INHOFE GLOBAL WARMING SPEECH TODAY – Planned 2 hour Speech on Latest Science & Economics
Selected Speech Excerpts: (Full speech available upon delivery) via Marc Morano
Senator Inhofe on Climate propaganda to Kids:
Hollywood activist Leonardo DiCaprio decided to toss objective scientific truth out the window in his new scarefest “The 11th Hour.” DiCaprio refused to interview any scientists who disagreed with his dire vision of the future of the Earth. In fact, his film reportedly features physicist Stephen Hawking making the unchallenged assertion that “the worst-case scenario is that Earth would become like its sister planet, Venus, with a temperature of 250 [degrees] centigrade.” I guess these “worst-case scenario’s” pass for science in Hollywood these days. It also fits perfectly with DiCaprio’s stated purpose of the film. DiCaprio said on May 20th of this year: “I want the public to be very scared by what they see. I want them to see a very bleak future.” (…) And this agenda of indoctrination and fear aimed at children is having an impact. Nine year old Alyssa Luz-Ricca was quoted in the Washington Post on April 16, 2007 as saying: “I worry about [global warming] because I don’t want to die.” Unfortunately, children are hearing the scientifically unfounded doomsday message loud and clear. But the message kids are receiving is not a scientific one, it is a political message designed to create fear, nervousness and ultimately recruit them to liberal activism.
Senator Inhofe on how many on the Left have become disenchanted with global warming activism:
The global warming scare machine is now so tenuous, that other liberal environmental scientists and activists are now joining [Geologist Dr. Robert] Giegengack and refuting the entire basis for man-made global warming concerns. Denis G. Rancourt Professor of Physics and an environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, believes the global warming campaign does a disservice to the environmental movement. Rancourt wrote on February 27, 2007: “Promoting the global warming myth trains people to accept unverified, remote, and abstract dangers in the place of true problems that they can discover for themselves by becoming directly engaged in their workplace and by doing their own research and observations. It trains people to think lifestyle choices (in relation to CO2 emission) rather than to think activism in the sense of exerting an influence to change societal structures.” Rancourt believes that global warming “will not become humankind’s greatest threat until the sun has its next hiccup in a billion years or more in the very unlikely scenario that we are still around.” He also noted that even if CO2 emissions were a grave threat, “government action and political will cannot measurably or significantly ameliorate global climate in the present world.” Most significantly, however, Rancourt — a committed left-wing activist and scientist — believes environmentalists have been duped into promoting global warming as a crisis. Rancourt wrote: “I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized.” “Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass,” Rancourt added. < > Left-wing Professor David Noble of Canada’s York University has joined the growing chorus of disenchanted liberal activists. Noble now believes that the movement has “hyped the global climate issue into an obsession.” Noble wrote a May 8 essay entitled “The Corporate Climate Coup” which details how global warming has “hijacked” the environmental left and created a “corporate climate campaign” which has “diverted attention from the radical challenges of the global justice movement.”
Senator Inhofe on how the poor will pay for symbolic climate measures:
What few Americans realize is that the impact of these policies would not be evenly distributed. The Congressional Budget Office recently looked at the approach taken by most global warming proposals in Congress – known as cap and trade – that would place a cap on carbon emissions, allocate how much everyone could emit, and then let them trade those emissions. Let me quote from the CBO report: “Regardless of how the allowances were distributed, most of the cost of meeting a cap on CO2 emissions would be borne by consumers, who would face persistently higher prices for products such as electricity and gasoline. Those price increases would be regressive in that poorer households would bear a larger burden relative to their income than wealthier households would.” Think about that. Even relatively modest bills would put enormous burdens on the poor. The poor already face energy costs much higher as a percentage of their income than wealthier Americans. While most Americans spend about 4 percent of their monthly budget on heating their homes or other energy needs, the poorest fifth of Americans spend 19 percent of their budget on energy. Why would we adopt policies which disproportionately force the poor and working class to shoulder the heaviest burdens through even higher energy costs?
