- I will admit that warming has been much slower than we expected
- I will admit that recent sea level rise is nothing unusual or threatening
- I will admit that our forecasts of declining snow cover were wrong
- I will admit that Arctic temperatures are cyclical, and that we have no idea what will happen to Arctic ice over the next 50 years
- I will admit that our forecasts of Antarctic warming have been a total failure.
- I will admit that Polar Bear populations are not threatened
- I will admit that climate models have demonstrated no skill, and are nothing more than research projects
- I will admit there was a Medieval Warm Period
- I will admit that that there was a Little Ice Age
- I will stop pretending that we don’t have climate records prior to 1970
- I will admit that the surface temperature record has been manipulated and is contaminated by UHI
- I will stop making up data where none exists
- I will honestly face skeptics in open debate.
- I will quit trying to stop skeptics from being published
- I will admit that glaciers have been disappearing for hundreds or thousands of years
'Children don’t choose to advocate for political agendas. That choice is made for them. Sometimes those decisions are made by their parents. Other times it’s made by a totalitarian machine lubricated by hundreds of thousands in grant money stolen from their parents in order to brainwash their children. Greta, depressed, terrified, angry, and traumatized, is the intended outcome of that machine. '
Thursday, 29 December 2011
Tuesday, 20 December 2011
Thank you for visiting here. Haste ye back in the New Year!
I don't 'have religion' myself, but I do find so much of the music, singing, and sentiments of Christianity very moving so here is a carol to mark the season:
Sunday, 18 December 2011
Tuesday, 13 December 2011
is the title of a post by Leighton Steward in which he recalls Travesty Trenberth's Lament 'we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment', and goes on to pose eight questions which he would like to see addressed by climate alarmists, or 'climate-change con artists' as he also more colourfully describes them. I think these questions would make a fine poster for the wall of any classroom in which climate change is raised:
- Why can't warming alarmists produce a single legitimate example of empirical evidence to support the manmade global-warming hypothesis?
- Why has Earth been warming for 300 years when man has only emitted measurable amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere for the last 150 years?
- Why did Earth cool for 500 years before the recent 300 year warming and warm for several hundred years before that when even the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says CO2 levels did not change?
- Why was the Medieval Warm Period, a thousand years ago, warmer than today even though the CO2 level was 38 percent lower than today?
- Why did many of Earth's major glaciers in the Alps. Asia, New Zealand and Patagonia begin to retreat nearly half a century before the Industrial Revolution and man's CO2 emissions?
- Of the last five interglacials, going back 400,000 years, why is our current interglacial the coolest of the five even though Earth's CO2 level is about 35 percent higher?
- Why has our current 10,000-year-long Holocene epoch been warmer than today for 50 percent of the time when CO2 levels were about 35 percent lower than today?
- Why are correlations of Earth's temperature with natural factors such as sunspot numbers, solar cycle lengths, solar magnetic variations and changes in major ocean currents all better than the correlation of Earth's temperature with CO2 levels?
I am waiting for my copy of Plimer's new book - it will shortly be in carry-on luggage and flying through the air to me from Australia. I'll review it here later this month, and I anticipate a bumper crop of further questions that the conscientious teacher will not find any answer for in any climate-alarm-fouled syllabus. They would however be of value as conversation-pieces, or discussion-starters for any suitably qualified class with a suitably courageous teacher willing to raise questions about the relative importance of CO2 as an influence on climate..
According to the source:
Leighton Steward is a geologist, environmentalist, author and retired energy industry executive. He currently heads up the organization Plants Need CO2 and is a veteran of television and talk radio where he helps educate the public and politicians about the benefits of CO2 as it relates to the plant and animal ecosystems.
Tuesday, 6 December 2011
Happy Head, Chilly Children, Troubled Teachers, Perplexed Parents, Riled Readers - an example of authoritarian eco-arrogance at work
Quote from article 'The school's headmaster, Rob Benzie, shut down the radiators as an experiment to show students how the school could cut its carbon footprint.
''We turned off the heating as an experiment to see if we can lower our carbon footprint,' he said.
'We allowed pupils to wear as many jumpers as they liked and everyone seemed to be happy enough although it did get pretty chilly."
Then the children:
'Pupils at Ansford Academy in Castle Cary, Somerset, were forced to grip their pens through thick gloves and wear their coats and hats in class as temperatures dropped to 1C.'
And the teachers:
'One teacher said: 'It was absolutely ridiculous I have never experienced working in such cold conditions.
