Russian scientist to alarmists: ‘Sun heats Earth!’

Jerome R. Corsi, May 17, 2010

CHICAGO – A new “Little Ice Age” could begin in just four years, predicted Habibullo Abdussamatov, the head of space research at St. Petersburg’s Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia.

Abdussamatov was speaking yesterday at the Heartland Institute’s Fourth International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago, which began Sunday and ends today.

The Little Ice Age, which occurred after an era known in scientific circles as the Medieval Warm Period, is typically defined as a period of about 200 years, beginning around 1650 and extending through 1850.

Full story

Marc Morano broke the Swift Boat story and effectively stalled John Kerry’s presidential run. Now he is working against an even bigger enemy: belief in climate change. Somehow, he seems to be winning.

John H. Richardson - March 30, 2010

Early on the morning of November 17, Gavin Schmidt sat down at his computer and entered his password. It didn’t work. Strange, he thought. He tried a few other accounts and none of them worked, either. Now he was alarmed. As a leading climatologist with NASA’s Goddard Institute in Manhattan, he’d been hacked before. He was used to e-mails from people who disapproved of his work, threatening e-mails that detailed the romantic life he was going to have in prison. So he knew what to do: He logged in via the Unix shell command.

A second later, the computer logged him off — and locked him out. Someone was in there, fighting him in real time. Schmidt sent an emergency message to his Web server:

“WE ARE BEING HACKED RIGHT NOW.”

When they started the system up again, hours later, Schmidt found a forged Web page and a link to a file holding thousands of what looked like private e-mails written by some leading climatologists who study global warming. In addition to being a massive theft, it was a dark joke. Because the Goddard Institute is the professional home of James Hansen, the scientist famous for first sounding the alarm on rising temperatures back in 1988, and these particular e-mails had been compiled as part of a bitter Freedom of Information fight launched by contrarians who insist that global warming is a hoax, the hacker was posting the e-mails as a malicious tweak. He came in via a misconfigured proxy server in Turkey that was on a list of the proxy servers people use if they want to hide their tracks.

Full story

Arnold Bock - February 14, 2010

The global climate warming fuss is not principally an environmental issue but, rather, it is a manufactured crisis supported by copious amounts of manipulated science, reinforced by opinion leaders and promulgated by the cheerleading of the mass media. Global warming has become the mother of all politically correct issues. www.MunKnee.com; By: Arnold Bock; Words: 1551

Various components of the warming cause, which are only tangentially related to the environment, have been outlined at some length in Part 1 (Global Warming: The Man-Made Crisis), Part 2 (U.S. and Canada Are Global Warming Scapegoats) and Part 3 (Why Should WE Make Sacrifices to Offset Global Warming?) of this series. However, it is important to comment on what has been regularly presented as scientific justification for sounding alarm bells over climate change, if for no other reason than to set the record straight.

Global Warming is Not a Proven Fact

Simply put, climate change – originally an emerging new ice age, then global warming and now climate change – is not a proven fact. To sarcastically mimic the affected gravitas of certain warming experts, we might call it an “anthropocentrically manufactured” issue. As mentioned in Part 2, in the late 1960’s the United Nations assigned Canadian Maurice Strong, a man possessed of a strong belief in the merits of global governance and the need to establish transnational governmental institutions, to head up what subsequently came to be known as the global climate change initiative.

Full story

The problem with the IPCC is not that some of its science is dodgy, but the fact that it elevates science per se above politics and democracy.

Brendan O’Neill - 4 February 2010

In recent weeks there has been a rare meeting of minds between climate-change sceptics and climate-change alarmists.

Both the doubters of green-leaning end-of-the-worldism and the promoters of green-infused stories of doom agree that the main problem with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is that some of its science is duff. Seriously duff. They might reach different conclusions as a result of their critique of the IPCC’s bad science – the sceptics argue that the IPCC is completely untrustworthy; the alarmists say there just needs to be a ‘spring clean’ of the IPCC’s scientific closet - but these normally horn-locked camps agree on the central premise: that the problem is dodgy science.

Full story

Indur M. Goklany - 14 02 2010

Professor Phil Jones unwittingly(?) reveals that the global warming emperor is, if not naked, scantily clad, vindicating key skeptic arguments

Annotated Version of the Phil & Roger Show – Guest post by Indur M. Goklany

Readers of WUWT are already familiar with the remarkable series of questions and answers between the BBC’s Roger Harrabin at right, and Professor Phil Jones at left (see the posts by Willis and Anthony). [In case you don’t already know, Phil Jones is the climate scientist at the center of the Climategate e-mails, and whose compilation of historic global temperature data from the late 1800s to the present is a key element of the IPCC’s reports.] These Q-and-As, as readers of the two earlier posts recognize, reveal (a) the lack of empirical support for claims that recent warming is exceptional and (b) the flawed logic behind assertions that “Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Full story

Marc Sheppard - January 22, 2010

Not surprisingly, the blatant corruption exposed at Britain’s premiere climate institute was not contained within the nation’s borders. Just months after the Climategate scandal broke, a new study has uncovered compelling evidence that our government’s principal climate centers have also been manipulating worldwide temperature data in order to fraudulently advance the global warming political agenda.

