Quick Links:

Beginning with frequently requested articles. Loosely grouped by theme.

Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus (Richard S. Lindzen)

The Not So Clear Consensus on Climate Change [.pdf] (Dennis Bray)

How Global Warming Research is Creating a Climate of Fear (Hans von Storch and Nico Stehr)

Global Warming Natural, May End Within 20 Years (Robert Essenhigh)

The Science Isn’t Settled: The Limitations of Global Climate Models [.pdf] (Kenneth Green, Tim Ball, & Steven Schroeder)

Altitude Dependence of Atmospheric Temperature Trends: Climate Models vs Observation [.pdf] (David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson and S. Fred Singer)

Disparity of Tropospheric and Surface Temperature Trends: New Evidence [.pdf] (David H. Douglass, Benjamin D. Pearson, S. Fred Singer, Paul C. Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels)

Interview with Dr. S. Fred Singer (PBS)

Reconstructing Climatic And Environmental Changes Of The Past 1000 Years: A Reappraisal [.pdf] (Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Craig Idso, Sherwood Idso and David R. Legates)

Temperature Changes in the Troposphere: Beyond the IPCC [.pdf] (Marshall Institute)

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide [.pdf] (Arthur B. Robinson, Sallie L. Baliunas, Willie Soon and Zachary W. Robinson)

Global Garden Grows Greener (NASA/DoE)

Climate driven increases in global terrestrial net primary production from 1982 to 1999 (Ramakrishna R. Nemani, Charles D. Keeling, Hirofumi Hashimoto, William M. Jolly, Stephen C. Piper, Compton J. Tucker, Ranga B. Myneni and Steven W. Running)

Climate Change: Incorrect information on pre-industrial CO2 (Zbigniew Jaworowski)

Century-Scale Shifts in Early Holocene Atmospheric CO2 Concentration [.pdf] (Friederike Wagner, Sjoerd J. P. Bohncke, David L. Dilcher, Wolfram M. Ku¬rschner, Bas van Geel and Henk Visscher)

Satellites Show Overall Increases in Antarctic Sea Ice Cover (NASA/GSFC)

A New Alpine Melt Theory (Hilmar Schmundt)

Coastal flooding; myths and facts in past, present and future sea level changes (Nils-Axel Mörner)

Coastal and global averaged sea level rise for 1950 to 2000 (Neil J. White, John A. Church and Jonathan M. Gregory)

‘Threats’ to the Great Barrier Reef [.pdf] (Walter Starck)

The Natural Pattern of Climate Change: Can it be Predicted? [.pdf] (Robert M. Carter)

Hurricanes and Global Warming [.pdf] (Pielke, Jr., R. A., C. Landsea, K. Emanuel, M. Mayfield, J. Laver and R. Pasch)

Perceived change in risk of natural disasters caused by global warming [.pdf] (C R de Freitas)

Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous? [.pdf] (C. R. De Freitas)

"Global Warming" at a glance

Kyoto Count Up!

Near-real time "Global Thermometer"

"Arctic Meltdown"

Planetary Temperatures and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2)

Stratospheric Cooling?

Quotable quotes from the greenhouse scene

Global warming: Tony Blair and other stellar effects

Sites to See and Sources to Use :

Note: The following sites list includes research organisations, data repositories and some sceptics.

The list's purpose is to encourage access to the underlying data and for you to see views and critiques largely ignored by proselytising media.

It does not deliberately include advocates since they are already heavily promoted and easily located (just search for something like "global warming crisis" - you'll find the web awash in them).

British Antarctic Survey (BAS)
Climate Audit
Climate Reference Network (CRN)
Climate Science
Climatic Research Unit (CRU)
CO2 & Climate
CO2 Science Magazine
EnviroSpin Watch
Global Hydrology and Climate Center
Globally-Averaged Atmospheric Temperatures (MSU)
Global Warming Information
Global Warming - Is it real? (McLean)
Global Warming Sceptic
Goddard Institute for Space Studies
Hadley Centre
IPCC Third Assessment Report
Mauna Loa Observatory
National Climatic Data Center
Science & Environmental
Policy Project
SIO Atmospheric CO2 Records
The Cryosphere Today
Trends Online
Trends Online
Trends Online (Other)
UAH: News & Events
Warwick Hughes

World Climate Report

Register for JunkScience.com email updates

Contact JunkScience.com:
Steve Milloy
(Publisher) or
Barry Hearn

AGW Resources

Last updated: August 27, 2005


We admit it, we tend to deal with issues of the moment and expect readers to access items more or less as we make them available. Anyone tracking ongoing issues - Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), for example, which has dragged on ad nauseam - has had to maintain their own bookmarks or archive to avoid having to search for required materials. This is not particularly user-friendly on our part and seriously disadvantages new users. Over time then we shall try to remedy the situation, at least where AGW is concerned.

We'll start with here some of the more interesting recent news items and gradually (hopefully) find time to link studies and items largely ignored by Big Warming.

In no particular order, as yet:

"Arctic Ocean could be ice-free in summer within 100 years, scientists say" - "If present trends continue, the current melting will accelerate, driving the Arctic to a new seasonally ice-free state unlike any the Arctic has experienced in the last million years, according to a report in the Aug. 23 issue of Eos. The research team could not identify any natural systems that would act as a brake on the increased warming and melting." (University of Arizona) | Panel Sees Growing Melting Arctic Threat (Associated Press)

That's always the rub, isn't it? "If present trends continue..." Trouble is, we won't know what the present trend is for another thirty years or so (the length of time an anomaly must continue before climatologists have the temerity to claim it a trend). Even if urban heat island effect has been adequately addressed and accounted for in the near-surface record (dubious) then a century and a half of measurements suggest a background warming of about +0.6 °C/century might continue (insufficient to deice the Artic) but that the recent step-warming is unlikely to be sustained for much longer (if it hasn't finished already).

Chinese study finds more evidence for solar forcing of climate change: "Temperature responses to quasi-100-yr solar variability during the past 6000 years based on δ18O of peat cellulose in Hongyuan, eastern Qinghai–Tibet plateau, China" - "Abstract: During the past 6000 years, the temperature variation trend inferred from δ18O of peat cellulose in a peat core from Hongyuan (eastern Qinghai–Tibet plateau, southwestern China) is similar to the atmospheric 14C concentration trend and the modeled solar output trend. The general trend of Hongyuan δ18O during the past millennium also coincides well with the atmospheric 14C concentration trend, the 10Be concentration trend in an ice core from the South Pole, the reconstructed total solar irradiance trend, as well as the modeled solar output trend. In addition, temperature events also correspond well to solar perturbations during the past 6000 years. Therefore, the driving force of Holocene temperature variations should be properly ascribed to solar activity. The spectrum analysis further illustrates that quasi-100-yr fluctuation of solar activity was probably responsible for temperature variations in northeast Qinghai–Tibet plateau during the past 6000 years." (Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology)

"Cool waters finally return to Northwest coast, but concerns linger" - "Upwellings of nutrient-rich cold water have finally arrived off the Pacific Northwest coast, purging the ocean of warmer surface temperatures that earlier in the year disrupted the food chain for seabirds, salmon and other maritime life." (Seattle Times)

"Finding hydroxyl" - "Expanding its role beyond dating ancient objects, carbon-14 is proving be a powerful tracer of the hydroxyl radical, a difficult-to-measure but all-important atmospheric cleanser that oxidizes greenhouse gases such as methane and pollutants such as carbon monoxide." (Chemical & Engineering News)

"Are Siberian swamps a global threat?" - "MOSCOW - Last week, the British press (the Guardian, The Times, and The Daily Telegraph) warned of "swamp terrorism" from Siberia. Citing experts, the newspapers claimed that the permafrost covering Siberian swamps is rapidly thawing due to climatic warming. They said that billions of tons of methane could be released into the air causing an ecological disaster. Academician Vladimir Melnikov spoke to RIA Novosti about the problem. Melnikov is the director of the world's only Institute of the Earth's Cryosphere. The Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute is located in the Siberian city of Tyumen and investigates the ways in which ground water becomes ice and permafrost. "This is just another scare story, this time about the Siberian swamps." This was Melnikov's first reaction when asked by RIA Novosti to comment on claims by The Daily Telegraph that thawing Siberian permafrost could cause an ecological crisis." (RIA Novosti)

"Winter of discontent in the pipeline" - "With a decline in North Sea supplies and experts predicting the worst weather in years, the cost of gas can only go one way - up, warns Neasa MacErlean." (The Observer)

One of the more interesting parts of the story is here:

The other key factor is the weather. Scare stories about energy prices and cold winters are not uncommon, but their stark predictions haven't come true. That's partly because over the past 15 years, most winters have been comparatively mild.

But that could be about to change: the Met Office has just published its first forecast covering the 2005/06 winter (the North Atlantic Oscillation Report) and it 'places the winter of 2005/06 among the coldest third of winters over the last 50 years of the 20th century'.

Odd. Don't seem to have noticed much in the press warning the public about looming cooling.

Ian Castles on IPCC Economic Assumptions (Climate Audit)

Uh-huh... "3,000-year-old ice shelf in jeopardy" - "Three years after a huge crack split one of Canada's last remaining ice shelves in half, scientists have found fresh evidence that global warming is splintering the mass of ice." (CanWest News)

The media impression over the last three years is one of total loss "It's gone, they tell you! Gone!" and now they have to admit it's still "threatened" by warming. Meanwhile, astute readers note the damn thing's only existed since the cosy Holocene Climatic Optimum (or Warm Period, if you're a cold freak). Oh gosh, oh darn, we're recovering from the last few thousand years' chilly period. Who can we call? Who can we telephone? We're all doomed because it's getting less cold. More goshing and darning.

"Global Warming Doubt Dispelled? Not Really" - "Is the debate now over for skeptics of global warming hysteria? Readers of USA Today may certainly have that impression." (Steven Milloy, FoxNews.com)

They don't say? "Warming debate highlights poor data" - "An unusual truce has been reached in the turbulent field of climate science. Scientists who have spent 15 years arguing over a discrepancy in certain data on global warming now say they all agree: the data are inadequate." (Nature)

Hello! Where were you? Some of us have been pointing this out for years and yes, the data are inadequate, woefully so.

"Climate change sceptics bet $10,000 on cooler world: Russian pair challenge UK expert over global warming" - "Two climate change sceptics, who believe the dangers of global warming are overstated, have put their money where their mouth is and bet $10,000 that the planet will cool over the next decade.

The Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev have agreed the wager with a British climate expert, James Annan.

The pair, based in Irkutsk, at the Institute of Solar-Terrestrial Physics, believe that global temperatures are driven more by changes in the sun's activity than by the emission of greenhouse gases. They say the Earth warms and cools in response to changes in the number and size of sunspots. Most mainstream scientists dismiss the idea, but as the sun is expected to enter a less active phase over the next few decades the Russian duo are confident they will see a drop in global temperatures." (The Guardian)

"Climate change a 'blind spot' for US insurers" - "Climate change is barely on the radar for the U.S. insurance industry, rating far less attention than asbestos and terrorist attacks. Unlike their counterparts overseas, American insurers suggest that climate change, while probably a very real phenomenon, isn't such a big deal." (Oakland Tribune)

Blind to change? Hardly - but they are aware there's no empirical evidence of radical change or significant risk increase.

"Arctic hunters blame global warming for vanishing polar bears" - "As Arctic ice shrinks, villagers in Greenland worry that global warming will kill off the Arctic's seals and polar bears." (Agence France-Presse) | Greenland to set quotas on polar bear hunt, but allow tourist hunt (Agence France-Presse)

August 8, 2005: "The Good News Bears" - "The polar bear has become, in the words of the WWF conservation group, "an ambassador for Arctic nature and a symbol of the impacts that global warming is increasingly having around the world." Conservation groups and scientists have been making headlines in the past year, warning that shrinking sea ice could make wild bears extinct by the end of the century, possibly within just 20 years.

Right now, though, Inuits like Nathaniel Kalluk here in Resolute Bay aren't exactly worried. "There are a lot more bears now than before," said Mr. Kalluk, who is 51 and has been hunting since childhood. "We'll spot 20 to 30 bears on a hunting trip. Twenty years ago, sometimes we didn't see any at all."

