About us Home Articles Perspective Reviews Who's Who

To increase or decrease the text size use Ctrl+ or Ctrl-

What's New:

January 12th, 2010

Hungarian Physicist Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi proves CO2 emissions irrelevant in Earth’s Climate. In short, according to Dr. Miskolczi the Earth’s temperature will not rise or fall as a result of increasing CO2 emissions because of the inherent equilibrium created by our oceans.

Russian scientists’ say Climategate data rigged.

More winter climategate fallout from Russia.

Greenhouse Gas Observatories Downwind from Erupting Volcanoes.

January 11th, 2010

Pachauri: money laundering?  According to the blog EUReferendum a British government department, DEFRA, has paid taxpayers' money to a British University which in turn paid it to the British subsidiary of an Indian research organisation, which in turn seems to have paid it to a New Zealand university scientist so that he could work for an international organisation based in Geneva – the IPCC.  This cannot be true can it?

January 6th, 2010

Questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies, Christopher Booker and Richard North write.

December 21st, 2009

A 2,000-page epic of science and scepticism - Part 2 of 2 by Terence Corcoran, National Post.

December 20th, 2009

A Climatology Conspiracy? by David H. Douglass and John R. Christy. At the American Thinker.

 A 2,000-page epic of science and scepticism - Part 1 of 2 by Terence Corcoran, National Post. 

December 19th, 2009

The Opinionator: Solomon.  "Connolly is not only a big shot on Wikipedia, he's a big shot at Wikipedia -- an Administrator with unusual editorial clout." 

"Wikipedia is full of rules that editors are supposed to follow, as well as a code of civility. Those rules and codes don't apply to Connolly, or to those he favours."


November 24th, 2009.

Copenhagen will fail – and quite right too by Nigel Lawson from the U.K. Times Online.  In this article Lawson explains why we should not be basing far reaching policy decisions on poor science and calls for an independent public enquiry into the Hadley CRU climate science.

November 23rd, 2009.

Climate Emails Stoke Debate by Keith Johnson for the Wall Street Journal. The scientific community is buzzing over thousands of emails and documents -- posted on the Internet last week after being hacked from a prominent climate-change research center -- that some say raise ethical questions about a group of scientists who contend humans are responsible for global warming.

Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute by Andrew C. Revkin. The New York Times. Hundreds of private e-mail messages and documents hacked from a computer server at a British university are causing a stir among global warming sceptics, who say they show that climate scientists conspired to overstate the case for a human influence on climate change.

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'? by James Delingpole. U.K. Daily Telegraph. If you own any shares in alternative energy companies I should start dumping them NOW. The conspiracy behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming myth (aka AGW; aka ManBearPig) has been suddenly, brutally and quite deliciously exposed after a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (aka Hadley CRU) and released 61 megabytes of confidential files onto the internet.

November 11th, 2009. Climate Change, No Eden, No Apocalypse by Mike Hulme. In this opinion piece on the New Scientist magazine recently, Dr. Hulme seems to be downplaying the science behind climate change and replacing it with myths and stories we tell about it. We also do not all have to agree on the meaning of "Climate Change" he says.

May 31th, 2008. A lobby machine that runs on Ethanol by Shawn McCarthy of the Globe and Mail. On Wednesday this week the Canadian  government passed legislation to require refiners to include 5 per cent ethanol in their gasoline by 2010, ensuring a nationwide market for the biofuel products. This is a big victory for the biofuels industry in the face of recent mounting criticism from heavyweight scientists and politicions from around the world as well as from the United nations World Food Programme. 

April 4th, 2008. Europe's biofuel road paved with potholes by Eric Reguly. The Globe and Mail.  Prominent scientists in Britain are now calling for a hold on mandatory biofuel use to allow time to study the true environmental impacts.   Too late for Europe unless the EU changes it's recently issued Energy Policy.  One might add the U.S. and it's runaway biofuels policies here.

Links to satellite imagery of fire and volcanic events in the world added and other changes made to the Who's Who page.

March 13th 2008. Pollution Is called a By-product of a ‘Clean’ Fuel by Brenda Goodman.  New York Times.  An article about the pollution that is coming from biofuel plants around the U.S.

March 3rd 2008. The Globe and Mail, in an extract from an Oxford Analytica Daily brief, reports on the environmental impact of use and production of biofuels.  In all it appears that they will do more harm than good as far as greenhouse gases are concerned. (See centre panel).  Land conversion undermines biofuels

January 8th 2008. Tim Patterson is in a rush. He has 500 students signed up this semester for his climate-change course at Carleton University, and he's got to get ready. On the first day, he always asks how many of them think the climate is pretty much the same. ''A majority put up their hands,'' he says. ''They think the climate is an immutable thing, and any deviation must be due to human activity.'' "Just A Dissenting Geologist"  by Margaret Wente

September 14th 2007. Big Ethanol ... is so well entrenched, so well organized and financed, that it will roll over your farmland and your forests like an Abrams tank "Is it too late to stop the ethanol con job?" by Eric Reguly of the Globe and Mail

September 12th 2007. The current push to expand the use of biofuels is creating unsustainable tensions that will disrupt markets without generating significant environmental benefits. "Biofuel push damaging, disruptive, OECD says" by Richard Blackwell of the Globe and Mail

July 27th 2007. Neil Reynolds of the Globe and Mail's Report on Business reports on a lifetime energy use study of 100 vehicles.  "Which cars are greenest? You'd be surprised." Lo and behold when considering more than just the energy used to drive the vehicle it turns out that many cars we thought were energy efficient are not.  As Neil Reynolds points out that means the federal program to give buyers of new low gas mileage cars a rebate and apply a surcharge to higher gas mileage cars may actually turn out to increase the overall use of energy rather than decrease it.

July 6th 2007. Although covered in thick ice now Greenland, during the last 800,000 years, was covered by a thick , verdant boreal forest similar to that found in parts of Canada today. This is contained in a new paper in the Journal Science "Ancient Biomolecules from Deep Ice Cores Reveal a Forested Southern Greenland"  The lead author of the study, Dr. Eske Willerslev, was quoted by the Globe and Mail as saying "If our data is correct the southern Greenland ice cap is more stable than previously thought" See "Greenland Reveals its true colours"  This research also indicates that due to  entirely natural fluctuations in climate (no anthropogenic CO2 ), Greenland was as  warm or warmer than many of the predictions made for anthropogenic global warming today.

May 19th 2007. So how did An Inconvenient Truth become required classroom viewing?  The National Post by Kevin Libin.  (for more detail see centre panel)

May 15th 2007. Climate messages are 'off target'  by BBC Science correspondent  Pallab Ghosh. Alarmist messages about global warming are counter-productive, the head of a leading climate research centre says.   (for more detail see centre panel)

May 10th 2007  Media Attacked for "Climate Porn"  The U.K. Institute for Public Policy Research says over-use of alarming images is a "counsel of despair". It makes people feel helpless and the use of cataclysmic imagery is partly commercially motivated.

April 27th 2007.  Carbon Offsets not working to reduce emissions in Europe. See Defra in storm over discredited EU carbon plan in the Financial Times.

April 15th 2007. Gore on the Rocks  About the emerging backlash from scientists regarding the catastrophists on global warming. Al Gore of course has set himself up as a target as the quintessential catastrophist with his movie "An Inconvenient Truth"  

April 14th 2007.  "Green-fuel craze eating into supplies."  Just about everything in your fridge is tied to the price of corn. Dana Flavelle Toronto Star

In the interests of fairness I note that  Dr. Carl Wunsch who appeared in the BBC channel four video "The Great Global Warming Swindle"  has  repudiated his participation in the video claiming he was duped.  However the other scientists who appeared have not done the same as far as I know.

April 12th 2007.  The mounting political panic over carbon emissions has caused U.S. politicians to largely ignore the problem of rising food prices. Instead, they continue to provide lavish government subsidies for the production of ethanol, which has only encouraged the expansion of more ethanol distilleries. Carl Mortished , The Times, "Dash for green fuel pushes up price of meat in US," 

March 30th 2007.  Ethanol in gasoline makes no difference to the CO2 emissions from the tailpipe because more fuel is used to make up for the lower energy content of the ethanol.  Listen to a CBC Radio "As it Happens" interview with Greg Rideout of Environment Canada describing their test results.  No surprises here.

