Teachers, whatever you do, don't tell your pupils that climate science is settled about global warming

 The general awareness of climate science may have been severely contaminated by special-interest groups such as the WWF and GreenPeace intent on swelling their coffers and assuming heroic stances simultaneously.  It is not easy for teachers to present a calm and sensible view in these circumstances, not least if their curricula have already been invaded by such interest groups.  Two things, however, seem reasonably clear: 

(1) nothing extraordinary has been observed in weather phenomena over the past 30 years of the CO2 scare, and much of what has been seen contradicts the forecasts of some prominent alarmists such as the streets of New York remaining above sea level, polar bears increasing in numbers, storm levels failing to increase, and of course tropospheric temperatures refusing to shoot up.

(2) learned scholars dispute the core mechanisms posited by some scientist-alarmists as being at the heart of their concerns.  The quote below is evidence of this dispute:

'Recently, Gerlich and Tscheuschner listed a wide variety of attempts to explain the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect. They disproved these explanations at the hand of fundamental physical principles like the second law of thermodynamics. By showing that 1) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric greenhouse effects, 2) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, 3) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 K is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, 4) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, 5) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, 6) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, they concluded that the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.

Based on our findings, we argue that 1) the so-called atmospheric greenhouse effect cannot be proved by the statistical description of fortuitous weather events that took place in a climate period, 2) the description by AMS and W·MO has to be discarded because of physical reasons, 3) energy flux budgets for the Earth-atmosphere system do not provide tangible evidence that the atmospheric greenhouse effect does exist.'

Source: a recent paper by Kramm and Dlugi entitled ‘Scrutinizing the atmospheric greenhouse effect and its climatic impact’

http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=9233

(hat tip: Greenie Watch, http://antigreen.blogspot.com/2012/01/carefully-reasoned-new-paper-finds-no.html#links)

New Year Resolutions for Climate Scientists - eye-openers for some teachers of climate change?

Steven Goddard has compiled some very worthy resolutions for any climate scientist involved in the promotion of climate alarmism in particular, and shoddy-science in general.  They will be eye-openers for some teachers of climate topics.  Here are the first 15 of them - see his post for the rest:

1. I will admit that warming has been much slower than we expected
2. I will admit that recent sea level rise is nothing unusual or threatening
3. I will admit that our forecasts of declining snow cover were wrong
4. 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
5. I will admit that our forecasts of Antarctic warming have been a total failure.
6. I will admit that Polar Bear populations are not threatened
7. I will admit that climate models have demonstrated no skill, and are nothing more than research projects
8.  I will admit there was a Medieval Warm Period
9. I will admit that that there was a Little Ice Age
10. I will stop pretending that we don’t have climate records prior to 1970
11. I will admit that the surface temperature record has been manipulated and is contaminated by UHI
12. I will stop making up data where none exists
13. I will honestly face skeptics in open debate.
14. I will quit trying to stop skeptics from being published
15. I will admit that glaciers have been disappearing for hundreds or thousands of years

Merry Christmas to all my readers

http://en.indonesiafinancetoday.com/read/14593/Oh-Christmas-Tree

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:

A lifetime's worth of climate alarmism in a nutshell

 I think this comment by David M Hoffer (posted on WUWT) provides a witty but true summary of the alarmist positions and debating styles since 1971, with a 'projection' for the year 2031 ( I have added the boldening and italics):

Natural variation and climate cycles explained:

1971
Alarmists: There’s an ice age coming!
Skeptic: Looks like natural variation, not a long term trend….
Alarmists: Blasphemer! Ice Age! We’re all going to die!

1991
Alarmists: The world is heating up at an unprecedented rate!
Skeptic: But you just said….
Alarmists: CO2! CO2 is causing unprecedented warming!
Skeptic: OK, forget the ice age then, it STILL looks like natural variation, not a long term trend…
Alarmists: Blasphemer! Tipping point! We’re all going to die!

2011
Skeptic: You know, looking at the last 10 to 15 years, it doesn’t seem like there’s been any more warming….
Alarmists: Natural variation! It's hiding the warming!
Skeptic: Hiding the warming? Where?
Alarmists: Blasphemer! The warming is hiding in the bottom of the ocean where we can’t measure it, and/or being masked by aerosols, and/or being hidden by natural variation! We’re all going to die!

2031
Alarmist: There’s an ice age coming!
Skeptic: Looks like…never mind, I know where this is going. We’re all going to die. I for one, because a) I'm old and b) I’m sick to death of listening to alarmism.

Climate Classroom: questions to stick on the wall

'The climate-change con artists' 
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:

1. Why can't warming alarmists produce a single legitimate example of empirical evidence to support the manmade global-warming hypothesis?
   
2. 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?
   
3. 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?
   
4. Why was the Medieval Warm Period, a thousand years ago, warmer than today even though the CO2 level was 38 percent lower than today?
   
5. 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?
   
6. 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?
   
7. 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?
   
8. 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.