This is not an isolated trend. Although the bears seem to be hurting in some places, like the Hudson Bay region south of here, their numbers have increased worldwide. In Canada, home to most of the world's polar bears, the population has risen by more than 20 percent in the past decade." (John Tierney, New York Times)

"NZ study finds good news for clean air" - "New Zealand scientists have injected some good news into the gloom and doom of global warming by proving the atmosphere's natural cleaning agent is still doing its good work. A paper published today in one of the world's top science journals, Nature, shows hydroxyl, a reactive molecule of water which acts as a bleaching agent of nasty gases and hydrocarbons in the air, has remained the same over the past 13 years." (New Zealand Herald)

Fanciful report du jour: "Sceptics forced into climate climb-down" - "Three independent studies have shown that climate sceptics who claim the Earth is not warming have been using faulty data to make their point." (New Scientist)

"Global Warming Blows—Or Does It? There's no shame in good hurricane science" - "Given the recent claims that hurricanes are getting dramatically worse because of global warming, it's too bad we’ve already exhausted the letter "G" for this hurricane season. "Gasbag" would have been a pretty good moniker for the next storm." (Patrick J. Michaels, Reason)

"Icy Greenland turns green" - "Greenland's ice is melting rapidly. In some places, glacial levels have been falling by 10 metres a year and ultimately contributing to rising sea levels. Land is being exposed for the first time for millions of years." (BBC)

"This land was being exposed for the first time for millions of years." "A ruined church on the banks of a fjord marks the remains of a Viking farming civilisation." Right... Vikings were apparently a very ancient civilisation.

"New observations and climate model data confirm recent warming of the tropical atmosphere" - "For the first time, new climate observations and computer models provide a consistent picture of recent warming of the tropical atmosphere." (DOE/Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)

Well, two out of three ain't bad.

Radiosonde Daytime Biases and Late-20th Century Warming by Sherwood, Lanzante and Meyer [Abstract] [PDF] [Supporting Online Material] is an interesting take on radiosonde data that suggests a plausible reason there's no trend evident in Angell's 850-300mb series - certainly worthy of serious attention. Whether the magnitude of the adjustment is reasonable is open to some conjecture. The estimated +0.14 °C/decade correction from 1979 -1997 for the tropics and +0.04 °C/decade for the northern hemisphere extratropics would bring Angell's radiosonde data back into near agreement with MSU Lower Troposphere data, providing yet more support for the apparently growing agreement that, should the trend last for a century (it didn't last century but you never know), then the globe will warm something less than the IPCC's low-end 'storyline' guesstimate of ~+1.5 °C over the next century.

UAHLTv5.1vsLT5.2.gif (33373 bytes) Mears and Wentz have presented The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature [Abstract] [PDF] [Supporting Online Material] - this is not the work which resulted in adjustment of the UAH MSU LT dataset. (More information in California group's answer to climate puzzler improves the accuracy of global climate data from the team at UAH and a visual comparison of the 'old' and newly adjusted datasets is available by clicking the thumbnail at right. Arguing the toss over a few hundredths of a degree may seem like nitpicking but it is a worthwhile tweak.) This paper attempts to fit MSU measures to climate models and is basically about interpretation - it doesn't solve anything but will likely liven up the discussion over satellite data interpretation.

Finally, the usual suspects present Amplification of Surface Temperature Trends and Variability in the Tropical Atmosphere [Abstract] [PDF] [Supporting Online Material] (see at least the abstract for extensive author list). Faced with disagreement between models and empirical data Santer et al prefer their 'robust' models over everyone's lying eyes - their abstract says it all really:

"The month-to-month variability of tropical temperatures is larger in the troposphere than at the Earth's surface. This amplification behavior is similar in a range of observations and climate model simulations, and is consistent with basic theory. On multi-decadal timescales, tropospheric amplification of surface warming is a robust feature of model simulations, but occurs in only one observational dataset. Other observations show weak or even negative amplification. These results suggest that either different physical mechanisms control amplification processes on monthly and decadal timescales, and models fail to capture such behavior, or (more plausibly) that residual errors in several observational datasets used here affect their representation of long-term trends."

Santer et al prefer to believe the world is wrong rather than that their models fail to adequately capture its behaviour. Right... A maybe, a perhaps and an eye-roller. Like we said, two out of three ain't bad.

Update: The above set of papers seems to be eliciting considerable excitement with claims that scepticism regarding climate catastrophe has evaporated, been destroyed, disproved, etc., etc.. Such claimants might want to settle down and actually read the papers.

Update II: Curiously, there seems to be a lot of traffic along the lines of "about time satellite and balloon data was subjected to some real scrutiny!" Fair enough, we believe careful scrutiny an excellent idea - no problem there. So, uh, why the screams of anguish when anyone wants to kick the tyres and check under the hood of the ol' hockey stick wagon?

Hmm... "We're All Global Warmers Now: Reconciling temperature trends that are all over the place" - "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up. All data sets—satellite, surface, and balloon—have been pointing to rising global temperatures. In fact, they all have had upward pointing arrows for nearly a decade, but now all of the data sets are in closer agreement due to some adjustments being published in three new articles in Science today.

People who have doubted predictions of catastrophic global warming (and that includes me) have long cited the satellite data series derived by climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer at the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH). That data set showed a positive trend of 0.088 degrees centigrade per decade until recently. On a straight line extrapolation that trend implied warming of less than 1.0 degree centigrade by 2100.

A new article in Science by researchers Carl Mears and Frank Wentz from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) identified a problem with how the satellites drifted over time, so that a slight but spurious cooling trend was introduced into the data. When this drift is taken into account, the temperature trend increases by an additional 0.035 degrees per decade, raising the UAH per-decade increase to 0.123 degrees centigrade. Christy points out that this adjustment is still within his and Spencer's +/- 0.5 margin of error. What's the upshot? Although reluctant to make straight-line extrapolations, Christy notes in an e-mail, "The previous linear extrapolation indicated a temperature of +0.9 C +/- 0.5 C in 2100, the new data indicate a temperature of +1.2 +/- 0.5 C." (Ronald Bailey, Reason)

I must admit that Bailey's article had me reread Mears and Wentz out of concern that I had misunderstood or not read it thoroughly. While that inevitably does happen I am pleased to say this is not one of those occasions [as Spencer's own piece makes clear below]. The methodological error handling tropical diurnal adjustments is not in this paper and readers should not confuse the two as Bailey appears to have done.

"Some Convergence of Global Warming Estimates" - "In one of a trio of new global warming papers in Science, Mears & Wentz (2005) address what they consider to be a large source of uncertainty in our (University of Alabama in Huntsville, "UAH") satellite estimate for global lower tropospheric ("LT") temperature trends since 1979. The satellite measurements come from the Microwave Sounding Units (MSUs) and Advanced Microwave Sounding Units (AMSUs) flying on NOAA's polar orbiting weather satellites. The UAH estimate of the globally averaged trend since 1979 to the present has been +0.09 deg. C/decade, considerably below the surface thermometer estimate that has been hovering around +0.20 deg. C/decade for the same period of record. This discrepancy between the UAH satellite LT trends and the surface thermometer trends has caused some consternation, since what we understand of atmospheric physics suggests that sustained warming at the surface should be amplified with height in the troposphere, not reduced." (Roy Spencer, TCS)

"Climate warning as Siberia melts" - "The world's largest frozen peat bog is melting and could unleash billions of tonnes of methane, a potent greenhouse gas, into the atmosphere." (New Scientist)

From Russia with Love: those melting moments... (EnviroSpin Watch)

"Middle to Late Holocene glacial variations, periglacial processes and alluvial sedimentation on the higher Apennine massifs (Italy)" - "Abstract: The major climatic variations that have affected the summit slopes of the higher Apennine massifs in the last 6000 yr are shown in alternating layers of organic matter-rich soils and alluvial, glacial and periglacial sediments. The burial of the soils, triggered by environmental–climatic variations, took place in several phases. For the last 3000 yr chronological correlations can be drawn between phases of glacial advance, scree and alluvial sedimentation and development of periglacial features. During some periods, the slopes were covered by vegetation up to 2700 m and beyond, while in other phases the same slopes were subject to glacial advances and periglacial processes, and alluvial sediments were deposited on the high plateaus. Around 5740–5590, 1560–1370 and 1300–970 cal yr B.P., organic matter-rich soils formed on slopes currently subject to periglacial and glacial processes; the mean annual temperature must therefore have been higher than at present. Furthermore, on the basis of the variations in the elevation of the lower limit reached by gelifraction, it can be concluded that the oscillations in the minimum winter temperatures could have ranged between 3.0°C lower (ca. 790–150 cal yr B.P.) and 1.2°C higher (ca. 5740–5590 cal yr B.P.) than present minimum winter temperatures. During the last 3000 yr the cold phases recorded by the Calderone Glacier advance in the Apennines essentially match basically the phases of glacial advance in the Alps." (Quaternary Research)

"Volcanic blast location influences climate reaction" - "Major volcanic eruptions far north of the equator affect the world's climate much differently than volcanoes in the tropics." (NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center--EOS Project Science Office)

UAH MSU LT v5.2 dataset now available - Probably something of a disappointment for gloating advocates who have been writing to inform us that "Christy and Spencer have been proved wrong and had to retract" (sic), presumably referring to some posting on a global warming site, Christy et al have tweaked their dataset with a hat tip to Mears and Wentz for discovering an error (see below). Had this shocking fault been allowed to persist for just three centuries then UAH's LT v5.1 dataset would have been out by a whole degree! (Don't know how they'll be able to show their faces around a climate science meeting after this.)

UAHLTv5.1vsLT5.2.gif (33373 bytes) Click the thumbnail image at right to view a comparison of LT 5.1 and LT 5.2.
In case people miss it we've highlighted where this caused an underreporting of global temperature anomaly.

Information posted at UAH states:
"An artifact of the diurnal correction applied to LT has been discovered by Carl Mears and Frank Wentz (Remote Sensing Systems). This artifact contributed an error term in certain types of diurnal cycles, most notably in the tropics. We have applied a new diurnal correction based on 3 AMSU instruments and call the dataset v5.2. This artifact does not appear in MT or LS. The new global trend from Dec 1978 to July 2005 is +0.123 C/decade, or +0.035 C/decade warmer than v5.1. This particular error is within the published margin of error for LT of +/- 0.05 C/decade (Christy et al. 2003). We thank Carl and Frank for digging into our procedure and discovering this error. All radiosonde comparisons have been rerun and the agreement is still exceptionally good. There was virtually no impact of this error outside of the tropics."

Not dimming this week: "University of Oregon study says sunnier Oregon summers reflect global warming" - "University of Oregon physicists report clear evidence of climate change according to their analysis of high quality solar radiation data gathered continuously over a 25-year period." (University of Oregon)

"Europe's Low-Carbon Diet" - It was just two weeks ago that the U.S., China, India, Japan, South Korea and Australia agreed to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through technology rather than emissions caps like the ones found in Europe's beloved Kyoto Protocol. While it may take some time to judge any effects the newer treaty may have, it is already clear that one of the European Union's key strategies for complying with Kyoto -- its eight-month-old carbon-trading scheme -- is a failure on two fronts. It has significantly raised energy costs, and EU CO2 output has almost certainly risen rather than fallen. And this is all before round two of Kyoto, which calls for even deeper cuts and greater penalties -- far beyond what treaty participants can realistically achieve." (Dan Lewis, The Wall Street Journal)

"Ice melt 'due to warmer globe'" - "The loss of the great Antarctic ice shelf Larsen B is firming as a milestone sign that human activity is warming the world." (Melbourne Age)

Lots of coverage on this so perhaps we'd better look at a bit of perspective. To begin with, while Larsen B was certainly way too much ice even for a great Aussie barbecue's worth of drinks, the description "the great Antarctic ice shelf" gives a mistaken impression - Larsen B was an insignificant flyspeck as Antarctic ice shelves go. Compare the cited 3,250 Km2 (1,250 Mile2) ice shelf with the >100 times larger Weddell polynya of three decades ago.

Now, since the Weddell Sea has 'gained' (regained, anyway) some 350,000 Km2 of ice, ironically over the very same period that we have gone from 'global cooling' to 'global warming', are we to claim ice formation 'due to warmer globe' in the same way that Larsen B's change is currently being associated? We tend to view the northern Antarctic Peninsula warming and Weddell polynya as local anomalies in the generally cooling Antarctic and find impetuous claims of association (and often causation) quite tedious.

