Totally Biased AP Climate Propaganda

The complete lack of respect for Science in the face of clearly biased, religiously fueled, agenda driven drivel is embarrassing.

In short, not every Natural disaster is the result of “global warming”, “climate change”, or whatever the phrase du jour is now.

Check out the report posted on Watts Up With That?.

Associated Press gone wild: 2010 disaster article is unadulterated trash

WUWT - Posted on December 19, 2010 by Ryan Maue

2010′s world gone wild: Quakes, floods, blizzards: The Associated Press has published one of the most biased pieces of environmental science journalism in a long time,  and that’s quite a feat in itself. Indeed, there are some serious journalistic integrity issues with this clearly biased piece: the authors intersperse anecdotes with specific scientists’ quotations while playing fast and loose with the facts in order to push an agenda.  Undoubtedly, there is a considerable amount of scientific ignorance on the part of the authors, but using the human suffering associated with 2010′s natural disasters as talking points in this narrative is a new low for the Associated Press.

This article by Seth Borenstein and Julie Reed Bell deserves a thorough fact-checking and deconstruction. Keep your vomit bags and pitchforks at the ready, and hold onto your seats on this Pulitzer-prize winning fictional roller coaster…

This is an absolute masterpiece: quotations are in the boxes, comments are mine.

This was the year that the Earth struck back.   Earthquakes, heat waves, floods, volcanoes, super typhoons, blizzards, landslides and droughts killed at least a quarter million people in 2010 – the deadliest year in more than a generation. More people were killed worldwide by natural disasters this year than have been killed in terrorism attacks in the past 40 years combined.

What purpose does this statement serve? Is there a moral equivalence between suicide bombers and the heartbreaking suffering associated with Haiti’s earthquake, the resulting mysteriously-caused cholera epidemic, or the devastation associated with the Pakistani floods? Apparently there is, as the authors make that case that it is either human-caused or exacerbated.

And we have ourselves to blame most of the time, scientists and disaster experts say.

That didn’t take long.

Even though many catastrophes have the ring of random chance, the hand of man made this a particularly deadly, costly, extreme and weird year for everything from wild weather to earthquakes.

There is no doubt that the impoverished around the world suffer disproportionately from natural disasters: their ability to mitigate is very limited with poorly constructed buildings and standards of living that could further unravel by nature’s tragic pulling on the threads of survival. Earthquakes occur without regard to the dwellers above the ground. Tropical cyclones occur without regard to the topography in their path. Weather and seismic activity cannot be controlled; it can only be adapted to with the best possible disaster prevention. This fact is not ground breaking or in any way controversial, yet it is seemingly brought up, acknowledged, and summarily dismissed while Borenstein and Bell get to work on blaming humanity for the ills of the Earth.

Climate scientists say Earth’s climate also is changing thanks to man-made global warming, bringing extreme weather, such as heat waves and flooding.

Some climate scientists perhaps, but there is current NO peer reviewed literature that DIRECTLY connects the floods in Pakistan or the heat wave in Russia definitively to anthropogenic global warming. Indeed, there are scant scientifically diligent explanations available for the weather/climate events of 2010, but here’s one from the NOAA Earth System Research Laboratory Climate Attribution or CSI outfit on the Russian heat wave. Note, this is also a draft document, and not peer reviewed (yet), but with the extent of the data analysis from inside, it has a helluva lot more weight than the word of scientists who have not demonstrated or presented similar data analysis on the Russian heat waves or the floods. Instead, as Borenstein and Bell helpfully intersperse in the article, scientists are giving expert testimony on the events without tangible evidence, but perhaps intuition, feelings, or political motivations, which are superfluous anyways to the situation at hand.

Here is NOAA’s explanation by Dr. Martin Hoerling, which has received almost no media mention anywhere, and definitely not a press-release from NOAA.

Despite this strong evidence for a warming planet, greenhouse gas forcing fails to explain the 2010 heat wave over western Russia. The natural process of atmospheric blocking, and the climate impacts induced by such blocking, are the principal cause for this heat wave. It is not known whether, or to what extent, greenhouse gas emissions may affect the frequency or intensity of blocking during summer.