Not only does the preliminary report [PDF] indict a broader network of conspirators, but it also challenges the very mechanism by which global temperatures are measured, published, and historically ranked.

Last Thursday, Certified Consulting Meteorologist Joseph D’Aleo and computer expert E. Michael Smith appeared together on KUSI TV [Video] to discuss the Climategate — American Style scandal they had discovered. This time out, the alleged perpetrators are the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).

NOAA stands accused by the two researchers of strategically deleting cherry-picked, cooler-reporting weather observation stations from the temperature data it provides the world through its National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). D’Aleo explained to show host and Weather Channel founder John Coleman that while the Hadley Center in the U.K. has been the subject of recent scrutiny, “[w]e think NOAA is complicit, if not the real ground zero for the issue.”

Full story

James Delingpole - January 7th, 2010

As you freeze your butt off in a winter whose severity the politicised weather forecasters of the Met Office utterly failed to predict, and as you wonder how you can afford gas and electricity bills which have been grotesquely inflated by taxes and legislation designed to “combat global warming”, spare a thought for a fellow victim of eco-fascism who’s even worse off than you. In a week or so this poor man could be dead.

His name is Peter Spencer, he’s a farmer in New South Wales, and his livelihood has been stolen by the Australian government in the name of – you guessed it – “combatting climate change.” That’s why he is now sitting atop that windblown tower you see in the photograph, on sheep farmland rendered useless by eco-legislation, starving himself to death in protest at his government’s callous disregard for his property rights. This is his 46th day on hunger strike.

Full story

Washington’s Blog - Dec 16, 2009

On April 28, 1975, Newsweek wrote an article stating:

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

Here is a reprint of the article in the Washington Times, and here is a copy of the 1975 Newsweek article.

Why were scientists considering melting the arctic ice cap?

Because they were worried about a new ice age.

Full story

• Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor
  • User contributions For William M. Connolley
  • Edit Counter: Username: William M. Connolley

Laurence Solomon also wrote an extensive series on Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) Deniers, which he extended into a 2008 book: The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud - And those who are too fearful to do so.

One of the best articles in the original series is “Climate change by Jupiter: The alignment of the planets, and especially that of Jupiter and Saturn, control the climate on Earth.” It introduces the amazing work of the late Rhodes Fairbridge of Columbia University. For more on Fairbridge, see “How Barycentric Orbits Influence Climate” and especially Richard Mackey’s academic paper, “Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate.” The title says it all - and delivers.

An hour with Lord Christopher Monckton, former science adviser to Margaret Thatcher and a critic of global warming theories.

Joanne Nova (December 16th, 2009)

You might think journalists at a popular science magazine would be able to investigate and reason.

In DenierGate, watch New Scientist closely, as they do the unthinkable and try to defend gross scientific malpractice by saying it’s OK because other people did other things a little bit wrong, that were not related, and a long time ago. Move along ladies and gentlemen, there’s nothing to see…

The big problem for this formerly good publication is that they have decided already what the answer is to any question on climate-change (and the answer could be warm or cold but it’s always ALARMING). That leaves them clutching for sand-bags to prop up their position as the king-tide sweeps away any journalistic credibility they might have had.

Full story

Martin Hutchinson (Dec 16, 2009)

Excerpt:

The shakiness of the mathematics underlying the global warming “consensus” was highlighted by the recent “climategate” e-mails and computer tapes involving researchers at the University of East Anglia. Like Wall Street risk managers, climate scientists pooh-poohed the obvious flaws in the assumptions underlying their mathematical models. Like Wall Street bankers, they asserted a consensus behind those models - in Wall Street’s case, to win from regulators a profitable loosening of their leverage limits; in climate scientists’ case, to persuade politicians to provide them with hugely profitable research opportunities and capital for their “new energy” start-ups.

Like Wall Street traders, the scientists rejected any modifications of the models that had served them well and pushed those models to their outer limits; the Wall Street gang to trade ever more exotic derivatives, the scientists to justify ever more alarmist predictions of climate change.

The denouement in both cases may also turn out to be similar. In Wall Street’s case, the faulty models have led to losses in the financial system totaling in excess of US$1 trillion. In the climate scientists’ case, the precise degree of error in their assumptions is not yet apparent. It is only clear that dubious methods were used to cover up the flaws in their models and observations, and that the more extreme predictions (”6 degrees Celsius by 2100″) were made up out of whole cloth to justify gargantuan economy-destroying projects of government control.

Should the conference on climate change at present underway in Copenhagen produce anything beyond alarmist blather, the net cost to the global economy is likely to exceed by far that of the subprime mortgage fiasco. The difference between the two cases is that in Wall Street, the first decent-sized downturn showed the models to be rubbish, although admittedly that took 21 years to happen after the first demonstration. On the other hand, with climate models we will have to wait even longer, until 2100, to find out whether they were completely spurious or merely exaggerated.

Lord Monckton on Climategate at the 2nd International Climate Conference from CFACT EUROPE on Vimeo.

‘A political and cultish lovefest’