June 26, 2008
The Science from the science community continues to grow daily as shown in Marc Morano’s weekly round up of reports, articles and news that refute the global warming movement.
Global Temps Same as 1940 – Yellow Science? – UN Destroys Documents – CO2 as GHG Challenged
Sampling of articles in past week – Round Up – June 26, 2008

Wall Street Journal: FIRST IT WAS YELLOW JOURNALISM, NOW IT’S YELLOW SCIENCE – June 25, 2008 (By Mr. Kerian is a mechanical engineer and small business owner in Grafton, N.D.)
Excerpt: In the late 19th century, William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer developed what would come to be known as yellow journalism.

By disregarding what had been standard journalistic methods, particularly in regards to the verifying of sources, these two publishers were able both to push their country toward war with Spain and dramatically increase the circulation of their respective newspapers.
Over the past several decades an increasing number of scientists have shed the restraints imposed by the scientific method and begun to proclaim the truth of man-made global warming.

This is a hypothesis that remains untested, makes no predictions that can be tested in the near future, and cannot offer a numerical explanation for the limited evidence to which it clings. No equations have been shown to explain the relationship between fossil-fuel emission and global temperature. The only predictions that have been made are apocalyptic, so the hypothesis has to be accepted before it can be tested.

The only evidence that can be said to support this so-called scientific consensus is the supposed correlation of historical global temperatures with historical carbon-dioxide content in the atmosphere. Even if we do not question the accuracy of our estimates of global temperatures into previous centuries, and even if we ignore the falling global temperatures over the past decade as fossil-fuel emissions have continued to increase, an honest scientist would still have to admit that the hypothesis of man-made global warming hardly rises to the level of “an assertion of what has been or would be the result of carrying out a specified observational procedure.” […]

Certainly, however, under the scientific method it does not rise to the level of an “item of physical knowledge.” Nevertheless, the acceptance of man-made global warming as scientific fact has become so prevalent that the secretary-general of the United Nations, Ban Ki-Moon, recently declared: “The debate is over. It’s time to discuss solutions.” Leaving aside the question of the secretary-general’s qualifications, that is certainly one of the most antiscientific statements ever made.

Hearst made only a fraction of his estimated $140 million in net worth from yellow journalism. Global warming, on the other hand, has provided an estimated $50 billion in research grants to those willing to practice yellow science. Influence in the public sphere is another strong temptation. It might not be as impressive as starting the Spanish-American War, but global-warming alarmists have amassed a large group of journalists and politicians ready to silence any critics and endorse whatever boondoggle scheme is prescribed as the cure to our impending climate catastrophe.

Finally, one should not underestimate the temptation of convenience. Just as it is far easier to publish stories without verifying the sources; so is it much more convenient to practice yellow science than the real thing. It takes far more courage, perseverance, and perspiration to develop formulas, make predictions, and risk being proved wrong than to look at historical data and muse about observed similarities. Yellow scientists have fled the risks of science that Albert Einstein described when he said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

Global Warming Erased? 2008 Global Temperatures Similar to 1940 – June 25, 2008
Excerpt: By Richard Courtney, DipPhil, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant.)
Courtney took up the NRDC challenge to skeptical scientists to ‘let NRDC’s real climate experts take them on’
Excerpt: Richard S Courtney says that the temperature is similar to 1940. […] The global temperature fell from 1940 to 1970, rose from 1970 to 1998, and fell from 1998 to the present (i.e. mid-2008). This is 40 years of cooling and 28 years of warming, and global temperature is now similar to that of 1940.” [..] It is simply true. Please do not take my word for it but check it for yourself. I cite CRU data from: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/hadcrut3gl.txt In that CRU data set the 1940 monthly values of temperature anomalies from the 30 year mean are presented in degrees Celsius.

They range between -0.191 and +0.057 with an annual mean of +0.018. In that same data set the monthly 2008 anomalies to date are +0.053, +0.192, +0.430, +0.254 and +0.278. This is a mean value for the months in 2008 to date of +0.241.

The ranges of the monthly values for these years overlap; i.e. the highest monthly value in 1940 (+0.057) was higher than the lowest monthly value in 2008 (+0.053). I think it very reasonable to say they are “similar” when their ranges overlap. However, my use of the word “similar” could be considered to an understatement because the mean values differ by only 0.223 degrees Celsius and the data has inherent error of +/- 0.2 degrees Celsius. So, within their inherent errors the mean values are not similar because

THEY ARE THE SAME. But atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has increased by more than 30% since 1940 and increased atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is supposed to induce “dangerous” global warming.

Scientists Challenge Premise of CO2 as a Greenhouse Gas –Analytical chemist Hans Schreuder of the UK – Comments: hans@ilovemycarbondixode.com

Excerpt: I can’t stress too strongly how silly it is to use an illusory belief about garden greenhouses to explain what occurs in the atmosphere. Greenhouses are unable to trap and multiply radiant energy within the volume they enclose, and neither can the atmosphere. Electromagnetic energy emitted by the earth’s surface merely exits to space at the speed of light. The few molecules that hitchhike on several waves do exactly the same. This partial interception process can bring air up to a lower temperature than the surface, but raising the temperature of the surface is completely out of the question. Yet influential people believe that a temperature rise must occur because of the non-existent radiant trapping performed by greenhouses! It is circular reasoning. Correction: it’s not reasoning at all.
1. The vacuum of space is not “cold.” It is instead a thermal insulator that has no means of absorbing heat and thus restricts a body’s energy loss to radiant emission alone, meaning that the earth cannot lose heat (molecular vibration) to space. Nothing on earth restricts its infrared emission, as satellites attest.