March 27th 2007:  Angus Reid Climate Change Survey  The survey reveals that the more educated a person is the more sceptical they are likely to be about climate change.

March 24th 2007:  The False Gods of Public Opinion  wherein Peter Foster in the National Post discusses a recent Angus Reid Poll claimed to be the most comprehensive survey of Canadian opinions on Climate Change.

March 21st 2007.  GORE REFUSES TO TAKE PERSONAL ENERGY ETHICS PLEDGE   Former Vice President Al Gore refused to take a “Personal Energy Ethics Pledge” today to consume no more energy than the average American household.  Oh boy!

March 17th 2007.  Caution urged on climate 'risks' Two leading UK climate researchers say; even though they are climate warming believers; some of their peers are "overplaying" the global warming message and risk confusing the public about the threat.

March 12th, 2007. "Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?", by Lorne Gunter.

March 11th, 2007.  "The Great Global Warming Swindle" from the BBC's Channel 4, U.K.  Watch it on Google. (It has been removed from YouTube due to a WAGTV copyright claim)  Don't be put off by the title - it is a well made film that features a number of distinguished scientists - including former lead authors for the IPCC.  Alternatively also on Google  Here  You can also download the videos from Google and a Google player to view them with.

March 10th 2007.  Take this little quiz  Do you know your global warming basic?

February 28th 2007. "Little Miss Apocalypse" David Suzuki's willing use of children to promote his 'ecophobic' terror of the end of the world is reprehensible

February 18th 2007. Keeping a cool head amid warming hysteria”, by Cardinal George Pell 

February 14th 2007. Everyone deserves to be heard”, letter to the editor of the Ottawa Citizen from John Dowell.

And “Global Warming? Journalism? Don't Make Me Laugh!” , by Alan Caruba.

February 11th 2007.Give global warming sceptics their say”, by Tom Brodbeck, Winnipeg Sun.

February 9th 2007. Does Canada's own David Suzuki really believe this stuff?  Ignore scientists that cast doubt on global warming: Broadcaster David Suzuki, by Judi MacLeod, Canada Free Press.

February 5th 2007. Dr. Madhav Khandekar debate Professor Gordon McBean on CTV Newsnet's "Mike Duffy Live"

February 2nd 2007.  The fourth UN climate change report  issued by the IPCC.

January 10th 2007. Listen to a radio Interview on CFRA , Ottawa, radio's "Madely in the Morning" with  Professor Fred Michel. (Continuation from Jan 4th 2007)

January 4th 2007. Radio Interview on CFRA, Ottawa, with Professor Fred Michel Director of the Institute of Environmental Science and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University.

September 30th, 2010

Royal Society issues new climate change guide that admits there are 'uncertainties' about the science

The UK’s leading scientific body has been forced to rewrite its guide on climate change and admit that it is not known how much warmer the Earth will become. The Royal Society has updated its guide after 43 of its members complained that the previous version failed to take into account the opinion of climate change sceptics. Now the new guide, called ‘Climate change: a summary of the science’, admits that there are some ‘uncertainties’ regarding the science behind climate change. And it says that it impossible to know for sure how the Earth's climate will change in the future nor what the possible effects may be.  Read more here and here.  Also at CFACT Europe.

The Royal Society even appears to criticise scientists who have made predictions about heat waves and rising sea levels. It now says: “There is little confidence in specific projections of future regional climate change, except at continental scales.”

It adds: “It is not possible to determine exactly how much the Earth will warm or exactly how the climate will change in the future."

Download the complete new Royal Society Guide here (pdf)

CFACT Europe besides discussing the foregoing Royal Society Climate Guide also reveals that  "This follows last week’s blow to the radical climatist agenda inside Britain, where the new Coalition Government announced it will be slashing its Climate Change Department’s budget and folding the former free-standing bureaucracy into the Treasury department."   And links to BRITAIN’S CLIMATE CHANGE DEPARTMENT MAY BE CUT

September 23rd, 2010

The Devil is in the Details

As of the end of August 2010 there have been five inquires in to the issues raised around the release of the Climategate emails last November and into the reported errors and omissions of the IPCC.

There have been three U.K. inquires: The House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology, the Science Appraisal Panel headed by Lord Oxburgh and the Climate Change Emails Review under Sir Muir Russell. In addition Penn State University undertook an administrative inquiry while the IPCC asked the International Academic Council to look into the matter as well.

There has been two well written summaries of these inquires one "The Climategate Inquires by Andrew Montford" [who wrote The Hockey Stick Illusion] and a second "Understanding the Climategate Inquiries by Ross McKitrick"

To quote Andrew Montford, "there can be little doubt that none of them have performed their work in a way that is likely to restore confidence in the work of CRU. None has managed to be objective and comprehensive. None has shown a serious concern for the truth. The best of them – the House of Commons inquiry – was cursory and appeared to exonerate the scientists with little evidence to justify such a conclusion. The Oxburgh and Russell inquiries were worse."

If you have not been following the inquires in detail I recommend both the Montford and the McKitrick reports.   They are extremely informative and very well presented.

September 9th, 2010

More media reaction.


September 3rd, 2010

More Main Stream Media Reaction to the IAC report.

New York Post : "Meltdown of the Climate Consensus" by Matt Patterson

Wall Street Journal: "Climate Panel Faces Heat" by Jeffrey Ball

August 31st, 2010

The Great Collapse of the Chicago Climate Exchange

It isn't really necessary for me to comment.  Just read Patrick Henningsen's article on the 21stCentury Newswire.  Here

Reactions to yesterday's IAC report on the IPCC.

For some background see last Sunday's entry Ross McKitrick's article in the Financial Post below.

The Sun: "UN ‘lacks Solid Evidence’ in Climate Warnings"

Daily Express: ""Climate Change Lies Are Exposed"

BBC News:"Stricter controls urged for the UN’s climate body"

The Times: "The review of the tarnished IPCC report has rightly condemned advocacy"  ( see the link behind a pay wall - Scientific Principles)

The Guardian: "Rajendra Pachauri, head of UN climate change body, under pressure to resign"

The Independent: "IPCC feels the heat as it is told to get its facts right about global warming"

August 29th, 2010

Fix the IPCC process

Financial Post Staff August 27, 2010 – 7:20 pm

By Ross McKitrick.

There is too much conflict of interest built into the report-writing process. After the Climategate emails scandal of last winter, and discoveries of some embarrassing errors in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), its chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, asked the Inter-Academy Council (IAC) to review IPCC procedures. The IAC is a little-known branch of the Inter-Academy Panel, itself a little-known committee that connects national academic societies. It was a safe choice for Pachauri. The last IAC report was a glowing tribute to alternative energy schemes, coauthored by Pachauri himself, along with current Obama administration appointee Stephen Chu and a group of others. So I do not expect much independence of mind or hard-headed objectivity from the IAC. But with the report due out on Aug. 30, I guess we shall soon see.

Continue reading the entire article:

July 10th, 2010

The Sham Inquiries.

There have now been three inquiries into the conduct of the UAE scientists at the Climatic Research Unit in the U.K.   The first was the Parliamentary Select Committee which consisted of little more than a single day of  verbal testimony. The second was the Lord Oxburgh inquiry and the third was the Muir Russell inquiry whose report was issued last week.  Each of them has exonerated all concerned and each of them have been inadequate and misleading shams. In an article entitled "Parliament misled over Climategate report, says MP" Andrew Olowski of the SPPI blog reports that - “ Labour MP Graham Stringer’s summary of the Russell inquiry as “It’s not a whitewash, but it is inadequate,.  Stringer is the only member of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology with scientific qualifications – he holds a PhD in Chemistry."

Ron Oxburgh’s inquiry (Graham Stringer does call this one a whitewash) eventually produced a short report clearing the participants. He did not reassess the science, and now says it was never in his remit. “The science was not the subject of our study,” he confirmed in an email to Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit.

The Parliamentary Select Committee inquiry was too brief and there was no cross examination conducted. As in the case of the other inquiries none of the knowledgeable sceptics who names were in the Climategate emails were consulted.

