Thanks To The IPCC, the Public Doesn’t Know Water Vapor Is Most Important Greenhouse Gas

Watts Up With That?

Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball

It is not surprising that Roe and Baker explained in a 2007 Science paper that, “The envelope of uncertainty in climate projections has not narrowed appreciably over the past 30 years, despite tremendous increases in computing power, in observations, and in the number of scientists studying the problem.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) wasn’t designed to improve the uncertainty. Rather, it was mandated, designed and operated to isolate human effects.

The IPCC let the public believe they are examining the entire climate system. From a climate mechanism perspective, they only look at one or two very minor components. It is like describing a car and how it operates by ignoring the engine, transmission, and wheels while focusing on one nut on the right rear wheel. They are only looking at one thread on the nut, human CO2.

Figure 1, from IPCC Assessment Report…

View original post 1,858 more words

Temperature adjustments: simmering science scandal ?

It is about time that media took a more active role in presenting all the facts and not just the fantasies of the IPCC and the warmist crowd.

Tallbloke's Talkshop

Weather station [image credit: Peter West/National Science Foundation] Weather station [image credit: Peter West/National Science Foundation]
Long-time critic of climate alarmism Christopher Booker has no doubt what the answer should be in his latest piece at the Telegraph:

When future generations look back on the global-warming scare of the past 30 years, nothing will shock them more than the extent to which the official temperature records – on which the entire panic ultimately rested – were systematically “adjusted” to show the Earth as having warmed much more than the actual data justified.

Two weeks ago, under the headline “How we are being tricked by flawed data on global warming”, I wrote about Paul Homewood, who, on his Notalotofpeopleknowthat blog, had checked the published temperature graphs for three weather stations in Paraguay against the temperatures that had originally been recorded. In each instance, the actual trend of 60 years of data had been dramatically reversed, so that a cooling…

View original post 130 more words

Questioning the robustness of the climate modeling paradigm

An interesting thesis. Well done.

Climate Etc.

by Judith Curry

Are climate models the best tools? A recent Ph.D. thesis from The Netherlands provides strong arguments for ‘no’.

View original post 1,690 more words

On determination of tropical feedbacks

An excellent article…. and it actually makes sense to this non-science person.

Climate Etc.

by Greg Goodman

Satellite data for the period surrounding the Mt Pinatubo eruption in 1991 provide a means of estimating the scale of the volcanic forcing in the tropics. A simple relaxation model is used to examine how temporal evolution of the climate response will differ from the that of the radiative forcing.

View original post 6,652 more words

The Warmists vs. Heartland Institute

Heartland Institute is an American Libertarian think tank. It has a wide mission which includes attempting to debunk junk science.

Over the past month someone managed to get hold of some documents via fraudulent means (Dr. Peter Gleick has confessed to obtaining the documents by fraud) and crafted a memo that was meant to harm the Heartland Institute. The fake document went viral and the little watermelons, following the call of their masters via a meme went into overdrive. They rounded on the Heartland Institute based upon the made up information in the fake document. (If you want to know the details you can check out any number of blogs including Watt’s Up with That).

What I want to cover here is considered off-topic elsewhere, but it is the thing that is one of the smears against the Heartland Institute. It is indeed false to claim that HI was in the pay of big tobacco when it released a paper that debunked the notion that second-hand smoke causes lung cancer. Is this assertion true?

The paper can be found on the HI site and having skimmed it, I can say that I agree with the conclusions of the author for some very good reasons. This was another case of a declaration that “the science is settled” and “there is a consensus” when in fact there was a study with a very small participation when it was concluded that there was a link between second-hand smoke and tobacco. On top of that there was what I consider to have been a false conclusion with the extrapolation that over 5000 people per year were dying as a result of second-hand smoke. The original study seems to be the one that is smoke and mirrors.

Now I am not a smoker, and I do think that second-hand smoke is detrimental to the health of other people. However, it is not lung cancer that is of concern, but things like asthma and possible problems with the throat of non-smokers. I wonder if an investigation might have found a link between throat cancer and second-hand smoke…. I really would be interested in seeing if that link exists.

The author of the HI study was looking at the original studies that brought about a decision by the EPA and the FDA regarding what was claimed to be a link between second hand smoke and lung cancer. His aim was not to endorse smoking, but to show that the science in the study was in fact junk science. As he stated in that report the conclusions were based upon a very small sample, there was no real replication.

What is disturbing is that the Warmists (or perhaps they should be called the Gaians) are putting around a false meme about that particular report and then claiming that HI is unreliable, in the pay of big tobacco and that they cannot be believed because these people disagree with the author of the study. It is a typical reaction to anyone having the termerity to rebut false conclusions that have been drawn with the intention of allowing even more Big Government intervention.