2. An infrared-absorber of any kind does not “trap” infrared light but radiates it instantly. The dark absorption lines in spectrographs are an artefact of linear photon flight being interrupted and assuming a radiative pattern. This is why, as point 1 states, satellites see the earth releasing the same amount of radiant energy as it absorbs. Nothing is “trapped.”
3. Heat transfer works by difference. If two objects are equal in temperature, no transfer will occur. If one object’s temperature is higher than the other, heat will transfer to the other. A source’s own energy cannot be used to heat it, then. Source A providing energy to Receiver B would have to be colder than Receiver B in order to be heated by it. In which case, however, Source A would be unable to transfer energy to Receiver B in the first place.
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/FAQ.html  http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/carbondioxide.html

Climate Audit’s Steve McIntyre: IPCC ‘claimed to have destroyed all their working documents’ – Violates ‘objective, open and transparent’ process!
Excerpt: IPCC policies state:All written expert, and government review comments will be made available to reviewers on request during the review process and will be retained in an open archive in a location determined by the IPCC Secretariat on completion of the Report for a period of at least five years. Despite this, IPCC Review Editor John Mitchell of the UK Met Office claimed to have destroyed all their working documents and correspondence pertaining to his duties as Review Editor and the Met Office also claims to have expunged all records. David Holland has also made FOI inquiries to Keith Briffa, a lead author of AR4 chapter 6. Here’s a progress report documenting: May 5 – FOI requestMay 6 – CRU AcknowledgementJune 3 – CRU Refusal NoticeJune 4 – Holland AppealJune 20 – CRU Rejection of Appeal May 5 Holland FOI Request to CRUDear Mr Palmer,Request for Information concerning the IPCC, 2007 WGI Chapter 6 Assessment ProcessDrs Keith Briffa and Timothy Osborn of your Climatic Research Unit served as lead authors on the IPCC Fourth Assessment, which by international agreement was required to be undertaken on an comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis.
See also: here <http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3193> ,
here <http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3194> ,
here  <http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3192> and
 here <http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3208> .

Report: Nature may soon cool climate debate as ‘fairly cold period’ set to begin
Excerpt: Measurements by four major temperature tracking outlets reported that world temperatures dropped by about 0.65° C to 0.75° C during 2007, the fastest temperature changes ever recorded (either up or down). The cooling approached the total of all warming that occurred over the past 100 years, which is commonly estimated at about 1° C.

Antarctic sea ice expanded by about 1 million square kilometers – more than the 28-year average since altimeter satellite monitoring began.
Based upon current solar data, the Russian Pulkovo Observatory concludes that Earth has passed its latest warming cycle, and predicts that a fairly cold period will set in by 2012. Temperatures may drop much lower by 2041, and remain very cold for 50 to 60 years. Kenneth Tapping at Canada’s National Research Council thinks we may be in for an even longer cold spell. He predicts that the sun’s unusually quiet current 11-year cycle might signal the beginning of a new “Maunder Minimum” cold period, which occurs every couple of centuries and can last a century or more.
Many scientists believe that Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation cycles associated with El Niño and La Niña conditions in combination with solar activity variances have had important climate influences during the past century. These factors may account for much of the observed warming trends of 1910-39, cooling from the 1940s to the ’70s, and warming during the ’80s and ’90s. Solar activity cycles of about 11 years and 200 years may modulate the effects of galactic cosmic ray magnetic fields, producing changes in cloud cover with both warming and cooling results.

Scientists Claim: ‘Potential for a significant decline in the average mean temperature’
Excerpt: — In addition to a timely discussion of energy markets, the forum will focus on recent research by one of the members of the panel (Harry Van Loon) which suggests the potential for a significant decline in the average mean temperature globally beginning in the next 12 months.This shift has profound ramifications for the debate on climate change that extend well beyond the potential direct impact on energy markets.
In the past 30 days, far-reaching changes have occurred in the atmosphere not seen in almost 70 years that could have profound consequences for global energy markets.

Energy Business Watch (EBW) will bring to the New York Marriot Marquis, June 26, a special, 3-hour discussion (beginning at 3:00 PM) with three of the top weather scientists in the world — Dr. Roland Madden (whose pioneering work led to the discovery of the Madden-Julian Oscillation), Harry Van Loon (one of the foremost experts in the world on El Nino/La Nina events) and Dr. William Gray (perhaps the best known expert on hurricanes).

This all-star trio of renowned weather scientists will be joined on the program by EBW’s nationally-recognized Publisher, Andy Weissman, and EBW’s Chief Meteorologist, Dave Melita — who has demonstrated repeatedly a unique capability to accurately predict major weather trends on an extended range basis. “The atmospheric changes currently under way have the potential to change the price trajectory for energy for much of the rest of this year. The information provided at our Forum is likely to have a direct and immediate impact on the market,” said Weissman, with urgency.
David Melita continued: “Developments in the Pacific during the past 30 days indicate that we could see some major, previously unexpected shifts in the El Nino/La Nina cycle. The data that comes in over the next 10 to 14 days is particularly critical. We expect to be able to comment on these developments more definitively, therefore, at our program on June 26th.” “The information presented on the 26th could be a real game changer — with major market impacts for both oil and natural gas,” Melita added.