"Collapse of Antarctic Ice shelf unprecedented" - "The Antarctic Peninsula is undergoing greater warming than almost anywhere on Earth, a condition perhaps associated with human-induced greenhouse effects. According to the cover article published in the August 4 issue of the journal Nature by Hamilton College Geosciences Professor Eugene Domack, the spectacular collapse of the Antarctica's Larson B Ice Shelf is unprecedented during the past 10,000 years." (Hamilton College)

Curious, we don't recall the repeal of the Holocene Climatic Optimum (a.k.a. "maximum warming"). According to reviews I recall seeing in IPCC TAR it must still be recognised and the southern hemisphere maximum is still believed to have preceded that of the northern hemisphere (~10-6 ky BP as opposed ~8-4 ky BP in the northern hemisphere, from memory).

Now, if Southern Ocean temps are believed to have peaked as much as 8 ky BP and have failed to recover to "optimum" since and the Antarctic Peninsula shows anomalous warming when the bulk of Antarctica is cooling, why would we associate this event with alleged anthropogenic global warming? And if the southern hemisphere was warmer 6,000 - 10,000 years ago, why would we assume a current local warming anomaly to be "unprecedented"? Curious indeed.

"Tropical storms more intense, new research shows" - "Tropical storms have become significantly more intense in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans during the past 30 years, according to an analysis published Sunday." (Scripps Howard News Service)

"Global warming is not brewing stronger hurricanes" - "There is some disagreement among climate scientists on the potential impact of global climate change on future hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean. Last year claims were made that the frequency of hurricanes will increase due to global climate change.

For example, after Hurricane Bonnie, Charley and Frances hit Florida in 2004, the prime minister of England, Tony Blair, and many prominent American scientists told the world that the hurricanes were due to global warming.

Luckily, scientists who actually regularly study hurricanes quickly responded with the facts and for once the misinformation was curbed quickly and effectively. But now the alarmists are at it again, claiming that global warning will increase the intensity of hurricanes.

Don't worry, readers. There is absolutely no scientific support or correlation of hurricane intensity or hurricane frequency with global warming." (Dr. James O'Brien, Daily News)

". . . and climate questions" - "U.S. Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, is breaking the crockery of the global warming establishment with his demands for information about how a flawed and misleading reconstruction of global temperature for the last 1,000 years was assembled. He should ignore the wounded egos of scientific advocates and push ahead." (Boston Herald)

"Perhaps now Europe will come clean about climate change" - "Wednesday, July 6 was a day to bury good news. The members of the House of Lords select committee on economic affairs could hardly have anticipated the bizarre decision of the International Olympic Committee, which did so much to help their report on "The Economics of Climate Change" to pass unnoticed - and we all know what happened the following day.

In fact, the report is a sensational document. It is, in effect, an attack on the Kyoto accord through its weakest point, the underlying science. The committee savages the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the body on whose "research" Kyoto is built. The language, as befits their lordships, is suitably restrained." (Neil Collins, London Telegraph)

"Tree Ring Circus" - "Is it really possible to determine the change in global temperatures over the last 1,000 years by examining tree rings?" (Steven Milloy, FoxNews.com)

"Breaking the hockey stick" - "The famous graph that supposedly shows that recent temperatures are the highest in a thousand years has now been shown by careful analysis to have been based on faulty data." (Marcel Crok, Financial Post)

"The lone Gaspe cedar" - "This is the second of our two-part series on the flawed science behind the famous "Hockey Stick" chart of historic global temperatures that forms the basis for claims that the world climate is in the midst of unprecedented warming." (Marcel Crok, Financial Post)

'Hockey Stick' as published in IPCC TAR (2001)

"What is a Record Heat Wave, or a Record in Any Climate Metric?" - "This article illustrates an important issue in climate science: What measures do we use to identify a heat wave (or other climate extreme) as an all-time record? Can we make such claims from a record at an individual location?" (Climate Science)

"Moveon Beyond Kyoto" - "A new agreement between the U.S., Australia, China, India, and South Korea seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, believed to fuel global warming, through technological approaches to the problem. This includes the development and transfer of energy efficiency and pollution reducing technologies to the developing countries of the world." (Roy Spencer, TCS)

"Did The July 21, 2005 U.S. Senate Committee Hearing On “Climate Change Science And Economics” Provide A Balanced Perspective On The Climate Science Issues?" - "On July 21, 2005, the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee held a Full Committee Hearing entitled “Climate Change Science and Economics.” The Hearing was:

“To receive testimony regarding the current state of climate change scientific research and the economics of strategies to manage climate change. Issues to be discussed include: the relationship between energy consumption and climate change, new developments in climate change research and the potential effects on the U.S. economy of climate change and strategies to control greenhouse gas emissions.”

I am particularly interested in learning what testimony was given since I was called on July 11 and invited to present testimony at this Hearing. However, on July 13, I was e-mailed:

“Dr. Pielke: we have had a change in plans. We have decided to ask NCAR to provide a senior scientist from that organization for the hearing. As a result we won’t be asking you to drop everything and appear at our hearing. My apologies for the confusion.” (Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science)

"Global warming: Climates political ..." - "The global warming controversy gives new meaning to "political science." Rep. Joe L. Barton, R-Texas, has asked for the data, documents and financial information regarding a study published in the late 1990s purporting to confirm the global warming theory. Instead of welcoming the opportunity to share the information with Mr. Barton -- and encouraging other scientists to conduct identical experiments to replicate the findings -- the three researchers circled the wagons waiting for the cavalry to come to the rescue. It did in the form of Reps. Sherwood Boehlert, R-N.Y., and Henry Waxman, D-Calif. -- true believers in man-made global warming science." (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)

"... climates bogus" - "When 15 tropical storms last year produced nine hurricanes in the Atlantic and Caribbean, global warmers looking to augment their argument cried out, "You see, You see!" To which serious scientists have replied, "See what?" (Pittsburgh Tribune-Review)

"Global warming has nothing to do with it" - "There is some disagreement among climate scientists on the potential impact of global climate change on future hurricanes in the Atlantic Ocean. Last year, claims were made that the frequency of hurricanes will increase due to global climate change. For example, after Hurricane Bonnie, Charley and Frances hit Florida in 2004, the prime minister of England, Tony Blair, and many other prominent American scientists told the world that the hurricanes were due to global warming. Luckily scientists who actually regularly study hurricanes quickly responded with the facts, and, for once, the misinformation was curbed quickly and effectively. But now the alarmists are at it again, claiming that global warming will increase the intensity of hurricanes. Don't worry, readers; there is absolutely no scientific support or correlation of hurricane intensity or hurricane frequency with global warming." (James O'Brien, Orlando Sentinel)

[Dr. James O'Brien is the Florida state climatologist and a professor of meteorology and oceanography at Florida State University in Tallahassee]

What is Climate Change? <||> What Are Climate Models? What Do They Do? <||> Are Multi-decadal Climate Forecasts Skillful? (Climate Science)

From Science's top 125 science questions: How Hot Will the Greenhouse World Be?: (for those who can't be bothered reading the whole thing the answer basically is we don't know, much more work required on models. Sensitivity and aerosols remain to be solved).

The U.S. National Climate Change Assessment: Do the Climate Models Project a Useful Picture of Regional Climate? (Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations)

"Microclimate Exposures Of Surface-Based Weather Stations: Implications For The Assessment of Long-Term Temperature Trends" (.pdf) - "New photographic metadata of eastern Colorado stations are examined, raising questions about the usefulness of current surface datasets for climate applications." (Christopher A. Davey and Roger A. Pielke Sr., BAMS)

"A Broader Perspective on Climate Change is Needed" (.pdf) Roger Pielke Sr. in the September issue of Global Change Newsletter, No. 59.

"Methane's impacts on climate change may be twice previous estimates" - "Scientists face difficult challenges in predicting and understanding how much our climate is changing. When it comes to gases that trap heat in our atmosphere, called greenhouse gases (GHGs), scientists typically look at how much of the gases exist in the atmosphere." (NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center--EOS Project Science Office)

"Lords a Leaping" - "At the same time the G8 was meeting in Gleneagles, Scotland, to discuss climate change and development aid, a bit further south, the British House of Lords made public a report on the economics of climate change. This report deserves all of our attention, as it constitutes an important evolution in the consensus presented until now by all English political elites." (Cécile Philippe, TCS)

"Federal Court Deals Blow to Climate Alarmists" - "In a key decision for the future of national energy policy, a federal court upheld the EPA’s refusal to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant." (CEI)

"AAAS Letter" - "Alan Leshner, the CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and Executive Publisher of Science, has written Rep. Barton objecting to the letters to Mann, Bradley and Hughes." (Climate Audit)

Mann's Response To Barton (.pdf) | Response of Ray Bradley (.pdf) | Response of Malcom Hughes (.pdf) (RealClimate.org)

"Global warming: Common sense prevails" - "The G8 declaration blows apart Green delusions." (Philip Stott, sp!ked)

New Climate Blog: "Climate Science" - "The weblog of the Roger A. Pielke Sr. Research Group"

WARNING: Risk of actual science ahead! At least the first couple of posts show great promise: What is climate? Why does it matter how we define climate? and; The Globally Averaged Surface Temperature Trend - Incompletely assessed? Is it even relevant?

Wow! "First Alarming Signs of the Slowdown of the Gulf Stream Current" (The Epoch Times)

This brief notation of an old Sunday Times piece from May 16th of this year is most notable for the appended: Editor’s Note: All predictions concerning climate change are hypothetical, and involve a number of factors which are still not clear to science. True, if perhaps understated - and very unusual to see it in print.

"Congressman unmoved by peer review, asks to see raw data" - "In what observers are calling an unprecedented request, a member of the U.S. Congress has asked prominent researchers for all the raw data underpinning an influential historical study that shows that the earth’s climate has been warming dramatically since 1900." (Environmental Science & Technology)

Hmm... quite apart from 'show me the data' being a standard part of scientific review (one which appears somewhat unusual in certain sections of the climate clique) and hence certainly nothing to ruffle any feathers of honest and diligent scientists, Paul D Thacker doesn't seem to have kept pace, does he? The Academies' statement he claims has been ignored by MSM has proven quite contentious with Russian Academicians calling for the withdrawal of their president's 'mistaken' signature and US-National Academy of Sciences president Bruce Albert writing "... we definitely did not approve the Royal Society press release, and I have sent a letter to Bob May expressing my dismay at his misleading and political statements there."

Can't agree with the slant of your piece Paul. The hokey 'hockey stick' certainly should be examined in the most open and detailed fashion and there is nothing vindictive or intimidatory about wanting to see precisely how it was derived. The value of the joint academies statement is open to question since it appears more Bob May-orchestrated propaganda than impartial science.

"Climate Models Spur Controversy" - "Climate modeling plays a big role when it comes to global warming predictions. But one Purdue researcher says to throw those models out." | Climate Change Arguments Caught up in Politics (WISH-TV)

House of Lords Report: "The Economics of Climate Change" (.pdf) - "ABSTRACT: The Committee, having considered various aspects of the economics of climate change, calls on the Government to give HM Treasury a more extensive role, both in examining the costs and benefits of climate change policy and presenting them to the United Kingdom public, and in the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

We have some concerns about the objectivity of the IPCC process, with some of its emissions scenarios and summary documentation apparently influenced by political considerations.

There are significant doubts about some aspects of the IPCC’s emissions scenario exercise, in particular, the high emissions scenarios. The Government should press the IPCC to change their approach.

There are some positive aspects to global warming and these appear to have been played down in the IPCC reports; the Government should press the IPCC to reflect in a more balanced way the costs and benefits of climate change.

The Government should press the IPCC for better estimates of the monetary costs of global warming damage and for explicit monetary comparisons between the costs of measures to control warming and their benefits.

Since warming will continue, regardless of action now, due to the lengthy time lags in climate systems, and since there is a risk that international negotiations will not secure large-scale and effective mitigation action, a more balanced approach to the relative merits of adaptation and mitigation is needed, with far more attention paid to adaptation measures.

We are concerned that UK energy and climate policy appears to be based on dubious assumptions about the roles of renewable energy and energy efficiency and that the costs to the UK of achieving its objectives have been poorly documented. We look to the Government, with much stronger Treasury involvement, to review and substantiate the cost estimates and to convey them in transparent form to the public.