Disclaimer: as a non-smoker I welcome the opportunity to be able to visit a club, a restaurant or even a bar without having people blowing smoke in my face. This is because when I was younger I was affected by cigarette smoke, but in particular I was affected by cigar smoke. I do not have asthma, but an asthma like condition and cigarette smoke actually affected that condition.

Now let me return to the actions of the perpetrator of the fake HI memo. The man who is at the centre of the whole controversy is a well-known Warmist. He was invited by someone at HI to participate in a debate. He actually demanded a list of HI donors and the HI said No… he then chose to take actions where he obtained the documents by deceit. Since there was no smoking gun, he then wrote a fake memo based upon the documents and then spread the fake memo to Warmist sites. The content of the fake memo was easy to determine that it was fake, especially the bit about the school project that is being written by Dr. Wojick. 

The meme that the HI is anti-science is a false meme. Yet this is the meme that is being spread around the globe. There are some people who have been paid for their work for the HI, including Professor Bob Carter who has been working as an editor of a newletter that is put out by the HI. As a result of the monthly pocket money that Professor Carter has received some of the watermelons here in Australia have been literally wetting themselves in glee, and have been quick in their condemnation. Yet they seem to not understand that the pittance that is received is in fact for services rendered. They do not take into account that Tim Flannery, the Flim Flam man gets a much larger monthly sum for working 3 days a week as a climate change commissioner, where he spouts nonsense, and has yet to be correct in any of his statements.

It should be pointed out here that the HI budget is a fraction of the budget that is received by the watermelon NGOs such as WWF and Greenpeace, and a fraction of what is given in grants to people like Michael Mann.  

How did this lunatic movement begin?

Let’s start at the beginning, if we can find a beginning, and try to find some historical data on the movement to push climate change down our throats.

Prior to the 1970s I do not remember hearing about “climate change” or “globull warming”. I did not hear one peep about industry being the bad boys, or that millionaires were the 1%, or even that banks were evil. Whilst you could argue that this might have something to do with my age, I will argue that at that time in my life I was very politically aware of what was happening.

My political awareness came of age on the day that President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. I can distinctly remember hearing the news on the radio and then going outside to tell my mother that the President had been shot. She was putting clothing on the clothesline when the news came on the radio. This awareness was all the more acute because my mother’s sister had married an American and has been living in Michigan for a very long time. This was also the era of the Vietnam War, and again my awareness began to peak during a period of large moratorium demonstrations. It was enhanced by the fact that one of my neighbours was very keen to serve, and my American cousin had been called up for National Service. Needless to say the TV news was full of the politics and the demonstrations. This was also the end of an era for Prime Minister Robert Gordon Menzies, and then of course there was the news regarding Prime Minister Harold Holt who had drowned whilst swimming off Cheviot Beach in Victoria. Plus in Victoria this was the end of an era for Premier Bolte.  Yet with all of this going on I never once heard mention of the weather conditions being attributed to globull warming, not once.

As I recall my childhood years the 1960s were actually quite warm. We had some very hot summer days, with many of them being spent at the beach. The hot summer days also meant that we had drought conditions, plus the inevitable bush fires in Victoria, especially in the Mornington Peninsula, the Dandenong Ranges, Mt. Macedon, and around Ballarat to name a few distinct areas where the fires had raged. However, by the early 1970s there had been a distinct shift in the weather, with the onset of summer days that were a lot colder, coupled with more rain. It was in the 1970s that I first heard mention of the fear of the coming of an ice age. With the temperatures being a lot cooler it was easy to see why such a proposition was so easily accepted. Yet, that proposition was quietly dropped.

Just like in other cities around the world, Melbourne had a pollution problem called smog. This was fog and smoke joined together, and the smog did not lift. The fact that we had smog meant that some people who were vulnerable came down with respiratory illness. Concern about smog itself was quite legitimate. It soon became clear that car exhaust fumes were somewhat to blame for the smog. This led to the movement to get rid of leaded petrol.

The movement to get rid of leaded petrol actually brought headaches for car owners because the alternative fuel, that is unleaded petrol was not a good idea for most petrol driven cars. The breakthrough came when someone invented the catalyctic converter, and someone else invented the rotary engine. It is a direct result of these inventions that we have managed to control car emissions thus cleaning up the air pollution that had been plaguing our major cities.

It is highly likely that some world leaders were taken in by the warmistas of that period because they recognized that there was a pollution problem relating to cars. Yet the movement itself had been under the radar until that point in time when Al Gore released his lying book called “An Inconvenient Truth”. The problem of course is that Al Gore was lying in order to enrich himself.