Monday, November 17, 2008

Freezing Heat and a European Revolt

With an Obama presidency looming, soon we are going to see incredibly expensive and fruitless drives to tame global warming. Here are two reports relating to global warming that appeared in a British newspaper recently. Chances are you didn’t see these stories in the American press, which basically print only the feeds they get from their associations with the New York Times or the Associated Press, two organizations that are propaganda mills for the left. Question: Why do global warming alarmists have to lie about their data?

The world has never seen such freezing heat

By Christopher Booker Nov. 16, 2008

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore's chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China's official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its "worst snowstorm ever". In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So what explained the anomaly? GISS's computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal.

But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious "hockey stick" graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new "hotspot" in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with.

This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

If there is one scientist more responsible than any other for the alarm over global warming it is Dr Hansen, who set the whole scare in train back in 1988 with his testimony to a US Senate committee chaired by Al Gore. Again and again, Dr Hansen has been to the fore in making extreme claims over the dangers of climate change.

(He was recently in the news here for supporting the Greenpeace activists acquitted of criminally damaging a coal-fired power station in Kent, on the grounds that the harm done to the planet by a new power station would far outweigh any damage they had done themselves.)

Yet last week's latest episode is far from the first time Dr Hansen's methodology has been called in question. In 2007 he was forced by Mr Watts and Mr McIntyre to revise his published figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest decade of the 20th century was not the 1990s, as he had claimed, but the 1930s.

Another of his close allies is Dr Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, who recently startled a university audience in Australia by claiming that global temperatures have recently been rising "very much faster" than ever, in front of a graph showing them rising sharply in the past decade. In fact, as many of his audience were aware, they have not been rising in recent years and since 2007 have dropped.

Dr Pachauri, a former railway engineer with no qualifications in climate science, may believe what Dr Hansen tells him. But whether, on the basis of such evidence, it is wise for the world's governments to embark on some of the most costly economic measures ever proposed, to remedy a problem which may actually not exist, is a question which should give us all pause for thought.

EU facing revolt over climate change target enforcement

By Bruno Waterfield Oct. 16, 2008 (Excerpt)

“The European Union is facing a revolt from poorer members over tough climate change targets at a time when the global economy is heading for recession.

Italy has teamed up with seven east and central European countries - Poland, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Bulgaria and Slovakia - to threaten a veto over Brussels legislation that implements an EU target to cut Europe's CO2 emissions 20 per cent by 2020.

Silvio Berlusconi, the Italian Prime Minister, attacked the target as an unnecessary burden on European businesses at a time when recession was intensifying international economic competition.

"I have announced my intention to exercise my veto," he said.
"We do not think that now is the time to be playing the role of Don Quixote, when the big producers of CO2, such as the United States or China, are totally against adherence to our targets."”


AddThis Social Bookmark Button


At 9:52 AM, Anonymous Joe said...

If my State of Massachusetts wants to tackle a known problem like cleaning the Mercury and metal deposits from our streams, I would have no problem with that. You can buy a freshwater fishing license in my state, but the state advises that fish should not be eaten from our streams and rivers due to health concerns. This to me utterly ridicules. What is more redicules is that they're going to spend taxpayer money to straighten out a problem in the environment that may not even exist,at a time when we can least afford to waste money. I hope that Obama gives Deval Patrick a job in his administration. Maybe he can make him an ambassador to Siberia. Anything,--as long as we're rid of him. We'll even throw in Sen. Marc Pacheco to boot!

At 2:47 PM, Blogger road warrior said...

I agree that global warming probably is a lot of liberal illuminati propaganda but at the same time it makes sense that if we continue to use our worlds resources at an alarming rate and not take care of our planet that some day we will exhaust this planets resources. And maybe global warming is or isn't true but i do think either way we need to follow the path of caring our earth rather than exploiting it. That's what i think and i am not even a liberal.


Post a Comment

<< Home