Showing posts with label cap and trade. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cap and trade. Show all posts

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Outrageous & Depressing Economic News

Accross the nation, public sector union workers in the states are making on average 25% more than their private sector counterparts. And perhaps the most lucrative place to be today is as a federal government employee. This from the USA Today:

At a time when workers' pay and benefits have stagnated, federal employees' average compensation has grown to more than double what private sector workers earn, a USA TODAY analysis finds.

Federal workers have been awarded bigger average pay and benefit increases than private employees for nine years in a row. The compensation gap between federal and private workers has doubled in the past decade.

Federal civil servants earned average pay and benefits of $123,049 in 2009 while private workers made $61,051 in total compensation, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

In fairness, TNR makes the point that, when you adjust for variables such as education, then the gap closes. As to how much it closes, who knows, but the raw numbers themselves are damning. But regardless, we have seen a vast expansion of government workers at all levels, and particularly of federal government workers under Obama - with the number now cresting 2.15 million. The simple fact is that none of these people create a dollar for our economy. It is only the private sector that creates the wealth of America. And when we expand the federal government work force ever more, we are both shrinking the size of the pool of private sector employees and shrinking our tax base.

And then, of course, there are the retirement issues, where the confluence of public sector unions and scurrilous politicians who have underfunded pension committments have helped bring our nation to the brink of catastrophe. As the NYT noted:

Pew estimated a $1 trillion gap as of fiscal 2008 between what states had promised workers in the way of retiree pension, health care and other benefits and the money they currently had to pay for it all. And some economists say that Pew is too conservative and the problem is two or three times as large.

So a question of extraordinary financial, political, legal and moral complexity emerges, something that every one of us will be taking into town meetings and voting booths for years to come: Given how wrong past pension projections were, who should pay to fill the 13-figure financing gap? . . .

Who indeed? As it stands now, public sector unions are determined to soak American taxpayers for every possible dollar. And, as we have recently seen with an act of Grand Theft Democrat, our federal government is fully complicit in the corruption.

I think it clear that the one lesson to come out of all of this is that we need to tighten the laws significantly for funding defined benefit pension plans, particularly for the public sector and unions. Moreover, there should be a real push to move from defined benefit pension plans in the public sector and into 401k plans. The simple fact is that, if our economy can't sustain enough growth to allow for reasonable retirement on defined contribution plans, then we will be funding defined benefit plans either by printing dollars by the bushelload, thus leading to significant inflation, or by taxing the private sector to the point of killing the golden goose. We will further have a generation of Americans on the verge of revolution - and starvation.

The same concepts apply to Social Security - a program that has been run as a Ponzi scheme for decades. People who have paid into social secuirty all of their life will perhaps be surprised to find that the money they paid in went out the door upon as soon as our government got its greedy paws on it. This provides the double whammy - the bill has now come due on this Ponzi scheme, with outlays already in excess of annual inflow from taxes. Social Security is also a defined benefit plan, so that if you make promises while at the same time destroying our economy - well, its off to the printing presses. And the left demagogoues the issue of social security, wanting to sustain the unsustainable. Just amazing.

But even on the 401k front, the news looks bad indeed. Megan McArdle at the Atlantic has a depressing article, arguing that stocks are significantly overvalued today and we will likely see substanitally less growth in the stock market over the coming decade.

If the return on equities really has fallen, this decline poses a big problem for the average investor who planned to stick 5 to 10 percent of his or her annual income into stock funds and retire comfortably. At an annual inflation-adjusted growth rate of 8 percent, savings of just 5 percent of your income for 30 years will leave you with a nest egg big enough to replace almost half your income when you retire. Saving 10 percent will make you really comfortable.

But if the return is 2 to 3 percent, you’ll need to save close to 40 percent to replace almost half of your income. And a 2 percent return seems to be a real possibility—in fact, it’s a hair above the 1.8 percent that Smithers & Co., an asset-allocation consultancy, forecast for U.S. equities over the next decade.

Felix Salmon, a finance blogger, argues that with stocks showing both lackluster prospects and whiplash-inducing price swings, investors might want to get out of the market entirely. That conclusion is tempting: if a quarter of Americans are expecting bubble-grade growth in stock prices, mightn’t another correction be in the offing? . . .

Even more depressing is the assessment of Keith R. McCullough, CEO of the research firm Hedgeye. This from Mr. McCullough writing in Fortune magazine:

. . . Despite the many differences between Japan and the US, there is one similarity that continues to matter most in the risk management model my colleagues and I use at Hedgeye, our research firm -- debt as a percentage of GDP. Now that the US can't cut interest rates any lower, the only option left on the table is what the Fed just announced it would start doing -- buying Treasury debt. And that could lead the country to the brink of collapse: According to economists Carmen Reinhart & Ken Rogoff, whose views we share, crossing the 90% debt/GDP threshold is the equivalent of crossing the proverbial Rubicon of economic growth. It's a point from which it's almost impossible to return.

On July 2nd, we cut both our third quarter 2010 and full year 2011 GDP estimates for the US to 1.7%. At the time, the consensus around US economic growth estimates was about 3%. Now we're starting to see both big brokerage analysts and the Federal Reserve gradually cut their GDP estimates, but not by enough. Even our estimate for 2011 is still too high. . . .

With 40.8 million Americans on food stamps (record high) and 45% of the unemployed having been seeking employment for 27 weeks or more (record high), what's left if (or when) QE2 doesn't kick start GDP growth? Should we start begging for QE3? Should we cancel the bomb of the National Association of Realtors' existing home sales report, scheduled for public release on August 24th? Or should we bite the bullet and accept that current economic policy dictates 0% returns-on-savings, even as Washington continues to lever-up our future to the point of economic collapse?

Before the Fiat Fools -- Hedgeye's name for political actors and bankers who have placed their hopes of economic recovery in printing endless supplies of new cash -- run out campaigning for QE3, maybe they should analyze some real time market results to yesterday's announcement of QE2:

1)The US dollar is battling for resuscitation after 9 consecutive down weeks -- down 9% since June.

2) US Treasury yields are making record lows on the short end of the curve, with 2-year yields striking 0.49%.

3) The yield spread (in this case the difference in return between 10-year and 2-year Treasury bills, which shows a long-term confidence when high) continues to collapse, down another 4 basis point day-over-day to 223 basis points.

4) The S&P 500 is down below its 200-day moving average (a common signpost for the health of a market or stock) of 1115.

5) US Volatility (VIX) is spiking from its recent stability.

6) In Japan, long time quantitative easing specialists found their markets closing down overnight by 2.7%, which makes them down 11.9% for the year to date.

Lest our doom and gloom seem built entirely on technical measurements, what they boil down to is actually quite simple -- an idea about our country which dates back to 1835. Alexis De Tocqueville, author of Democracy in America, which was published that year, seemed to warn of this day when he wrote: "The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money."

And yet Obama, still refusing to admit that his Keynesian policies are now proven failures, continues to mount up our debt at an unheard of pace. This from the WSJ:

The U.S. government spent itself deeper into the red last month, paying nearly $20 billion in interest on debt and an additional $9.8 billion to help unemployed Americans.

Federal spending eclipsed revenue for the 22nd straight time, the Treasury Department said Wednesday. The $165.04 billion deficit, while a bit smaller than the $169.5 billion shortfall expected by economists polled by Dow Jones Newswires, was the second highest for the month on record. . . .

Years of deficit spending by Washington have led to a mounting national debt. Interest payments so far in fiscal 2010 amount to $185.25 billion; by contrast, corporate taxes collected by the government during the same 10 months were $139.71 billion. Interest payments in July alone were $19.9 billion.