Andrew Orlowski's article has much more to say and that the British establishment has a poor record of examining its own conduct.

Anthony Watts at the "WUWT" blog also has more on this with some interesting explanatory links.

July 5th, 2010

The Guardian: Climategate was ‘a game changer’

This is Anthony Watts commentary on The Guardian piece by Fred Pearce.   This is The Guardian piece source.  Even the Globe and Mail carried some of this article today.  The left wing Guardian is a notoriously vociferous activist for catastrophic AGW so it is somewhat surprising to get an article like this from someone like Fred  Pearce.  According to Anthony Watts Pearce also writes for New Scientist magazine. Perhaps that helps explain why the New Scientist is also vociferously activist on this subject.

New Chinese study in GRL disputes the hockey stick conclusions.

One of the key questions in the global warming debate is whether the warming being measured over the later years of the 20th century falls within normal bounds. Anthony Watts over at the Watts Up With That blog reports that according to a new study in the journal Geophysical Research Letters the warming trend is not unprecedented.  This conclusion is based on the author's temperature reconstruction going back over a 2000 year time frame. Continue Reading.

July 4th, 2010

Catastrophism collapses

by Lawrence Soloman in the National Post.

Last week’s G8 and G20 meetings in Toronto and its environs confirmed that the world’s leaders accept the demise of global-warming alarmism. One year ago, the G8 talked tough about cutting global temperatures by two degrees. In Toronto, they neutered that tough talk, replacing it with a nebulous commitment to do their best on climate change — and not to try to outdo each other. The global-warming commitments of the G20 — which now carries more clout than the G8 — went from nebulous to non-existent: The G20’s draft promise going into the meetings of investing in green technologies faded into a mere commitment to “a green economy and to sustainable global growth.” Continue reading.

June 26th, 2010

Emissions scheme could cost NZ up to $5b

by John Armstrong  of the New Zealand Herald.

New Zealand's failure to cut greenhouse gas emissions has left taxpayers staring down the barrel of a Kyoto Protocol liability of at least $1 billion and possibly more than $5 billion, according to a book analysing National's emissions trading system. The authors of The Carbon Challenge - Victoria University researcher and economist Geoff Bertram and climate-change analyst and researcher Simon Terry - also describe the Government's current ETS as "technically obsolete" and "beyond rescue" as a sustainable framework for tackling climate change. They say the scheme will not make any inroads into cutting New Zealand's gross emissions levels.  For the article see here.  Carbon trading systems Germany's failed, Spain's failed now New Zealand's failed.  This is going to be the fate of all of them I think.

June 23rd, 2010

German Clean-Power Boom `Breaks' System

By Jeremy van Loon. Bloomberg

Germany’s support for renewable energy is “breaking” the nation’s ability to pay for power and threatens the competitiveness of electricity producers, Handelsblatt (you'll need German to read this) cited a former industry group leader as saying.  More

June 15th, 2010

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider

To quote Lawrence Solomon of the National Post the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider. The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, ( see pages 10 and 11) co-authored with student Martin Mahony.  For Lawerence Solomon's article see here.

June 14th, 2010

This Lady is not for turning?

Margaret Thatcher was once quoted as saying "this lady is not for turning" Christopher Brooker of the U.K. Telegraph says that "Margaret Thatcher was the first leader to warn of global warming - but also the first to see the flaws in the climate change orthodoxy"

"In 2003, towards the end of her last book, Statecraft, in a passage headed "Hot Air and Global Warming", she issued what amounts to an almost complete recantation of her earlier views." See Was Margaret Thatcher the first climate sceptic?

June 9th, 2010

Legal verdict: Manmade global warming science doesn’t withstand scrutiny

By Lawrence Solomon June 6, 2010 – 10:47 pm; Financial Post.

A cross examination of global warming science conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Institute for Law and Economics has concluded that virtually every claim advanced by global warming proponents fail to stand up to scrutiny.

The cross-examination, carried out by Jason Scott Johnston, Professor and Director of the Program on Law, Environment and Economy at the University of Pennsylvania Law School, found that “on virtually every major issue in climate change science, the [reports of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and other summarizing work by leading climate establishment scientists have adopted various rhetorical strategies that seem to systematically conceal or minimize what appear to be fundamental scientific uncertainties or even disagreements.”

Professor Johnson, who expressed surprise that the case for global warming was so weak, systematically examined the claims made in IPCC publications and other similar work by leading climate establishment scientists and compared them with what is found in the peer-edited climate science literature. He found that the climate establishment does not follow the scientific method. Instead, it “seems overall to comprise an effort to marshal evidence in favour of a predetermined policy preference.”

The 82-page document, which effectively eviscerates the case for man-made global warming, can be found here.

Financial Post

LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe the author of The Deniers.

Read More:

Financial Post Article.

Watts Up With That opinion and comments.

May 27th, 2010

CEI files suit on GISS regarding FOIA delays

By Anthony Watts at the Watts Up With That blog.

CEI is the Competitive Enterprise Institute a U.S. think tank while GISS is NASA's Goddard Institute for Space studies.  CEI has been trying for years using Freedom of Information Act requests to get GISS to release its data on global warming particularly the temperature records.  To quote Anthony Watts "These include an admission to USA Today’s weather editor that NASA GISS is just a modeling office, using the temperature record of …CRU, the ClimateGate outfit. That means their “independent temperature record” is actually a recapitulation of one that …doesn’t exist, but was withdrawn as a result of ClimateGate when the custodians admitted they actually lost all original data."

So much for the claim by the CRU that independent temperature records exist and confirm their findings.  The Watts Up With That blog has been revealing for some time how much of a mess the GISS temperature data is in. Source See also my entry below for December 20th, 2009 "Not very likely that humans are responsible."

Royal Society to review climate message

By Roger Harrabin Environment analyst, BBC News

There is debate over "feedback" effects on the climate and the UK's Royal Society is reviewing its public statements on climate change after 43 Fellows complained that it had oversimplified its message. The panel should report in July and the report is to be published in September. Source. 

It's slow but the collapse is inexorable and only a matter of time before the other major scientific bodies review their stance on the science of global warming.  This review is of major importance because the Royal Society has been one of the most outspoken and vociferous in support of anthropogenic global warming over the years and is considered by many to be a prestigious body of elite scientists whose membership is by invitation only. My view is that they will not reach a satisfactory consensus so nothing of any consequence will be published at the end of the process.

February 6th, 2010

The Great Global Warming Collapse.

Maragret Wente writes about the collapse of the Anthropogenic Global Warming science in today's' Globe and Mail.

Global Warming: the Collapse of a Grand Narrative

Another brilliant piece by Professor Phillip Stot on the same subject but with greater insight.

February 2nd,2010

Letter to Lisa Jackson Admistrator of the EPA.

This letter from the U.S. Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming is well worth reading in full because it largely illustrates what has been happening to "Climate Science" since the CRU emails were released last November. Some quotes are shown below to wet you appetite.

We also reiterate our request for the agency to turn over all documents and records related to the communications or other interactions with Hadley CRU dating from March 2007 through December 1, 2009 to our respective Committees no later than February 15, 2010.

In addition, we request a written response to the following questions no later than February 15, 2009:

1. EPA has asserted that “nothing in the emails undermines the science upon which the finding was based.” Has EPA conducted a thorough review of the Hadley CRU emails and documents? If so, who conducted the review? When was the review completed? Please discuss all of EPA’s findings and conclusions based on this review.

2. If EPA has not conducted a review of the “Climategate” documents how can you state with certainty that “nothing in the emails undermines the science upon which the finding was based?”

3. You have publically stated that “no new issues have been raised by the emails that were not already covered and discussed in response to comments.” Please identify the precise instances in the Endangerment Finding that responds to accusations of data manipulation at the Hadley CRU. Please also identify any instance where EPA discussed and accounted for accusations of corruption and manipulation of the peer review process has already been considered by EPA. Please note: A general reference to the Endangerment Finding or the Technical Support Document is not an adequate response

4. Please identify any research grants that EPA has awarded in the past 20 years to the Hadley CRU, to Phil Jones, or to Michael Mann. Your response should include the date the award was made, the amount of the award, and the project funded by the award. Your response should include any funding that materially benefited either the Hadley Center, Phil Jones, or Michael Mann.

