The Bizarre World of Radical Climate Science

The Bizarre World of Radical Climate Science

By Norman
Rogers

Imagine that you are a climate scientist and the Earth
is threatened with a climate disaster.  You need to warn the people of Earth and
lobby Earth’s governments.  If you are tired of poring over boring computer
printouts, you may be only too ready to accept this mission of transcendent
importance.

On the other hand, maybe you have lost touch with
reality.  Maybe you have become a true believer fighting a dubious battle.
Maybe you are Dr. James Hansen, high civil servant, recipient of cash awards
from left-wing foundations, and director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space
Studies.  Hansen was arrested in front of the White House, dressed up to look
like J. Robert Oppenheimer, the 1950s scientific martyr.  Hansen wants CEOs of
energy companies to be prosecuted for
“crimes against humanity.”

When scientists are fanatical believers in a cause,
the authority and credibility that attach to science are turned into political
capital to be spent in pursuit of that cause.

The late Stephen Schneider, Stanford climate
scientist, explained how this works:

To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up
some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of
any doubts one might have.  Each of us has to decide the right balance between
being effective, and being honest.

Global warming catastrophism is convenient for climate
science.  It is simplistic to claim that climate scientists are making up the
global warming scare in order to promote research funding.  But global warming
catastrophism clearly does promote research funding.  So there is a convenient
congruence between catastrophism and the bureaucratic ambitions of
research establishments.

Climate science deals with the energy balance of the
Earth and the behavior of the atmosphere.  This is a very complicated system
involving convection, evaporation, precipitation, clouds, ocean heat storage,
reflection, and emission of radiation, and more.  Although scientific
understanding of the system has advanced, especially with the advent of
computers and satellites, the system is still quite mysterious in important
respects.  It’s not at all clear that climate science will ever advance to a
point where long-range predictions can be trusted, or, as they say, demonstrate
skill.

Burning fossil fuels adds CO2 to the
atmosphere faster than natural processes can remove it.  As a result,
CO2 has been slowly increasing.  Increasing the proportion of
CO2 in the atmosphere will probably exert a warming influence because
CO2 has an inhibiting effect on the outgoing infrared (heat)
radiation that cools the Earth.  Nearly everyone, skeptic or believer, agrees
with these basic facts.  Another basic fact that the purveyors of global warming
like to keep quiet about is that more CO2 in the atmosphere makes
plants grow much
better
with less water.  That’s because plants in general
struggle to extract the scant CO2 in the air.

What is controversial is how much warming can be
expected and whether the warming will create practical problems.  The evidence
supporting substantial warming (i.e., 3 degrees C) is output from bad computer
models.  It’s said that dogs come to resemble their masters.  Computer models
tend to reflect the aspirations of their creators.

The global warming promoters try to hang all kinds of
supplementary disasters on
their proposed 3-degree warming over a century.  This is even more dubious than
the warming itself.  Some of their claims are absurd, such as the suggestion
that the oceans are going to rise substantially, a claim for which there is zero
credible evidence.
The data has been running against the theories of global warming.  The
atmosphere has failed to warm
since 1998, and, more importantly, the upper ocean has failed to warm
since 2003.

The idea that we are on the verge of a climate
disaster caused by modern civilization is a romantic idea that appeals to people
who have lost traditional religion.  It’s another iteration of the
environmentalist dogma that civilization is ruining the earth.  It’s a Garden of
Eden story.   Anyone can see that the landscape of areas where industry and
technology dominate nature, like Germany or New Jersey, is in far better
condition than the landscape is in most third-world countries — countries that
lack evil industry and that practice the precious local small-scale agriculture
so loved by the ideologues who want remake the economy to prevent global
warming.  The idea that the Earth would be a paradise without civilization is
contradicted by the wild climate swings that we know have taken place in recent
geological time.  Ice sheets a mile thick retreated from much of North America
10,000 years ago.