And if that wasn't bad enough for you:

The Commerce Department reported Wednesday that the U.S. trade gap had hit its highest level since October 2008. Exports declined and imports increased to a record high as the trade deficit expanded to $49.9 billion, an 18.8 percent increase in June compared to May. Imports grew 3 percent while exports dropped 1.3 percent, the most since April 2009, the Commerce Department reported Wednesday.

We are a nation sinking under the weight of an entitlement system out of control and an utterly profligate administration more incompetent than that of Herbert Hoover.

So what is the administration doing about all of this? The great class warriors of the left, with Obama leading the way, are intent on letting the Bush tax cuts expire, regardless of the effect on the economy:

Republicans accuse Democrats of plotting one of the biggest tax hikes in American history, arguing that raising taxes on wealthy households would punish the very people capable of creating jobs, spurring economic growth and reducing the 9.5 percent unemployment rate. About half of all small-business income is reported on the individual returns of people making over $250,000 a year, according to the taxation committee's data, though those taxpayers represent only about 3 percent of small businesses.

Meanwhile, in the face of all of this, John Kerry, the man who was last seen skipping out on his state taxes, is still pushing to saddle our near dead economy with cap and trade legislation. Well, that really would be the final nail in our economic coffin if they were ever able to get it through. Though, that said, the EPA is already starting to impose carbon regulations - based on the ruling of the Supreme Court, not any action by our legislature. Consider it regulation without representation.

At any rate, there is at least one bright spot in this otherwise day of very depressing economic news. Obama, still on his "recovery summer" promotion tour, announced the other day that the "worst of the recession" is over. Don't you feel better knowing that. Nothing to see here, move on.

Read More...

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Surreal: Cap & Trade Rises Again

Possibly the only thing with potential to be worse for our economy than Obamacare is Obama's proposed environmental regulation - deconstructing our energy infrastructure while imposing cap and trade. Yet, according to a Reuters Report, gird your loins and hold onto your wallets. Cap and Trade is about to be reintroduced come April 26 - with the monumentally treacherous Lindsey Graham leading the charge on the Republican side. This from Reuters:

A long-awaited compromise bill to reduce U.S. emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases blamed for global warming will be unveiled by a group of senators on April 26, sources said on Thursday.

The legislative language to be sketched out in 11 days, according to government and environmental sources, is being drafted by Democratic Senator John Kerry, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham and independent Senator Joseph Lieberman.

Backers of the environmental bill hope the unveiling will pave the way for the full Senate to debate and pass a measure in June or July if the compromise attracts enough support from a group of moderate Republicans and Democrats. . . .

If like me, you wonder how anyone in Congress could possibly seek to resurrect this abortion after a steady stream of revelations in the wake of Climategate and with an economy that is still far from recovery, the answer is they are either cynically pretending that none of it matters, or they are being wilfully ignorant. For instance, in the Reuters report, as justification for reviving cap and trade, they point out that "[t]he National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported on Thursday the world's combined land and ocean surface temperatures in March were the hottest on record."

Oh really? Would that be the March where NOAA claimed that the polar regions were on fire, yet satellite footage shows that polar sea ice reached at or near its 1970-2001 average in March - thus meaning that the claims of record high temperatures in the polar regions are ludicrous? (Update: Drudge links to Vostok, Antarctica, today, where the temperature, less wind chill, is a balmy minus 103 degrees farenheit)

And do take a look at the March map from NASA-GISS - showing the polar regions on fire and numerous hot spots around the globe.



On the above map, take a careful look at Finland - shown in red above as experiencing an extremely hot March. Climate Audit dug through the figures and found:

GISS station values are even more spectacular, the warmest March on record is set in every Finnish station GISS is following. For instance, according to GISS, the mean March temperature in Sodankylä (61402836000) was a remarkable +1.5 °C beating the old record (-2.2 °C) from 1920 by 3.7 °C!

Well, according to the Finnish Meteorological Institute, March 2010 was colder than usual all over Finland, especially in the northern part. For instance, the mean temperature in Sodankylä was -10.3 °C, which is almost three degrees below the base period 1971-2000 average (-7.5 °C). So the GISS March value for Sodankylä is off by amazing 11.8 °C!

To put that in terms of farenheit, that means that NASA is misreporting the temperature at that station in Finland by 21.24 degrees.

That is not a mistake. That is fraud. We have known for some time that the surface data temperature being propounded by the major players in the AGW field are untrustworthy in the extreme. Yet it makes not a wit of difference to our political class, who are preparing to saddle us with massive rents and incredibly invasive laws, all ostensibly to reduce carbon dioxide to save the planet.

Read More...

Monday, April 5, 2010

Climategate Update 26: The Return Of Arctic Sea Ice, Der Spiegel On Climategate, & The Whitewashing of Climategate In The UK

Climategate continues it convulsions. Der Spiegel covers it in a long article, explaining why belief in global warming in Germany is plummeting. Yet left-wing politicians continue to pretend that nothing has changed. Various attempts to whitewash this greatest scientific scandal of our time are made, including the ridiculous findings of a House of Commons inquiry. AGW scientists continue to make claims that simply defy logic, yet many AGW scientists are running scared, and it seems to me at least that contrary science is now being truly heard. Moreover, in but the past few days, another major development has occurred in the spirit of Climategate. After years of scaremongering as to how the ice in the arctic was receding and would soon disappear, causing massive changes to our climate, sea ice in the arctic is now all but completely recovered.

____________________________________________________________________

Der Spiegel has a good article, A Superstorm For Global Warming Research, on Climategate and its reverberations. It is too long to condense, but it looks at many aspects of Climategate and its fallout, finding politicization and sloppy work exposed and public confidence in AGW theory waning. But while the majority of the article is quite good, it goes off the rails when it comes to dealing with computer modeling. The Der Spiegel authors assume that, despite it all, AGW is real and the computer models used to predict AGW still valid. But as I have pointed out here, the computer models relied upon by the IPCC are fundamentally and fataly flawed. They assume that the primary driver of temperature is CO2 and they have failed over the past decade as the earth has cooled while CO2 has risen. Dr. Doug Hoffman makes much the same point in a recent post in his blog, The Resilliant Earth. He looks at numerous computer models, concluding:

[M]ore pernicious are the lies generated by climate models, models held up to be oracles of scientific truth—and nothing could be farther from the truth. The models lie because they are built on faulty assumptions, calibrated with inaccurate data and are, by their very nature, incapable of calculating “correct” answers.

Nonetheless, politicians continue to ignore Climategate, acting as if it never occurred, and that AGW theory is reality. Thus do we have Obama now 'pivoting' to his cap and trade legislation ostensibly to combat global warming. And in Britian, an utterly laughable House of Commons inquiry into Climategate found, after one day of hearings, that the issues arising out of Climategate were but smoke and mirrors. And of course, many AGW scientists attempt much the same. For example, Goddard has published a temperature map based on adjusted temperatures that, if it is to believed, has the arctic and antarctic with temperatures rising starkly. Yet, as meteorologist Joe Bistardi points out, that is impossible. Arctic sea ice is growing significantly.

This growth in Arctic sea ice despite the continued growth in human CO2 contribution is of great import as to the validity of AGW theory. Dr. North at EU Referendum has up a must read post on this, A Death Spiral For Warmists:

Jonathan Leake in The Sunday Times picks up on the news that the size of the Arctic ice cap has increased sharply to levels not seen since 2001, putting the ice extent two days ago almost at the average level for 1979-2000.