'I am all for saving the environment but to conduct an "experiment" as the head calls it on such a cold day is beyond stupid.
'The kids were complaining, no one was working properly some of them could not even write because they could not grip a pen through woolly gloves.
'We have a number of pupils with mental and physical disabilities here and they really struggled with the cold.
'It was unnecessary and in my opinion barbaric.'
And the parents:
' mother, whose 12-year-old daughter goes to the school, said: 'My daughter was physically shaking when she came home.'When I heard about this eco day I was absolutely furious.
'I wanted to take my daughter out of school but I was worried I'd get into trouble with the authorities.'
I think I agree with all the top-rated commenters to this article in the Daily Mail. Here is an example of someone who should not be in a position of such control over the young. He clearly needs help himself to deal with his neurosis. Inflicting it on others is not forgiveable unless he has completely lost the plot, in which case the failing lies with the education authority which continues to employ him. His action does indeed seem to be illegal, as he has some duty of care. The whole sorry business is a tiny example of the narcissistic inhumane authoritarianism of the 'green movement'.
Wednesday, 30 November 2011
The post at WUWT begins as follows:
'Here’s the popup
solicitation you get when you visit the website for the first time:
The David Suzuki Foundation
No shame, no scruples, just send money. Is it any wonder informed people are doubting the climate change issue when presented with crap like this?'
I was at the EIKE conference in Munich last week, and it was interesting to note the spontaneous and strong applause for a couple of the speakers when they noted with disdain instances of children being scared by climate propagandising. Most of us, I suspect, don't like it when people set out to to scare our children. Or anyone else's children. So this shoddy advert will probably backfire on Suzuki in his attempts to get more cash and more converts.
Note added later: Suzuki has form on scaring children. From The Daily Bayonet in September 2008:
'David Suzuki has a new article published on his Foundation web site. This time, instead of imploring the world to listen to him just because he’s old, he is trying to make children guilt their parents into voting with the environment in mind.
His article is full of scare-mongering language and imagery, but there is not one scientific reference or fact in it. Suzuki knows the science is far from settled, but he also knows that if it came to a debate, he’s on the losing side. So he plays on emotions; emotions like fear. To children.'
Note added 1 December 2011. H/t Climate Depot
This tawdry stuff has happened before.
July 2010 in the States: http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2010/07/madness-of-joel-rogers.html A foul oaf called Joel Rogers: '“Here is a picture if you want of the polar ice caps melting, Santa Claus is about to drown. You should tell your children uh that uh these people in your state that oppose taking steps in your state on global warming, they are trying to kill Santa Claus. Once you have the kids you know another 14 years and they are going to vote.” Joel Rogers.'
December 2010 in the UK: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/dec/03/children-climate-change-television-santa? Agitprop at work:
'The new 10-part children's show, Mission: Green Santa, has been licensed to ITV and in each 12-minute episode, climatologist and amateur reporter, Dr Maurice Bergs will tell children about the dangers and global warming and encourage them to log onto the Green Santa website to make an environmental pledge.'
Note added 3 Dec 2011.
'All this may seen merely petty, but it is troublesome nonetheless. What the Suzuki Foundation is doing is sending out a scare notice to children everywhere that Christmas is in jeopardy, Saint Nick adrift and lost, making the fate of both of them dependant on giving to the cause. I'm not saying what the Suzuki Foundation is doing is immoral. I will say they have given new life and vigour to the word "tacky." Scaring kids and guilting parents is monumentally tacky.'
Wednesday, 23 November 2011
Parents, school pupils and teachers sceptical about climate alarmism - a non-random sample, but encouraging nevertheless
I believe that “climate change” education is used to indict western civilization of false[ly]-manufactured crimes. Most of what the general news media and the education establishment insist upon as true science is simply not. Also, the numerous incidents of researchers altering data and cherry-picking sensor locations in order to influence data have left the United Nations’ and other groups’ theories and claims discredited and untrustworthy.
—Other, Middle School, High School, Ohio
As an educator in the field of science for 10 years, I am myself still very skeptical...I see too many dollar signs involved in this indoctrination.
—Educator, Middle School, Oklahoma
I am teaching my students that there is little to no evidence that climate change is [hu]manmade and that the reason that it is such a big deal is because of the money that is being exchanged in order for scientists to support the idea.
—Educator, Middle School, New York
Poor science on the climate change and obvious falsification of data as shown in the “Climategate” memos...Present side-by-side presentations: Give Al Gore two days, and I do a counterpoint on one day.
