Learning Us Some Global Warmin'

From the head of NOAA, one month ago:

“It is important that people recognize that weather is not the same thing as climate,” said Jane Lubchenco, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

From Al Gore, yesterday:

“Just look at what has been happening for the last three days,” Gore said. “The so-called skeptics haven’t noted it because it’s not snow. But the downpours and heavy winds are consistent with what the scientists have long warned about.”

Well, is it or isn't it? Seems Dr. Lubchenco has a long way to go in educating the public about climate change when the same guy who won the Nobel Prize and an Oscar for his work on climate change can't even get it right.

Add the climategate emails along with the IPCC's embarrassment over mistakes in the AR4 assessment--and the global cap-n-trade taxation solution to all of this--and it's no wonder the average Jane and Joe doesn't trust this stuff.

The Groundhog Re-Emerges

And sees six more weeks of man-made global warming, delivered via a New York Times article. But a few things were missing..

1. He didn't call skeptics were 'flat-earthers' or believers in a faked moon landing.
2. He didn't explain how, if weather is now climate why it wasn't climate years ago, when the earth was just as warm (say around 1998).
3. Why it matters that January 2010 was 'hot' when everyone knows that one month doesn't make a trend.

What he did say was to reiterate the importance of this entire movement--that global governance and restrictions are necessary to save the earth. You can read his analogies of how free market capitalism and Fox News/Rush Limbaugh are destroying the world on page three of the article, and how they must be reigned in. So what's a few little 'mistakes' in the science.

MORE 2/28/10

Ann Althouse provides another reason why she's a real blogger while I'm just throwing words at a screen. Her dissection of Algore's return from his secret location gets right to the heart of the Frankenstein by nailing the screaming message--how dare we not roll over and accept our socialism fate unlike the dangerous, divisive right wingers calling it socialism.

Her argument using a parallel to the Iraq war was also nice. The Brits like to blast Blair for 'sexing up' the evidence on WMDs to justify Iraq but so far I haven't heard that term used to describe the likely deliberate errors in the 2007 IPCC finding, designed to prepare the world for the coming global wealth redistribution CO2 mitigation plan.

She also said something else:

Oh? Just a coincidence? Al Gore has unwittingly tweaked my suspicion that the scientists are politicos.

There's evidence. Check out a recent interview with the creator of the hockey stick, Penn State's Michael Mann, where he uses an analogy of the angry health care town halls to make his point about the regeneration of the climate debate:

The debate over the reality of climate change was still alive and well. And now there is such a poisonous atmosphere being created by the climate skeptics — similar in many ways to that poisonous atmosphere we saw last summer in those healthcare town hall meetings — irrational sort of conspiracy-driven lunatics, frankly, entering into the fray — where the discourse has been so skewed to the point where those extreme voices are a substantial component in the debate.

Only a liberal would use that analogy. If you read the whole thing it's painfully obvious this guy is delusional if he really believes there's a "David vs Goliath" mentality now between AGW and skeptics, with climate scientists taking on David's role. Even the friendly interviewer took umbrage to that notion. Good grief, the public has been subjected to a near vacuum of stories on the skeptical side of the debate for years from a press that has largely been in Gore's back pocket--which Mann admits by saying they took it for granted the debate was already over to the point he had to warn scientists not to get complacent!

And now the climategate emails have suggested that hey, maybe the debate really isn't quite over yet; maybe some of those flat earth kooks aren't really all just vile pigs spewing oil-industry crap after all.

BTW, his interview style is similar to Gore's by trying to make himself an underdog to the carbon man while at the same time repeating the mantra that dissent is pure evil. He wasn't dumb enough to suggest, like Gore, that the only saving route is world governance (restricted free markets) but that kind of thinking fits in nicely with what many modern scientists most probably believe, being kids who grew up watching a steady diet of eco-protesters spraying No Nukes on bridge overpasses and warning of alar-filled apples and 3 mile islands, evil DDT and saving the whales from Exxon Valdez, all perpetuated by the likes of CBS News' 60 Minutes and others in the trusting leftist media that Mann now claims has betrayed him with this report.

Or in other words someone finally had the temerity to tell the other side of Mann's story by reporting the facts as known without a giant slant towards the AGW side, and for that he is incensed. He's lucky, they could have reported on the cash-c0w he's become for the university by bringing in all those grants--millions and millions, and counting.

Exposing the Incline and the Decline

Conservatives are rightly heralding the collapse of the man-made global warming consensus--Gore's hard-line approach (flat-earthers) was appalling and downright dangerous. It's fitting the holographic, Nobel-winning, Oscar receiving king of AGW is nowhere to be found right now (he probably retreated to the same place Bill Ayers did during the campaign, his home--where media fear to tread).