Given the enthusiasm the media have shown for reporting Armageddon claims about the retreat of the ice, it is significant that his is the only such report in today's batch of newspapers – although The Daily Mail covered it briefly yesterday. Hitherto, the only detailed report had been on Watts up with that?.

But what is especially significant about the Leake report is his interview with Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) in Colorado. He is said to be "surprised" by the Arctic’s recovery from the great melt of 2007 when summer ice shrank to its smallest recorded extent. "In retrospect," he says, "the reactions to the 2007 melt were overstated. The lesson is that we must be more careful in not reading too much into one event."

In making this declaration, Serreze is getting away extraordinarily lightly. It was he, after all, who was pre-eminent in stoking up the alarm over the Arctic ice melt, providing fuel for the warmists and driving much of the global warming scare as the ice extent became a poster child for the activists. . . .

Do read the entire post. Dr. North methodically covers the litany of claims made by the AGW crowd on the basis of arctic sea ice melt. But AGW is proven now not to be the cause of the Arctic ice melt. This is very significant news indeed.

Related Posts Below The Fold:

(in descending order from earliest to most recent)

- - Climategate and Surrealism

- - More Climategate Fallout

- - Climategate Update 3

- - Climategate Update 4: CRU Records Worthless

- - Climategate Update 5: IPCC's Chairman Mao

- - Climategate Update 6: Climategate In Video

- - UNEP, Green Religion & Global Governance

- - Climate Update 7: IPCC's Chairman Mao Plays The Obama Card, Peer Review Analyzed, Scientific Method Explained For Paul Krugman

- - Climategate Update 8: The NYT Reports

- - Climategate Update 9: CRU Head Phil Jones Steps Down During Investigation, An MIT Prof Explains The Holes In AGW Theory, And Climate Fraud Is Everywhere

- - Climategate Update 10: Climategate Reverberates From The UK To Down Under

- - Climategate Update 11: Finally An AGW Consensus, "Hockey Stick" Mann Attacks Jones, Gore Goes To Ground

- - Climategate Update 12: The AGW Wall Starts To Crumble, The Smoking Code & The Tiger Woods Index

- - Clmategate Update 13: Hack Job Alert - Washington Post Leads With Climategate and A Complete Defense Of Global Warming

- - Climate Update 14: A Tale of 4 Graphs & An Influential Tree, Hide The Decline Explained, Corrupt Measurements, Goebbelswarming at Copenhagen

- - Climategate Update 15: Copenhagen, EPA Makes Final Finding On CO2, Courts & Clean Air

- - Climategate Update 16: Copenhagen'$ Goal$, Palin Weighs In, As Do Scientists

- - Obama Holds American Economy Hostage Over Cap and Trade

- - Climategate Updage 17: What Greenland's Ice Core Tells Us, The EPA's Reliance On The IPCC, & The Left's War On Coal

- - Gorebbelswarming

- - Krauthammer On The New Socialism & The EPA's Power Grab

- - Climategate Update 18: Ice Core Flicks, Long Term Climate, Anti-Scientific Method Then & Now, Confirmation Bias Or Fraud

- - Climategate Update 19: The Daily Mail Hits The Bulls Eye On Climategate; The AP Spins

- - Climategate Update 20: Snowing Around The World, But Warming In Antarctica?

- - Climate Update 21: AGW Investigation Begins? 100 Reasons AGW Is Natural, Green Profiteers, Conflict Of Interest & Arctic Sea Ice

- - Climategate Update 22: Hiding The Raw Data, Gore's Mosquitos, & The Smart Grid

- - Climatege Update 23: Hadley-Russian Surface Temp Fraud, Solar Activity & AGW, Driving Motivations At Copenhagen, Green Energy, & The Goracle's Prayer

- - Climategate Update 24: Watermelons, A Message From God?, Carbon Trading Scam, Follow The Money

- - A Summary Of The Not So Settled Science Of Antrhopogenic Global Warming

- - A Bad Couple Of Months For Settled Science

- - Climategate Update 25: Major Scientific Organization Opines On Climategate, More Surface Temperature Voodoo, The Goracle, More Cap & Trade

- - "The Climate Campaign Is A Movement Unable To Hide Its Decline"

- - A Green Reverse Robin Hood

- - Climate Scientists "Scared Shitless"

- - The Abby-Normal Brain Of Global Warming Realists

- - Meteorologists Attack Global Warming, NYT Recommends Re-Eduction

Read More...

Saturday, February 27, 2010

Climategate Update 25: Major Scientific Organization Opines On Climategate, More Surface Temp. Voodoo, The Goracle, More Cap & Trade


In a response to a solicitation for input from the University of East Anglia as it prepares to conduct is substantive investigation of Climatege, the UK's Institute of Physics, a highly respected organization that publishes several important scientific journals, has responded. Although many individual scientists have weighed in on Climategate, this to my knowledge is the first major, neutral organization of scientists to discuss the ramifications of Climategate. The points they raise are hardly new, but they are damning.

The IOP highlight many of the complaints that "sceptics" have been making and that Barbara Boxer and the EPA have been dismissing out of hand - that the science of AGW is not settled. There are problems with the integrity of the scientific process, the peer review process as a standard of reliability, the replicability of AGW findings, and the lack of transparency of the methods by which raw data is adjusted. This from the IOP:

What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research?

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.

3. It is important to recognise that there are two completely different categories of data set that are involved in the CRU e-mail exchanges:

· those compiled from direct instrumental measurements of land and ocean surface temperatures such as the CRU, GISS and NOAA data sets; and

· historic temperature reconstructions from measurements of 'proxies', for example, tree-rings.

4. The second category relating to proxy reconstructions are the basis for the conclusion that 20th century warming is unprecedented. Published reconstructions may represent only a part of the raw data available and may be sensitive to the choices made and the statistical techniques used. Different choices, omissions or statistical processes may lead to different conclusions. This possibility was evidently the reason behind some of the (rejected) requests for further information.

5. The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

6. There is also reason for concern at the intolerance to challenge displayed in the e-mails. This impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process as a whole, and not just to the research itself. In that context, those CRU e-mails relating to the peer-review process suggest a need for a review of its adequacy and objectivity as practised in this field and its potential vulnerability to bias or manipulation.

7. Fundamentally, we consider it should be inappropriate for the verification of the integrity of the scientific process to depend on appeals to Freedom of Information legislation. Nevertheless, the right to such appeals has been shown to be necessary. The e-mails illustrate the possibility of networks of like-minded researchers effectively excluding newcomers. Requiring data to be electronically accessible to all, at the time of publication, would remove this possibility.

8. As a step towards restoring confidence in the scientific process and to provide greater transparency in future, the editorial boards of scientific journals should work towards setting down requirements for open electronic data archiving by authors, to coincide with publication. Expert input (from journal boards) would be needed to determine the category of data that would be archived. Much 'raw' data requires calibration and processing through interpretive codes at various levels.

9. Where the nature of the study precludes direct replication by experiment, as in the case of time-dependent field measurements, it is important that the requirements include access to all the original raw data and its provenance, together with the criteria used for, and effects of, any subsequent selections, omissions or adjustments. The details of any statistical procedures, necessary for the independent testing and replication, should also be included. In parallel, consideration should be given to the requirements for minimum disclosure in relation to computer modelling.

Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate?

10. The scope of the UEA review is, not inappropriately, restricted to the allegations of scientific malpractice and evasion of the Freedom of Information Act at the CRU. However, most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other leading institutions involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change. In so far as those scientists were complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices, there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field.