AP continues:

In the summer, one weather system caused oppressive heat in Russia, while farther south it caused flooding in Pakistan that inundated 62,000 square miles, about the size of Wisconsin. That single heat-and-storm system killed almost 17,000 people, more people than all the worldwide airplane crashes in the past 15 years combined.

What in tarnation does the number of casualties associated with plane crashes have to do with anything? Simply making an academic comparison here for the readers? WUWT!

Expert Quote #1

“It’s a form of suicide, isn’t it?” Professor Roger Bilham, geological sciences University of Colorado.

Anecdote #1

“I think it is the end of the world,” she said. “Our planet warns us against what would happen if we don’t care about nature.” Mask wearing Vera Savinova, a 52-year-old administrator in a dental clinic who in August took refuge from Moscow’s record heat, smog and wildfires.

Expert Quote #2

“These (weather) events would not have happened without global warming,” said Kevin Trenberth, chief of climate analysis for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.

Where’s that missing heat? It’s a travesty…

How Extreme?

The article lists a series of weather events which seemingly are examples of events contemporaneously associated with the “season”, aka winter or summer aka cold/snowy, hot/dry, and some comments in parentheses.  Here’s the rundown of extreme events: blizzards over the eastern-US, Russia, and China ( always happened, still happening, and will happen again & again ) | record heat in Los Angeles on one day (Urban Heat Island effects?) | freezes in Florida (yup, happened in January 2010 and December 2010) | tropical floods in tropical Australia, and desert droughts in desert Australia | Amazon drought (though flooding in nearby Venezuela must have been missed).

Anecdote #2 (How costly?)

Ghulam Ali’s three-bedroom, one-story house in northwestern Pakistan collapsed during the floods. To rebuild, he had to borrow 50,000 rupees ($583) from friends and family.

An attempt at scientific knowledge:

Even the extremes were extreme. This year started with a good sized El Nino weather oscillation that causes all sorts of extremes worldwide. Then later in the year, the world got the mirror image weather system with a strong La Nina, which causes a different set of extremes. Having a year with both a strong El Nino and La Nina is unusual.

Almost, but not quite. Okay, it’s just untrue. La Nina is NOT the mirror image weather system of El Nino. El Nino is one mode of the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO), which is a 2-7 year period coupled atmosphere-ocean phenomena — it modulates the world’s weather — it is NOT weather. It is the number one mode of variability in the tropics. Someone please get these folks at the AP Wikipedia or Google or perhaps one of the experts can help them understand this. It’s like the fact checking / preparation that Larry King is known for! Here, Jerry Seinfeld talks to King who seriously thought Seinfeld’s show was canceled.  Anyways, look at the graphic from that pesky government-run NOAA website again:  when the red switches to blue, that’s when El Nino goes to La Nina, happens a lot — and if we had more than a hundred years of data, we’d see it goes back and forth, without any concern for the “human hand”.

MEI (ENSO index): El Nino red, La Nina blue

Another attempt at scientific knowledge:

The excessive amount of extreme weather that dominated 2010 is a classic sign of man-made global warming that climate scientists have long warned about. They calculate that the killer Russian heat wave – setting a national record of 111 degrees – would happen once every 100,000 years without global warming.

This one is a a steaming-pile of you know what. Borenstein and Bell really screw the pooch in the facts department on this one: the climate scientists he is referring to is ONE blogger at Jeff Master’s Weather Underground (no, not Bill Ayers’), Rob Carver. You’ll see from my comment #13 (RyanFSU), which is not responded to, that his interpretation of the “normalized anomaly” is woefully inadequate and should be removed as it is, uh, statistical rubbish. But, Carver is cited as “climate scientists” — the AP and the drive-by media is known for these mystery quotations of plural groups: “some people say“.

Expert Quote #3

“The extremes are changed in an extreme fashion,” said Greg Holland, director of the Earth System Laboratory at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

Please, someone publish a peer-reviewed transliteration of that statement, using the evidence contained in this article.