Senator Inhofe on Kyoto style attempts to control global temperatures:
First, going on a carbon diet would do nothing to avert climate change. After the U.S. signed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997, Al Gore’s own scientist, Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, calculated that Kyoto would reduce emissions by only 0.07 degrees Celsius by the year 2050. That’s all. 0.07 degrees. And that’s if the United States had ratified Kyoto and the other signatories met their targets. But we didn’t and they won’t. Of the 15 original EU countries, only two are on track to meet their targets. And even one of those, Britain, has started increasing its emissions again, not decreasing. Similar calculations have been done to estimate other climate bills. The Climate Change Stewardship Act that was defeated 38-60 last year would have only reduced temperatures by 0.029 degrees Celsius, and another bill modeled on the National Commission on Energy Policy (NCEP) report would have only reduced temperatures by 0.008 degrees Celsius. That’s right – 0.008 degrees Celsius, or less than one percent of one degree.
Senator Inhofe on new scientific developments:
We have witnessed Antarctic ice GROW to record levels since satellite monitoring began in the 1970’s. We have witnessed NASA temperature data errors that have made 1934 — not 1998 — the hottest year on record in the U.S. We have seen global averages temperatures flat line since 1998 and the Southern Hemisphere cool in recent years.” (…) Current temperatures in Greenland — a poster boy for climate alarmists – are COOLER than the temperatures there in the 1930’s and 1940’s, according to multiple peer-reviewed studies. Yes, you heard me correctly. Greenland has COOLED since the 1940’s! A fact the media and global warming activists conceal. Greenland reached its highest temperatures in 1941, according to a peer-reviewed study published in the June 2006 issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research. And, keep in mind that 80% of man-made CO2 came AFTER these high temperatures. How inconvenient that the two poster children of alarmism – Greenland and Antarctica — trumpeted by Al Gore and the climate fear mongers, have decided not to cooperate with computer model driven fears.
Senator Inhofe on the challenges of controlling emissions:
Many times I have heard that America is the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and thus is the problem. But that is no longer true. Earlier this year, China surpassed the United States as the world’s largest emitter of carbon. Only 6 years ago, it was estimated that China’s emissions would still lag those of the United States in 2040. China’s emissions growth is explosive and climbing upward. Just to put things in perspective, the United States did not build a single new coal-fired power plant in the last 15 years up to 2006, although there are now some efforts underway to change that. In comparison, according to the New York Times, “China last year built 117 government-approved coal-fired power plants – a rate of roughly one every three days, according to official figures.” We won’t complete that many in the next decade. India’s emission increases are not far behind China, and Brazil is not far behind them. The fact is that if these countries do not curb their rapidly accelerating emissions growth, then embracing a carbon diet and sluggish economic growth by developed countries will accomplish nothing. Moreover, many of the carbon reductions achieved through lost manufacturing jobs in developed countries are simply emitted elsewhere as jobs are created to make the same product in countries that do not ration energy. The U.S. emissions as a measure of productivity are far lower than China’s. Cement manufacturing is a perfect example. Every job sent there will increase emissions, not lower them.