The reports of the International Panel on Climate
Change (the IPCC) are often taken as the authoritative last word on climate
change.  These reports are are disorganized and unfocused.  As a result, most
people go no further than the introductory Summary for Policy Makers.  If you
dig deep into the reports, solid scientific support for the claims of impending
catastrophe is not there.  Computer models are the shaky foundation of global
warming.  Models from different modeling groups disagree with each other by wide
margins.  As the IPCC admits, the models have serious deficiencies.  The IPCC
uses misleading graphical illustrations to
make it appear that the models can accurately mimic the Earth’s
climate.

The CO2 reduction proposals of the global
warming gang are relentlessly ideological and impractical.  CO2-free
nuclear power supplies 80% of France’s electricity and 20% of the electricity in
the U.S.  Nuclear fuel is very cheap, and vast supplies are available.  The real
problem with nuclear is that environmentalist groups have run a hysterical
anti-nuclear campaign for the last 50 years.  A reversal now would be a severe
blow to their credibility.  So, instead of nuclear, the global warming gang
proposes that we use solar power and wind power, technologies that can cost 10
times more
per kilowatt-hour
.
They don’t seem to understand that solar doesn’t work when a cloud blocks the
sun or at night, and wind doesn’t work when the wind isn’t blowing.  As a
consequence, solar and wind need to be backed up by fossil fuel or hydro plants
with spinning generators ready to quickly assume the load of the grid.  People
who are ignorant concerning engineering or science may accept the notion that
wind and solar are realistic sources of electricity.  It is more difficult to
explain why the government is dumping billions of dollars
into these technologies, both in the form of cash and in the form of mandates
that shift the cost to electricity users.

Many scientists may have a predilection for green
fashion — for example, backyard compost heaps, organic food, bicycles, solar
panels, or giant wind turbines.  Nobody cares.  But it is wrong to misuse the
authority and credibility of science to scare the rest of us into embracing the
green lifestyle.

Norman Rogers is a physicist and a
Senior Policy Advisor at the
Heartland
Institute
.  He maintains a website:
www.climateviews.com.

Climategate Meets the Law: Senator Inhofe to Ask for DOJ Investigation

Climategate Meets the Law: Senator Inhofe to Ask for DOJ Investigation (Pajamas Media/PJTV Exclusive)

Posted By Charlie Martin On February 23, 2010 @ 2:00 am In . Feature 01, Science, Science & Technology | 216 Comments

Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) today asked the Obama administration to investigate what he called “the greatest scientific scandal of our generation” — the actions of climate scientists revealed by the Climategate files, and the subsequent admissions by the editors of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4).

Senator Inhofe also called for former Vice President Al Gore to be called back to the Senate to testify.

“In [Gore’s] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress.

Just prior to a hearing at 10:00 a.m. EST, Senator Inhofe released a minority staff report from the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee [1], of which he is ranking member. Senator Inhofe is asking the Department of Justice to investigate whether there has been research misconduct or criminal actions by the scientists involved, including Dr. Michael Mann of Pennsylvania State University and Dr. James Hansen of Columbia University and the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

This report, obtained exclusively by Pajamas Media before today’s hearing, alleges:

[The] Minority Staff of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works believe the scientists involved may have violated fundamental ethical principles governing taxpayer-funded research and, in some cases, federal laws. In addition to these findings, we believe the emails and accompanying documents seriously compromise the IPCC -backed “consensus” and its central conclusion that anthropogenic emissions are inexorably leading to environmental catastrophes.

As has been reported here at Pajamas Media over the last several months, the exposure of the Climategate files has led to a reexamination of the IPCC Assessment Reports, especially the fourth report (AR4), published in 2007. The IPCC AR4 report was named by Environmental Protection Agency head Lisa Jackson as one of the major sources of scientific support for the agency’s Endangerment Finding, the first step towards allowing the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

Since the Climategate files were released, the IPCC has been forced to retract a number of specific conclusions — such as a prediction that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 [2] — and has been forced to confirm that the report was based in large part on reports from environmental activist groups instead of peer-reviewed scientific literature. Dr. Murari Lal, an editor of the IPCC AR4 report, admitted to the London Daily Mail [3] that he had known the 2035 date was false, but was included in the report anyway “purely to put political pressure on world leaders.”