The global warming dam is not just leaking - it has burst. Sensenbrenner, Issa, Barrasso, and Vitter Request Response to December 2, 2009 Letter on "Climategate"

January 26th, 2010

There is fundamental uncertainty in climate change, science tsar says.

The impact of global warming has been exaggerated by some scientists and there is an urgent need for more honest disclosure of the uncertainty of predictions about the rate of climate change, according to the Government’s chief scientific adviser. John Beddington was speaking to The Times in the wake of an admission by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that it grossly overstated the rate at which Himalayan glaciers were receding. Professor Beddington said that climate scientists should be less hostile to sceptics who questioned man-made global warming. He condemned scientists who refused to publish the data underpinning their reports. He said that public confidence in climate science would be improved if there were more openness about its uncertainties, even if that meant admitting that sceptics had been right on some hotly-disputed issues.

He said: “I don’t think it’s healthy to dismiss proper scepticism. Science grows and improves in the light of criticism. There is a fundamental uncertainty about climate change prediction that can’t be changed.”

He said that the false claim in the IPCC’s 2007 report that the glaciers would disappear by 2035 had exposed a wider problem with the way that some evidence was presented.

See here for the complete article by Ben Webster, Environment Editor of The Times.

The dam is cracking.

Most of the news here we all ready know. The significance of this link is that it is Andrew Neil's blog on the BBC's blog website. To my knowledge this is the first time the BBC has allowed anything critical about Climategate since the climategate emails became public last November. At last! It wouldn't have been much longer before Aunty Beeb would have been in danger of losing much public credibility on the issue.

To quote Andrew Neil:

But it is now clear that the majority of those involved in the IPCC process are not scientists at all but politicians, bureaucrats, NGOs and green activists.

They may -- or may not -- still be right or wrong but what has become clear in the past couple of months is that, contrary to what many leaders have claimed, the science as promulgated by the IPCC is very far from "settled" and that there are important questions still to ask. The mainstream media has been slow to do this.

The bloggers, too easily dismissed in the past, have set the pace with some real scoops -- and some of the mainstream media is now rushing to catch up.


Some of the comments are interesting too.

January 25th, 2010

The IPCC: More Sins of Omission – Telling the Truth but Not the Whole Truth.

* The contribution of global warming to future population at risk for malaria verges on the trivial,

* The contribution of global warming to the population at risk for hunger is small,

* Global warming could reduce the net population at risk of water shortage.

Check out this guest post by Indur M. Goklany at the Watts Up With That blog.

January 24th, 2010

UN wrongly linked global warming to natural disasters.

We all know that weather is not climate but apparently the IPCC does not know that.

THE United Nations climate science panel faces new controversy for wrongly linking global warming to an increase in the number and severity of natural disasters such as hurricanes and floods. It based the claims on an unpublished report that had not been subjected to routine scientific scrutiny — and ignored warnings from scientific advisers that the evidence supporting the link too weak. The report's own authors later withdrew the claim because they felt the evidence was not strong enough. Apparently however the IPCC carried on anyway.   See Jonathan Leake, Science and Environment Editor. The Sunday Times.

Glacier scientist: I knew data hadn't been verified.

The scientist behind the bogus claim in a Nobel Prize-winning UN report that Himalayan glaciers will have melted by 2035 last night admitted it was included purely to put political pressure on world leaders. Dr Murari Lal also said he was well aware the statement, in the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), did not rest on peer-reviewed scientific research. In an interview with The Mail on Sunday, Dr Lal, the co-ordinating lead author of the report’s chapter on Asia, said: ‘It related to several countries in this region and their water sources. We thought that if we can highlight it, it will impact policy-makers and politicians and encourage them to take some concrete action. ‘It had importance for the region, so we thought we should put it in.’  The complete story here by David Rose of the U.K.Daily Mail.

Pachauri: the real story behind the Glaciergate scandal.

According to Christopher Booker of the U.K. Telegraph the IPCC cites the New Scientist magazine as it's authority in the Himalaya glacier story.  These are the people who are trying to make a case for anthropogenic global warming yet they don't know enough to realize that the New Scientist magazine is not a peer reviewed journal?   Sheesh - it blows the mind away!  In addition Booker supplies much more background and illustrates why the Himalayan glacier story is so big in India.   Primarily because the Himalayan ice sheet feeds seven of the world's major river systems, thus helping to provide water to 40 per cent of the world's population.  Asserting that they would have melted by 2035 if nothing was done to prevent it, as the IPCC did in its 2007 assessment report is a lot more than a simple mistake.

UN climate panel blunders again over Himalayan glaciers.

Jonathan Leake, Science and Environment Editor for The Sunday Times reports that the chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has used bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.

 Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), based in New Delhi, was awarded up to £310,000 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the lion's share of a £2.5m EU grant funded by European taxpayers. It means that EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognise as bogus.

 The revelation comes just a week after The Sunday Times highlighted serious scientific flaws in the IPCC's 2007 benchmark report on the likely impacts of global warming. The IPCC had warned that climate change was likely to melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 - an idea considered ludicrous by most glaciologists. Last week a humbled IPCC retracted that claim and corrected its report.

January 22nd, 2010

UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report.

Loading Pachauri ... The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position today even as further errors were identified in the panel's assessment of Himalayan glaciers. Dr Rajendra Pachauri dismissed calls for him to resign over the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change’s retraction of a prediction that Himalayan glaciers could disappear by 2035. But he admitted that there may have been other errors in the same section of the report, and said that he was considering whether to take action against those responsible.   From the U.K. Times online by

UK Parliamentary Inquiry into CRU

The UK Science and Technology Committee today announced an inquiry into “THE DISCLOSURE OF CLIMATE DATA FROM THE CLIMATIC RESEARCH UNIT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA” with the full text of the press announcement as follows: The Science and Technology Committee today announces an inquiry into the unauthorised publication of data, emails and documents relating to the work of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). The Committee has agreed to examine and invite written submissions on three questions: — What are the implications of the disclosures for the integrity of scientific research? — Are the terms of reference and scope of the Independent Review announced on 3 December 2009 by UEA adequate (see below)? — How independent are the other two international data sets? The Committee intends to hold an oral evidence session in March 2010

January 11th, 2010

'This will be the warmest winter in living memory' – defiant Met Office staffer.

Gerald Warner in today's U.K. Telegraph attributes the following quotation to a U.K. Met office staffer “This will be the warmest winter in living memory, the data has already been recorded. For your information, we take the highest 15 readings between November and March and then produce an average. As November was a very seasonally warm month, then all the data will come from those readings.”  November is not even in the winter it's in the fall!  If you ask me the met office either thinks we are all fools or they are themselves.  Read the full article here.

Loading AGW fairy cartoon ...

Arctic summer sea ice increased by 26 per cent, since 2007.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this. The mini ice age starts here by David Rose in the the U.K Mail Online.

January 9th, 2010

Climategate on Finnish TV Part 1 of 3

Climategate on Finnish TV Part 2 of 3

Climategate on Finnish TV Part 3 of 3

Climategate emails leaked not stolen or hacked.

The now-famous break-in of the computers at the University of East Anglia which revealed that in a some instances leading climatologists seemingly massaged data to exaggerate global warming and also discussed excluding contradictory research.  The current controversy, over the validity of scientific global warming modeling and the legitimacy of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), has been amplified by the recent release of hundreds of e-mails and other documents allegedly purloined from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, in England. The common accusation has been that the e-mails and documents were accessed by a “hacker” from outside the organization.  In fact, may not have been the act of a hacker. A detailed analysis of the East Anglia’s files by a Canadian network engineer discloses that the emails and documents were most likely leaked by an internal source.  Read the full story here at the Homeland Security Newire.

January 7th, 2010

BBC Trust to review science coverage amid claims of bias over climate change, MMR vaccine and GM foods.

The BBC's governing body has launched a major review of its science coverage after complaints of bias notably in its treatment of climate change. The BBC Trust today announced it would carry out the probe into the 'accuracy and impartiality' of its output in this is increasingly controversial area.