Senator Inhofe on the path forward:
So what’s the path forward? I categorically will oppose legislation or initiatives that will devastate our economy as well as those that will cost jobs simply to make symbolic gestures purely to start us down the ruinous economic path of energy rationing. I believe such measures will be defeated because the approach is politically unsustainable. We are seeing the first signs of that in Europe right now. Even if the alarmists were right on the science – which they are not – their command-and-control approaches sow the seeds of their own failure. As long as their policies put national economies in the cross-hairs, they will stoke the fires of opposition and eventually collapse of their own weight. Stabilizing emissions can not happen in 20, 40, or even 60 years because our world’s infrastructure is built on fossil fuels and it will continue to be so for a long time to come – the power plants and other facilities being built now and in the future will emit carbon for a half century after they’re completed. Quite simply, the technology does not exist to cost-effectively power the world without emitting carbon dioxide. And I and many others who reject climate alarmism or ineffective yet expensive solutions will block efforts to implement mandatory carbon restrictions. I find it unfortunate that so many politicians and climate advocates focus on trying to resurrect a mandatory carbon cap policy in the face of its demonstrated failure in practice in the countries that have adopted it. In the process, they are ignoring the best path forward. There is only one approach so far that I know of that will work – it is the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate. Why? Because this approach serves multiple purposes – it will reduce air pollution, expand our energy supply, increase trade, and along with these other goals, reduce greenhouse gases as a byproduct. Others might put this list together differently in terms of priority, but my point is that the Asia-Pacific Partnership meets the criteria for success – it is a politically and economically sustainable path forward that addresses multiple issues in the context of their relation to other issues. Perhaps other approaches in the future will meet these criteria as well, but the APP is currently the only one that does.
Senator Inhofe on how scientific studies reveal climate changes on Earth lie well within the bounds of natural climate variability:
“A June 29, 2007 paper by Gerd Burger of Berlin’s Institute of Meteorology in the peer-reviewed Science Magazine challenged a 2006 study that claimed the 20th century had been unusually warm. Ivy League geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack, the chair of Department of Earth and Environmental Science at the University of Pennsylvania, noted in May 2007 that extremely long geologic timescales reveal that “only about 5% of that time has been characterized by conditions on Earth that were so cold that the poles could support masses of permanent ice.” Giegengack added: “For most of Earth’s history, the globe has been warmer than it has been for the last 200 years. It has rarely been cooler.”
Inhofe on how fear is being driven by unproven and un-testable computer model fears of the future:
Even the New York Times has been forced to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence that the Earth is currently well within natural climate variation. This inconvenient reality means that all the warming doomsayers have to back up their climate fears are unproven computer models predicting future doom. Of course, you can’t prove a prediction of the climate in 2100 wrong today, which reduces the models to speculating on what ‘could’ ‘might’ ‘may’ happen 50 or 100 years from now. But prominent UN scientists have publicly questioned the reliability of climate models. In a candid statement, IPCC scientist Dr. Jim Renwick—a lead author of the IPCC 4th Assessment Report—publicly admitted that climate models may not be so reliable after all. Renwick stated in June: “Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable, so we don’t expect to do terrifically well.” Let me repeat: a UN scientist admitted, “Half of the variability in the climate system is not predictable.” Also in June, another high-profile UN IPCC lead author, Dr. Kevin Trenberth, echoed Renwick’s sentiments about climate models by referring to them as nothing more than “story lines.” A leading scientific skeptic, Meteorologist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands’ Royal National Meteorological Institute, recently took the critique of climate computer models one step further. Tennekes said in February 2007, “I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell their products to society.”