Expert Quote #4

“The science is clear that we can expect more and more of these kinds of damaging events unless and until society’s emissions of heat-trapping gases and particles are sharply reduced.” Ecoscience author, and Science Czar John Holdren.

And, almost at the end, the AP writers manage to throw in the BP oil spill, and declare the Chilean mining crew’s 69-day ordeal as the “feel good story of the year.” WUWT!

Here’s a clue AP: if you really want to understand the world’s weather and climate, don’t look to global warming. It is an absolute pittance compared to the global reorganization of the world’s weather due to El Nino, and it will be for the foreseeable future. So, if you want the easiest, best, and most correct expert explanation for what happened in 2010 here it is:

The transition from a strong El Nino to a strong La Nina (ENSO), hardly unprecedented, dramatically changes the tropical Pacific ocean temperatures. The atmosphere and ocean, acting together in a coupled fashion, teleconnect these tropical changes to the rest of the globe — both hemispheres. Storm tracks including tropical and extratropical cyclones, large-scale weather regimes such as blocks and Rossby-wave breaking cut-off lows, and shorter-time scale oscillations such as the PNA, NAO, and AO are all NON-LINEARLY associated with ENSO.

Academically, we have only begun to scratch the surface in understanding atmospheric/climate variability — and no matter what the experts on 2010 quoted in this article purport to understand about this year’s weather, it is only hand-wavy testimony that is actually at odds with some researchers at their own government labs!

The Associated Press and agenda-driven journalists without much evidence of scientific knowledge (especially in terms of climate variability) do the entire planet a disservice by conflating anecdotes, expert testimony, political appointees’ nonsense, and real-world suffering by those afflicted by natural disasters into a self-serving, blame humanity, anti-progress screed.

From Watts Up With That?

So-called Journalists need to check their agendas at the door.

Don’t buy the hype, Think for yourself!”

Peace
G

"Brave New World"

I absolutely have nothing to add to this story, except...Shocking and Scary!

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley in Copenhagen at the SPPI blog:

Today the gloves came off and the true purpose of the “global warming” scare became nakedly visible. Hugo Chavez, the Socialist president of Venezuela, blamed “global warming” on capitalism – and received a standing ovation from very nearly all of the delegates, lamentably including those from those of the capitalist nations of the West that are on the far Left – and that means too many of them.

Previously Robert Mugabe, dictator of Rhodesia, who had refused to leave office when he had been soundly defeated in a recent election, had also won plaudits at the conference for saying that the West ought to pay him plenty of money in reparation of our supposed “climate debt”.

Inside the conference center, “world leader” after “world leader” got up and postured about the need to Save The Planet, the imperative to do a deal, the necessity to save the small island nations from drowning, etc., etc., etc.

Outside, in the real world, it was snowing, and a foretaste of the Brave New World being cooked up by “world leaders” in their fantasy-land was already evident. Some 20,000 observers from non-governmental organizations – nearly all of them true-believing Green groups funded by taxpayers – had been accredited to the conference.

However, without warning the UN had capriciously decided that all but 300 of them were to be excluded from the conference today, and all but 90 would be excluded on the final day.

Of course, this being the inept UN, no one had bothered to notify those of the NGOs that were not true-believers in the UN’s camp. So Senator Steve Fielding of Australia and I turned up with a few dozen other delegates, to be left standing in the cold for a couple of hours while the UN laboriously worked out what to do with us.

In the end, they decided to turn us away, which they did with an ill grace and in a bad-tempered manner. As soon as the decision was final, the Danish police moved in. One of them began the now familiar technique of manhandling me, in the same fashion as one of his colleagues had done the previous day.

Once again, conscious that a police helicopter with a high-resolution camera was hovering overhead, I thrust my hands into my pockets in accordance with the St. John Ambulance crowd-control training, looked my assailant in the eye and told him, quietly but firmly, to take his hands off me.

He complied, but then decided to have another go. I told him a second time, and he let go a second time. I turned to go and, after I had turned my back, he gave me a mighty shove that flung me to the ground and knocked me out.

I came to some time later (not sure exactly how long), to find my head being cradled by my friends, some of whom were doing their best to keep the police thugs at bay while the volunteer ambulance-men attended to me.

