for purely local warming influences such as the ‘urban heat island’ effect (see HTCS Figs 7 and 8; and the recent extensive publications of Joe D’Aleo and Anthony Watts).
In a sense then, the other ‘Gates’ discovered since CG – GlacierGate and all the rest – are a distraction from the main story. They were all found in IPCC Volume 2, which deals with climate impacts, i.e. with the consequences of global warming. They indicate a general sloppiness and make a mockery of the much touted IPCC standards and procedures. They have severely shaken the public’s and the media’s faith in the IPCC. But the main story is still CG – because it impacts directly on IPCC Volume 1, which deals with climate science and the causes of climate change rather than with climate impacts. To sum up: CG demonstrates just how the IPCC  arrived at its erroneous conclusion about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the latter half of the 20th century. They used bad data. It’s no surprise then that none of the evidence the IPCC put forth in support of AGW can stand up to scrutiny – as already shown in the reports of the NIPCC (“Nature, not human activity, rules the climate” and “Climate change reconsidered”) [2008 and 2009].
ARTICLES: [For the numbered articles below please see the attached pdf.]
By Richard Lindzen, Boston Globe Letter, Feb 19, 2010 [H/t Francois Guillaumat]
By Christopher Booker, Telegraph, UK, Feb 20, 2010 [H/t Bob Kay]]
[SEPP Comment: A look at the money-flow for buying carbon dioxide indulgences.]
New York Times, Feb 21, 2010,
[SEPP Comment: The Gray Lady recognizes the signs do not bode well for a great treaty in December in Mexico. But it apparently fails to understand why.]
By Ken Balckwell, Feb 21, 2010, American Thinker
[SEPP Correction: Fred earned his Ph.D. at Princeton]
By George Will, TownHall, Feb 21, 2010
By L. Gordon Crovitz, WSJ, Feb 22, 2010
NEWS YOU CAN USE:
Record Setting Arctic Oscillation (AO) and Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) Creates Wild Winter
By Joe D’Aleo, ICECAP.US Feb 19, 2010
E! Science News, Feb 11, 2010
By Bruce Owen, Winnipeg Free Press, Feb 6, 2010 [H/t Mark Johnson, ICECAP]
[SEPP Comment: A vessel able to move in the Arctic during the winter may be more a reflection of modern technology than unprecedented warming.]
By Anthony Watts, Watts Up With That, Feb 19, 2010
[SEPP Comment: The great Arctic ice melt of 2007 may not have been a actual melt caused by warming but a random event – the failure of a natural ice dam to form.]
By George Russell, Fox News, Feb 23, 2010 [H/t Marc Morano]
Ban Ki-moon urges environment ministers to reject attempts by sceptics to undermine negotiations by exaggerating shortcomings in Himalayan glaciers report
Associated Press, Guardian, UK, Feb 24, 2010 [H/t Bob Kay]
[SEPP Comment: Deliberate distortion of data and scientific inquire are more than shortcomings.]
By Ben Webster, Environment Editor, The Times, Feb 25, 2010 [H/t Bob Kay]
Climate change data will now face independent scrutiny
By Nicholas Kralev, Washington Times, Feb 26, 2010
[SEPP Comment: The surface data are inadequate, yes. But worse, they have been manipulated.]
IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri to face independent inquiry
By Geoffrey Lean, Telegraph, UK, Feb 26, 2010
Push to Oversimplify at Climate Panel
By Jeffrey Ball and Keith Johnson, WSJ, Feb 26, 2010
[SEPP Comment to WSJ: Over simplification is not the issue. The issue is failure to rigorously evaluate the science. The hockey-stick replaced historic knowledge with a mathematical model, the data are compromised, the methodology is wrong, and the models have been falsified rendering any projections scientifically meaningless.
Carbon dioxide is invisible to humans and your photos of smoking chimneys do not show carbon dioxide.]
[Virginia Attorney General] Cuccinelli fights the EPA
The Washington Times, Feb 21, 2010
EPA, Countering Critics of Greeenhouse Gas Findings, Says ‘Science Is Settled’
By Molly Heneberg, FoxNews.com, Feb 19, 2010 [H/t Debbie Wetlaufer]
EPA lays out timetable for regulating greenhouse gas emissions
By Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post, Feb 21, 2010 [H/t Conrad Potemra]
Fifteen Years With No Global Warming Doesn’t Mean There’s No Global Warming, Says EPA Chief
By Karen Schuberg, CNSNews, Feb 24, 2010 [H/t Brad Veek]
EPA: “we need to move aggressively” to pass energy regulation legislation.
Global Warming? LOL!
By Deroy Murdock, National Review Online, Feb 18, 2010
[SEPP Comment: Good summary showing deception has long been a tactic of the alarmists.]
How Al Gore Wrecked Planet Earth
By Walter Russell Mead, American Interest Online, Feb 19, 2010
[SEPP Comment: Ignoring the lack of supporting science, an interesting look at why the movement if failing.]
Investigate Climate Crimes
Investor’s Business Daily Editorial, Feb 24, 2010
If climate science is dubious, shouldn’t governments give carmakers a break?
By Neil Winton, European Perspective Detroit News, Feb 19, 2010
[SEPP Comment: A question European governments will not find humorous.]
More on NCDC Temperature Data “Adjustments”
Science and Public Policy Institute, Feb 25, 2010
[SEPP Comment: The data manipulation may have been as bad as some feared.]
By Rebecca Smith, WSJ, Feb 25, 2010
[SEPP Comment: The Vermont Senate voted to not extend the existing operating license the nuclear reactor that provides one-third of the state’s electricity. The license expires in 2012. A caution to all who hope nuclear power is a solution to future electricity.]
By Ben Casselman, WSJ, Feb 26, 2010
By Jim Carlton, WSJ, Feb 25, 2010
By Gautam Naik, WSJ, Feb 24, 2010
[SEPP Comment: Imagine the resistance to a useful vaccine from tobacco.]
Trading the Moon for Mars
By Buzz Aldrin, WSJ, Feb 25, 2010
BELOW THE BOTTOM LINE:
From the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body
By Marin Cogan, Politico, Feb 23, 2010 [H/t Marc Morano]
Washington Post Editorial, Feb 22
When Reason Fails Use “Ad Hominen”
By Jeffrey Sachs, Guardian, UK, Feb 19, 2010
[SEPP Comment: Ad hominen is such a comforting technique. It allows one to believe he has demolished the rational arguments of another without having to think.]