Senator Inhofe debunks “More CO2 = A Warmer World” simplicity:
Scientists and peer-reviewed studies are increasingly revealing that catastrophic climate fears of rising CO2 are simply unsustainable. In May 2007, the “father of meteorology” Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin, dismissed fears of rising CO2 bluntly saying: “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.” Bryson has been identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. Climatologist Dr. Ball recently explained that one of the reasons climate models are failing is because they overestimate the warming effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Ball described how CO2’s warming impact diminishes. “Even if CO2 concentration doubles or triples, the effect on temperature would be minimal. The relationship between temperature and CO2 is like painting a window black to block sunlight. The first coat blocks most of the light. Second and third coats reduce very little more. Current CO2 levels are like the first coat of black paint,” Ball explained in June 2007. Environmental economist Dennis Avery, co-author with climate scientist Dr. Fred Singer of the new book “Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years,” explained how much impact CO2 has had on temperatures. “The earth has warmed only a net 0.2 degrees C of net warming since 1940. Human-emitted CO2 gets the blame for only half of that—or 0.1 degree C of warming over 65 years! We’ve had no warming at all since 1998. Remember, too, that each added unit of CO2 has less impact on the climate. The first 40 parts per million (ppm) of human-emitted CO2 added to the atmosphere in the 1940s had as much climate impact as the next 360 ppm,” Avery wrote in August. Avery and Singer’s book details how solar activity is linked to Earth’s natural temperature cycles. < > [Dr. Robert] Giegengack said: “[Gore] claims that temperature increases solely because more CO2 in the atmosphere traps the sun’s heat. That’s just wrong … It’s a natural interplay.” He continued, “It’s hard for us to say that CO2 drives temperature. It’s easier to say temperature drives CO2.” “The driving mechanism is exactly the opposite of what Al Gore claims, both in his film and in that book. It’s the temperature that, through those 650,000 years, controlled the CO2; not the CO2 that controlled the temperature,” he added.
Senator Inhofe debunks the so-called “consensus”:
The notion of a “consensus” is carefully manufactured for political, financial and ideological purposes. < > Key components of the manufactured “consensus” fade under scrutiny. We often hear how the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and the American Meteorological Society (AMS) issued statements endorsing the so-called “consensus” view that man is driving global warming. But what you don’t hear is that both the NAS and AMS never allowed member scientists to directly vote on these climate statements. Essentially, only two dozen or so members on the governing boards of these institutions produced the “consensus” statements. It appears that the governing boards of these organizations caved in to pressure from those promoting the politically correct view of UN and Gore-inspired science. The Canadian Academy of Sciences reportedly endorsed a “consensus” global warming statement that was never even approved by its governing board. Rank-and-file scientists are now openly rebelling. James Spann, a certified meteorologist with the AMS, openly defied the organization when he said in January that he does “not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype.” < > There are frequently claims that the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers is the voice of hundreds or even thousands of the world’s top scientists. But such claims do not hold up to even the lightest scrutiny. According to the Associated Press, during the IPCC Summary for Policymakers meeting in April 2007, only 52 scientists participated. The April 9, 2007 AP article by Seth Borenstein reported: “Diplomats from 115 countries and 52 scientists hashed out the most comprehensive and gloomiest warning yet about the possible effects of global warming, from increased flooding, hunger, drought and diseases to the extinction of species.” Many of the so-called “hundreds” of scientists who have been affiliated with the UN as “expert reviewers” are in fact climate skeptics. Skeptics like Virginia State Climatologist Dr. Patrick Michaels, Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy, New Zealand climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray, former head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo, Tom V. Segalstad, and MIT’s Dr. Richard Lindzen have served as IPCC “expert reviewers” but were not involved in writing the alarmist Summary for Policymakers.
Senator Inhofe on the UN IPCC process:
The UN allowed a Greenpeace activist to co-author a key economic report in 2007. Left unreported by most of the media was the fact that Bill Hare, an advisor to Greenpeace, was a lead co- author of a key economic report in the IPCC’s 4th Assessment. Not surprisingly, the Greenpeace co-authored report predicted a gloomy future for our planet unless we follow the UN’s policy prescriptions. The UN IPCC’s own guidelines explicitly state that the scientific reports have to be “change[d]” to “ensure consistency with” the politically motivated Summary for Policymakers. In addition, the IPCC more closely resembles a political party’s convention platform battle – not a scientific process. During an IPCC Summary for Policymakers process, political delegates and international bureaucrats squabble over the specific wording of a phase or assertion. Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes. “I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors. And they were talking about how they were trying to make the report so dramatic that the United States would just have to sign that Kyoto Protocol,” Christy told CNN on May 2, 2007. Former Colorado State Climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. also detailed the corruption of the UN IPCC process on September 1, 2007: “The same individuals who are doing primary research in the role of humans on the climate system are then permitted to lead the [IPCC] assessment! There should be an outcry on this obvious conflict of interest, but to date either few recognize this conflict, or see that since the recommendations of the IPCC fit their policy and political agenda, they chose to ignore this conflict. In either case, scientific rigor has been sacrificed and poor policy and political decisions will inevitably follow,” Pielke explained. He added: “We need recognition among the scientific community, the media, and policymakers that the IPCC process is obviously a real conflict of interest, and this has resulted in a significantly flawed report.” Politics appears to be the fuel that runs the UN IPCC process from the scientists to the bureaucrats to the delegates and all the way to many of the world leaders involved in it. And another key to the motivation of the UN was explained by former French President Jacques Chirac in 2000: Chirac said Kyoto represents “the first component of an authentic global governance.”