The review comes after repeated criticism of the broadcaster's handling of green issues. It has been accused of acting like a cheerleader for the theory that climate change is a man-made phenomenon. Critics have claimed that it has not fairly represented the views of sceptics of the widely-held belief that humans are responsible for environmental changes such as global warming. Read more:

January 5th, 2010

"No net warming in the last 11 years or so."

Loading December 2009 UAH data

See December UAH global temperature anomaly – down by almost half  by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

So green energy is too expensive eh?

In an Article entitled "Watchdog revises cost of green energy improvements" the U.K. Telegraph says that household gas and electricity bills are expected to rocket fourfold to nearly £5,000 a year by the end of the decade to meet Government-imposed green targets.

Officials at regulator Ofgem now privately admit that a report they issued only last year severely underestimates the cost of cutting carbon emissions by building a new energy infrastructure for the UK.

A spokeswoman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said the Government-imposed 2020 target of a 34 per cent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020 and the 2050 target of an 80 per cent cut in greenhouse gases, both from 1990, were among the most ambitious in the world.

December 21st, 2009

Excuse me!  Is this climate science?

Below is the full text of an email from Michael Mann to Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit. I can hardly believe this. As far back as 1998 they are asking for funds by proposing to do work on synthetic datasets with manufactured biases in them.  If you wish to check this out go to http://www.eastangliaemails.com

From: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

To: p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Subject: Re: Something far more interesting

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1998 12:03:13 -0400 (EDT)

Cc: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Dear Phil, Of course I'll be happy to be on board. I think the opportunity for some direct collaboration between us (me, and you/tim/keith) is ripe, and the plan to compare and contrast different approaches and data and synthesize the different results is a good one. Though sidetracked by other projects recently, I remain committed to doing this with you guys, and to explore applications to synthetic datasets with manufactured biases/etc remains high priority. It sounds like it would all fit into the proposal you mention. There may be some overlap w/proposals we will eventually submit to NSF (renewal of our present funding), etc. by I don't see a problem with that in the least. Once the collaboration is officially in place, I think that sharing of codes, data, etc. should not be a problem. I would be happy to make mine available, though can't promise its the most user friendly thing in the world. In short, I like the idea. INclude me in, and let me know what you need from me (cv, etc.). cheers, mike

 Michael E. Mann Adjunct Assistant Professor, Department of Geosciences Morrill Science Center University of Massachusetts Amherst, MA 01003

December 20th, 2009

Wikipedia blocks all the sceptics from editing the Climategate page.

"Update: After removing all the sceptic's comments, they've locked the Climategate page down, leaving only the believer's comments."   Check out the article at MagicJava.Blogspot

Locking down to stop things getting out of hand over the Christmas week I can understand. But to remove the sceptics comments and then to shutdown is too much for me.

Major questions over business deals of UN climate change guru Dr Rajendra Pachauri.

The head of the UN's climate change panel - Dr Rajendra Pachauri - is accused of making a fortune from his links with 'carbon trading' companies, Christopher Booker and Richard North of the U.K. Telegraph write.

No one in the world exercised more influence on the events leading up to the Copenhagen conference on global warming than Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and mastermind of its latest report in 2007.   Read the article here.  At least this is helping us understand what pressure the (Jones, Briffa, Mann etc) "Hockey Team" were under to produce those "hockey stick" temperature curves.

Not very likely that humans are responsible.

The IPCC in its 2007 Fourth Assessment report says this:

“Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20¬th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”.

According to the most listened to body on global warming science evidence for man-made global warming can be found in the so called "globally averaged temperature record". This is the one that Dr. Mann and others (Jones, Briffa etc) have been working on for many years. If it turns out to have no upward trend then it cannot be “very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations”. Bend the trend up boys otherwise you won’t get funded.  Also as Phil Jones says in an email "hide the decline".

In any case there is no such thing as global temperature that represents anything in the physical world.  It is merely a statistic that can be played around with in the models of the world that we all have in our heads.  It's a head fake. It can only be sheer hubris that so many scientists went along with the charade in the first place.  See right sidebar.

It may make sense to have a record of temperatures based on the high and low of a twenty four hour period. When recording temperatures of long time spans (100 years anyone) great care must be taken to ensure that artificial trends don't get in the way.  Anthony Watts at the Watts Up With That blog has a project with 600 volunteers documenting the state of the temperature measurement stations in the U.S.  Did you know that even the type of white paint used on the Stevenson screens (standardised slatted boxes that hold the thermometers) can markedly effect the temperature recorded?  Did you know that about 90% of the temperature stations in the U.S. do not meet proper government standards.  Did you know that during the nineties many rural and out of the way stations were shut down?  There are markedly fewer stations in use today.  Checkout the project for yourself - you'll be shocked by what you'll find.  The links are above and below the first photograph and not highly visible.

December 19th, 2009

Gore gets bitten again by another factual blunder.

OK he did go to Copenhagen after all and once more got his facts wrong this time in connection with mosquitoes.

Climate change under control at Wikipedia.

"Next to Al Gore, William Connolley may be the world's most influential person in the global warming debate.  .... as an engineer of opinion at Wikipedia."  So says Lawrence Solomon of the National Post in his opinion piece.

December 3rd, 2009

Al Gore cancels lecture during Copenhagen.

According to Berlingske a Danish Newspaper Al Gore is pulling out of his lecture leaving 3000 people to get their money back.  It was to be entitled "Climate Conclusion" and was to take place on December 16th, 2009.

Loading Gore praying ...

December 2nd, 2009

Global Warming Ranks at the bottom of the list.

Trillions of dollars for climate change in the future but not enough money to fight other factors that are effecting health now.  Click on the graphic to read more at the Wattsupwith that blog.

December 1st, 2009

Phil Jones steps down.

AP is reporting that Professor Phil Jones has today announced that he will stand aside as Director of the Climatic Research Unit [at the University of East Anglia] until the completion of an independent Review resulting from allegations following the hacking and publication of emails from the Unit. 

November 30th, 2009

CRU’s Tree-Ring Circus. Who peer-reviews the peer-reviewers?  By Mark Steyn. National Review Online.

'Botch after botch after botch' Leaked 'climategate' documents show huge flaws in the backbone of climate change science By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN. Toronto Sun.

BBC SHUNNED ME FOR DENYING CLIMATE CHANGE  Naturalist David Bellamy. Daily Express.

The great climate change science scandal. Leaked emails have revealed the unwillingness of climate change scientists to engage in a proper debate with the sceptics who doubt global warming. Jonathan Leake.  Sunday Times

November 29th, 2009

AGW - a beautiful theory killed by the ugly facts.

with apologies to biologist Thomas Henry Huxley 1825-1895

Google hits up.

I checked Google at noon today and got 13 million hits with "climategate" up from 10.8 million yesterday and up from almost zero a little over a week ago. Although it is interesting to find that 'climategate' is not on the autosuggest list either in Mozilla Firefox or Internet Explorer and according to one commenter was on the list last week.

Now the Main Stream Media IS getting it.

Climategate: University of East Anglia U-turn in climate change row Leading British scientists at the University of East Anglia, who were accused of manipulating climate change data - dubbed Climategate - have agreed to publish their figures in full.   Robert Mendick U.K. Telegraph

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation Our hopelessly compromised scientific establishment cannot be allowed to get away with the Climategate whitewash, says Christopher Booker in the U.K. Telegraph.  He pulls no punches in this one unlike Andrew Revkin's article in the New York Times - link below.

On a slightly different tack. Remember that old joke "They'll be taxing the air we breathe next" - Ha Ha Ha.  Well it not so much a joke anymore when the world is seriously considering commoditising the life giving gas CO2.  The CBC documentary "Carbon Hunters" shows the humungous numbers that could be involved if we get to so called carbon offsets and cap and trade policies.  All based on a theory that the life giving gas CO2 is warming the world and therefore climate change is not a natural phenomenon anymore.  Is there any solid evidence that this is the case?  As we have learned this last week the answer is no. "hiding the decline" in temperature proxy data, hiding the underlying data from sceptical scientists, controlling the peer-review process.  All this and more from the climate scientists own words.   I'm sure is still going to take a long time to put this AGW theory to rest and there will be many enquiries trying to whitewash the science and trying to preserve reputations.  The vast number of dollars involved will see to that.  So far this scandal has involved climate science as practised in the U.K., the U.S.A., Australia and New Zealand.