I was picked up and dusted me off. I could not remember where I had left my telephone, which had been in my hand at the time when I was assaulted. I rather fuzzily asked where it was, and one of the police goons shouted, “He alleges he had a mobile phone.”

In fact, the phone was in my coat pocket, where my hand had been at the time of the assault. The ambulance crew led me away and laid me down under a blanket for 20 minutes to get warm, plying me with water and keeping me amused with some colorfully colloquial English that they had learned.

I thanked them for their kindness, left them a donation for their splendid service, and rejoined my friends. A very senior police officer then came up and asked if I was all right. Yes, I said, but no thanks to one of his officers, who had pushed me hard from behind when my back was turned and had sent me flying.

The police chief said that none of his officers would have done such a thing. I said that several witnesses had seen the incident, which I intended to report. I said I had hoped to receive an apology but had not received one, and would include that in my report. The policeman went off looking glum, and with good reason.

To assault an accredited representative of a conference your nation is hosting, and to do it while your own police cameramen are filming from above, and to do it without any provocation except my polite, non-threatening request that I should not be manhandled, is not a career-enhancing move, as that police chief is about to discover to his cost.

Nor does this incident, and far too many like it, reflect the slightest credit on Denmark. We must make reasonable allowance for the fact that the unspeakable security service of the UN, which is universally detested by those at this conference, was ordering the Danish police about. The tension between the alien force and the indigenous men on the ground had grown throughout the conference.

However, the Danish police were far too free with their hands when pushing us around, and that is not acceptable in a free society. But then, Europe is no longer a free society. It is, in effect, a tyranny ruled by the unelected Kommissars of the European Union. That is perhaps one reason why police forces throughout Europe, including that in the UK, have become far more brutal than was once acceptable in their treatment of the citizens they are sworn to serve.

It is exactly this species of tyranny that the UN would like to impose upon the entire planet, in the name of saving us from ourselves – or, as Ugo Chavez would put it, saving us from Western capitalist democracy.

A few weeks ago, at a major conference in New York, I spoke about this tendency towards tyranny with Dr. Vaclav Klaus, the distinguished economist and doughty fighter for freedom and democracy who is President of the Czech Republic.

While we still have one or two statesmen of his caliber, there is hope for Europe and the world. Unfortunately, he refused to come to Copenhagen, telling me that there was no point, now that the lunatics were firmly in control of the asylum.

However, I asked him whether the draft Copenhagen Treaty’s proposal for what amounted to a communistic world government reminded him of the Communism under which he and his country had suffered for so long.

He thought for a moment – as statesmen always do before answering an unusual question – and said, “Maybe it is not brutal. But in all other respects, what it proposes is far too close to Communism for comfort.”

Today, as I lay in the snow with a cut knee, a bruised back, a banged head, a ruined suit, and a written-off coat, I wondered whether the brutality of the New World Order was moving closer than President Klaus – or any of us – had realized.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'd add my usual...Peace, but that would be naive.

G

Black Carbon Responsible for Himalayan Warming

Well...who would of thought it? NASA Goddard finally does useful science.

Seems that Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. knows more than some AGW religious fanatics give him credit. Dr Pielke Sr has always held the opinion that other forcings were more responsible than Greenhouse Gases.

A new study from NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD shows that Soot (also known as Black Carbon) is more responsible for warming temperatures in the Himalayas than Carbon Dioxide. Turns out that the melting in the Himalayan mountains may be caused by man after all, but instead of continually blaming it on Greenhouse Gases (GHGs) it seems that black carbon soot is the real culprit. As the article states, soot is produced "When fossil fuels are burned without enough oxygen to complete combustion, one of the byproducts is black carbon, an aerosol that absorbs solar radiation..." This black carbon comes from poorly developed regions in Asia with large populations of people, like China, India, etc. And, guess what...It's relatively easy to remedy, and could have much quicker results to the climate. More study of this has been proposed and should be done. Let's hope that the misguided religious fanatics don't start hooking their CO2 hooks into this. Let's hope some real science comes of this.

Maybe ClimateGate wasn't such a bad thing after all...Amen to that!