We think that current nuclear power capacity, before further decommissioning occurs, should be retained.

We urge the Government to replace the present Climate Change Levy with a carbon tax as soon as possible.

We are concerned that the international negotiations on climate change reduction will be ineffective because of the preoccupation with setting emissions targets. The Kyoto Protocol makes little difference to rates of warming, and has a naïve compliance mechanism which can only deter countries from signing up to subsequent tighter emissions targets. We urge the Government to take a lead in exploring alternative “architectures” for future Protocols, based perhaps on agreements on technology and its diffusion." (HOUSE OF LORDS Select Committee on Economic Affairs)

Ouch! "Lords fuel climate change row with blow to Kyoto" - " THE Kyoto Protocol has been rubbished by a heavyweight committee of peers, on the day that Tony Blair opens the G8 summit with a focus on global warming. A cross-party House of Lords report today finds that the Kyoto targets will make "little difference" to the pace of global warming and has called for Gordon Brown, the Chancellor, to calculate how much it is costing Britain. The report will deal a damaging blow both to Mr Blair's attempt to present a "consensus" behind global warming, and demands that the United States agrees to Kyoto in a G8 declaration tomorrow." (The Scotsman)

Oh my! Not what Tony wanted to hear at all (Gordon may not be too happy either):

  • ... the peers said that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations-backed environmental watchdog, is tainted by "political interference".
  • Policymakers were too focused on mitigating climate change, rather than adapting to it, they said.
  • Lord Lawson, a former chancellor and committee member, was critical of the way that Kyoto targets for greenhouse gas emissions had been "subcontracted" to the IPCC, which he described as "very, very flawed".
  • An issue so central to Britain's economy should be decided by the government, he said. "I can tell you that I was astonished when the Treasury witness said that the Treasury really wasn't involved in any serious way in this at all," he said. "When I was chancellor, it would have been unthinkable on a matter as important as economic affairs - important in public expenditure terms - that the Treasury was not making a very thorough analysis of the issue."
  • The committee expressed sympathy with the United States, whose Senate voted unanimously against any climate-change treaty that could damage the economy without imposing conditions on developing countries.
  • Instead of trying to coerce the US president, George Bush, into signing up to the Kyoto Protocol, the UK should abandon the treaty and explore alternatives based on agreements over carbon-free technology. ...

Now, all the UK needs is some Commons sense (Ooh! Sorry!)

"Kyoto Protocol to destroy Russian economy with unnecessary payments" - "The G8 summit is set to take place in Europe this week. The global climate change on the whole and the Kyoto Protocol in particular, are expected to become one of the central subjects of the international discussion. US President George W. Bush used the occasion to crack down on the ideologists of Kyoto agreements. Russian scientists prepare their own scandal too: they want Russia to withdraw its signature from the British report on the global warming." (PRAVDA.Ru)

"How It Became Safe to Embrace Global Warming" - "Global warming -- the belief system, not the scientific puzzle -- has now been fully domesticated and institutionalized." (Holman W. Jenkins Jr., The Wall Street Journal)

"Stalagmite fuels climate debate" - "A stalagmite from an Alpine cave may indicate that global warming is not as unusual as many think. Deposits laid down in the stalagmite have enabled a European team to probe past climates confirming a Medieval Warm Period between AD 800 and 1300. The warm spell is also indicated in some studies of tree-rings, ice-cores and coral reef growth records. Writing in Earth and Planetary Science Letters the researchers suggest that global warming is a natural process." (BBC)

"Climate consultant says climate change not affecting rainfall" - "There is disagreement over whether climate change and the resulting lack of rainfall are behind Australia's worst drought in a hundred years. A Canberra-based international climate consultant insists rainfall is not being affected by global climate change or global warming. Dr Brian Button from Agrecon says his company's analysis shows rain is falling at different times of the year, but the country is getting the same amount it used to. "The evidence that we have seen not only in Australia but in North America where we are working commercially with very major partners is that rainfall has not changed significantly over the last 100 [to] 150 years," he said. "Similarly in Australia, our assessment is that long-term annual rainfall is not changing significantly." (Australian Broadcasting Corp.) [Complete]

"Melting ice will wreck polar bear populations" - "Polar bears are facing slow elimination over the next century as their vast frozen habitat melts away, according to a report by a panel of the world's top experts on the subject." (Anchorage Daily News)

"Polar bear population growing, hunters say" (link no longer active) - "...But in Nunavut, where some areas have already seen a four-degree rise in average temperatures since 1950, the bears have never been healthier, said the territory's polar bear specialist, Mitch Taylor. "We're seeing an increase in bears that's really unprecedented and places where we're seeing a decrease, it's from hunting, not climate change," Mr. Taylor said. In the past 10 years, he estimates, the Canadian polar bear population has risen 25%, to nearly 15,000 from 12,000.

In fact, he said, global warming could actually be good for polar bears. The most cautionary forecasts suggest that the Arctic could be ice-free in summer by 2050, and the past 30 years have already brought a 15% reduction in ice coverage and thickness. But with Earth tilted on its axis, northern winters will always be dark, and always cold -- likely always cold enough to form the sea ice that is the bear's habitat. Parts of the Arctic will begin to see less impenetrable pack ice, a benefit for bears that need cracks in the ice through which to hunt seals. Warmer weather could mean fewer ring seals, the main part of the bear's current diet, but more harp seals and walrus." (National Post, Dec. 31, 2004)

Russian academy of science calls on president to withdraw unauthorised signature from climate statement: "Russian scientists still negative about Kyoto protocol" - "MOSCOW, July 1 - Russian academicians are still negative about the Kyoto protocol to the UN convention on climate change, a leading scientist told a Friday news conference. Academician Yury Izrael, who chairs the Russian Academy of Sciences' council-seminar on the Kyoto protocol, said the council had confirmed its position on climate change remained the same." (RIA Novosti)

UPDATE II: The "Joint Academies Statement" engineered by Lord Robert May appears to be more "misstatement"

Then US-National Academy of Sciences president Bruce Albert (his term just expired on June 30) states in an e-mail:

"... we definitely did not approve the Royal Society press release, and I have sent a letter to Bob May expressing my dismay at his misleading and political statements there."

The situation now appears that we have a joint academies statement, including the US and Russian Academies of Sciences that does not, in fact, include either the US or Russian Academies. At this time, immediately prior to the G8 Summit, the only definitely known endorser of Lord May's statement is, well, Lord Robert May.

-- information curtesy S. Fred Singer


The international scientific community was plunged into disarray as news emerged yesterday how Britain's Royal Society has been orchestrating a political campaign behind the back of the Russian Academy of Science. In a calculated attempt to overthrow the well-known sceptical position of the Russian Academy of Science (RAS) on climate change, the Royal Society appears to have pressured its president, Yuri Osipov, into signing a politically motivated document against the expressed stance of its own organisation.

The RAS had never seen or discussed the text of the Academies' statement. After having done so, the RAS climate scientists have come to the conclusion that the statement of the Academies is "lacking scientific proof and having contradictions in logic in its many assertions."

The shenanigans of Lord May and his cronies appears to have backfired: Instead of providing evidence of an international "scientific consensus" on climate change, the public retraction by the Russian Academy of Science from the Royal Society's unduly political G8 statement has exposed the whole exercise as a complete farce. As a result, the reputation and integrity of the world's leading scientific academies have been severely damaged.

-- Information curtesy Benny Peiser

Andrei Illarionov provides:


Moscow, July 1, 2005

Statement of the Council-Seminar of the Russian Academy of Science under President of the RAS on Climate Change and issues of the Kyoto protocol on "Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change» (further - «Academies' statement»)

The Council-Seminar of the Russian Academy of Science has examined the «Academies' statement» and makes the following statement:

1. The Council-Seminar announces that the Russian Academy of Science has not been given the opportunity of working over the text of the «Academies' statement». «The Academies' statement» itself has not been discussed by any of the collective bodies of the Russian Academy of Science. The decision to support it has not been taken by any of the collective bodies of the Russian Academy of Science.

2. The Council-Seminar sees the «Academies' statement» as lacking scientific proof and having contradictions in logic in its many assertions.

3. The Council-Seminar attracts attention to the fact of absence at the present level of knowledge of cost-effective methods of stabilization of greenhouse gases concentration in the atmosphere.

4. The Council-Seminar noted that the «Academies' statement» offers costly and ineffective measures to achieve unproven targets.

5. The Council-Seminar asks the President of the Russian Academy of Science to repudiate his signature from the «Academies' statement».

6. The Council-Seminar reiterates its full support to its Statement of May 14, 2004*, including:
- in regard of the absence of scientific basis of the Kyoto Protocol,
- in regard of ineffectiveness of the Kyoto protocol to achieve aims of the UNFCCC,
- in regard of risks to the Russian economy from the ratification of the Kyoto protocol.

* Opinion of the Council-Seminar of the Russian Academy of Science under President of the RAS on Climate Change and issues of the Kyoto protocol on anthropogenic climate change and Kyoto protocol, Moscow, May 14, 2004.

"UK: Energy ration cards for everyone planned" - "Every individual in Britain could be issued with a "personal carbon allowance" - a form of energy rationing - within a decade, under proposals being considered seriously by the Government. Ministers say that increasingly clear evidence that climate change is happening more quickly than expected has made it necessary to "think the unthinkable". They believe they need to start a public debate on energy rationing now if Tony Blair's aspiration of cutting greenhouse gas emissions by two thirds by 2050 is to be achieved. Under the scheme for "domestic tradeable quotas" (DTQs), or personal carbon allowances, presented to the Treasury this week, everyone - from the Queen to the poorest people living on state benefits - would have the same annual carbon allocation." (London Telegraph)

Meanwhile: "EU states reject binding energy efficiency targets" - "In Short: Just days after the Commission suggested ambitious EU energy savings plans, national governments scrapped every binding element of a related earlier proposal aimed at increasing energy savings on the retail side." (EurActiv)

Because readers ask: "Clearing smoke may trigger global warming rise" - "Global warming looks set to be much worse than previously forecast, according to new research. Ironically, the crucial evidence is how little warming there has been so far." (New Scientist)

Several wrote wondering why we didn't highlight the circular reasoning involved and so neatly encapsulated above. Well, we thought we'd covered the situation pretty much to death but, OK, here it is again and yes, they really are saying it's going to be bad because it isn't.

"Oceans turning to acid from rise in CO2" - "A report issued by the Royal Society in the UK sounds the alarm about the world's oceans. While marine organisms need CO2 to survive, work by Caldeira and colleagues shows that too much CO2 in the ocean could lead to ecological disruption and extinctions in the marine environment." (Carnegie Institution) | Cuts in carbon dioxide emissions vital to stem rising acidity of oceans (Press Release) | Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide [.pdf 1069kb] (Royal Society) | CO2 emissions turn oceans to acid (The Guardian) | Marine crisis looms over acidifying oceans (NewScientist.com news service) | Oceans in trouble as acid levels rise (Nature)

Hmm... The Royal Society sure has a bee in its collective bonnet over anthropogenic greenhouse emissions lately.

Check out the Ordovician Mass Extinction. Note that fauna of the period included large diversity of corals, bryozoans, bivalves and gastropods (we know most about these because shells and skeletal remains fossilise best). In fact, reef builders took something of a hiding in Earth's second-most devastating mass extinction event.

Why is this significant? Well, all these shelled and reef building critters were apparently doing fine when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were an order of magnitude greater than current and anticipated levels. If these creatures, many of whose descendants are current denizens of the seas, managed to fashion calcium carbonate shells and skeletons then it would appear that atmospheric CO2 levels are not a major determinant of the success of these marine creatures. Why would apparently insignificant levels be a problem now?

UPDATE: Readers have inquired about the headline on the feature piece: "Oceans turning to acid from rise in CO2" and wondered if seawater is literally becoming acidic. Yes and no, seawater is alkaline and expected to remain so. However, reducing pH is always termed acidification and so having a suspected change from ~8.25 to ~8.14 over some two and one-half centuries is acidification even though oceans are sliding slightly closer to neutrality (less alkaline) than they were before. It is simply the terminology and it is accurate.