11. The first of the review's terms of reference is limited to: "...manipulation or suppression of data which is at odds with acceptable scientific practice..." The term 'acceptable' is not defined and might better be replaced with 'objective'.

12. The second of the review's terms of reference should extend beyond reviewing the CRU's policies and practices to whether these have been breached by individuals, particularly in respect of other kinds of departure from objective scientific practice, for example, manipulation of the publication and peer review system or allowing pre-formed conclusions to override scientific objectivity.

How independent are the other two international data sets?

13. Published data sets are compiled from a range of sources and are subject to processing and adjustments of various kinds. Differences in judgements and methodologies used in such processing may result in different final data sets even if they are based on the same raw data. Apart from any communality of sources, account must be taken of differences in processing between the published data sets and any data sets on which they draw.

(H/T Watts Up With That) (emphasis mine)

All of these concerns go to the fundamental unreliability of the AGW theory. An equally fundamental concern arises over the accuracy of modern temperature measurements. Raw data is merely the starting point for those organizations collecting our temperature data. What we get at the end of the process us data that has been "adjusted" for variables. But those adjustments are questionable indeed. Most recently, scientist David Schnare has posted his review of how one long term rural weather station - one that seemingly would need no adjustment to its raw data to account for the Urban Heat Island effect - has nonetheless been subject to such data adjustment. It's raw data shows a .24 celsius rise in temperature over its century plus life time. Yet the adjustments by GISS and USHCN show double that warming.

On a different topic, where in the world is Al Gore. There seem to have been more sightings recently of Jimmy Hoffa and Elvis than of the Goracle. One would think he would be out defending his golden egg. Update: Hah. Just saw the Goracle's tome today in the NYT. Like a bad dream . . . heeeee'sssssssss back.

No matter, I guess, as all of this is being ignored by the left as they push this forward as a political issue. In what can only be described as surreal, this from WaPo:

Senate Majority Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has instructed Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to produce a revamped climate bill as soon as possible, according to sources, a task Kerry intends to accomplish within two weeks.

The marching orders could represent the best chance advocates will get to pass a climate and energy bill before the November elections. . . .

These people are insane.

Prior Posts:

- - Climategate and Surrealism
- - More Climategate Fallout
- - Climategate Update 3
- - Climategate Update 4: CRU Records Worthless
- - Climategate Update 5: IPCC's Chairman Mao
- - Climategate Update 6: Climategate In Video
- - UNEP, Green Religion & Global Governance
- - Climate Update 7: IPCC's Chairman Mao Plays The Obama Card, Peer Review Analyzed, Scientific Method Explained For Paul Krugman
- - Climategate Update 8: The NYT Reports
- - Climategate Update 9: CRU Head Phil Jones Steps Down During Investigation, An MIT Prof Explains The Holes In AGW Theory, And Climate Fraud Is Everywhere
- - Climategate Update 10: Climategate Reverberates From The UK To Down Under
- - Climategate Update 11: Finally An AGW Consensus, "Hockey Stick" Mann Attacks Jones, Gore Goes To Ground
- - Climategate Update 12: The AGW Wall Starts To Crumble, The Smoking Code & The Tiger Woods Index
- - Clmategate Update 13: Hack Job Alert - Washington Post Leads With Climategate and A Complete Defense Of Global Warming
- - Climate Update 14: A Tale of 4 Graphs & An Influential Tree, Hide The Decline Explained, Corrupt Measurements, Goebbelswarming at Copenhagen
- - Climategate Update 15: Copenhagen, EPA Makes Final Finding On CO2, Courts & Clean Air
- - Climategate Update 16: Copenhagen'$ Goal$, Palin Weighs In, As Do Scientists
- - - Obama Holds American Economy Hostage Over Cap and Trade
- - Climategate Updage 17: What Greenland's Ice Core Tells Us, The EPA's Reliance On The IPCC, & The Left's War On Coal
- - Gorebbelswarming
- - Krauthammer On The New Socialism & The EPA's Power Grab
- - Climategate Update 18: Ice Core Flicks, Long Term Climate, Anti-Scientific Method Then & Now, Confirmation Bias Or Fraud
- - Climategate Update 19: The Daily Mail Hits The Bulls Eye On Climategate; The AP Spins
- - Climategate Update 20: Snowing Around The World, But Warming In Antarctica?
- - Climate Update 21: AGW Investigation Begins? 100 Reasons AGW Is Natural, Green Profiteers, Conflict Of Interest & Arctic Sea Ice
- - Climategate Update 22: Hiding The Raw Data, Gore's Mosquitos, & The Smart Grid
- - Climatege Update 23: Hadley-Russian Surface Temp Fraud, Solar Activity & AGW, Driving Motivations At Copenhagen, Green Energy, & The Goracle's Prayer
- - Climategate Update 24: Watermelons, A Message From God?, Carbon Trading Scam, Follow The Money
- - A Summary Of The Not So Settled Science Of Antrhopogenic Global Warming
- - A Bad Couple Of Months For Settled Science

Read More...

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

A Bad Couple Of Months For "Settled Science"

The theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) has gone, in a short period of a few months, from "settled" to "suspect." The reputation of the IPCC, dedicated as it is to propagandizing the AGW theory, has likewise seriously suffered. No need to take my word for it - you can take Hitler's:



The WSJ weighs in on the state of AGW and the reputation of the IPCC in the wake of what seems to be a tsunami (man caused) of negative revelations in the past few weeks. This from the WSJ:

It has been a bad—make that dreadful—few weeks for what used to be called the "settled science" of global warming, and especially for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that is supposed to be its gold standard.

First it turns out that the Himalayan glaciers are not going to melt anytime soon, notwithstanding dire U.N. predictions. Next came news that an IPCC claim that global warming could destroy 40% of the Amazon was based on a report by an environmental pressure group. Other IPCC sources of scholarly note have included a mountaineering magazine and a student paper.

Since the climategate email story broke in November, the standard defense is that while the scandal may have revealed some all-too-human behavior by a handful of leading climatologists, it made no difference to the underlying science. We think the science is still disputable. But there's no doubt that climategate has spurred at least some reporters to scrutinize the IPCC's headline-grabbing claims in a way they had rarely done previously. . . .

All of this matters because the IPCC has been advertised as the last and definitive word on climate science. Its reports are the basis on which Al Gore, President Obama and others have claimed that climate ruin is inevitable unless the world reorganizes its economies with huge new taxes on carbon. Now we are discovering the U.N. reports are sloppy political documents intended to drive the climate lobby's regulatory agenda.

The lesson of climategate and now the IPCC's shoddy sourcing is that the claims of the global warming lobby need far more rigorous scrutiny.

That scrutiny will occur only over much kicking and screaming. There is still an amazing amount of hubris among the AGW crowd.

Read More...

Monday, January 25, 2010

The Washington Post's Primal Scream


The Washington Post is the latest paper to do a liberal primal scream over the failure of Obama to destroy capitalism and enact a full transition to socialism in his first year in office. They find multiple people and acts to blame, but topping the list is . . . wait for it, . . . Republican obstructionism. Who could have guessed that the party holding a minority in the House and with too few seats in the Senate to filibuster could be the cause of Obama's epic failure in 2009? Coming in second for WaPo's opprobrium was Harry Reid and disloyal Senate Democrats:

For House Democrats, who enjoy a 256 to 178 majority, the main obstacle in 2009 was not Republicans, but the Senate. Even with 60 Democrats, Reid was unable to advance the climate-change and student loan bills that the House approved last summer. The Senate regulatory-reform bill is still in the banking committee.