But where do we go from here? Does this new information mean the entire thing was a scam? Yes and no. Yes, in respect to the spin and subterfuge placed on the data to reach a political and financial end; no in regards to the fact temperatures have indeed risen since the 1800s. In effect we should be back to square one--analyzing the mysteries using raw science, now put in its rightful place, where Obama wanted it!

But even with some of the politics removed there's still truth. What is it? Right Truth points to comments from Dr. Christy of UAH on the unreliability of the surface record as to making global decisions but his colleague at UAH, Dr. Roy Spencer, just released the latest satellite-based observations from January, which might be shocking to those suffering from all this cold, snowy global warming..

As can be seen, Northern Hemispheric land, on a whole, is not as cold as many of us thought (click on image for larger version). Below-normal areas were restricted to parts of Russia and China, most of Europe, and the southeastern United States. Most of Canada and Greenland were well above normal

Here's his map showing the departures from normal (not actual temps)..


The point--just because it's cold in America and Europe (oddly centered right over Copenhagen) doesn't mean it can't be warm overall. This data is not massaged Mann/Jones, it's from an AGW skeptic. The satellites have been used for years as a check on the surface data. So while it's good the house of cards has finally collapsed, skeptics should not fall prey to the same temptation of ignoring inconvenient data.

At the same time the great benefit of recent proceedings is that the AGW industry will have a harder time spinning Dr. Spencer's data as proof of a coming catastrophe only solvable through world socialism within the next 10 years. And that's a good thing.

Climate Speculation

Who leaked the East Anglia e-mails that helped derail the worldwide global warming movement? There's no clear answer yet, but that didn't stop Sir David King, Tony Blair's former chief scientific advisor, from speculating wildly:

"It was an extraordinarily sophisticated operation. There are several bodies of people who could do this sort of work. These are national intelligence agencies... there is the possibility that it could be the Russian intelligence agency." However, King goes on to suggest that the expense of such an operation would be too great for the entire Russian state to undertake: "In terms of the expense, there is the American lobby system, which is a very likely source of finance, so the finger must point to them."

How much does he think it costs to create or download a zip file? Does he even know what a zip file is?

The climate blogs are still speculating (some here) and from reading their speculation in conjunction with Sir David's I've some of my own. One, it doesn't seem likely a state intel agency would want anything to do with such a stunt. True, they might have scrubbed the emails of addresses/personal info but getting caught would be far too risky. The Russians stood to gain from Copenhagen as did most rogue states and 3rd world nations. "Bin Laden" just recently condemned the US for ruining the climate and there was a Saudi server in the mix, but for the House of Saud it would still be a risk and besides, they would have used cut-outs and never their own servers-tracks.

Two, could any corporation-cartel take the risk? Surely Sir David means the oil/gas variety, but getting caught would be the end of them. Safer to use traditional lobbyists.

The first trace of the information went to a BBC weatherman due a skeptical segment he rain, but he ignored it, so they sent it to the blogs. Surely they've traced the package sent to the weatherman by now, and surely people know more than is being reported. Would young hackers take time to scrub the emails if they simply stumbled upon the file misplaced on the wrong server? Or, as Lawson opines:

For some reason, it has not occurred to Sir David King that the UEA emails might have been accessed and then leaked by an insider shocked at what he had discovered. Remember also that they were in any case all being collated following a request under the Freedom of Information Act; perhaps this insider became aware that the now suspended head of the Climate Research Unit, Phil Jones, had asked colleagues to delete certain emails, and was determined that Jones should not be allowed to get away with it.

This sounds plausible, yet until the Guardian let down its guard most stories referred to the emails as being 'stolen'--which smacked of a collusion or conspiracy within the mainstream media establishment. Maybe things are about to crack open.

Meanwhile, the discovery of the bogus 2035 Himalayan glacier melt stuffed into the 2007 IPCC report has climate honcho Rajendra Pachauri refusing to apologize for some reason. The sensible reason is because he's a true believer, meaning the ends justify the means. To defend such tactics means there's no limit to the amount of BS thrown out in support of this crisis. Does he not see that?

While speculators argue the scientists keep plodding along. A recent paper outlined the discovery of a drop in stratospheric relative humidity that could easily account for all the 'cooling' that has taken place in the last ten years (which the warmists insist were actually years of record warming despite a cessation of the alarming upward trend). Obviously there's still a lot to learn on the subject--which is what most skeptics have been saying all along.

Unhelpful Science

Boy it's cold outside. Hey, doesn't that disprove global warming? Certainly not, but the trend of late has been away from rising trends. The East Anglia emails noted the frustration of a few scientists on this climatic pause, almost as if they're sad to see the devastation on hold. Think "Day After Tomorrow".