For your amusement: "Heat" - "The Guardian's 34-page supplement on how global warming is changing our world." (The Guardian)

I admit not having bothered with what I assume to be their hand-wringer of the moment and include the link purely for entertainment - The Guardian is not one of our recommended information sources on climate (or any other) science.

Update: John Brignell (Number Watch) has apparently had a look at it.

"New product for US industry: 'manufactured doubt'" - "By generating and publicizing uncertainty about the scientific underpinnings of proposed action on air pollution, global warming, the health effects of tobacco and other subjects, industries have been able to ward off regulation and buy valuable time." (Austin American-Statesman)

Yeah, and these darn industry flacks have been around for ages - see:

The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, scepticism is the highest of duties; blind faith the one unpardonable sin. -- Thomas H. Huxley

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.
-- Gautama Buddha

In the virtual realm: "Future Climate Could be Hotter than Thought - Study" - "LONDON - Global temperatures in the future could be much hotter than scientists have predicted if new computer models on climate change are correct, researchers said on Wednesday." (Reuters) | Soot blamed for global warming underestimate (Fred Pearce, NewScientist.com news service)

Right... these are the aerosols that had to be included in calculations because they must be cooling the planet (because we couldn't find the warming that our dreamt up positive-feedback forcings insist should be produced). Just a small point guys, the vast majority of these aerosols occur in the northern hemisphere (where a slight warming trend is observed) and very little in the southern (where negligible warming is observed), no? So, since atmospheric carbon dioxide is really quite well mixed, with negligible difference between the hemispheres, and alleged aerosol cooling should be most prevalent in the northern hemisphere, why isn't the southern hemisphere apparently warming more quickly than the northern?

Actually, while we are on the topic, we thought it was supposed to be sulphate particulates that were allegedly causing the cooling while black carbon ("soot") was a major warming influence. Dr Jim Hansen published papers a few years ago that rather upset some of the global warming clergy by pointing to absorbing particulates, these same black carbon ("soot") particles and suggesting lowering their prevalence in the atmosphere would be a more effective means of avoiding catastrophic warming (from memory Tom Wigley was about the first to present a horrified counter article saying "No, no, we must work on CO2"). Regardless, the "father" of global warming hysteria went so far as to classify black carbon particulates ("soot") as absorbing particles with a warming influence on the atmosphere (and who would argue black carbon particulates do not absorb IR?) yet here we have models suggesting "soot" cools the atmosphere.

Well? Are black carbon particulates to be treated as a net positive or net negative climate forcing? What work has been done to change the way in which they are viewed? Why have models been reworked to treat warming influences as cooling ones?

The more we learn about the production of these warming "forecasts" the less-well founded in empirical reality they appear to be. Not that we're too surprised, over the few decades of their iterative evolution, GCMs have become complex heaps of fudge factors, guesstimated parameters and wishful thinking, collectively run at breathtaking speeds on very expensive hardware, seemingly for the express purpose of taking perfectly good data and using it to generate absolute nonsense.

Surely now we have arrived at a point where we are absolutely dazzled by our ability to perform all these calculations on these lovely expensive machines while having overlooked inconvenient details - such as not knowing which calculations need to be performed.

How should we represent clouds, will increased evaporation be a positive or negative feedback? Will there be more or less precipitation on ice shields? What effect will there be on planetary albedo? Is shading more an influence than black carbon absorption? Is UHIE adequately compensated for in the near-surface amalgam? Why don't proxies (e.g. dendrochronology) show similar warming over the last few decades as does the near-surface amalgam? What temperature should be considered "normal"? What is the planet's temperature now? These are basic questions without satisfactory answers.

GCMs crank out warming scenarios? Well whoopee duck! That's what they're programmed to do. The possibility of one accidentally "predicting" the future is, however, vanishingly small. Gosh this is a silly game.

The EU's CO2 emissions are rising, because of a booming economy, right? Nope: "Big European economies weak" - "PARIS - Continental Europe's two biggest economies showed little sign of vibrancy in unemployment reports released on Thursday, with a marginal dip in Germany and no real change in France, where household confidence unexpectedly slid. Britain, which has enjoyed stronger expansion than the main euro zone countries for years, announced that first-quarter growth was lower than it first thought, cutting its quarterly rise to 0.4 from 0.5 percent initially.

The news was not all bad, however. The European Commission said the business climate improved for the first time this year in June and there were signs of better morale in the industrial and service sectors, although a preliminary Commission readout on inflation showed a June rise to 2.1 percent from 1.9 in May. Germany's seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment fell to 11.7 percent in June from 11.8 percent, and the jobless total in adjusted terms fell 23,000 to 4.858 million, the Labour office said.

France's jobless rate remained at 10.2 percent for a third month running, the Labour Ministry announced in a report which coincided with news from the statistics office that household confidence slid slightly in June." (Reuters)

Annual European Community greenhouse gas inventory 1990-2003 and inventory report 2005

Surely misreported... "Oceans at risk from global warming-scientists" - "LONDON - Thousands of marine species are at risk from global warming because of acidification of the world's oceans, scientists said on Thursday. The Royal Society said in a report that the seas were currently absorbing one tonne of carbon dioxide -- the prime greenhouse gas -- per person per year and were simply running out of capacity to absorb it. It called on next week's summit of the Group of Eight industrialised nations to take action." (Reuters)

Acidification, whether significant or not, is not a result of "global warming" but of carbon dioxide absorption, something that occurs continuously and did so even when there were no people or SUVs. As bizarre as emanations from the Royal Society have become it is difficult to believe they have become so slipshod as to confuse temperature with atmospheric gas constituents.

"Warmer air may cause increased Antarctic sea ice cover" - "Predicted increases in precipitation due to warmer air temperatures from greenhouse gas emissions may actually increase sea ice volume in the Antarctic's Southern Ocean. This may indicate that climate change processes may have varying impacts on different areas of the globe." (American Geophysical Union)

"U.S. Automobile, Factory Emissions Cut by More than Half Since 1970" - "Washington -- Emissions from factories and automobiles in the United States today are less than half of what they were in 1970, even though the U.S. economy grew by almost 200 percent over the same period, a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) official told participants during a June 29 Internet chat." (Washington File)

Still trying to take us to the Second Stone Age: "Maurice Strong: Our Man in Rio (and San Francisco, too)" - "World Environment Day was celebrated June 5 in San Francisco, the first time it was held in the U.S. The event commemorates the anniversary of the first World Conference on the Environment in Stockholm in 1972. The organizer of that meeting, Maurice Strong, has been an energy-sector CEO, an adviser to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and the convener of the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. He sees his new project, the Earth Council Alliance, which coalesced out of more than 100 Earth Councils around the world, as a vehicle for international cooperation and political pressure for the environment. Strong was interviewed June 3, 2005." (Michael Stoll, E Magazine)

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" -- Maurice Strong, Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

Ronald Bailey produced some information on this rather appalling individual some years ago, see a copy here.

"“Full, True and Plain Disclosure” and Falsification" - "Full, true and plain disclosure" is a fundamental obligation in the offering of public securities. As someone with experience in this field, I’ve been reflecting for some time about the following questions:

Is there a duty of “full, true and plain disclosure” or its equivalent in science? If so, how is it expressed in journal policies and science codes of conduct? If not, should there be such a duty? (Steve McIntyre, Climate Audit)

Can't keep their stories straight for two weeks: "Conifer trees get the chop" - "Effort to restore traditional varieties of English woodland gives owners second subsidy to replace foreign species planted for timber" (The Guardian)

Oh dear! For a little background, see British tree species will make way for continental neighbours (Edie.net), which highlighted this event, where we had Elliot Morley's speech at the Trees in a Changing Climate conference.

So, if we read the scorecard correctly, British trees and traditional English woodland will not be able to survive looming climate change, so naturally landholders will be paid, from the public purse, to replace exotic timber with, um, traditional English woodland.

Must be expecting really big things from the G8 meeting, eh?

"Europe's Rising Emissions" - "How is Europe responding to the challenge of global warming? With more global warming. That may seem incongruous given all of the EU's Kyoto hype, but take a look at the latest report from the European Environmental Agency on EU greenhouse gas emissions.

In it we learn that between 2002 and 2003 emissions have increased by 53 million tons, i.e. 1.3 percent, in the EU-15 after having fallen for two years in a row. Basically all of the reductions achieved in 2001 and 2002 have been lost. According to the EEA, "The emission increase in 2003 was mainly caused by an increase in power production using coal. The colder weather in the first quarter in several EU countries, also contributed to an increased use of fossil fuels to heat homes and offices." This tells us two important things: on the one hand, despite their environmental rhetoric, European countries aren't able to promote non-carbon based fuels; on the other hand, a colder winter (are we talking about global warming?) drove emissions up, whereas in 2002 a warm summer resulted in less emissions." (Carlo Stagnaro, TCS)

"While acknowledging the global warming issue, the U.S. Senate joins President Bush in refusing to take substantial steps to begin solving it" - "The U.S. Senate voted to kill an amendment to energy legislation that would begin the process of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The decision dovetails with the Bush administration's policy of trying to halt global warming by wishing it away. By dumping the measure, backed by moderates such as John McCain, R-Ariz., and Joseph Lieberman, D-Conn., senators signaled that they were not ready to take economically restrictive steps to deal with the emissions that an expanding number of climatologists believe are steadily heating the Earth's atmosphere." (Houston Chronicle)

The Chronicle goes on to say "At some point, as the scientific evidence mounts, policy-makers must decide whether the price of our inaction will be too steep for future generations to pay." From the perspective of trusting souls who have allowed themselves to be stampeded by hyperbolic statements regarding global warming, this might seem a fair statement. Does their emotive appeal stand scrutiny - did they ask themselves appropriate questions first? Let's pose a few, with what answers seem most appropriate:

  • Do we know anthropogenic global warming to be a serious hazard? No, we're decades to centuries short of really understanding climate and its myriad forcings.
  • Assuming that it is, would Kyoto do any significant good? No, the estimated effect on global temperature will be immeasurably small and of no known benefit.
  • Is there a downside to Kyoto? Yes, misdirecting public funds and resources has a negative effect and energy rationing certainly recessionary.
  • Are there other possibly beneficial uses for said funds and effort? Of course.
  • Could humans knowingly and predictably 'control' climate? Nope.
  • Is it possible humans would be better off ignoring attempts to 'control' climate for the foreseeable future? Of course.

Houston Chronicle, you have a problem. We don't know whether we genuinely have a climate problem and we couldn't predictably adjust the climate even if we do. That leaves us with the situation where doing 'something' has an unknown possibility of doing good associated with a certainty of doing harm. Looks more like policy-makers must decide whether the price of our action will be too steep for future generations to pay.

This could get interesting... "Letters Requesting Information Regarding Global Warming Studies" -  "The Committee on Energy and Commerce has written to IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri; National Science Foundation Director Arden Bement; Dr. Michael Mann; Dr. Malcolm K. Hughes and Dr. Raymond S. Bradley, requesting information regarding global warming studies." (The Committee on Energy and Commerce)

... as far as JunkScience.com is concerned, with obvious exclusions such as patient privacy, data produced during publicly funded studies is public data. Apparently this is not the universal view.

"A Man on a Mission" - "Dr. Kevin Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, has been assigned the position of Lead Author of the “observations” chapter of the upcoming (due out in 2007) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). As such, he is responsible for heading the effort to gather together and summarize the current state of scientific understanding concerning observed climate variability and change. However, based upon some recent statements that have been attributed to him, it is not clear that he can be trusted to fulfill that role." (World Climate Report)

Apparently not the kind you look up: "FEATURE-Kyoto protocol: waste of cash or green lifeline?" - "BONN, Germany, June 27 - A waste of more than $1,300 a year for every American, undermining economic growth and jobs? Or a lifeline for the planet costing just an annual $20 for each European? The U.N.'s Kyoto protocol on curbing global warming looks utterly different when viewed from Washington, which opposes the 150-nation pact, or from its main backers in the European Union, Japan or Canada. So who is right?" (Reuters)

So, if it's only an annual cost of $20/European why do the figures look like this following a period of, well, pitiful growth (at least in the EU):

  • Canada: 1990-levels +20%
  • Denmark: 1990-levels +6% (2010 target +27%)
  • Greece: (projected) 1990-levels +38.6% by 2010
  • Ireland: (projected) 1990-levels +29.4% by 2010
  • Japan: variously described as 1990-levels +8% - 1990-levels +12.1%
  • Portugal: (projected) 1990-levels +53.1% by 2010
  • Spain: (projected) 1990-levels +48.3% by 2010 (numbers curtesy EnviroSpin Watch)

Sounds like a bargain for Europeans since slashing their energy use by one-third only upsetting productivity by $20/European/year suggests they don't do much productive work with all that energy anyway.