One might think that with this admission, the authors would realize that it exposes the lie of their headline theory of Republican obstructionism. But it seems that one of the great achievements of the modern far left is their ability to hold a belief in the truth of two or more diametricaly opposed thoughts at the same time.

No matter. According to Wapo, the problem was that Republicans unreasonably refused to take any part in Obama's "remaking of America." Obama's proposals amounted to a vast expansion of government, massive increases in deficit spending, and new taxes, whether directly or indirectly on every American. Yet WaPo seems mystefied why Republicans should object to any of that on substantive grounds. Their alternative take on it is that "[s]ome of the bills . . . were perhaps too unwieldy for voters to digest and too easy for GOP opponents to demagogue." Of course, that's it. There's nothing wrong with any of the legislation. It is just Republicans taking partisan advantage of an electorate that is too stupid to understand the great things Obama was doing for America. The arrogance and hubris of the far left knows no bounds.

WaPo also seems to have a dim memory of the facts reported in their paper over the past year. From the very start - indeed, within three days of taking office, Obama told Republicans who attempted to engage and have input into bipartisan legislation - specifically the Stimulus - that "I won." So much for bipartisanship. Facts are such inconveinient things for the left - unless you are very selective about them of course.

The left, from Obama through Reid and Pelosi, felt no need to engage in bipartisanship other than for some minimal political cover. And indeed, when one looks at the internal problems that Democrats had in 2009, the fact is that Pelosi and Reid treated most Congressional Democrats the same way they treated Republicans. Radical legislation was drafted behind their closed doors, only to be unleashed on Republicans and many Democrats alike vitrually on the eve on which they were to be voted. It was not merely bipartisanship that Obama and the Democratic leadership felt no need to consider, it was deliberative democracy itself. And indeed, the reason for that is the that the legislation, from cap and trade to health care to financial regulation, was so over reaching that even moderate Democrats blinked at the degree of the radical changes proposed by Obama-Pelosi-Reid.

WaPo concludes looking at what 2010 holds in store.

Before the Massachusetts loss, the White House officials touted 2009 as the most productive legislative year in decades. Prodded before Tuesday's election whether Obama and his team would change anything about its Hill strategy, Axelrod replied, "I've thought about that and I don't see how."

Lawmakers expect Obama to set a course for 2010 on Wednesday, in his State of the Union speech. Democrats want the focus on one issue: jobs. But on Friday in Ohio, given a few days to digest Brown's upset, Obama defended and promoted the same long to-do list he brought with him to office.

"I didn't run for president to turn away from these challenges," he said. "I didn't run for president to kick them down the road. I ran for president to confront them -- once and for all."

It would seem that Obama and his administration have as tenuous a grasp on reality as do the WaPo authors - though Democrats seeking reelection in 2010 seem to be grasping it well enough. I think it safe to say that we will be hearing primal screams from the left for at least the next few years. No matter to me, at least, as I find them oddly comforting.

Read More...

Saturday, January 16, 2010

Obama Falls, Brown Rises

A year ago, conservatism was given its last rites by a gloating media as the anointed One ascended to his rightful place, promising to usher in decades of Democratic rule. The fantasy survived beyond the first day, but not the first year. The why is simple. Obama was elected with a mandate to stabilize our economy and protect our nation. Instead, he has injected fear and uncertainty into both our economy and into our national security. He has, as Charles Krauthammer points out, governed as a left wing ideologue. This from Mr. Krauthammer:

What went wrong? A year ago, he was king of the world. Now President Obama's approval rating, according to CBS, has dropped to 46 percent -- and his disapproval rating is the highest ever recorded by Gallup at the beginning of an (elected) president's second year.

A year ago, he was leader of a liberal ascendancy that would last 40 years (James Carville). A year ago, conservatism was dead (Sam Tanenhaus). Now the race to fill Ted Kennedy's Senate seat in bluest of blue Massachusetts is surprisingly close, with a virtually unknown state senator bursting on the scene by turning the election into a mini-referendum on Obama and his agenda, most particularly health care reform. . . .

The reason for today's vast discontent, presaged by spontaneous national Tea Party opposition, is not that Obama is too cool or compliant but that he's too left.

It's not about style; it's about substance. About which Obama has been admirably candid. This out-of-nowhere, least-known of presidents dropped the veil most dramatically in the single most important political event of 2009, his Feb. 24 first address to Congress. With remarkable political honesty and courage, Obama unveiled the most radical (in American terms) ideological agenda since the New Deal: the fundamental restructuring of three pillars of American society -- health care, education and energy.

Then began the descent . . .

In the end, what matters is not the persona but the agenda. In a country where politics is fought between the 40-yard lines, Obama has insisted on pushing hard for the 30. And the American people -- disorganized and unled but nonetheless agitated and mobilized -- have put up a stout defense somewhere just left of midfield.

Ideas matter. Legislative proposals matter. Slick campaigns and dazzling speeches can work for a while, but the magic always wears off.

It's inherently risky for any charismatic politician to legislate. To act is to choose and to choose is to disappoint the expectations of many who had poured their hopes into the empty vessel -- of which candidate Obama was the greatest representative in recent American political history.

Obama did not just act, however. He acted ideologically. To his credit, Obama didn't just come to Washington to be someone. Like Reagan, he came to Washington to do something -- to introduce a powerful social democratic stream into America's deeply and historically individualist polity.

Perhaps Obama thought he'd been sent to the White House to do just that. If so, he vastly over-read his mandate. His own electoral success -- twinned with handy victories and large majorities in both houses of Congress -- was a referendum on his predecessor's governance and the post-Lehman financial collapse. It was not an endorsement of European-style social democracy.

Hence the resistance. Hence the fall. The system may not always work, but it does take its revenge.

And of course, what has made this reality crystal clear is Republican, Scott Brown. Brown, having run for Ted Kennedy's ancestral senate seat and made the election a referendum on national politics, stands poised to make a real run at it in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans 3 to 1. This should have been a walk-over for the Democrats. It is now, of course, anything but. Some polls put Brown ahead in the race - and the polls are apparently close enough to reality that Clinton cut short his work in Haiti to come to Massachusetts and Obama is set to follow on Sunday. Even if Brown loses, a message has already been sent to the left. But if Brown wins, it will be far more than a message, it will be the first day of the apocalypse for the Democrats.

Read More...

Monday, December 14, 2009

Climate Update 21: AGW Investigation Begins? 100 Reasons AGW Is Natural, Green Profiteers, Conflict Of Interest & Arctic Sea Ice

Is there going to be a real investigation over Climategate? Perhaps so. The Dept. of Energy has issued a "litigation hold notice" to its employees. The notice requires employees, in relevant part, to "preserve any and all documents relevant to “global warming, the Climate Research Unit at he University of East Anglia In England, and/or climate change science.” " This is heartening news indeed.

There is not a complete MSM blackout on Climategate. The UK Daily Express again jumps into the fray, publishing a report of the European Foundation giving "100 reasons why global warming is natural." Many of the "reasons" discussed are political and have nothing to do with science. That said, here is a truncated list:

1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity.

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history.

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels.

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940.

5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high.

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time.

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends.

8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited.

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years.

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago

12) Philip Stott, Emeritus Professor of Biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London says climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds . . .

15) Professor Plimer, Professor of Geology and Earth Sciences at the University of Adelaide, stated that the idea of taking a single trace gas in the atmosphere, accusing it and finding it guilty of total responsibility for climate change, is an “absurdity” . . .

18) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas, unlike water vapour which is tied to climate concerns, and which we can’t even pretend to control. . .

20) It is claimed the average global temperature increased at a dangerously fast rate in the 20th century but the recent rate of average global temperature rise has been between 1 and 2 degrees C per century - within natural rates

21) Professor Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw, Poland says the earth’s temperature has more to do with cloud cover and water vapor than CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.

22) There is strong evidence from solar studies which suggests that the Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades

23) It is myth that receding glaciers are proof of global warming as glaciers have been receding and growing cyclically for many centuries

24) It is a falsehood that the earth’s poles are warming because that is natural variation and while the western Arctic may be getting somewhat warmer we also see that the Eastern Arctic and Greenland are getting colder

25) The IPCC claims climate driven “impacts on biodiversity are significant and of key relevance” but those claims are simply not supported by scientific research

26) The IPCC threat of climate change to the world’s species does not make sense as wild species are at least one million years old, which means they have all been through hundreds of climate cycles

27) Research goes strongly against claims that CO2-induced global warming would cause catastrophic disintegration of the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.

28) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels are our best hope of raising crop yields to feed an ever-growing population

29) The biggest climate change ever experienced on earth took place around 700 million years ago

30) The slight increase in temperature which has been observed since 1900 is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term natural climate cycles

31) Despite activist concerns over CO2 levels, rising CO2 levels of some so-called “greenhouse gases” may be contributing to higher oxygen levels and global cooling, not warming

32) Accurate satellite, balloon and mountain top observations made over the last three decades have not shown any significant change in the long term rate of increase in global temperatures

33) Today’s CO2 concentration of around 385 ppm is very low compared to most of the earth’s history – we actually live in a carbon-deficient atmosphere

34) It is a myth that CO2 is the most common greenhouse gas because greenhouse gases form about 3% of the atmosphere by volume, and CO2 constitutes about 0.037% of the atmosphere

35) It is a myth that computer models verify that CO2 increases will cause significant global warming because computer models can be made to “verify” anything

36) There is no scientific or statistical evidence whatsoever that global warming will cause more storms and other weather extremes

37) One statement deleted from a UN report in 1996 stated that “none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases”

38) The world “warmed” by 0.07 +/- 0.07 degrees C from 1999 to 2008, not the 0.20 degrees C expected by the IPCC

39) The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says “it is likely that future tropical cyclones (typhoons and hurricanes) will become more intense” but there has been no increase in the intensity or frequency of tropical cyclones globally

40) Rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere can be shown not only to have a negligible effect on the Earth’s many ecosystems, but in some cases to be a positive help to many organisms

41) Researchers who compare and contrast climate change impact on civilizations found warm periods are beneficial to mankind and cold periods harmful

42) The Met Office asserts we are in the hottest decade since records began but this is precisely what the world should expect if the climate is cyclical

43) Rising CO2 levels increase plant growth and make plants more resistant to drought and pests

44) The historical increase in the air’s CO2 content has improved human nutrition by raising crop yields during the past 150 years

45) The increase of the air’s CO2 content has probably helped lengthen human lifespans since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution

46) The IPCC alleges that “climate change currently contributes to the global burden of disease and premature deaths” but the evidence shows that higher temperatures and rising CO2 levels has helped global populations. . .

48) The “Climate-gate” scandal pointed to a expensive public campaign of disinformation and the denigration of scientists who opposed the belief that CO2 emissions were causing climate change

49) The head of Britain’s climate change watchdog has predicted households will need to spend up to £15,000 on a full energy efficiency makeover if the Government is to meet its ambitious targets for cutting carbon emissions. . .

51) Wind farms are not an efficient way to produce energy. The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) accepts a figure of 75 per cent back-up power is required.

52) Global temperatures are below the low end of IPCC predictions not at “at the top end of IPCC estimates”. . .

56) The manner in which US President Barack Obama sidestepped Congress to order emission cuts shows how undemocratic and irrational the entire international decision-making process has become with regards to emission-target setting.

57) William Kininmonth, a former head of the National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological Organisation, wrote “the likely extent of global temperature rise from a doubling of CO2 is less than 1C. Such warming is well within the envelope of variation experienced during the past 10,000 years and insignificant in the context of glacial cycles during the past million years, when Earth has been predominantly very cold and covered by extensive ice sheets.” . . .

61) The UN’s panel on climate change warned that Himalayan glaciers could melt to a fifth of current levels by 2035. J. Graham Cogley a professor at Ontario Trent University, claims this inaccurate stating the UN authors got the date from an earlier report wrong by more than 300 years. . . .

64) Michael Mann of Penn State University has actually shown that the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age did in fact exist, which contrasts with his earlier work which produced the “hockey stick graph” which showed a constant temperature over the past thousand years or so followed by a recent dramatic upturn. . . .

67) Global temperatures have not risen in any statistically-significant sense for 15 years and have actually been falling for nine years. The “Climate-gate” scandal revealed a scientific team had expressed dismay at the fact global warming was contrary to their predictions and admitted their inability to explain it was “a travesty”. . . .

70) Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, wrote: “The notion of a static, unchanging climate is foreign to the history of the Earth or any other planet with a fluid envelope. Such hysteria (over global warming) simply represents the scientific illiteracy of much of the public, the susceptibility of the public to the substitution of repetition for truth.” . . .

76) Dr Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, has indicated that out of the 21 climate models tracked by the IPCC the differences in warming exhibited by those models is mostly the result of different strengths of positive cloud feedback – and that increasing CO2 is insufficient to explain global-average warming in the last 50 to 100 years. . . .

78) A proper analysis of ice core records from the past 650,000 years demonstrates that temperature increases have come before, and not resulted from, increases in CO2 by hundreds of years. . . .

85) Ice-core data clearly show that temperatures change centuries before concentrations of atmospheric CO2 change. Thus, there appears to be little evidence for insisting that changes in concentrations of CO2 are the cause of past temperature and climate change.

86) There are no experimentally verified processes explaining how CO2 concentrations can fall in a few centuries without falling temperatures – in fact it is changing temperatures which cause changes in CO2 concentrations, which is consistent with experiments that show CO2 is the atmospheric gas most readily absorbed by water. . . .

89) It is a myth that CO2 is a pollutant, because nitrogen forms 80% of our atmosphere and human beings could not live in 100% nitrogen either: CO2 is no more a pollutant than nitrogen is and CO2 is essential to life.

90) Politicians and climate activists make claims to rising sea levels but certain members in the IPCC chose an area to measure in Hong Kong that is subsiding. They used the record reading of 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level.

91) The accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.

92) If one factors in non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements show little, if any, global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent). . . .

100) A report by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change concluded “We find no support for the IPCC’s claim that climate observations during the twentieth century are either unprecedented or provide evidence of an anthropogenic effect on climate.”

The carbon market creates a massive market distortion. Likewise is the market distortion being caused by the move into all things green, most of which cannot survive on their own with massive subsidies. Among the many things - most bad - that happen in a situation of market distortion, a few favored rent seekers stand to become extraordinarily wealthy. And that is the subject of a recent article in The Telegraph.

Al Gore has made lots of money by lecturing us all about being green. Some say he's become the world's first "carbon billionaire".

What you can be sure of is that the move toward a more environmentally sustainable future is an unstoppable trend – and Mr Gore is unlikely to be the first to get very rich from environmental policy.