See the article from NASA - http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/himalayan-warming.html

or, see Dr Pielke Sr's take on it - http://pielkeclimatesci.wordpress.com/2009/12/15/news-release-on-soot-effects-on-climate-in-the-himalayas-its-larger-than-the-forcing-from-the-human-input-of-co2/


Oh and by the way, Himalayan warming is not global warming...The key word being "global". =)

"Don't buy the hype, think for yourself!"

Peace
G

That Pesky Climategate

Well, it’s been four weeks since the whole ClimateGate scandal began to raise blood pressures in the Global Warming supporters camp. The way Al Gore has avoided any HARD questions on the subject is a better example of avoiding the rush than even John Elway used to be able to do during his time with the Broncos.

And, speaking of our mighty Goreacle – savior of the human race – he’s been hard at work promoting his doom and gloom visions of the end of the world (as long as it’s CNN, MSNBC, NYT, or any other liberal dirt rag)…he wouldn’t want to be challenged when he says such awesomely scientific things as claiming the earth’s temperatures are “several million degrees” at “2 kilometers or so down”. Oh, and the “crust of the earth is hot” too.

FACT: Temperature of the sun’s corona: 1–2 million kelvin

FACT: Temperature of the sun’s photosphere: 6,000 kelvin

FACT: Temperature of the Earths mantle, more than “2 kilometers or so down”: between 500 °C to 900 °C (773 to 1173 kelvin)

FACT: Gore is an idiot!

Even John Stewart has found the need to lambaste Gore and the Climategate scandal on “The Daily Show” and he’s a liberal stooge!

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Scientists Hide Global Warming Data
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

Scientists Hide Global Warming Data

But, I digress…

I seriously think no one understands what it means to be a so-called “climate skeptic”. If you go to a site like www.wattsupwiththat.com you will be allowed to read the posted articles, and respectfully comment your educated opinions or ask questions if you don’t understand certain things, but if you go to a global warming supporter’s site – like www.realclimate.org – and voice any opposition to the supported opinions, you risk ridicule, and that is only if they even post your comments. Because, sites like realclimate love to censor the content allowed on their sites, because anything to throw their long held beliefs into question is strictly not allowed. Where true scientific debate occurs on skeptic sites, propaganda and denial of opposition are the main courses being served up on global warming sites.

Meanwhile, the very data being used as the whole basis for the debate has been shown (by climategate) to be unreliable and manufactured. The CRU is the main institute responsible for research which supports global warming. The UN’s IPCC report and Al Gore’s movie is all based on the data from the CRU. This is not a “non-issue”. This is disturbing. And, people should be standing up and demanding explanation beyond the usual response of “non-issue” or “out of context”. People should be outraged, but they are not…they continue to let Gore and Obama spew their rhetoric and propose to tax the air we breathe.

Why is it that 10 years ago, Gore stated “we have 10 years to tackle global warming” and now 10 years later he still says “we have 10 years to combat global warming”. Meanwhile, CO2 has not gone down, but the temperatures have NOT gone up; the polar ice caps have been steadily growing; hurricanes have NOT gotten stronger or more dangerous; and sea levels have NOT risen significantly.

Oh and by the way, the Polar bear population is not in danger of extinction according to polar bear expert, Dr. Mitchell Taylor. It’s a 55 page PDF file…I’ll gladly email to anyone who wishes a copy.

The concern that polar bears will decline if the climate continues to warm is valid. However, the assertion that polar bears will become extinct unless immediate measures are
taken to curb greenhouse gas emissions is irrational because it is inconsistent with the long-term persistence of polar bears through previous periods of warming and cooling; and because the IPCC climate model predictions 50 and 100 years into the future do not suggest a future with insufficient sea ice to support polar bears as a viable species. Currently, polar bears are abundant and in no danger of extinction thanks to coordinated research and management programs developed and implemented under the International Agreement for the Conservation of Polar Bears and their Habitat (Brower et al. 2002; Fikkan et al. 1993,Prestrud and Stirling 1994). During the last 30 years, it is generally agreed that polar bear numbers have increased as a response to improved conservation measures (harvest controls). Climate warming has occurred
continuously during that period and consequent reductions in sea ice have been to the detriment of polar bear populations in at least two areas (Regehr et al. 2006, 2007a,b). However, the assertion that polar bears as a species are in imminent danger of extinction or even threatened with extinction in the foreseeable future is both unproven and unlikely.