Uh-oh! Someone's off-message... "Climate change: not a global threat" - "MOSCOW -- One issue on the table at the G8 summit at Gleneagles in early July is global climate change. As I see it, this problem is overshadowed by many fallacies and misconceptions that often form the basis for important political decisions. G8 leaders should pay attention to them. There is no proven link between human activity and global warming." (Yury Izrael, Director, Global Climate and Ecology Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences and IPCC Vice President, for RIA Novosti)

"Kyoto and the Art of Political Backtracking" - "Why should the Kyoto Protocol (the UN agreement to reduce man-made emissions of CO2 in order to counter global warming) be canceled as soon as possible? The answer is that its underlying science is fatally flawed; it costs a fortune; it will have almost no cooling effect (0.02 degree Celsius in 2050); and, finally, it will play havoc with our economic system, with dire implications for our prosperity and freedom." (Hans Labohm, TCS)

"Charles Secrett: 'We are killing the planet. That is not an exaggeration'" - "The statistics released yesterday are a wake-up call to individuals and families that we're all responsible for climate change. Too many people think: "Climate change has nothing to do with me - it's the fault of government and industry." But statistics like this show the cumulative effect of millions of people doing the wrong thing." (London Independent)

You know Charlie, you're right! It's not an "exaggeration" - it's a complete fabrication! There's been life on this Solar-orbiting mote for hundreds of millions of years, it's been irradiated, cooked, chilled and walloped by whopping chunks of space trash and still it persists. Silly thing is, the "worst" case scenario postulated involves the "catastrophic" warming of the planet from current temperatures to about half-way nearer where they were when the biosphere really boomed (we think it's about 14 °C now and was about 22 °C when giants trod the Earth). The chance of any IPCC storyline leading to >2 °C warming ever playing out in the real world is roughly zero so, sadly, we will not see a return to the Utopian world where the tropics extend to about 45° North and South latitudes and the temperate zones extend to the poles. Oh well...

Oh my! "'Earthy evangelist' changes US climate" - "Europe's environmental activists are not renowned for their faith in the power of prayer. But in the run-up to the G8 summit they should put their hands together for the Rev Richard Cizik. One of America's senior evangelical leaders, the lanky Virginian preacher is an unlikely ally of the Greens given the Christian Right's reputation for being in lockstep with the White House. The Bush administration is famously sceptical over global warming and greenhouse gas emissions and notoriously cosy with big business, especially the oil companies. Mr Cizik is, however, in the vanguard of a striking new movement: evangelicals prodding President George W Bush to take action on global warming. And his stance cannot easily be dismissed as radical nonsense, as the Green cause is traditionally mocked by the Right." (London Daily Telegraph)

So, uh, Reverend, can you tell us how you feel about the increase in global crop yields, variously estimated at 15% and above, attributed to increase in global atmospheric carbon dioxide acting as an aerial fertiliser? The US is "accused" of contributing about one-fourth of that increased aerial fertiliser to the world free, no strings attached.

Then there's all that food aid donated by the US, some available because of the aerial fertilisation and more due to extensive use of fossil fuels that also liberates said aerial fertiliser, free for anyone in the world to use.

And what about the wealth generated by the US utilising said fossil fuels that liberate the plant food that ultimately supports just about all God's creatures, which the US uses to underwrite donations of food and other aid and which finances the protectors of democracy and liberators of the oppressed that they might worship the God(s) of their choosing?

Without even bothering to get into research funding, health and development aid and little things like being the engine of growth that has so lifted standards of living for so much of the world, could you tell us Reverend, do you view the world as better or worse off for the efforts of the United States of America?

Could you explain to us please Reverend, just how the world might be better off if the US cripples the engine of the world's wealth? To whom will developing economies sell their goods if we plunge the world into recession? The EU already discriminates heavily against developing nations' crops and products, they will not champion development-enabling free trade. Who will prosper if the US rations energy as the EU claims is necessary but will not do?


"Time for Action on Global Warming!" - "I've decided it's time to get serious about Global Warming. The national academies of science of eleven nations recently united to warn us of impeding climatic doom resulting from our careless inflation of the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration from its God-ordained 19th century value of 0.00029 to the current astronomical magnitude of 0.00038. With increasing fears that this extra plant food will cause a choking of our cities and highways with unwanted greenery, and the Russians' concern that winter temperatures will warm above -40 deg. F, thus changing the hibernation habits of the endangered Siberian snow snake, I must now join the chorus of voices calling for action." (Roy Spencer, TCS)

Oh boy... "Leader: Global warming - The message hits home" - "Summer heat and sudden floods are a reminder that even the British climate has its extremes. But if the rock-solid scientific consensus on global warming is proved to be right over the coming century, heatwaves, storms, droughts and flooding will cease to be a surprise." (The Guardian)

See "The Not So Clear Consensus on Climate Change" [.pdf]

"Stepping up the Pressure" - "As the G8 summit to be held in Gleneagles, Scotland nears, the Bush Administration finds itself coming under increasing pressure to alter its course on climate change. A couple of weeks ago, British Prime Minister and acting G8 head Tony Blair came to Washington to persuade President Bush to see global warming as a looming threat necessitating dramatic measures to abate it -- measures that could be hammered out at the upcoming G-8 summit. All indications are that Blair was unsuccessful. Now, several leading U.S. newspapers have tried their hand at the issue by applying a different tactic -- running stories which give the appearance of "exposing" an Administration conspiracy to suppress the true nature of the global warming problem." (Pat Michaels, TCS)

paleocarbon.gif (17906 bytes) Planetary Temperature and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2): One point apparently causing confusion among our readers is the relative abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere today as compared with Earth's historical levels. Most people seem surprised when we say current levels are relatively low, at least from a long-term perspective - understandable considering the constant media/activist bleat about current levels being allegedly "catastrophically high." Even more express surprise that Earth is currently suffering one of its chilliest episodes in about six hundred million (600,000,000) years.

Given that the late Ordovician suffered an ice age (with associated mass extinction) while atmospheric CO2 levels were more than 4,000ppm higher than those of today (yes, that's a full order of magnitude higher), levels at which current 'guesstimations' of climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 suggest every last skerrick of ice should have been melted off the planet, we admit significant scepticism over simplistic claims of small increment in atmospheric CO2 equating to toasted planet. Granted, continental configuration now is nothing like it was then, Sol's irradiance differs, as do orbits, obliquity, etc., etc. but there is no obvious correlation between atmospheric CO2 and planetary temperature over the last 600 million years, so why would such relatively tiny amounts suddenly become a critical factor now?

Adjacent graphic 'Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time' from Climate and the Carboniferous Period (Monte Hieb, with paleomaps by Christopher R. Scotese). Why not drop by and have a look around?

"Deepak Lal: Hot air over Gleneagles" - "Theories about global warming fail to stand the test of history." (Business-Standard)

"Arctic's season of dread" - "Canada's eastern Arctic, one of the last places on the planet to resist global warming, is finally succumbing to the greenhouse effect." (Ottawa Sun)

Some bizarre anecdotal "evidence" in this one. Who could fail to be moved at the recounting of the hunter losing his legs after a fall through rotten ice? Surely the tragic human face of catastrophic global warming - except the surface air temperature is cited as -33 °C for that February day, hardly marginal ice conditions. What else besides "global warming" could account for his accident? We'll never know but there are active submarine volcanoes in the Arctic, perhaps the ice was subjected to a warm water lavage and eroded from below (polynya occur for various reasons, ranging from small to truly enormous), perhaps it's as simple as a snow covered seal breathing hole, enlarged by a hunting bear - meltdown at -33 °C, however, seems somewhat unlikely. That and the fact the Arctic has seen no net warming since 1938.

Because people regularly request it: "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea" - "Sea surface temperature (SST), salinity, and flux of terrigenous material oscillated on millennial time scales in the Pleistocene North Atlantic, but there are few records of Holocene variability. Because of high rates of sediment accumulation, Holocene oscillations are well documented in the northern Sargasso Sea. Results from a radiocarbon-dated box core show that SST was ~1 °C cooler than today ~400 years ago (the Little Ice Age) and 1700 years ago, and ~1 °C warmer than today 1000 years ago (the Medieval Warm Period). Thus, at least some of the warming since the Little Ice Age appears to be part of a natural oscillation." (Lloyd D. Keigwin, Science, 274: 1503-1508)

or here: "Sedimentary Record Yields Several Centuries of Data" - "The Little Ice Age and Medieval Warm Period in the Sargasso Sea

These results are exciting for a few reasons. First, events as young and as brief as the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period have never before been resolved in deep sea sediments from the open ocean. Because the Sargasso Sea has a rather uniform temperature and salinity distribution near the surface, it seems that these events must have had widespread climatic significance. The Sargasso Sea data indicate that the Medieval Warm Period may have actually been two events separated by 500 years, perhaps explaining why its timing and extent have been so controversial. Second, it is evident that the climate system has been warming for a few hundred years, and that it warmed even more from 1,700 years ago to 1,000 years ago. There is considerable discussion in the scientific literature and the popular press about the cause of warming during the present century. Warming of about half a degree this century has been attributed to the human-induced "greenhouse effect." Although this is not universally accepted, it is widely accepted that eventually changes to Earth's atmosphere will cause climate warming. The message from the Bermuda Rise is that human-induced warming may be occurring at the same time as natural warming—not an ideal situation. Finally, building on the studies of physical oceanographers and climatologists, marine geologists and paleoclimatologists may use the North Atlantic Oscillation as a model for understanding North Atlantic climate change on longer, century and millennial time scales." (Lloyd D. Keigwin, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

and, for something from 'the other side' of the world: "General characteristics of temperature variation in China during the last two millennia" - "ABSTRACT: Three alternate China-wide temperature composites covering the last 2000 years were established by combining multiple paleoclimate proxy records obtained from ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments and historical documents. Five periods of temperature variation can be identified: a warm stage in AD 0-240, a cold interval between AD 240 and 800, a return to warm conditions from AD 800-1400, including the Medieval Warm Period between AD 800-1100, the cool Little Ice Age period between 1400-1920, and the present warm stage since 1920. Regional temperature variation is found during AD 800-1100, when warm conditions occurred in Eastern China and in the northeastern Tibetan Plateau and in AD 1150-1380, when the southern Tibetan Plateau experienced a warm interval. In contrast, evidence for cool conditions during the LIA is more consistent among the proxy records. The temperature reconstructions for China and the Northern Hemisphere show good agreement over the past millennium." (Geophysical Research Letters, 10.1029/2001GL014485)

For more on broad/globally distributed evidence of the the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age try: Mayewski et al. Quaternary Research 62: 243-255; Loehle, Ecological Modelling 171: 433-450; Holmgren et al. The Holocene 9: 295-309; Bard et al. Tellus 52B: 985-992; Krenke and Chernavskaya Isvestiya, Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics 38: S59-S79; Soon and Baliunas Climate Research 23: 89-110; Bond et al. Science 294: 2130-2136; Broecker Natural History 110 (8): 60-69; Huang and Pollack Geophysical Research Letters 24: 1947-1950 and so on...

Curious, isn't it, that with mention of evidence of these events discovered around the world being almost common in the literature, (or at least not difficult to find), that the IPCC so thoroughly adopted Mann and that hokey hockey stick graph, virtually airbrushing out two of the most important events in a millennium of human history. People and cultures have prospered or suffered in accord with these climatic cues, history did not imagine them.

Bizarrely, the graph depicts proxies to 1980 with an "instrument record" appended for dramatic effect, despite there being an abundance of proxies available to continue a like record. Perhaps the failure of proxies to emulate that appendage disqualifies them or perhaps, just perhaps, failure of proxy and instruments to concur on recent temps and trends so breaks the association that "alarming warming" disappears.