That frustration apparently led to this WaPo article, where another scientist laments the failure of his colleagues to convey the message of gloom, doom and death trains in a way where people take immediate and socialistic action to change the way they live. Yet he loses all credibility in the very first paragraph:

The battle over the science of global warming has long been a street fight between mainstream researchers and skeptics. But never have the scientists received such a deep wound as when, in late November, a large trove of e-mails and documents stolen from the Climatic Research Unit at Britain's University of East Anglia were released onto the Web.

Emphasis added to point out that when he says 'the scientists' were wounded, as opposed to perhaps 'the man-made global warming advocates' were wounded, he's insinuating the skeptics aren't scientists. He also assumes the emails were stolen and not leaked. I don't believe that's been proven yet. But whatever, in his mind the science is settled, it's simply the lack of more Bill Nyes to convince the Nascar Dads and tailgate bubbas of the coming doom.

Good grief though, for a bunch that supposedly doesn't know how to get their message across they sure spend a lot of time in favorable, non-rebutted print. Here's Penn State's Michael "Hockey Stick" Mann dissing skeptic Patrick Michaels--not over a specific contention but just for his scientific chops in general. Methinks he doth protest too much.

And here's a polar bear scientist (not sure what else to call them) suggesting that another polar bear scientist shouldn't be invited to seminars because he doesn't believe man mankind personkind humanity the unwashed masses are creating all the warmth:

"For the sake of polar bear conservation," Mr. Taylor's views "are extremely unhelpful," fellow polar-bear biologist Andrew Derocher, wrote in an email this summer explaining why most of Mr. Taylor's colleagues wouldn't welcome him at an international meeting.

Ahem, "unhelpful" views? All views are now expected to be 'helpful' to the consensus view? How Stalin-like.

Perhaps the reason so many are frustrated about not being able to get their important message across is not because people haven't heard or even understand the message, but because they simply aren't buying it due to the obvious advocacy.

Albert has a response..


I think he means, "that's not science!". Unless he's calling GI Joe out at the plate.

BTW, I got that Albert Einstein Action Figure from ThinkGeek.com (this is not a commercial). They have a lot of interesting stuff you won't see in K-Mart.

Copenhagen Climate Protest

They are on. And they were anticipated. Many, such as the Power Line guys, wondered what kind of protesters would show up:

One wonders what sort of protests they are expecting. Will Lord Monckton throw Molotov cocktails, or Pat Michaels smash bank windows? I very much doubt it.

Well, the answer has arrived. But aren't most of the "demonstrators" actually supporters? It would seem, although a few overseas 'teabaggers' seemed to be there (one person was quoted as saying, "We want to be able to live our lives like we’ve always led them before — as free citizens in free democracies,"). He was probably dispatched to the dog pen as soon as the camera crew left.

Jammie Fool noticed their war for oil signs have apparently been misplaced as they are now simply taking the fight directly to capitalism itself through something called "climate justice" (something folks in northern climes would welcome right now). Many of their yellow signs smacked of being mass-produced rather than the magic-marker creations of real grassroots events, so it's prudent to wonder about funding connections.

The main organizer of these events appears to be 350.org, an organization founded by Vermont writer Bill McKibben. One monetary source is the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, which brings to mind George Soros (connected according to this Muckety map) and Maurice Strong of 'oil for food' fame. Of course they'll claim that's crazy talk.

Anywho, in looking around for sign images this one popped up from July. How did we miss Obama up on Mount Rushmore?


It's nice to see the Greenpeace protesters responsible were arrested--they could have been AQ operatives with explosives looking for some symbolic revenge over white man's greed. Which is really the root of all of this phony-baloney climate protesting. The question is whether it can be stopped.

Reset Buttons

The JWF points to the London Daily Mail making the case for Russian involvement in climategate.

Who knows--they seem to be intentionally trying to tamp down the idea of a whistleblower--but if true it would not be the first linkage of Russia and climate controversy, although til now it has been indirect. For instance, one of the email revelations involved the nasty way CRU scientist Keith Briffa handled skeptic Steve McIntyre's request to see the Yamal Siberian tree ring data used to back up the hockey stick.

And a little over a year ago NASA's James Hansen made a goof by initially accepting Siberian temperature data purported to be from October that was actually a repeat of September, something again noticed by McIntyre. Before corrections they were prepared to announce another record-breaking month for world temperatures. No surprise, though, since Siberia has apparently been leading the worldwide warming trend since 1980.

Of course any mention of Russia brings to mind mad scientists and conspiracies, such as Tesla guns and "scalar weaponry" or how the Chinese might be investing in the scientific cities of Siberia. Well, if Newsmax and retired Lt Col Thomas Bearden can be believed, which requires some stretching. Although it would be cool if this event over Moscow was actually a greeting card to Putin from the Pentagon saying 'don't screw with us'.

Fantasy aside, would anyone really be surprised to learn of lower level dirty tricks and stunts designed to influence these international climate change summits with so much money and power at stake? It should be an interesting week in Denmark.