I’ll leave you with these words from Dr Roy Spenser in explaining Global Warming Skepticism.

And, as always…”Don’t buy the hype, think for yourself!”

Peace
G

_________________________________________________________
From Dr Roy W Spenser, Ph. D. (December 9, 2009):

Global Warming Skepticism 101

The following list, in no particular order, are my responses to common claims and accusations about global warming skeptics. If other scientists or laypersons want me to add to the list, or want to argue for changes, email me and I will update it as appropriate. Please be sure to check back for the latest update (posted above).

1. Skeptics deny global warming. No, we deny that warming has been mostly human-caused.

2. Skeptics are paid by big oil. The vast majority of skeptics have never been paid anything by Big Oil (me included).

3. Skeptics don’t publish in the peer reviewed literature. Wrong…but it is true we do not have nearly as many publications as the other side does. But it only takes one scientific study to destroy a scientific hypothesis, which is what anthropogenic global warming theory is.

4. Skeptics are not unified with an alternative explanation for global warming. Well, that’s the way science works in a field as immature as climate change science. The biggest problem is that we really don’t understand what causes natural climate variability. Kevin Trenberth has now famously admitted as much in one of the Climategate emails, where said it’s a “travesty” that we don’t know why warming has stopped in the last 7 to 10 years. For century-time-scale changes, some believe it is cloud cover being modulated by cosmic ray activity, which is in turn affected by sunspot activity. A few others think it is changes in the total energy output of the sun (possible, but I personally doubt it). In my opinion, it is internal, chaotic variability in the ocean and atmosphere circulation causing small changes in cloud cover. Since clouds are a natural sunshade, changing their coverage of the Earth will cause warming or cooling. The IPCC simply assumes this does not happen. If they did, they would have to admit that natural climate change happens, which means they would have to address the possibility that most of the warming in the last 50 has been largely natural in origin.

5. But the glaciers are melting! Many glaciers which have been monitored around the world for a long time have been retreating since the 1800’s, before humans could have been responsible. A few retreating glaciers are even revealing old tree stumps…how did those get there? Planted by skeptics?

6. But the sea ice is melting! Well, the same thing happened back in the 1920’s and 1930’s, with the Northwest Passage opening up in 1940. It was just as warm, or nearly as warm, in the Arctic in the 1930’s. Again, this is before humans could be blamed. There were very low water levels in the Great Lakes in the 1920’s too, just as has happened recently. We have accurate measurements of sea ice cover from satellites only since 1979, so there is no way to really know whether sea ice cover is less than it was before.

7. But we just had the warmest decade in recorded history! Well, if thermometer measurements had started in, say 200, AD (rather than in the 1800’s), and it was now 850 AD, the same thing might well have been said back then. The climate system is always warming or cooling, and the Industrial Revolution (and thus our carbon dioxide emissions) just happened to occur while we were still emerging from the Little Ice Age…a warming period.

8. But the Antarctic ice shelves are collapsing! Well, sea ice around Antarctica has been expanding since we started monitoring by satellite in 1979….so which do we use as evidence? There is no convincing evidence of warming in Antarctica, except in the relatively small Antarctic Peninsula, which juts out into the ocean. Just as glaciers naturally flow to the sea, ice shelves must eventually break off. It is very uncertain how often this happens through the centuries, and what has been observed in recent years might be entirely normal. Similarly, it was warmer in Greenland in the 1930’s than it has been more recently.

9. But the sea levels are rising! Yes, and from what we can tell, they have been rising since the end of the last Ice Age. Again, the more recent rise might be just a consequence of our emergence from the Little Ice Age, which bottomed out in the 1600’s.