On the other hand perhaps we could say that climate change is indeed "Man-Made" given the amount of data manipulation that appears to have gone on.

November 28th, 2009

Below the Main Stream Radar.

At least the New York Times has got a story on it. "Hacked E-Mail Data Prompts Calls for Changes in Climate Research." by Andrew Revkin.  After you have read this compare it to the two stories below.  At least no one can it isn't serious now.

ClimateGate: The Fix is In

The Skeptics Are Vindicated

If you are so inclined you can search for words and phrases in the Alleged CRU e-mails site.   I've tried it on a sort of spot check basis to verify quotes I've read on the sceptics sites.  Sure enough it works well and the several times I did use it the quotations were correct.  There is so much traffic though so it maybe somewhat slow.  I also checked Google a little earlier this afternoon and got 10.8 million hits with "climategate".  Main stream media or not this story is not going to get lost.  The Copenhagen conference is going to be a lively to say the least!

November 24th, 2009

The Washington Times calls for proper inquiries.

The Washington Times in an editorial today entitled "Hiding evidence of global cooling" calls for Pennsylvania State University, the University of Arizona and the University of Massachusetts at Amherst to conduct proper investigative inquiries into their own involvement in the climate science cover-up.  More and more it looks like the pressure is beginning to build for investigative inquiries in the U.K. as well.  A petition on the U.K.'s Prime minister's official site has been started.  "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to suspend the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia from preparation of any Government Climate Statistics until the various allegations have been fully investigated by an independent body."

Nigel Lawson Calls for a Public Inquiry.

The following is a quote from the 'Copenhagen will fail' article see sidebar "Astonishingly, what appears, at least at first blush, to have emerged is that (a) the scientists have been manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend; (b) they have consistently refused outsiders access to the raw data; (c) the scientists have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests; and (d) they have been discussing ways to prevent papers by dissenting scientists being published in learned journals."

Tempest in a Teapot or a Major Scientific Scandal?

Hundreds of e-mails and other documents between climate scientists, covering a 13 year period, were hacked or leaked from the Hadley Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia recently and released onto the internet.   These could reveal a major scientific scandal or they may just reveal that scientists are just human too and like all humans harbour and express their prejudices to their colleagues.  This is an ongoing story and the some sceptic blog sites were clogged this weekend,  notably Stephan McIntyres ClimatAudit.org one of the two winners of the 'Best Science blog 2007" award.  McIntyre along with Ross McKitrick were responsible for revealing the errors in the famous hockey stick curve of Michael Mann et al. a few years ago.

The side bar contains links to two articles from The New York Times and the Wall street Journal and one blog published by the U.K. Daily Telegraph.  There are over 60 MB of data. with over 1000 emails alone so it will take some time for this to get analysed fully and put into context.

November 14th, 2009

World Climate Widget is not a Gimmick.

Although the World Climate Widget itself is experimental, it does use valid scientific data something I omitted to say in my November 11th post. It uses the University of Alabama at Hunstville (UAH) lower troposphere temperature satellite data as well as the Mauna Loa Observatory CO2 data, and NOAA SWPC solar information.

November 11th, 2009

CO2 up. Temperatures down.

Take a look at the new World Climate Widget from the Watts Up With That website in the right hand sidebar. You can now check the progress of the cooling trend we are currently in (since 1998). The data are automatically updated monthly. We can see that CO2 emissions are continuing to rise steadily while the global temperature anomaly trend is down. Something the climate models did not predict. We are told that the upward trend in temperatures will resume. Although we need several years more data yet to be sure, it's starting to look like the correlation between increasing CO2 and increasing surface temperature is breaking down.

Is this the reason that we are beginning to see opinions like that of Dr. Mike Hulme's (see sidebar) in which he tells us that climate change is much more than just the physical phenomenon?   It is to be thought of as an "... imaginative condition of human existence"  says Hulme.  This from a climate scientist who has been at the forefront of computer climate modelling and climate scenario creation. It is also fine for us to disagree on what climate change means and that "...the idea of climate change will keep changing as we find new ways of using it to meet our needs". It sounds to me like someone is beginning to hedge his bets.

New study challenges the conventional thinking on climate change.

Today's U.K. Telegraph carried a report about the research done at Bristol University, that suggests that in spite of rising CO2 emissions, the world is is still able to store a considerable amount of it in oceans and forests. The study says the Earth has continued to absorb more than half of the carbon dioxide emitted by humans over the last 160 years. The author of the study was quoted as saying "Previous studies suggested that in the next ten years the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will accelerate because there is a lot less uptake by the Earth, there is no indication of this."  What else don't the climate modellers know about the earth? If you want some more detailed discussion try Bombshell from Bristol.

May 30th, 2008

Politics in Environmentalism?

The following is a  quotation from Vaclav Klaus, the President of the Czech Republic on the occasion of his presenting his book "Blue Planet in Green Shackles" to the National Press Club in Washington this week.

"I spent most of my life under the communist regime which ignored and brutally violated human freedom and wanted to command not only the people but also the nature. To command “wind and rain” is one of the famous slogans I remember from my childhood. This experience taught me that freedom and rational dealing with the environment are indivisible. It formed my relatively sharp views on the fragility and vulnerability of free society and gave me a special sensitivity to all kinds of factors which may endanger it.

I do not, however, live in the past and do not see the future threats to free society coming from old-fashioned communist ideology. The name of the new danger will undoubtedly be different, but its substance will be very similar. There will be the same attractive, to a great extent pathetic and at first sight quasi-noble idea that transcends the individual in the name of something greater than the self, supplemented by enormous self-confidence on the side of those who stand behind it. Like their predecessors, they will be certain they have the right to sacrifice man and his freedom to make their ideas reality. In the past it was in the name of the masses (or of the proletariat), this time it is in the name of the planet. Yet, structurally, both are very similar."  For the complete article that appeared in the National Post see Communism to Environmentalism

On a lighter note.

According to the Globe and Mail today Al Gore's coffee table book "An Inconvenient Truth" is to be made into an opera in Italy.  La Scala says a composer has already been commissioned to produce it for the 2011 season. Perhaps a ballet is next.  The headline in the Globe and Mail was "An operatic ending to Al Gore's climate book."   Mmmm. I always did think it was all a bit of an opera. Lets hope it is the ending but I doubt it because as Vaclav Klaus points out in his in his article (See above) the rational arguments have been tried.

May 7th, 2008

Putting the  "Environmental Crisis" in proportion.

Ross McKitrick an environmental economist at the University of Guelph encourage his students not to use the word environment because it covers to much to be useful and "tends to detach any ensuing discussion from the prospect of measurement with real data."  See The Devil is in the Generalities. in Academic Matters - The Journal of Higher Education.  He demonstrates to his students, by asking them to look up the data, that there is a big gap between the perception of environmental crisis and the actual facts.  That is not to say there are no concerns or problems but these are frequently blown to a proportion not supported by the underlying data.  In the article he discusses both air pollution (it is improving except for some increase in ground level ozone which is not all man-made) and global warming (increasing at a rate below the lowest of the latest IPCC figures - at least for the tropical troposphere where all the models predict warming will reach a maximum.)  McKitrick provides a very interesting perspective on the whole issue.

Biofuels are part of the problem not the solution.

Who's voices could me more authoritative than that of Bob Watson and Sir David King.  Bob Watson was recently Chief scientist at the Word Bank and Chief scientist of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change from 1997 to 2002(yes that's right the same panel that produced all those climate change reports last year).  Sir David King was until recently the Chief scientist of the British government.  They are both asking the British government to hold-off on compulsory use of biofuels as mandated by EU regulations because, they say, the environmental impacts are not yet fully understood.  Bob Watson was quoted as saying in a BBC interview "If one started to use biofuels ... and in reality that policy led to an increase in greenhouse gases rather than a decrease, that would obviously be insane."  Both in the U.S. and in Europe government policy is driving the move to more and more biofuels production.  It is unstoppable now.  The result is likely to be huge profits (subsidised by the tax payer) for a few, increased decimation of forests and grass lands and - what for it - more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere not less. To quote Eric Reguly (See sidebar for April 4th, 2008.) "You have to wonder if the EU's policy makers are reading the same scientific literature as everyone else". Perhaps the truth is that the policy makers are, at the root of things, not interested in the science at all.  Now that thought has some implications doesn't it? 