—Educator, High School, Kansas
Politically based, not science based…students either believe [humans are] the evil-doer[s] of all that happens in this world, or they disbelieve in global warming.
—Educator, Middle School, California
Sadly, there are at least as many discouraging quotes. OK, here's just one to show what I mean:
Also there is no debate among scientists about the cause; the only “debate” is among the media and “scientists” working for the oil industry…The media lies.
—Educator, Middle School, Florida
Tuesday, 15 November 2011
b) Genie: http://www.projectgenie.org.uk/ An overblown scare site based on notion that carbon (dioxide) is a genie buried in the earth, one which we are releasing to our imminent danger and disadvantage.
c) Zilla: http://www.kidsclubzilla.com/index.html I am not sure how current this site is. It is spooky, of unclear origin, and may be a money-making scam taking advantage of the CO2 scare.I have heard that such sites appear after major disasters are in the news. Well, the IPCC is certainly one of those.’
- Climate-anxiety: reports of frightened children
- Climate-curricula: school curricula, policies, an...
- Climate-sites: aimed at children or teachers
- Climate-wisdom: open-letters and petitions
- Climate-books: aimed at children or teachers
(note added 27 Jul 2016: nasty person uncovered high up in the British Council: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1501559/three-year-old-prince-george-hit-by-vile-rant-from-british-council-boss-paid-thousands-to-promote-uk/ )
Note added 20 June 2012. These centres remain active, and have a link with something called ClimateNE, with which they share this blog on a business support site: http://blog.nebusiness.co.uk/climatene/
Added 28 Nov, 2011: Here is an example of a professor of atmospheric science being fatuous. The analysis shows how easy it can be to refute those driven by dogma and the momentum of an all-consuming 'cause': http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2011/11/27/katharine-and-the-100-year-rain-events/#more-331
Added 07 May 2012. Here is another example of someone deciding to 'look at the data', and as is so often the case, finding no cause for alarm. It concerns precipitation in the San Jose area of California:
Added 20 Nov 2011
(17) Design or develop climate lessons which would give schoolchildren valid and balanced insights into the climate system, into meteorology, and into the various implications of either. These are all interesting areas, and could provide material for very interesting and engaging classes, without any resort whatsoever to the cheap, immoral, and irresponsible device of scaremongering. The more such curricula there are, the quicker the transition to better scholastic standards in this area could be. A trickier, and more urgent, task would be to give thought to materials that could help those children already exposed to the shoddy science of alarmism and its possible manifestations just about anywhere in the curriculum. Such materials would also be of use to adults long past their schooldays but still damaged by their climate-related experiences in them. This website has a scattering of suggestions for '10-minute trainers' that could be used to expose alarmist nonsense - search on that topic to see at least half a dozen here. (added 6 Dev 2011 A useful compilation of of links to tutorial materials here: http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Debate.htm)
Note added 22 May 2012. Page view rates on this blog have increased to around 3,000 per month according to Blogspot, with one excursion recently to 6,000 in a month.
Note added 15 December 2012. Re project (4) above. A key leader of this British Council work, the David Viner of 'children won't know what snow is' fame, has been spotted as a useful resource by a consultancy which stands to gain from climate alarmism. Here is a comment posted on the Bishop Hill blog, Unthreaded section:
This does look promising!
'HOW TO GET EXPELLED FROM SCHOOL:
A guide to climate change for pupils, parents and punters
Foreword by Václav Klaus,
President of the Czech Republic
RELEASED DATE: November 2011
Paperback, (250 pages approx)
Are pupils, parents and the public being fed political propaganda on climate change? Now is your chance to find out. Professor Plimer gives 101 simple questions with answers for you to ask teachers, activists, journalists and politicians. The climate industry adjusts the temperature record and withholds raw data, computer codes and information from scrutiny. Computer predictions of a scary future don’t agree with measurements. Past natural climate changes have been larger and more rapid than the worst case predictions yet humans adapted. Is human-induced global warming the biggest financial and scientific scam in history? If it is, we will pay dearly.'
(h/t Phillip Bratby, comment posted on 'Unthreaded' Nov 15, 2011 at 11:40am at Bishop Hill)
Tuesday, 8 November 2011
Q&A For Climate For High School Students
What a contrast to some of the material and motivations I have reported on in this site. Let me pick out a few highlights to encourage you to read the original post:
'In addition to these human climate forcings, natural climate forcings and feedbacks are also quite important. We need to consider these natural effects as clearly the climate is much more complex than is commonly reported by the media and even the IPCC. For example, the global average temperature anomalies are cooling!'