10. But we keep emitting carbon dioxide, which we know is a greenhouse gas! Yes, I agree. But the direct warming effect of moré CO2 is agreed by all to be small…and I predict that when we better understand how clouds change in response to that small warming influence, the net warming in response to more CO2 will be smaller still. This is the “feedback” issue, which determines “climate sensitivity”, the area of research I spend most of my time on. I and a minority of other scientists believe the net feedbacks in the climate system are negative, probably driven by negative cloud feedback. In contrast, all twenty-something IPCC climate models now exhibit positive cloud feedback.

11. But we can’t keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere forever! No, and we won’t. Assuming fossil fuels will be increasingly difficult to find and access in the coming decades, the continuing demand for energy ensures that new energy technologies will be developed. It’s what humans do…adapt.

12. But we shouldn’t be interfering with nature! Actually, it would be impossible to NOT interfere with nature. Chaos theory tells us that everything that happens, naturally or anthropogenically, forever alters the future state of the climate system. I predict that science will eventually understand that more CO2 is good for life on Earth. This doesn’t mean it will be good for every single species…but when Mother Nature changes the climate system, there are always winners and losers anyway. In the end, this is a religious issue, not a scientific one. Interestingly I have found that the vast majority of scientists also have the religious belief that we should not be impacting nature. I believe this has negatively affected their scientific objectivity.

Climate Change Examiner (December 13, 2009)

Climategate email scandal scientists feeling the heat

ClimateGate: Climate Research Unit (CRU) Hacked

For those of you not following along, it was reported last week that The Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England was hacked and a zip file containing emails and data files was released to the world.

The story broke on many blog sites and main stream media outlets. Some very revealing emails have been made public, as well as some very suspect segments of code w/questionable comments by the programmer. The released data has been confirmed to be authentic by Prof Phil Jones, the director of the CRU. Various spins have been attempted by the AGW supporters trying to portray this as much ado about nothing.

A very interesting alternate theory as to how this large volume of information (all contained in ONE compressed zip file) was obtained and released has been proposed...Read Theory.

The whole situation was best summarized by Dr Roy Spencer, Ph. D (Climatologist, Author, and former NASA Scientist).


Update:
The shit storm just keeps growing, even reaching Fox News, as Supporters keep trying to spin, and the media try to run and hide...I seriously doubt this will be the end of the debate (as well it should not be) but it does allow me the opportunity to sit back like a Cheshire Cat in wild amusement.

Not Enough Hurricanes - No Problem

This just goes to show how far Mr Gore will go to make everyone believe his bullshit...Truth is there is no link between Global Warming and increased Hurricane activity. When the facts don't support the theory, make up the facts as you see fit...

Taking advice on science from this jackass is like taking a public speaking class from GW Bush! Stuuuupid!


This article is from Anthony Watts' climate science blog...all credit to his blog for true scientific discussion and debate.

From: Watts Up With That (http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/11/19/not-finding-any-gore-airbrushes-in-hurricanes-for-his-new-book/)

Not finding any, Gore airbrushes in hurricanes for his new book

19 11 2009

Al Gore’s new book had a problem – no big hurricanes since Katrina to put in the book to look “threatening” to the USA. Any imagined link between hurricanes and global warming has evaporated.

Solution: the artists airbrush.

Ryan Maue, hurricane expert from the University of Florida writes:

Anthony,

Not a lot of hurricanes here

The cover opens and closes half and half — so you only see one hurricane…as in the press release photo or the one on Amazon.

But this is the real picture sequence from the book which I looked at Borders today and took cell-phone pictures, original (before the retouching by some “artist”) Note all of the Arctic ice and the size of the Florida Peninsula…

and the final product:

Now with 4 scary hurricanes - hey where's the ice?

WUWT?

A midget Southern Hemisphere cyclone is off the coast of Florida, another hurricane is sitting on the equator off the coast of Peru — and the Arctic Ice is gone (perhaps it is summer) and the Florida Peninsula is half gone

There are other differences I am sure you can find — but the hurricanes are just nonsense…

Ryan

Here’s the book cover:

Nonsense? No more like scaremongering, especially when it has been shown time and again that there is no hurricane to global warming linkage, and we are at a 30 year low.

Mr. Gore, you are a charlatan.