Based on this minority staff report, Senator Inhofe will be calling for an investigation into potential research misconduct and possible criminal acts by the researchers involved. At the same time, Inhofe will ask the Environmental Protection Agency to reopen its consideration of an Endangerment Finding for carbon dioxide as a pollutant under the Federal Clean Air Act, and will ask Congress to withdraw funding for further consideration of carbon dioxide as a pollutant.

In requesting that the EPA reopen the Endangerment Finding, Inhofe joins with firms such as the Peabody Energy Company [4] and several state Attorneys General (such as Texas [5] and Virginia [6]) in objecting to the Obama administration’s attempt to extend regulatory control over carbon dioxide emissions in the United States. Senator Inhofe believes this staff report “strengthens the case” for the Texas and Virginia attorneys general.

Senator Inhofe’s announcement today appears to be the first time a member of Congress has formally called for an investigation into research misconduct and potential criminal acts by the scientists involved.

The staff report describes four major issues revealed by the Climategate files and the subsequent revelations:

  1. The emails suggest some climate scientists were cooperating to obstruct the release of damaging information and counter-evidence.
  2. They suggest scientists were manipulating the data to reach predetermined conclusions.
  3. They show some climate scientists colluding to pressure journal editors not to publish work questioning the “consensus.”
  4. They show that scientists involved in the report were assuming the role of climate activists attempting to influence public opinion while claiming scientific objectivity.

The report notes a number of potential legal issues raised by their Climategate investigation:

  1. It suggests scientific misconduct that may violate the Shelby Amendment — requiring open access to the results of government-funded research — and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) policies on scientific misconduct (which were announced December 12, 2000).
  2. It notes the potential for violations of the Federal False Statements and False Claims Acts, which may have both civil and criminal penalties.
  3. The report also notes the possibility of there having been an obstruction of Congress in congressional proceeds, which may constitute an obstruction of justice.

If proven, these charges could subject the scientists involved to debarment from federally funded research, and even to criminal penalties.

By naming potential criminal offenses, Senator Inhofe raises the stakes for climate scientists and others involved. Dr. Phil Jones of the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit has already been forced to step aside because of the Climategate FOIA issues, and Dr. Michael Mann of Penn State is currently under investigation by the university for potential misconduct. Adding possible criminal charges to the mix increases the possibility that some of the people involved may choose to blow the whistle in order to protect themselves.

Senator Inhofe believes that Dr. Hansen and Dr. Mann should be “let go” from their posts “for the good of the institutions involved.”

The question, of course, is whether the Senate Democratic majority will allow this investigation to proceed, in the face of the Obama administration’s stated intention to regulate CO2 following the apparent death of cap and trade legislation. The Democratic majority has blocked previous attempts by Inhofe to investigate issues with climate science.

For more of PJM’s most recent Climategate coverage, read Charlie Martin’s “Climategate: The World’s Biggest Story, Everywhere but Here [7].”


Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-law-senator-inhofe-to-ask-for-congressional-criminal-investigation-pajamas-mediapjtv-exclusive/

URLs in this post:

[1] Senate Environment and Public Works Committee: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs

[2] would disappear by 2035: http://pajamasmedia.com../../../../../blog/climategate-imminent-demise-of-glaciers-due-to-a-typo/

[3] London Daily Mail: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1245636/Glacier-scientists-says-knew-data-verified.html#ixzz0gJqxIRTC

[4] Peabody Energy Company: http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=129849&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1390960&highlight=#splash

[5] Texas: http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagNews/release.php?id=3218

[6] Virginia: http://www.oag.state.va.us/PRESS_RELEASES/Cuccinelli/21710_Attorney_General%20Petitions%20EPA.html

[7] Climategate: The World’s Biggest Story, Everywhere but Here: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-the-worlds-biggest-story-everywhere-but-here/

Remember it’s Congress that makes law not the President.