'Since the CO2 effect is but one of a number of first order climate influences, as discussed above, I have concluded we know much less about the future climate than is claimed by the IPCC and the media. This does not mean we should not be concerned as to how much CO2 we insert into the atmosphere, but the claims that we know its effect on the climate is very much overstated, in my view.'
'Finally, in terms of climate metrics, I encourage your class to research yourselves from orginal data what is the current status of these metrics. You would be surprised how many of them do not follow the behavior predicted by the multi-decadal global climate model predictions, and being reported in the news.'
Pielke puts most 'climate educators' to shame with his basic scientific honesty, not to mention his straightforward prose. When, as must surely happen one day, our curricula are cleansed of the IPCC-inspired hyperbole and scare stories, we know there are some, such as Pielke, who could fill those precious places in the curricula with decent science. They would seek to inform and inspire the young, rather than frighten them into 'political activism' for a soul-destroying and economically ruinous cause. A cause which is, in my view, riding on the back of speculative and wholly inadequate computer models.
Note added 7 Dec 2011: Bob Tisdale has stumbled across a criticism on the SkepticalScience blog of Pielke's Q&A reported on above. He has taken the trouble to analyse the criticism, and, as you would expect, shows it to be vexatious (by misdirection) and lacking in substance. He summarises it as follows: 'Yet again, SkepticalScience has highlighted their inability to comprehend a topic of discussion, or has illustrated their need to mislead their readers, or both.'.
Sunday, 6 November 2011
The new statement is full of cautions and provisos, but two of the least ambiguous remarks are to be found in paragraphs 45 and 49 relating to sea levels (I have added the emboldening):
Project 1: what is actually happening to sea levels?
# New Research Out of Greenland Proves Stability of Ice Sheet Over The Last 2 Decades
# New Antarctica Research: The IPCC "Consensus" Science Is Turned Topsy-Turvy
# IPCC Science Wrong: Current Antarctic Climate Conditions Are Not Unprecedented, Peer-Research Determines
Note added 13 April 2012: The key claim by the Royal Society is that sea level rise rate will be more than the historical 20cm per century we have seen over the last 100 years or so. Not much sign of that so far. Here is a plot for a site in England:
Note added 08 May 2012. Less than two years since their revised, more moderate 'statement' on climate (a statement that makes an utter mockery of the spirit of Nullius in Verba, but which is at least a bit more dignified than the worse tosh which preceded it), the studies are coming in to refute them. 'New empirical evidence from New Zealand scientists document the lack of "accelerating" global sea level levels. The island nation in the southern Pacific has not been swamped by the rising seas and the confirmed trend indicates only a 7 inch rise by 2100.' See: http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/05/tide-gauge-station-data-global-sea-level-rise-nz.html
Note added on 12 December 2012. Recent satellite surveys of sea level confirm the deceleration of the rate of rise. Projections from recent rise rates points to an end of century rise of 13cm or less.
[using figures from this report: http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/SeaLevelRise/documents/NOAA_NESDIS_Sea_Level_Rise_Budget_Report_2012.pdf ]
Note added 30 April 2013. An update on sea level forecasts:
'Conclusions: 1. Expert climate model predictions of catastrophic accelerating sea level increases are wildly wrong 2. CO2-centric climate models that focus almost entirely on the impact of human trace emissions of greenhouse gases produce erroneous and unreliable predictions for policymakers 3. The IPCC and large government computer climate models can't predict squat'
Note added 6 May 2013. UK Sea Levels–No Increase In Last 10 Years
Note added 03 July 2013. 'New study using GRACE data shows global sea levels rising less than 7 inches per century'. That's less than 18cm per century. Still not looking good for the Royal Society. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/03/new-study-using-grace-data-shows-global-sea-levels-rising-less-than-7-inches-per-century/
Note added 28 December 2013. 'A paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds global sea level rise has decelerated by 44% since 2004 to a rate equivalent to only 7 inches per century. According to the authors, global mean sea level rise from 1993-2003 was at the rate of 3.2 mm/yr, but sea level rise “started decelerating since 2004 to a rate of 1.8 ± 0.9 mm/yr in 2012.”' http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/new-paper-finds-sea-level-rise-has.html
Thursday, 3 November 2011
By what stretch of a tortured imagination, can it be found desirable to abandon the basic adult responsibility of protecting the young from being terrified of their future? The fact that this abandonment is based ultimately on computer models that can be tweaked to produce anything the owners of them want to see [apart from verisimilitude] is even more jaw-dropping.