This leads to a number of possibilities: the simplest, Mann disagrees with a multitude of studies and recorded history - Mann's graph is broken or; Mann is right - history and a wealth of other researchers are wrong or; Mann's method of dealing with proxies is correct - continuation of the proxies show that the "instrument record" is purely an artefact of UHIE. Since options 1 and 3 suggest nothing abnormal and so no problem and option 2 suggests there's only a problem if history is wrong, all we need to do is decide whether Mann is wrong, or history is.

Twaddle: "While the G8 waters down its plans to combat climate change, the Antarctic ice sheet is melting far faster than we thought. The consequences could be devastating" - "‘This is definitely not science fiction ... it could happen’" (Rob Edwards, Environment Editor, Sunday Herald) | Melting polar ice caps are scientific fact, yet the G8 leaders won’t act (Sunday Herald)

Uh, Rob? The Antarctic is gaining ice mass, not losing it and the bulk of Antarctica is cooling. The portion of the Antarctic Peninsula where recent warming has been observed and where some relatively tiny and insignificant ice shelves have collapsed is actually not within the Antarctic but protrudes north of the region towards South America. The 'consequences' of this will never be known because the effect is immeasurably small on a global scale.

"Global Warming Heats Up in Senate" - "Global warming is a hot issue in Congress right now, but not just because of pressure from the usual suspects in the radical eco-activist movement. Instead, a few businesses are leading the charge — which happens to be calculated to fill their coffers at the public's expense." (Steven Milloy, FoxNews.com)

Aha! Greenhouse warming... "How much excess fresh water was added to the North Atlantic in recent decades?" - "Large regions of the North Atlantic Ocean have been growing fresher since the late 1960s as melting glaciers and increased precipitation, both associated with greenhouse warming, have enhanced continental runoff into the Arctic and sub-Arctic seas. Over the same time period, salinity records show that large pulses of extra sea ice and fresh water from the Arctic have flowed into the North Atlantic. But, until now, the actual amounts and rates of fresh water accumulation have not been explicitly known." (Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution)

... or not. Turns out fully half the "excess" fresh water flow 1965-1995 entered the North Atlantic in the late 1960s - when global cooling was the alarm du jour.

Meanwhile, in Trenberth's virtual world: "NCAR climate expert: Hurricanes to intensify as Earth warms" - "Warmer oceans, more moisture in the atmosphere, and other factors suggest that human-induced climate change will increase hurricane intensity and rainfall, according to climate expert Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. His paper, "Uncertainty in Hurricanes and Global Warming," appears in the June 17 issue of Science." (NCAR/UCAR) | Uncertainty in Hurricanes and Global Warming (Science, Vol 308, Issue 5729, 1753-1754) | Debating whether global warming will trigger nastier hurricanes (Scripps Howard News Service)

Flashback: Scientist resigns from UN global warming body saying IPCC has a pre-conceived agenda - "After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns...

I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth's actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4." (Chris Landsea, Open letter)

Climate models to face the music? Meet Ensemble: "RESEARCH: More accurate climate change predictions" - "They say ‘great minds think alike’ but the essence of large-scale integrated projects is to put the best minds – frequently from different disciplines – towards solving major scientific problems. One European project, called Ensemble, takes this grouping principle to the next level, assembling partners from all over the world to come up with more accurate predictions for climate change. Predicting climate change – whether from natural or man-made causes – is notoriously difficult because of uncertainties in weather forecasting and problems with data reliability and key processes used, lament scientists. For the first time, thanks to European Union funding, a group of research teams spanning the globe will develop a common aggregated climate forecasting system covering various timescales and spatial spreads – i.e. regional, local, national." (European Commission) | Ensemble

We've heard of 'sexing up' climate predictions but this is the first (potential) model we know of with its own gender committee.

Another surprise for those who believe we have this climate thing sorted, we're beginning to work out [dramatic drum roll please]... Seasonal Cues: "Scientists gain insight into spring onset, better forecasting expected" - "Scientists have discovered that the interplay between two layers of the atmosphere plays a major role in the arrival of spring -- a finding that could lead to improved weather and climate forecasting." (Georgia Institute of Technology Research News)

"First test of predictions of climate change impacts on biodiversity: Reliance on just one model no better than flipping a coin!" - "In a fascinating new study published this week in the journal Global Ecology and Biogeography, a group of Oxford Scientists have tested the ability of environmental science to predict the future. Dr Miguel Araújo and his colleagues tested 16 commonly used climate-envelope models against real data from 1991. "The accuracy of the predictions can be drastically increased if a set of alternative models are compared and used together to create a 'consensus' projection." (Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

This shouldn't be but probably is revelatory for many even though news has long been in the public domain that the "swarm" (multiple model) projection utilising realistic CO2 trends barely differs from a lineal projection of the last century's gentle recovery from the Little Ice Age. How much warming from 1880-2100? About 1 °C - 1.5 °C, with about half that amount having already occurred (ie, if the trend continues we could see another 0.5 °C - 0.75 °C increase this century). Sadly, this "consensus position" (of climate models) was almost immediately buried by a deluge of "Big Carbon Propaganda!" claims and promptly ignored.

"To avoid further accusations of crystal ball gazing, environmentalists and scientists now need to find further ways of improving the accuracy of models to provide more meaningful inputs into environmental policy making." That would be good.

"'If we don't improve our forecasting soon then not only will the climate skeptics find it easy to criticize climate change research, but we will be left making decisions about the future of the planet based on guesswork' says Dr Ladle." We do and we are, which is why nasty sceptics vehemently object to diverting vast sums from potentially useful availability and squandering them on panicked 'do something' protocols having at least as much chance of doing harm as doing good.

"Global warming cyclical, says climate expert" - "Carbon dioxide is not a harmful gas and has helped produce the "green" world agricultural revolution, according to an Australian climate expert. Rob Carter, from James Cook University in Townsville, said the rising level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in recent decades had boosted agricultural crop yields. "Carbon dioxide is the best aerial fertiliser we know about," he told the Victorian Farmers Federation in Morwell late last week. Professor Carter, a marine geologist, is research professor in the university's Marine Geophysical Laboratory. He said the Kyoto Protocol would cost billions, even trillions, of dollars and would have a devastating effect on the economies of countries that signed it. "It will deliver no significant cooling - less than 0.02 degrees Celsius by 2050," he said. "The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby . . . Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not a scientific body." (The Age, Melbourne)

An interesting problem: "Betting on Climate Change: It's time to put up or shut up" - "Reporting on the climate change debate is not for sissies. For example, one line in an article I wrote back in November discussing the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment triggered a furor among climate change bloggers. I reported a bet by MIT climatologist Richard Lindzen that in 20 years global average temperatures would be lower than they are now. This "bet" circulated as blogfodder in climatological circles." (Ronald Bailey, Reason)

Hmm... how could such a wager be fairly structured? What positions could advocate and "contrarian" take? How would we determine the winner? What metrics could we use? Let's see what we can come up with:

Representing industrial-strength Anthropogenic Global-warming in the blue corner, let's call them AG (please, no blind Patagonian Sheep jokes) and, in the red corner, we'll have Usual Situation (US).

So, we would have to assume AG would take the position of at least the median IPCC estimate of +1 °C over the 1990 figure by 2025 (our 20-year bet) and we've already hit a problem. The GISS Global Surface Air Temperature Anomaly (C) (Base: 1951-1980) suggests 1990 was a tad warm so we may be unfairly biasing against AG by using this figure. Let's try the 5-year mean from that same record and make the bet on the 5-year mean for 2025 (not available until after 2027 because it averages 2 forward and 2 back from the target year). This looks a better proposition (ooh! sorry) since it will reduce El Niño and other transient effects.

Now, we don't have quite the number of records we'd like but -0.14 °C is the mean of the first 5 years of the record and is probably close enough for our requirements. US contends +0.5 °C over 11 decades is none too exciting and a continuation of that gentle recovery from the chill conditions of the Little Ice Age could lead to near enough +0.6 °C over 13.5 decades (to 2025, in other words) so 1990's 5-year mean +0.11 °C.

Defining our figures then we have AG punting for a target global mean temperature of 1951-1980 mean (14 °C*) + 1990 5-year mean of +0.36 + 1 °C for an aggregate of 15.36 °C and US tipping 1951-1980 mean (14 °C*) + 1990 5-year mean of +0.36 + 0.11 °C for an aggregate of 14.47 °C (rounded to 15.4 °C vs 14.5 °C here for convenience).

Now we come to the problem of that darn "*" seen above. The estimated global mean absolute surface temperature 1951-1980 is 14 °C ± 0.7 °C. It's like that because we're really not that flash when it comes to determining the actual temperature of the planet yet and we could even be getting worse due to urban heat island effect (UHIE) corrupting the near-surface temperature amalgam (records such as GISTEMP are beginning to race ahead of atmospheric measures and the discrepancy appears to be worsening).

Our situation then would appear to be AG punting a range of about 14.7 °C through 16.1 °C versus US with 13.8 °C through 15.2 °C and a mutually-claimed zone of 14.7 °C through 15.2 °C.

What to do?

We could declare the overlap a "no joy" zone, I suppose (should the house win or all bets off?). Then there's unforeseen transients like explosive volcanic events in the preceding year or two - might need to declare such things as bet invalidators too...

Climate's not really a binary situation is it, rather more nuanced than usually presented and, given our precision difficulties, trying to work out just what is happening turns out to be looking through a glass darkly.

What do you think? If you believe you can work out a fair wager for climate over 20 years, drop us a line. Workable entries may be published.

Wow! This will not suit Big Warming: "Warmer, wetter and better (or the good news that the climate change lobby doesn't want you to hear)" - "Just when it seemed that the dark clouds had lifted, they all came back again. Not Britain's on-again, off-again summer, but climate scientists calling for action to prevent global catastrophe.

... Yet, just as the clamour for action grows in anticipation of next month's G8 meeting in Scotland, another group of academics has begun fighting to have its voice heard. It includes experts in fields ranging from agriculture to medicine, and most of them agree that something strange is happening to the Earth's climate.

Where they part company with Lord May is in their assessment of the threat it poses. After studying the likely consequences for everything from crop yields to human health, their results are anything but apocalyptic. They have found that a hotter planet brings with it many benefits, and that humans can adapt perfectly well to it.

Indeed, far from joining the calls for action, some now warn that trying to prevent climate change could prove far more catastrophic than learning to live with it. Nor is this cheery vision based solely on questionable computer models. Analysis of past episodes of dramatic - but entirely natural - climate change repeatedly shows the benefits of a warmer world." (London Telegraph)

"Inhofe Introduces Ratepayers Protection Act of 2005" - "WASHINGTON, DC – Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee, introduced legislation today that will ensure the costs associated with actions taken by utilities to reduce carbon dioxide emissions are not transferred to disadvantaged Americans. As the need for those reductions is not grounded in science, it is important that those costs are not passed on to electricity consumers. The Ratepayers Protection Act of 2005 is prompted by research that has shown poor and disadvantaged individuals are negatively impacted by energy rate increases due to climate change-related costs." (Environment and Public Works)

"Remember (the) Maine!" - "The search for a sustainable climate change policy took small steps in the right direction in Maine this year." (Jon Reisman, TCS)

Good! "Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming" - "A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents." (New York Times)

If only a lot more government aides and bureaucrats were as diligent in damping unfounded hysteria and ridiculous overstatement the world just might be focussed on real issues rather than this ridiculous sideshow.

At least a couple of times a week people write to me on the topic of global warming, either abusing me as some kind of Earth-toasting global conspirator (usually following some slur and innuendo laden article by advocates of Big Warming) or wondering why I'm less than excited by claims of looming heated catastrophe. Let me see if I can very briefly explain:

  1. We think we can figure out the global mean temperature to within a range of about 1.5 °C (about 2.5 °F)
  2. We think Earth may have warmed between one-third and one-half that range over the last century or so
  3. We think there might be a recent warming trend in near-surface measures but don't know if that's purely an artefact of sampling in and around cities and urban environs
  4. Neither balloon-sonde nor satellite-mounted MSU measures of the lower troposphere indicate alarming warming
  5. Our ability to model the complex, chaotic, coupled, non-linear system we call the atmosphere is in its infancy and our understanding of climate woefully insufficient to make predictions. Of 9 broad inputs the IPCC classifies our level of scientific understanding as "Very Low" for 5 of them, incredibly including solar and land use (albedo) [don't take my word for it, see table 6.12 of the Third Assessment Report]. You'd expect, given Sol is the source of planetary warmth, that very low understanding of Sol's role in driving the planet's climate, coupled with equally poor understanding of albedo (that is how much solar radiation is reflected and how much actually absorbed by the planet), would give people pause before pontificating on climatic trends - at least I so expect.
  6. Climate change is inevitable, that's what it does.
  7. We should hope that said inevitable change is for the warmer - cold is very hard on humanity and the biosphere.