We now have to await the truth to sink in about solar and wind energy because it is a similar story there.  Even if we can extract and use solar and wind energy, on a large enough scale, we will still have to contend with the unreliability  of both.  That means building and using fossil fuelled power plants as a back-up. Carbon dioxide clean nuclear electricity is not a backup option because nuclear reactors cannot be started up and shut down quickly enough.  The low energy density of solar power in particular means using  vast areas of land on which nothing will grow i.e. no plants to breathe the carbon dioxide.  Again public policy starts to look rather perverse.  

And what are the Climate Catastrophists doing about all this?  Why making money of course! The following item from Bloomberg News of March 11th, 2008 gives food for thought.

Al Gore's Fund to Close After Attracting $5 Billion WARREN GILES. Bloomberg News. GENEVA Al Gore's Generation Investment Management Ltd., a fund that invests in companies that follow socially responsible guidelines, plans to close its main Global Equity Fund to new money as assets approach a $5-billion (U.S.) target.

Biofuels increase greenhouse gas emissions.

A recent report by Oxford Analytica, who in their own words "... provide international organizations with monitoring, research and consultancy services that explore the strategic implications of policy, economic, financial, industry, trade and security developments around the world. ", recently concluded that biofuel production ... notably increases greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional diesel when factoring in emissions from land use changes.

The Daily Brief includes the following topics

Carbon deception.  Due to studies not taking into account the effect on emissions of converting land to biofuel production.

Forest and grassland.  Ploughing up these lands leads to increased emissions.

Wetlands. When drained decay rapidly and release much carbon (dioxide).

Croplands. Diverting croplands to biofuel production leads to higher food prices and thus more conversion of other lands.

Carbon debt. Recent studies have shown that land use changes, due to the increased biofuel crop production, result in vast carbon debts that will take decades to repay

Brazil. Converting Amazon rain forest to soybean biodiesel would create huge carbon debt.  Converting sugarcane much less.

Indonesia and Malaysia. Converting rain forest to palm diesel would create less carbon debt than converting peat lands for the same purpose.

United States.  Conversion of U.S. grasslands to corn ethanol create a substantial carbon debt.

Greener biofuels. Much research money is being spent on greener bio fuels such as the following but all would have significant effects on emissions if productive land was used.

Biofuel policies.  Policies on biofuels are likely to be re-evaluated as more awareness grows of the implications of biofuels.

Loading Payne Cartoon ...

Teaching Climate Change at Carlton University.

Professor Tim Patterson at Carlton University; Department of Earth Sciences, Faculty of Science; teaches a course; Climate Change: An Earth Sciences Perspective; in which he shows students that climate is not an unchangeable thing and that the effects that humans have on it are not at all well understood scientifically - it is incredibly complex.

TThere are quite a number geologists who, like Patterson and other scientists from many assorted fields, dissent from the so-called consensus view on global warming.  They are reputable and their views are diverse.  Some think that humans play only a minor role in global warming. Others think we simply don't have enough scientific information to know with reasonable certainty what the human effects on climate are.  And they maintain that the science is very far from settled, despite what the public is constantly told.   I suspect, based this article and other reading that I have done lately, that over the next few years some proponents of anthropogenic (particularly catastrophic) climate change are going to finish up with egg on their faces.  See side bar for the link to Margaret Wente's Globe and Mail column of January 8th 2008

December 2007.  An open letter to Ban Ki-Moon regarding the Bali process.

The contents of the article shown below was an open letter to the U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon

I have posted the entire letter on this site.  I haven’t made any changes but I have highlighted a few of points I feel that are of particular relevance. The list of signatories to this letter is contained in the left and right columns on the letter page.   The list itself makes for  interesting reading.

"Don't Fight, Adapt"

We should give up futile attempts to combat climate change.

National Post Published: Thursday, December 13, 2007

October 2007.  Judge finds major errors in "An Inconvenient Truth"

A British judge ruled recently that Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" contains significant errors and should not be shown in schools, as required by the British government, unless accompanied by written guidance to teachers to prevent the views expressed in the video from being promoted uncritically to children.

The ruling requires that this guidance must make it clear that the video is a political work and promotes only one side of the argument and that if teachers present the video without making this plain they may  guilty of political indoctrination and therefore be in breach of the Education Act.  Also a particular group of inaccuracies have to be specifically drawn to the attention of the students. (see below)

 This is a good thing because rather than not show the video at all, the students will have the inaccuracies and exaggerations pointed out to them by the teacher.   It is also significant that this is a court ruling because it is based on the evidence presented to the court by both sides of the argument.  No, Mr. Gore, the argument is not over.

 The principal inaccuracies that the judge ruled must be pointed out by the teachers to their students are the following:

  1. The video claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro are directly attributable to anthropogenic global warming. The defence conceded that this cannot be established as true.
  2. The video strongly suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 periodically caused temperature increases over a the past 650,000 years. The Court found that this was misleading because in fact the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800 years or more.
  3. The video uses emotive imagery of the effects of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that the hurricane was caused by global warming. The defence expert accepted that it was “not possible” to attribute one-off events to global warming.
  4. The video shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The defence expert accepted that this was not the case.
  5. The video claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. The only evidence found by either side was a report that four polar bears drowned as a result of a particularly violent storm.
  6. The video claims that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, throwing Europe into an ice age. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change itself says that this is a very unlikely event.
  7. The video blames global warming for the extinction of species and the bleaching of coral reefs. The defence could not provide any evidence to support this claim.
  8. The video suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt, causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence presented in court was that the Greenland ice will not melt for thousands of years.
  9. The video suggests that the Antarctic ice is melting, but the evidence presented in court was that the Antarctic ice is in fact thickening.
  10. The video suggests that sea levels could rise by 6.1m causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by only about 40cm over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration of people.
  11. The video claims that rising sea levels have caused the evacuation of certain peoples of the Pacific islands to New Zealand. The defence was unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.

Well there isn't much left of substance in the video after that list.  For a more definitive and authoritative criticism see A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth by Marlo Lewis and my abbreviated review.

Are our public policies regarding ethanol and other biofuels doing more harm than good?

An increasing number of authoritative  voices are expressing their concern over the current fashionable trend of producing ethanol and other biofuels from food stuffs.  The latest report from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development says food prices are being driven up and the environment is actually being harmed by many of the practices.  The OECD joins Canada's Library of Parliament who last spring produced a study that biofuels would do little to cut greenhouse gasses.  Environment Canada testing on vehicles demonstrated the same thing (see March 30th 2007 in the left column of this page).  The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations has already blamed biofuels for driving food prices up.  It goes on - about the only people that disagree are the Canadian Renewable Fuels Association who are a lobby group for farmers and biofuel producers.  Check out the articles from the Globe and Mail September 12th and 14th 2007 - see sidebar.  How's that for An Inconvenient Truth?

Can a Hummer be more energy efficient than a Toyota Prius?

Yes it is quite possible as demonstrated in a recent study by CNW Marketing Research. See sidebar item for July 27th 2007.  I have listed some examples in the table below with the lowest lifetime energy cost vehicles at the top and the highest at the bottom.  The numbers are expressed in U.S. dollars per lifetime mile.  As you can see the Gas/Electric hybrids do not do well at all and the Honda Accord Hybrid has an energy cost 50 per cent higher than the regular Honda Accord. Although this study cannot be the last word it does serve as a good example to illustrate that simplistic and incomplete thinking will not get us anywhere when it comes to evaluating lifetime energy use.    Lifetime energy use applies just as much to the amount of energy used in the building and disposal of the vehicle as it does to running it.  Sometimes the former two items may even exceed the latter.