One great business to be in as we move into a greener future is the copper industry. Copper is going to help us cut down on carbon. . . .

You can read the entire article. Gore is merely the face of "green backs from selling green snake oil." Another carbon multi-millionare is none other than the IPCC's Chairman Mao, Dr Rajendra Kumar Pachaur. EU Referendum has done a yeoman's job in itemizing Pachaur's deep financial interests in such thing as the carbon trading scheme and other "green" regulations. One might think that a conflict of interest for an IPCC chariman.

The AGW crowd is quick to point out that 2007 was saw a lowpoint for ice in the Arctic. Since 2007, the ice cap in the Arctic has rebounded - indeed, it is clearly shown in sattelite photos.



Hmmm, that's a problem. How to possibly challenge that? Enter Dr. David Barber, who takes a short trip into the arctic and concludes that the sattelite images are wrong and that the new ice is "rotten." As Watts Up With That responds:

If this “rotten ice” problem and satellite duping proposed by Dr. Barber is in fact real, I’d fully expect that the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) would make some sort of announcement or post a caveat about it on the “Arctic Sea Ice News and analysis” web page where they present the satellite data. I couldn’t find anything on that page about “rotten ice” or satellite data being inaccurate.

Read the entire post.

Prior Posts:

- - Climategate and Surrealism
- - More Climategate Fallout
- - Climategate Update 3
- - Climategate Update 4: CRU Records Worthless
- - Climategate Update 5: IPCC's Chairman Mao
- - Climategate Update 6: Climategate In Video
- - UNEP, Green Religion & Global Governance
- - Climate Update 7: IPCC's Chairman Mao Plays The Obama Card, Peer Review Analyzed, Scientific Method Explained For Paul Krugman
- - Climategate Update 8: The NYT Reports
- - Climategate Update 9: CRU Head Phil Jones Steps Down During Investigation, An MIT Prof Explains The Holes In AGW Theory, And Climate Fraud Is Everywhere
- - Climategate Update 10: Climategate Reverberates From The UK To Down Under
- - Climategate Update 11: Finally An AGW Consensus, "Hockey Stick" Mann Attacks Jones, Gore Goes To Ground
- - Climategate Update 12: The AGW Wall Starts To Crumble, The Smoking Code & The Tiger Woods Index
- - Clmategate Update 13: Hack Job Alert - Washington Post Leads With Climategate and A Complete Defense Of Global Warming
- - Climate Update 14: A Tale of 4 Graphs & An Influential Tree, Hide The Decline Explained, Corrupt Measurements, Goebbelswarming at Copenhagen
- - Climategate Update 15: Copenhagen, EPA Makes Final Finding On CO2, Courts & Clean Air
- - Climategate Update 16: Copenhagen'$ Goal$, Palin Weighs In, As Do Scientists Obama Holds American Economy Hostage Over Cap and Trade
- - Climategate Updage 17: What Greenland's Ice Core Tells Us, The EPA's Reliance On The IPCC, & The Left's War On Coal
- - Gorebbelswarming
- - Krauthammer On The New Socialism & The EPA's Power Grab
- - Climategate Update 18: Ice Core Flicks, Long Term Climate, Anti-Scientific Method Then & Now, Confirmation Bias Or Fraud
- - Climategate Update 19: The Daily Mail Hits The Bulls Eye On Climategate; The AP Spins
- - Climategate Update 20: Snowing Around The World, But Warming In Antarctica?

Read More...

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Climategate Update 20: Snowing Around The World, But Warming In Antarctica?

It's snowing down under. Well, it is December so nothing unusual about that . . . except that its actually Australia's summertime.

In Europe - its snow everywhere. This from EU Referendum:


"This is wild stuff ... this is astounding looking. This is something that I don't recall seeing where fully 80 percent of the Continent is covered by snow ... this is getting started earlier than I thought. Europe's in for a very cold period."

Joe Bastardi on the weather forecast for Europe.

Ontario just had one of the worst snow storms they have ever recorded. Across the U.S., this past week saw a significant number of new records set for cold and snow. And there are many more such reports from around the world - not to mention locally where we saw the earliest snow fall in my memory about my humble abode. But all of that is mere anecdotal evidence.

There is far more evidence to suggest warming should not be our major concern. There is, for instance, this from EU Referendum:

The official record - interpreted by Dr Lucia Liljegren, an atmospheric researcher with the Ames Laboratory at Iowa State University, current temperature levels are even now below the "best-case scenario" postulated by the IPCC (see graph below - the lower of the lines).



According to Peter Taylor, in his new book "Chill", this is just the start. He maintains the world is cooling. Magnetic activity of the sun – which many to believe to be the real driver of the climate – is at an all-time low. There is a possibility of a repeat of the Maunder Minimum of the 17th century when the Thames froze every winter and famine spread through Europe and China.

Even with the benefit of the recent warming period – and higher recorded CO2 levels which improve plant productivity – the world is already on the brink although the pessimistic forecasts earlier this year did not transpire. Stock levels have sharply rebounded from the 2007-08 record low and are forecast to climb even higher by the end of 2009-10 to stand at around 160 million tons. . . .

Perhaps the most fundamental issue in "climate science" is the inaccuracy - or maleability - of data on surface temperatures. With the thermometer only a few centuries old, accurate surface data readings from various spots on the globe have been spotty over time, and quite often, our AGW scientists will use a single locations reading to extrapolate surface temperatures for a vast area. Sometimes that is warranted, other times it amounts to deliberate fraud, such as in the recent case discussed at Watts Up With That, where "Steig, et. al. published their recent finding in a paper entitled "Antarctica is Warming."

To achieve their desired result, the AGW scientists, rather than aggregating the data from all of the weather stations throughout Antarctica, chose a single outlier, Rothra Station, which is a "heat island." The term "heat island" means that, because of artificially created heat, such as in an urban area or by an airport, the measurements will inevitably be inaccurate and higher than would other nearby temperature gauges not effected by artificial heat. In this case:

GHCN Antarctic, 8X Actual Trend – Uses Single Warmest Station

Excerpt:

The red circle is surrounding Rothera Point station.



So as we can see, of all the stations available in the antarctic, GHCN has chosen to use a single station on the Antarctic Peninsula to represent an entire continent of the earth for the past 17 years (red circle). But it’s not just any station, it’s a special one. Rothera Point has the single highest trend of any of the adjusted station data.

So much for the trustworthiness of that particular study. But even when there is not a deliberate attempt to perpetrate fraud by cherry-picking data, as EU Referendum points out in an exceptional post, attempting to tease small truths from data that is, even at this point and with modern equipment, still subject to interpretation is probably impossible. Dr. North has written at some length on this, referring to internal studies from various sources, including the US Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, who very frankly conclude in their report that "all is not well with atmospheric and related environmental observations." You can read Dr. North's reasoning and his citations here. His conclusions, I think well warranted, are:

As we noted earlier, however, climate researchers are basing their predictions of doom not on gross observable changes but on minuscule differences in temperature amounting to a fraction of one degree, to the accuracy of two places of decimals.

Of the situation in the US – one of the best and most comprehensive in the world – we see errors of the order of several magnitudes greater than the differences the researchers purport to be able to measure. And that is without factoring in the rest of the world, huge gaps in data and massive discontinuities in the historical record.

In what is acknowledged to be a chaotic system, there is, as one commentator observes, a situation where the precision exceeds the accuracy – this is false precision.

Where the activists are clamouring to keep the supposed rise in global temperature to below 2°C, it must be highly questionable whether the monitoring system is actually capable of detecting a change that small. The climate figures are a sick joke.