This email came in three parts:
Part 1
In just one year .  Remember the election in 2006?
 Thought you might like to read the following:
 A little over one year ago:

 
1) Consumer confidence stood at a 2 1/2 year high;
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon;
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%.

 
Since voting in a Democratic Congress in 2006 we have seen:

 
1) Consumer confidence plummet;
2) The cost of regular gasoline soar to over $3.50 a gallon;
3) Unemployment is up to 5% (a 10% increase);
4) American households have seen $2.3 trillion in equity value evaporate (stock and mutual fund losses);
5) Americans have seen their home equity drop by $1.2 trillion dollars;
6) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure.

 
America voted for change in 2006, and we got it!

 Remember it’s Congress that makes law not the President. He has to work with what’s handed to him.
  Quote of the Day……..‘My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world.  I hope you’ll join with me as we try to change it.’ — Barack Obama

 Part 2:
Taxes…Whether Democrat or a Republican you will find these statistics enlightening and amazing.
Taxes under Clinton 1999                   Taxes under Bush 2008
Single making 30K – tax $8,400             Single making 30K – tax $4,500
Single making 50K – tax $14,000          Single making 50K – tax $12,500
Single making 75K – tax $23,250          Single making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 60K – tax $16,800       Married making 60K- tax $9,000
Married making 75K – tax $21,000       Married making 75K – tax $18,750
Married making 125K – tax $38,750     Married making 125K – tax $31,250
Both democratic candidates will return to the higher tax rates
It is amazing how many people that fall into the categories above think Bush is screwing them and Bill Clinton was the greatest President ever. If Obama or Hillary are elected, they both say they will repeal the Bush tax cuts and a good portion of the people that fall into the categories above can’t wait for it to happen. This is like the movie The Sting with Paul Newman; you scam somebody out of some money and they don’t even know what happened.
PART 3:
You think the war in Iraq is costing us too much?
      Read this:
Boy am I confused.  I have been hammered with the propaganda that it
is the Iraq war and the war on terror that is bankrupting us.
I now find that to be RIDICULOUS.
I hope the following 14 reasons are forwarded over and over again
until they are read so many times that the reader gets sick of reading them.  I
have included the URL’s for verification of all the following facts.
1.      $11 Billion to $22 billion is spent on welfare to illegal aliens
each year by state governments.     Verify at: http://tinyurl.com/zob77
2.      $2.2 Billion dollars a year is spent on food assistance programs
such as food stamps, WIC, and free school lunches for illegal aliens.
3.      $2.5 Billion dollars a year is spent on Medicaid for illegal aliens.
 4.     $12 Billion dollars a year is spent on primary and secondary school
education for children here illegally and they cannot speak a word of English!
 5.      $17 Billion dollars a year is spent for education for the
 American-born children of illegal aliens, known as anchor babies.
6.  $3 Million Dollars a DAY is spent to incarcerate illegal aliens.
7.  30% percent of all Federal Prison inmates are illegal aliens.
 8.  $90 Billion Dollars a year is spent on illegal aliens for Welfare &
social services by the American taxpayers. Verify at:
9.  $200 Billion Dollars a year in suppressed American wages are caused
10.  The illegal aliens in the United States have a crime rate
that’s two and a half times that of white non-illegal aliens.  In particular,
 their children, are going to make a huge additional crime problem in the US
11.  During the year of 2005 there were 4 to 10 MILLION illegal aliens
that crossed our Southern Border also, as many as 19,500 illegal aliens
from Terrorist Countries.  Millions of pounds of drugs, cocaine, meth, heroin
and mariju ana, crossed into the U. S from the Southern border.
Verify at: Homeland Security Report:  http://tinyurl.com/t9sht
12.  The National Policy Institute, ‘estimated that the total
cost of mass deportation would be between $206 and $230 billion or an average
cost of  between $41 and $46 billion annually over a five year period.’
13.  In 2006 illegal aliens sent home $45 BILLION in remittances
back to their countries of origin.
14.  ‘The Dark Side of Illegal Immigration: Nearly One Million
Sex Crimes Committed by Illegal Immigrants In The United States.’
The total cost is a whopping $ 338.3 BILLION DOLLARS A YEAR. 
 