So, we don't know the planet's temperature, we think it's likely warming but not by very much, we have no useful agreement between methods of deriving the planet's temperature except those that show no significant warming and we don't understand the system well enough to make useful predictions. Oh, and on the strength of this we are supposed to spend trillions of (1990 US) dollars to 'fix' it (see IPCC's 'correcting figure 73' down-revising cost estimates by two orders of magnitude).

I think that about covers it.

Inevitably someone will want to argue about the above so here's the address again (that's editor 'at' junkscience.com). There's no guarantee I'll continue to reply to the same tired nonsense though. Here's a tip on how not to approach such discussion: claims that 'contrarians' are paid agents of big something-or-other while enhanced greenhouse advocates act out of pure altruism just don't cut it - to begin with this telegraphs that you know nothing of academia and publish-or-die pressures and secondly paints you as extremely naive believing researchers don't frame their grant applications and results in an effort to grab some of the billions of dollars annually hosed over shrill claims of looming climate disaster (see, for example, livestock researchers trying to develop vaccines to increase the feed conversion efficiency of ruminants applying for global warming mitigation research funds on the grounds of reducing livestock methane emissions (despite the rate of atmospheric methane increase having fallen below zero)).

Too silly for words: "Nations told 'curb greenhouse gas to fight warming'" - "THE national science academies of all the G8 countries issued an unprecedented challenge to their governments yesterday, urging immediate action to curb greenhouse gas emissions to fight global warming. Scientific evidence about the causes and impacts of climate change is now so clear that effective measures to address them can no longer be delayed, the elite institutions said." (Mark Henderson, London Times) | Read the scientists' statement in full

We have to wonder whether any of these guys actually read any of the IPCC Third Assessment Report or simply went on the fanciful "Summary for Policymakers" (which seemingly bears little relation to the TAR). Even then they should have noted such inconstancies as: "Since the start of the satellite record in 1979, both satellite and weather balloon measurements show that the global average temperature of the lowest 8 kilometres of the atmosphere has changed by +0.05 ± 0.10°C per decade, but the global average surface temperature has increased significantly by +0.15 ± 0.05°C per decade. The difference in the warming rates is statistically significant." (WG1 - Summary for Policymakers) In fact, even that document goes so far as to state: "The record shows a great deal of variability; for example, most of the warming occurred during the 20th century, during two periods, 1910 to 1945 and 1976 to 2000." OK, so the first warming period was prior to most of the increase in atmospheric GHGs (they omit mention of the cooling 1950s through 1970s but I guess mention of the looming ice age scare is a tad embarrassing) and then we had both a cooling and recovery during the period of most significant GHG increase.

We just have to point this out guys, a warming without and both cooling and warming with significant GHG increase do not causation make.

And that rising sea level thing? The same IPCC document suggests a possible 0.1m to 0.2m rise over the entire 20th Century (plausible, as far as we know we're still emerging from the last great glaciation) so, at that rate, it'll take 500 to 1,000 years to rise 1m (about 3 feet), suggesting we might have time to get out of the way.

Rightly: "Bush seeks 'to know more' about global warming" - "President George W. Bush on Tuesday promised to take action on US greenhouse gas emissions, but said the US first needed to know more about the phenomenon of global warming. At the White House after talks with Tony Blair, the UK prime minister, Mr Bush said the US would continue to lead the world on investment in technology to diversify away from the use of fossil fuels. However, in remarks that will disappoint environmentalists, Mr Bush appeared to suggest he still had doubts about the scientific evidence behind global warning. “We need to know more about it,” he said. “It's a lot easier to solve when you know more about it.” (Financial Times)

"A New Alpine Melt Theory" - "The Alpine glaciers are shrinking, that much we know. But new research suggests that in the time of the Roman Empire, they were smaller than today. And 7,000 years ago they probably weren't around at all. A group of climatologists have come up with a controversial new theory on how the Alps must have looked over the ages." (Hilmar Schmundt, Der Spiegel)

Oh dear... "And what if the sceptics are wrong?" - "Climate change is one of mankind's greatest challenges. In the past 30 years world temperatures have increased by almost 0.5C. We cannot predict with certainty what will happen now, but the risk of abrupt climate change certainly exists. Human activity is increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases to levels unprecedented in human history. If we do nothing, or next to nothing, those levels will continue to rise, progressively increasing the risk of runaway global warming." (Michael Howard, The Guardian)

Um, Michael? Kyoto isn't a small, short-term cost whose only consequences are 'the reward of greener, cleaner technologies for saving and generating energy.' Such naivety is frightening. Signing on to the 'catastrophic global warming' scare involves massive misdirection of funds, even a small portion of which could and would save lives if applied to third world development. And the 'reward' for such misdirection? No measurable difference in global mean temperature, even after 50 years.

It's long past due that we bury the illusion panicked acceptance of silly protocols is a low-cost option with broad upsides and made plain that such cavalier disregard for empirical science and human needs comes complete with associated third world body count and untold human misery.

In answer to the question posed in the item title the answer is "Nothing." Why? Because even if Kyoto were to be completely implemented, which it most certainly will not be, a 'saving' of a paltry few hundredths of a degree will make no perceptible difference - making all expenditure on it a complete waste. If sceptics are right we're not going to know with any certainty for quite some decades but at least we will have used available finance and effort significantly more rationally. If sceptics are wrong the world will be in a better (more affordable) position to adapt. Either way the human condition will be significantly enhanced over where it would be if we did sacrifice the engines of wealth creation to the superstition firstly that inevitable change must be bad and secondly that we could knowingly control and adjust it. For goodness sake think rather than simply regurgitating Green myths.

Weekly Whipple: "Ocean Warming Supports Models" - "Clear evidence of human-produced warming in the oceans verifies some of the most important predictions of climate models, suggesting it is time for action instead of argument about the existence of greenhouse warming, according to a paper by Scripps Institution of Oceanography scientists." (Dan Whipple, UPI)

Is it me or are these claims becoming increasingly desperate? What we know about ocean temperatures is limited, to say the least and our database of historical baseline measures is, to all intent and purpose, empty. We end up with a 'trend analysis' with error margins significantly greater than the surmised trend and then claim that models, programmed to produce such a figure in response to fed parameter values, actually 'prove' the veracity of the figure they are programmed to produce. Supplementing this we have the recycled 'smoking gun' claim of Earth's radiative imbalance - using immeasurably small figures that are but a fraction of the error margin. This is not a clear signal but a hopeful mislabelling of noise.

"William Kininmonth: Climate change is a natural phenomenon" - "AS Australia develops policies for its diverse energy resources there is a need to ensure that the policies are based on sound economics, technologies and science. Unfortunately, it is representation of the science of climate change where there is most uncertainty, including a fair degree of misrepresentation." (The Australian)

"Senator Inhofe delivers final "four pillars" climate change speech" - "WASHINGTON (05/26/05) -- Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.), Chairman of the Environment & Public Works Committee has delivered the final of four major speeches on the issue of climate change.

Inhofe is a prominent skeptic of the science behind global warming and has delivered four speeches over the last several weeks in an effort to debunk what he describes as the "four pillars of climate change alarmism." The fourth speech, given on the floor of the United States Senate this week, addressed the data produced by climate models, which proponents claim supposedly provide irrefutable evidence of global warming consensus." (Capitol Reports) | The full text of Inhofe's four speeches is available online

Speaking of models: "India Rings Alarm Bells on Monsoon Prediction" - "NEW DELHI - An Indian government research body on Thursday forecast dismal rains in the first half of the four-month monsoon season, creating uncertainty about farm growth and crop yields in the farm-dependent economy. Painting a grim picture, the Centre for Mathematical Modelling and Computer Simulation forecast monsoon rains in June to be 34 percent below normal, reversing its earlier forecast of 22 percent excess rainfall in the month." (Reuters) [Em added]

Don't misunderstand - it is of tremendous importance that we gain understanding of and (hopefully) ability to predict Indian Summer Monsoon Rainfall (ISMR), in fact very many people's lives and livelihoods depend on it. You can see our concern regarding models though - here we have an intensely studied, critical phenomenon (ISMR), one of relatively minor complexity compared with long-term global climate and yet consecutive attempts to forecast this month's rainfall range from norm+34% to norm-22%. It is somewhat difficult to gather great enthusiasm for GCMs when we demonstrate such difficulty replicating even small parts of the puzzle.

and model imaginings: "Scripps-Led Global Ocean Warming Research Paper Published" - "Research led by scientists at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California, San Diego, that describes the first clear evidence of human-produced warming in the world’s oceans will be published June 2, 2005, in the peer-reviewed journal Science. The research was first announced publicly and widely publicized in February at a news briefing at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C. (For details, see http://scrippsnews.ucsd.edu/article_detail.cfm?article_num=666)" (Newswise)

Oh my... "New probe may silence climate sceptics" - "THOSE who deny global warming is happening often rely on somewhat error-prone satellite information about our planet. But a proposed probe could dramatically improve the accuracy of such readings and put an end to the climate change debate - at least as far as satellite evidence is concerned." (New Scientist) | The trusty sword of Truth (The Guardian)

If it "proves" catastrophic enhanced greenhouse it's correct, otherwise it's 'error-prone,' right? It's also not where real contention lies. It seems ridiculous to have to reiterate it but there is no argument that Earth is warmer than when it was cooler, the interesting bit is what is driving the change and to what degree, if any, anthropogenic GHG emissions are affecting it. Once that is established (if ever) then we would need to work out whether we could knowingly and predictably make adjustments to that effect.

"Tornado numbers far below normal in '05" - "No one died in a tornado in April or May, normally two of the three busiest months for the storms. The National Weather Service's Storm Prediction Center reported Wednesday that only 129 tornadoes struck the USA last month. There were more than 500 in May of both last year and 2003. Over the past decade, an average of 1,274 tornadoes a year struck the nation. For the first five months of this year, the count is 365, far below normal. In another twist, Oklahoma, in the heart of “Tornado Alley” and home to the prediction center, had zero tornadoes in May, a new record." (USA TODAY)

No, sadly, this can't be attributed to 'global warming' either.

?!! "Green Week: What's the story?" - "If climate change is the single biggest threat to mankind, how come it's so hard to find any coverage in newspapers or on TV? David Gow has a few suggestions." (EUpolitix)

Um, David? Dozens, sometimes hundreds of Big Warming pieces cross my desk every day, mate! Try searching on any of the internet news search engines with the terms "climate change" or "global warming," you'll find the nonsense tide rising a lot faster than sea levels buddy.

Whoops! "Environmental Professionals Think That the United States Should Have Ratified the Kyoto Protocol, Enviro.BLR.com Poll Finds" - "OLD SAYBROOK, Conn.--May 31, 2005--A majority of environmental professionals in a recent online poll disagree with the Bush administration's decision not to sign the Kyoto treaty decision on global warming. Enviro.BLR.com, the Business & Legal Reports, Inc. website for environmental professionals, conducted the poll in May 2005." (BUSINESS WIRE)

Carefully not highlighted in this Kyoto-promo is the uncomfortable fact that greater than four-tenths of "environmental professionals" (now there's likely to be an unbiased group) support the United States' stance on Kyoto. Oh my, only 76 for and 58 against in a group whose living depends on having something (anything) to 'protect' the environment from. Apparently 'global warming science' is not the only place where 'consensus' is strictly an illusion.


JunkScience.com is updated almost everyday. Items from the main page are moved to the archives. Links should be good for at least the date posted. After the posting date, link reliability depends on the policy of the linked sites. Some sites require visitors to register before allowing access to articles. Material presented on this page represents the opinion of JunkScience.com. Copyright © 1996-2005 JunkScience.com. All rights reserved on original works. Material copyrighted by others is used either with permission or under a claim of "fair use"

Anti-Quackery Ring
Join Now    Ring Hub    Random    << Prev      Next >>