(text and link in brackets added 4 Nov 11)
Here it is happening in Africa. Read this extract from a press release by UNICEF dated 31 October 2011:
'UNICEF urges media to hear the voices of children on climate changePRETORIA, 31 October 2011 - As South Africa prepares for the 17th Conference of Parties (COP 17) of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Durban from 28 November to 9 December 2011, UNICEF is urging media to consult with children on what they believe to be the key issues surrounding climate change, its impact on the children of South Africa, and what role children can play to address climate change.
A new study commissioned by UNICEF in partnership with the Department of Environmental Affairs and the Department of Women, Children and People with Disabilities, to be launched in mid-November 2011, highlights the importance of child participation in designing effective responses to climate change.
The study ‘The Impact of Climate Change on Children in South Africa’ highlights the expected impact of climate change on children’s health, education, nutrition, safety and access to adequate housing and sanitation in South Africa – both directly and indirectly. However, in spite of their increased vulnerability, children cannot be viewed simply as victims of climate change. Children need to be – and have a right to be – actively involved in the discussions and planning of mitigation and adaptation strategies, as well as policies and plans by various levels of government.
The study also reveals that there are a number of existing initiatives in South Africa through which children are participating in the climate change agenda. These could be strengthened to create a solid foundation for effective participation by children on climate change issues that can feed into, and strengthen policy and national response.'
(hat-tip Messenger for this link: http://newnostradamusofthenorth.blogspot.com/2011/11/unicef-children-should-participate-in.html )
(1) Creating 'little climate activists' in UK schools
‘This week, I met a 17‑year-old pupil from a girls’ public school that, in the past, has been more famous for turning out Sloaney husband-hunters than for filling its pupils with useless scientific facts. But the stereotype is out of date, it seems. The GCSE syllabus ranges far and wide, taking in the physics, chemistry, biology, geopolitics, economics and ethics of climate change. In English lessons, girls “debate” (ie, heartily endorse) the proposition that global warming will kill us all. And guess what topic has been chosen for French conversation?
But parents shouldn’t worry that their girls will turn into eco-loons. “Honestly,” says my informant, “we’re all, like, sooo bored with climate change. I can’t wait to leave school to escape.”’
Tuesday, 1 November 2011
What is so special about central England that it should escape the man-made 'global' warming we have been told is so worrisome that we must do all we can to destroy industrial civilisation, including deliberate efforts to scare children into becoming 'little climate activists'? The projected catastrophe seems to be passing England by - that part of the sceptred isle can be seen to be enjoying a modest, and pleasant warming excursion of a kind it has seen many times before. At least until the recent summers ill-suited for barbeques despite the fervent hopes of Met Office modellers, and recent winters well-suited for cross-country skiing.
Nothing seems extraordinary in this temperature series, one which shows a modest trend and a lot of irregular variation about it. The rising CO2 emissions look quite irrelevant. There is clearly no basis here for alarm. We need the services of computer specialists willing to speak as oracles of doom in order to provide enough substance for political activists to spin an entire body - the IPCC, numerous governments, and a great many in the mass media, into severe agitation. Sadly, a great many teachers have been caught up in the swirl, and of course sadder still, a great many children have been told their societies, and of course the polar bears, are all but doomed. Unless they obey, and get their parents to obey, and get their societies to obey, the diktats of those political activists.
Hat-tip for drawing attention to the graphic: Tony Brown.
His WUWT article today on climate (esp temperature) history is well worth reading in its own right. He concludes:
'The globe appears to have been gently warming for 400 years- with numerous reversals and cold periods interspersed with warm ones. Within this overall trend can be discerned regions running counter cyclical to the warming trend, as was observed in the article ‘In search of cooling trends’.
We estimated around one third of all stations to be cooling, a figure now endorsed by the Berkeley study. The assertion regarding lack of climate variability cited at the top of this article by two of the most prestigious climate organizations cannot be supported-there were periods around as warm as today as well as very cold periods, demonstrating great variability, no doubt there were also areas running counter cyclical to the prevailing trend, as can be seen today.'
Tuesday, 25 October 2011
Something to amuse you and then your senior pupils: a potted history of climate-alarmism, leaving the BEST to last
'I have a tough observation test for you (if you dare to take it, and I highly recommend you don't), but first a bit of history, written in my usual calm, clear, objective, pusillanimously pseudonymous style.