Why are we THAT stupid?
If this doesn’t bother you then just delete the message.  If, on the other
hand, if it does raise the hair on the back of your neck, I hope you
forward it to every legal resident in the country including every representative in
Washington, D.C. – five times a week for as long as it takes to restore
some semblance of intelligence in our policies and enforcement thereof.

U.S. Senate: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Refute “Man-Made” Global Warming

Gore Ducks Questions About Food Crisis, Ethanol and Climate Alarmism

Gore Ducks Questions About Food Crisis, Ethanol and Climate Alarmism

By Noel Sheppard | April 25, 2008 – 10:28 ET

 

A remarkable thing happened Thursday: a press member wanted to ask Nobel Laureate Al Gore about the growing international food crisis and how it relates to ethanol and global warming hysteria.

Not surprisingly, the man who cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate fourteen years ago mandating the use of ethanol wasn’t available, and a spokesman for his hysteria-driving Alliance for Climate Protection declined to comment.

Isn’t that convenient?

Regardless, the good news is that press outlets continue to recognize this unholy connection, and that someone, even at the conservative New York Sun, would deign to report it (emphasis added throughout):

The campaign against climate change could be set back by the global food crisis, as foreign populations turn against measures to use foodstuffs as substitutes for fossil fuels. […]

One factor being blamed for the price hikes is the use of government subsidies to promote the use of corn for ethanol production. An estimated 30% of America’s corn crop now goes to fuel, not food.

“I don’t think anybody knows precisely how much ethanol contributes to the run-up in food prices, but the contribution is clearly substantial,” a professor of applied economics and law at the University of Minnesota, C. Ford Runge, said. A study by a Washington think tank, the International Food Policy Research Institute, indicated that between a quarter and a third of the recent hike in commodities prices is attributable to biofuels.

Frankly, I believe this is conservative, for I doubt it includes the speculation associated with biofuels. For instance, how much of the current daily futures volume is specifically associated with investor purchases due to ethanol? Maybe more important, how much might such speculative purchases decline if ethanol was taken out of the equation?

But I digress:

It takes around 400 pounds of corn to make 25 gallons of ethanol,” Mr. Senauer, also an applied economics professor at Minnesota, said. “It’s not going to be a very good diet but that’s roughly enough to keep an adult person alive for a year.”

Mr. Senauer said climate change advocates, such as Vice President Gore, need to distance themselves from ethanol to avoid tarnishing the effort against global warming. “Crop-based biofuels are not part of the solution. They, in fact, add to the problem. Whether Al Gore has caught up with that, somebody ought to ask him,” the professor said. “There are lots of solutions, real solutions to climate change. We need to get to those.”

Mr. Gore was not available for an interview yesterday on the food crisis, according to his spokeswoman. A spokesman for Mr. Gore’s public campaign to address climate change, the Alliance for Climate Protection, declined to comment for this article.

Isn’t that dandy? The person that cast the deciding vote in 1994 beginning ethanol mandates, who has been traveling the world advocating biofuels, and even admitted in March 2008 to having investments in biofuel companies, wasn’t available to discuss the food crisis and its relationship to ethanol.

Maybe this is why Gore isn’t allowing press members into his speeches.

Regardless, the pressure is mounting, and as more media outlets begin seeking his opinion concerning this matter, it seems a metaphysical certitude he won’t be able to hide forever.

Stay tuned.

—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

Gore’s Greendom Starving The Poor

http://pointriderrepublican.typepad.com/pr/2008/04/gores-greendom.html

Gore’s Greendom Starving The Poor

As Al Green Gore stands and stares at his salt water tropical fish tanks, people around the world are STARVING because it has become so expensive to send them food.