There are also, as one would suspect, equally deep flaws at the other end of the process. One of the IPCC's coordinating authors, Dr Philip Lloyd, has come forward, saying that IPCC's method for coordinating research and tying it to their highly politicized "Summary For Policy Makers" is not quite above board. You can read his assessment here. As he concludes: "The process is so flawed that the result is tantamount to fraud. As an authority, the IPCC should be consigned to the scrapheap without delay."

Lastly, the two driving forces behind AGW seem to be money and power. Both meld today in the IPCC's Chairman Mao, Rajendra K. Pachauri, who we learn, like the Goracle, is raking in the cash from carbon trading schemes. Such a conflict of interest should be a complete disqualificaiton. But in the rarified air of the IPCC and the AGW cabal, such conflicts are apparently ignored. I believe that qualifies as "corruption" under any definition of the word.

Bastards.

Prior Posts:

- - Climategate and Surrealism
- - More Climategate Fallout
- - Climategate Update 3
- - Climategate Update 4: CRU Records Worthless
- - Climategate Update 5: IPCC's Chairman Mao
- - Climategate Update 6: Climategate In Video
- - UNEP, Green Religion & Global Governance
- - Climate Update 7: IPCC's Chairman Mao Plays The Obama Card, Peer Review Analyzed, Scientific Method Explained For Paul Krugman
- - Climategate Update 8: The NYT Reports
- - Climategate Update 9: CRU Head Phil Jones Steps Down During Investigation, An MIT Prof Explains The Holes In AGW Theory, And Climate Fraud Is Everywhere
- - Climategate Update 10: Climategate Reverberates From The UK To Down Under
- - Climategate Update 11: Finally An AGW Consensus, "Hockey Stick" Mann Attacks Jones, Gore Goes To Ground
- - Climategate Update 12: The AGW Wall Starts To Crumble, The Smoking Code & The Tiger Woods Index
- - Clmategate Update 13: Hack Job Alert - Washington Post Leads With Climategate and A Complete Defense Of Global Warming
- - Climate Update 14: A Tale of 4 Graphs & An Influential Tree, Hide The Decline Explained, Corrupt Measurements, Goebbelswarming at Copenhagen
- - Climategate Update 15: Copenhagen, EPA Makes Final Finding On CO2, Courts & Clean Air
- - Climategate Update 16: Copenhagen'$ Goal$, Palin Weighs In, As Do Scientists Obama Holds American Economy Hostage Over Cap and Trade
- - Climategate Updage 17: What Greenland's Ice Core Tells Us, The EPA's Reliance On The IPCC, & The Left's War On Coal
- - Gorebbelswarming
- - Krauthammer On The New Socialism & The EPA's Power Grab
- - Climategate Update 18: Ice Core Flicks, Long Term Climate, Anti-Scientific Method Then & Now, Confirmation Bias Or Fraud
- - Climategate Update 20: The Daily Mail Hits The Bulls Eye On Climategate; The AP Spins

Read More...

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Obama Holds American Economy Hostage Over Cap & Trade,

In the midst of Climategate, Obama's EPA opted to dismiss out of hand all the core issues raised by this scandal. Then on Monday, the EPA issued a final finding that carbon dioxide is a pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. The finding itself was largely based on the IPCC's "peer reviewed" conclusions. Yesterday, there was this report from Fox:

The Obama administration is warning Congress that if it doesn't move to regulate greenhouse gases, the Environmental Protection Agency will take a "command-and-control" role over the process in way that could hurt business.

Obama is going to proactively destroy our economy if Congress doesn't pass cap and trade? To say this is outrageous is the height of understatement. Cap and trade is a bill which would just as quickly kill our economy as anything that the EPA would do, perhaps moreso. Regardless, yet again, the Obama administration is attempting to distort what was, for over two centuries, a process of deliberative democracy. They are doing so to advance a massive socialist agenda hiding under a patina of highly politicized and unproven "science" that has, on its own, no chance of passage out of the Senate. There is but one appropriate response to both the EPA and the Obama Administration for such base acts:


Read More...

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Climategate Update 10: Climategate Reverberates from The UK To Down Under


Accross the pond, the Daily Express has become the first national newspaper to give front page billing to Climategate. On the flip side of the coin, the BBC is furiously fighting a rear guard action to minimize fall-out from Climategate.

Down under, Australian PM Kevin Rudd, who has made cap and trade legislation to "combat global warming" the centerpiece of his agenda and who, but a week ago, seemed destined to see it pass the legislature, watched as the measure went down in flames today. The Times of London has the story.

James Delingpole rounds up the evidence that Climategate is starting to unravel the AGW world. Writing at UK's Telegraph. Delingpole brings up plans by some scientists to bring criminal fraud charges against the CRU. Equally of interest, he tells of a challenge to the Tory Party's David Cameron over Cameron's own mindless embrace of the green madness. This from Mr. Delingpole:

Watch out Green Dave! The Independent reports on the growing backlash within the party to Cameron’s libtard-wooing greenery. Turning to the Independent for a balanced report on environmental matters is a bit like consulting Der Sturmer for a sensible, insightful view on the Jewish question. Still, for once, the house journal of eco-loonery seems to have got it right and the point made by Tory backbencher David Davis is well made:

“The ferocious determination to impose hair-shirt policies on the public – taxes on holiday flights, or covering our beautiful countryside with wind turbines that look like props from War of the Worlds – is bound to cause a reaction in any democratic country.”

At PJM, Ed Driscoll has a great roundup of climate scares then and now. The sky is falling, the sky is falling indeed.

Also at PJM, Christopher Horner picks up an interesting disconnect regarding Michael Mann and "Mike's trick" to hide the decline.

And also at PJM, an interview with distinguished scientist Roger Pielke, Sr., who discusses how climate science has been corrupted by the IPCC and how contrary voices have been ignored. Among his specific charges, Pielke states that the surface temperature data being relied upon has significant problems of reliability. While Pielke does not question some level of AGW, he believes the IPCC conclusions have been proven untenable.

Updates: This from PJM on what is likely to be the most important aspect of the fallout from Climategate - the application reconsideration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the EPA's regulatory authority:

In light of the Climategate fraud scandal, the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) on Wednesday filed a petition asking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to suspend its plans to regulate greenhouse gas emissions using the Clean Air Act, pending a thorough investigation of and public comment on the newly released information. . . .



Reason Mag has a very good article on the damage Climategate has done to the field of climate science and what that field needs to do to recover some sembelance of credibility. Someone needs to tell Barbara Boxer that it involves a bit more than simply prosecuting the individual or individuals who leaked the CRU e-mails. She is in complete denial.

As is the Huffington Post which, according to Newsbusters, is in the midst of a fully blown Climategate panic attack.

And Jon Stewart has a lot of fun with Climategate, though he has to add an evil Republican in for balance apparently:



Prior Posts:

Climategate and Surrealism
More Climategate Fallout
Climategate Update 3
Climategate Update 4: CRU Records Worthless
Climategate Update 5: IPCC's Chairman Mao
Climategate Update 6: Climategate In Video
UNEP, Green Religion & Global Governance
Climate Update 7: IPCC's Chairman Mao Plays The Obama Card, Peer Review Analyzed, Scientific Method Explained For Paul Krugman
Climategate Update 8: The NYT Reports
Climategate Update 9: CRU Head Phil Jones Steps Down During Investigation, An MIT Prof Explains The Holes In AGW Theory, And Climate Fraud Is Everywhere

Read More...