Global Warming 1.0 was the original theme (see accompanying photograph taken from Moon Base Alpha), basically launched by NASA's James Hansen as NASA began its decades-long plan to bankrupt the American economy by building a completely worthless trillion dollar space station as well as destroy entire nations as witnessed by the South Seas island nations who have been told that their islands will soon be inundated with water from the melting ice pack and have thus abandoned any future plans for their nations' growth. Well done, NASA, well done.
Global Warming 2.0 was when it was realized that, dammit, the earth wasn't warming as quite as fast as it should, and the hurricanes we got clobbered with in 2004 and 2005 turned out to be the predicted results of typical hurricane patterns, not to mention that the hurricanes then had the temerity to go away in 2006 — and what a disappointment that was. As a result, 'climate change' was created to cover more bases.
Global Warming 2.1 to 2.8 was when we saw the massive expansion of things that were going to affected by the new, improved 'climate change', and this was especially effective because you can work in both directions, hotter and colder.
Global Warming 2.9 was when earthquakes were deemed to be the result of man-made global warming. This one was given its own special sub-version number so future historians will be able to pinpoint with precision the apex of mankind's stupidity.
Global Warming 3.0 was a little more insidious, in while it claimed that, yes, global warming was entirely man's fault, we didn't need to take such drastic measures as those espoused by the Kyoto Protocol and, later, Cap & Trade. This version was spearheaded by Danish video rock star Bjorn Lomborg. It was very seductive to the fence-sitters, and Tigerhawk, for one, took it seriously, as did other bloggers whose names you might recognize.
All of which brings us to today... '
[see the article link for the rest, which includes a link to an article in The Guardian in which 4.0 first sees the light of day.]
Notes added later on 25/10/11:
(1) Dr Ball has interesting things to say about the BEST study:
'The fact they even attempted the project indicates lack of knowledge or understanding of the inadequacies of the data set in space or time or subsequent adjustments. Lamb spoke to the problem when he established the Climatic Research Unit (CRU). On page 203 of his autobiography he said,
(2) James Delingpole is even more damning:
'What is going on is exactly the kind of utterly reprehensible dishonesty and trickery I anatomise more thoroughly in Watermelons. The Warmists lost the battle over "the science" long ago; that's why the best they can do now is resort to the kind of risible semantic ruse like this deliberate conflation of "global warming" with "man made global warming".'
(3) Willis Eschenbach provides a more technical assessment (but still a very accessible one):
'I remind folks again that the hype about BEST showing skeptics are wrong is just that. Most folks knew already that the world has been generally warming for hundreds of years, and BEST’s results in that regard were no surprise. BEST showed nothing about whether humans are affecting the climate, nor could it have done so. There are still large unresolved issues in the land temperature record which BEST has not clarified or solved. The jury is out on the BEST results, and it is only in part because they haven’t even gone through peer review.'
Note added 27 October 2011
This link to Nature may not last long since the comment by Prof Singer in it conflicts with and criticises their notorious stance with respect to climate science.
'But unlike the land surface, the atmosphere has shown no warming trend, either over land or over ocean — according to satellites and independent data from weather balloons. This indicates to me that there is something very wrong with the land surface data. And did you know that climate models, run on super-computers, all insist that the atmosphere must warm faster than the surface? And so does theory.
And finally, we have non-thermometer temperature data from so-called 'proxies': tree rings, ice cores, ocean sediments, stalagmites. They don?t show any global warming since 1940!
The BEST (Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature) results in no way confirm the scientifically discredited Hockeystick graph, which had been so eagerly adopted by climate alarmists. In fact, the Hockeystick authors never published their post-1978 temperatures in their 1998 paper in Nature, or since. The reason for hiding them? It's likely that those proxy data show no warming either. Why don't you ask them?
One last word: You evidently haven?t read the four scientific BEST papers, submitted for peer review. There, the Berkeley scientists disclaim knowing the cause of the temperature increase reported by their project. They conclude, however: 'The human component of global warming may be somewhat overestimated.' I commend them for their honesty and skepticism.'
( I have corrected some punctuation typos, esp. where '?' was printed instead of apostrophes, and I added the emboldening at the end.)
Note added 30 October 2011. A useful overview in the Mail on Sunday:
'But today The Mail on Sunday can reveal that a leading member of Prof Muller’s team has accused him of trying to mislead the public by hiding the fact that BEST’s research shows global warming has stopped.
Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.
Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers.
Her comments, in an exclusive interview with The Mail on Sunday, seem certain to ignite a furious academic row. She said this affair had to be compared to the notorious ‘Climategate’ scandal two years ago.'