Al Green thumb is out of touch with everyday reality:

 

“Governments that were quick to switch to biofuels are just as quickly having to think again.

Biofuels were promoted as an effective weapon in the battle against climate change, but some blame the increased demand for them for a world crisis in the cost of food.

Earlier this month a doubling in the price of rice caused riots in Egypt and Haiti, and the World Bank has warned the increased cost of food will push 100-million people deeper into poverty.

But aid groups say that although biofuels have played a part, they’re not the only reason that food prices continue to rise.

Paula Kruger reports.

PAULA KRUGER: It now costs $800-million more to feed the world’s poorest than it did a year ago.

The head of the United Nations World Food Program Josette Sheeran says the rising cost of food is a silent tsunami.

JOSETTE SHEERAN: The price of rice for example has risen from March 3rd at $460 a metric tonne to over $1000 a metric tonne just last week. So in seven weeks we’ve seen a doubling of prices for us to purchase food to fill this cup. This is really a crisis for the world’s most vulnerable.

PAULA KRUGER: The doubling of the price of rice prompted protests and violent riots in Haiti and Egypt earlier this month. There has also been food riots in several other African countries along with Indonesia and the Philippines. The violence is expected to spread as the crisis continues.

But what is causing the massive surge in food prices? New laws have just come into effect in the UK requiring that all petrol and diesel be at least two-and-a-half per cent biofuel. That target is expected to increase to five per cent by 2010 as part of efforts to make transport fuels more environmentally friendly.”

Effects Of Global Food Crisis Being Felt In GTA With High Prices

Biofuels contributing to food crisis

High Food Prices: A Silent Tsunami, Affecting Every Continent

Rising food prices a global threat

Going green on an UNPROVEN THEORY of global warming is GUTTING THE POOR.

Which threat is immediate and killing people as I write?

Starvation because of the price of biofuels or global warming?

People are DYING daily because of the price of wheat, rice and other assorted grains as Al Gore and global warming cult followers stare at tropical fish and push a THEORY.

Global warming is a THEORY, NOT FACT.

It has been discredited by a number of scientists and no one can hear them over the global warming CULT screams.

And people are STARVING TO DEATH over a Global Gorey Theory.

A global warming movie showing a detaching iceberg was a STYROFOAM FAKE.

People starving TODAY is a FACT.

A top weather scientist in my state was demoted by our democratic governor for debunking global green geeks….

Now go figure.

SCIENCE magazine: ethanol bad for environment

SCIENCE magazine: ethanol bad for environment

Big science is starting to agree that ethanol production is hurting, not helping the environment. According to an article in today’s Washington Post by Steven Mufson entitled “Global Food Crisis; Siphoning Off Corn to Fuel Our Cars  ”

 

“Although ethanol was once promoted as a way to slow climate change, a study published in Science magazine Feb. 29 concluded that greenhouse-gas emissions from corn and even cellulosic ethanol “exceed or match those from fossil fuels and therefore produce no greenhouse benefits.” By encouraging an expansion of acreage, the study added, the use of U.S. cropland for ethanol could make climate conditions dramatically worse. And the runoff from increased use of fertilizers on expanded acreage would compound damage to waterways all the way to the Gulf of Mexico.” [Emphasis added]

SCIENCE MAGAZINE is the official publication of the American Association of the Advancement of Science http://www.aaas.org/, a peer-reviewed academic journal with very high scientific prestige equivalent to NATURE, so Al Gore cannot claim it is under the control of the evil oil industry.
 

In addition the Post article reports:

 

“Development specialists have also joined the fray. “While many are worrying about filling their gas tanks, many others around the world are struggling to fill their stomachs, and it is getting more and more difficult every day,” World Bank President Robert B. Zoellick said in a recent speech.”

 

Al Gore should stop starving the worlds’ poor with government-induced famines in the name of his fears for possible climate disaster 100 year hence.  The worlds’ poor are suffering at his hands today.  NO STARVATION FOR FUEL!