Hummer 1.90
Honda Accord 2.18
Lincoln Town Car 2.66
Acura RL 2.80
Toyota Prius 2.86
Cadillac CTS 3.19
BMW's 5 series 3.19
Honda Accord Hybrid 3.29
Mercedes E-class 3.48
Toyota Land Cruiser 3.49
Ford Expedition 3.54
Cadillac STS (Seville) 3.56
Average of 10 Gas/Electric hybrids 3.65
Cadillac DTS (Deville) 3.65
Average of 9 Large SUV's 3.98

Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 2000 years, June 2006 by the National Academy of Sciences

 You can download the Report in Brief for free here (4 pages ) and /or you can listen to a webcast presentation (although it is a little long  there is a useful Q & A session).  You will need Real Player Loading RealPlayer logo ... which you can download here.

The U.S. Congress asked the U.S. National Academies (the senior umbrella group for the National Research Council, the National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences) to report on Surface Temperature Reconstructions (hockey stick curves) for the Last 2,000 years.  They looked at tree ring data, ice core data, borehole data, etc. etc and the only thing they had a high confidence level in was the fact that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than in the last 400 years. Anything earlier than 1600 had a lower level of confidence and anything before 900 A.D had a extremely low level of confidence. They cited the following areas of uncertainty:

So next time someone tells you that the planet is warmer now than in the past you will know that the only thing that the scientists are sure about is that it is probably true only over the last 400 years.  And that there are LOT of uncertainties in the data  (i.e. they just don't know.)

Satellite measurements do not confirm computer model predictions - so how accurate are the computer models?

Remember the doom-and-gloom projections that climate change would bring not only rising temperatures but also more severe drought? This was the prediction of computer models that suggested rainfall would rise at only half the rate of temperature during global warming.

It turns out that over the last two decades satellite readings show rain, humidity and temperature all increasing at about the same relative rate.

In a recent issue of the journal Science, a team of remote sensing experts led by Frank Wentz predicts that this will continue. They do not offer any explanation for the large discrepancy between the climate-model projections and the satellite data.  Perhaps the climate modellers will have to provide this.  If computer climate models cannot predict accurately over only two decades how can they possibly predict with any useful accuracy anything over a century away? The abstract for the paper is shown below. 

How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring?
Frank J. Wentz 1*, Lucrezia Ricciardulli 1, Kyle Hilburn 1, Carl Mears 1
1 Remote Sensing Systems, 438 First Street, Santa Rosa, CA 95401, USA.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Frank J. Wentz , E-mail: frank.wentz@remss.com
Climate models and satellite observations both indicate the total amount of water in the atmosphere will increase substantially due to global warming at a rate of 7% K-1. However, the climate models predict global precipitation will increase at a much slower rate of 1-3% K-1. A recent analysis of satellite observations does not support this prediction of a muted response of precipitation to global warming. Rather, the observations suggest that precipitation and total atmospheric water have increased at about the same rate over the last two decades.

Even climate change experts say many of the claims in Al Gore's film are wrong.  So how did it become required Classroom viewing?

History teachers, gym teachers, economics teachers are all into showing the video to their classes. Most of them seem to have no idea that there is another side to the issues presented. As my teacher wife said to me "I bet some of them are using it as a time filler"  Paramount, the studio behind An Inconvenient Truth seems to have played a big part in selling the video to schools by creating a lesson plan called "AIT in the classroom" for teachers. This is in addition to a companion book for school age children.

University of Colorado climatologist Kevin Vranes was quoted as being worried about "overselling (my he is polite) our certainty about knowing the future. James Hanson a NASA climatologist who appeared in the film "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and a collaborator of Al Gore's says AIT has "imperfections and "technical flaws"

Among many other things scientists have rejected Gore's claims that

See Kevin Libin's article in the sidebar.  Also my critique of the video and  for a more definitive and authoritative criticism see "A Sceptics Guide to An Inconvenient Truth" by Marlo Lewis

Catastrophic Climate Change

Climate scientist and Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Research, Mike Hulme says that climate change due to human activity is real a but new phenomenon has been constructed which he calls the "phenomenon of catastrophic climate change."

According to Hulme the increasing use of the pejorative term "catastrophic" along with "chaotic", "irreversible", "rapid", "worse than we thought", "at the point of no return".  These are terms the professional climate scientists does not use. They are not the language of science.  He goes on to give numerous examples of this type of language by politicians, environmental activists and  news organizations in order to illustrate his point.  He points out too that the IPCC reports do not use this language either.  Hulme argues that the use of this type of catastrophic language is counter productive. Chaotic World of Climate Truth - Viewpoint

Just when you thought that planting trees was a good thing to do and it would offset your carbon emissions - geez!

Govindasamy Bala of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and colleagues at the Carnegie Institution's Department of Global Ecology have reached some unexpected results from modeling the effects of planting and clearing forests at latitudes high and low, says physicist Russell Seitz in the Wall Street Journal.

According to the researchers:

However tropical reforestation efforts could slow global warming -- low latitude regions that the model left treeless until 2100 increased in average temperature by 0.7 degrees.  That's a warming trend as large as the planet saw in the entire 20th century.

Russell Seitz, "An Inconvenient Tree," Wall Street Journal, April 14-15, 2007.

See Temperate forests may worsen global warming, tropical forests fight higher temperatures Rhett A. Butler

Commentary by the author himself: Govindasamy Bala in Forbes magazine

Also under Global Warming "A new tree line", The Economist magazine, April 24th 2007

A quote from the President of the Czech Republic.

" ... IPCC is not a scientific body: it's a political institution, a kind of non-government organization with green flavour. It's not a forum of neutral scientists or a balanced group of scientists. Its members are politicized scientists who arrive there with one-sided sentiments and one-sided tasks. Also, it's an undignified practical joke that people don't wait for the complete report that will appear in May 2007 but instead react, in such a serious manner, to the summary for policy makers where all the 'ifs' and 'whens' and 'buts' are scratched, erased, and replaced by oversimplified theses."  For the full interview go to Vaclav Klaus on global warming

Climate Change and Science Reporting.

The following is Anna Maria Tremonte's preamble to part II of the March 8th 2007 episode of The Current on CBC Radio One.  It may help you to understand why it is so difficult to obtain a clear picture of climate change through the media. You will need about 20 minutes to listen to the whole thing.

"A brief history of climate change reporting there. Well these days it seems you can't pick up a newspaper or turn on a radio or TV without seeing green."

"Climate change and solutions to deal with it are simply everywhere. But just how good is the information we're getting? And has the media -- after years on the fence when it came to whether climate change was even happening -- now become just as unreliable at reporting on the solutions?"

"This morning we began an on-going series on the media. For the next few weeks CBC radio's Stephen Quinn will be with us to talk about the trade and bring us a variety of news and views on how the media covers the stories we do. Stephen Quinn was in our Vancouver studio this morning to talk climate change and science reporting."

The book mentioned in this item is called "The North Pole Was Here" by Andrew Revkin.

 March 8th 2007 - The Current. Part 11  If you do not have RealPlayerLoading RealPlayer logo ... installed you can download it for free here.

The latest IPCC report refutes alarmism and reveals uncertainties

Read how scientists summarize their data for policy makers  Independent Summary for Policymakers from the Fraser Institute.  And compare it to how the UN bureaucrats summarize the same scientific data for policy makers. Climate Change 2007 - The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policy Maker which incidentally actually refutes alarmism and reveals some of the major uncertainties in the underlying science. 

If you want a very powerful , well documented, compelling criticism of the basic science of the latest IPCC report by an eminent glaciologist with 40 years experience read CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski in EIR Science.

So there is scientific consensus is there?

In 2006, Friends of Science commissioned Dr Madhav Khandekar, a retired Environment Canada Research Scientist … to compile … a  bibliography of peer-reviewed climate science papers/a>, critical of the IPCC's politicized version of the science. A brief annotated version listing of papers by subject category  is also available.

A Canadian video with some sceptical scientists.

Climate Catastrophe Cancelled
Click to get your own widget
Notes on Temperature.

Temperatures from different locations cannot be averaged because temperature is an intensive property.  i.e. it is independent of mass. 

  Temperature only tells us about the state of something.

  If we divide an object in half we don't halve the temperature.  We finish up with two temperatures and half the mass and half the heat energy. 

 Other examples of intensive properties would be pressure, specific volume and density.  Mass, heat energy and total volume are examples of extensive properties (dependant on mass) that can be averaged.

Additionally in thermodynamics temperature is only defined when the object being measured is in thermal equilibrium.  i.e.  when neither warming nor cooling.