Senator Inhofe on Polar Bears:
The Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that the polar bear population is currently at 20,000 to 25,000 bears, whereas in the 1950s and 1960s, estimates were as low as 5,000-10,000 bears. We currently have an estimated four or five times more polar bears than 50 years ago. A 2002 U.S. Geological Survey of wildlife in the Arctic Refuge Coastal Plain noted that the polar bear populations ‘may now be near historic highs.’ Top biologists and wildlife experts are dismissing unproven computer model concerns for polar bears. In 2006, Canadian biologist Dr. Mitchell Taylor, the director of wildlife research with the Arctic government of Nunavut, dismissed these fears with evidence based data on Canada’s polar bear populations. “Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present,” Taylor said, noting that Canada is home to two-thirds of the world’s polar bears. He added: “It is just silly to predict the demise of polar bears in 25 years based on media-assisted hysteria.” In September, Taylor further debunked the latest report hyping fears of future polar bear extinctions. “I think it’s naive and presumptuous,” Taylor said, referring to a recent report by the U.S. government warning that computer models predict a dire future for the bears due to projected ice loss. Taylor also debunked the notion that less sea ice means less polar bears by pointing out that southern regions of the bears’ home with low levels of ice are seeing booming bear populations. He noted that in the warmer southern Canadian region of the Davis Strait with lower levels of ice, a new survey will reveal that bear populations have grown from an estimated 850 bears to an estimated 3000 bears. And, despite the lower levels of ice, some of the bears measured in this region are among the biggest ever on record. “Davis Strait is crawling with polar bears. It’s not safe to camp there. They’re fat. The mothers have cubs. The cubs are in good shape,” he said, according to a September 14, 2007 article. He added: “That’s not theory. That’s not based on a model. That’s observation of reality.” Other biologists are equally dismissive of these computer model based fears. Biologist Josef Reichholf, who heads the Vertebrates Department at the National Zoological Collection in Munich, rejected climate fears and asserted any potential global warming may be beneficial to both humans and animals. In a May 8, 2007 interview, Reichholf asked: “How did the polar bear survive the last warm period?”
Reichholf also debunked the entire notion that a warmer world will lead to mass species extinctions. “Warming temperatures promote biodiversity,” Reichholf explained. “The number of species increases exponentially from the regions near the poles across the moderate latitudes and to the equator. To put it succinctly, the warmer a region is, the more diverse are its species,” he added.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
The rhetorical density is impenetrable. Typical neo-con rave about world govt – sky will fall in yadda yadda.
So we have the usual overworn Trenberth and Renwick misquotes or misuse. Ask Trenberth whether he thinks AGW is an issue. Seasonal forecasts mixed up with climate models.
Polar bear icon stuff. How about the pine beetles having a good munch through the forest estate as another iconic animal story. The poalr north will be even more of an entomological zoo as the place warms up.
And it’s really basic right – no ice is simple. Polar Baaars will all get boats with outboards. How simple is that.
“New Zealand climate researcher Dr. Vincent Gray” – NO he’s NOT !!! ROTFL
The usual denialists – Christy (who can’t even analyse his own satellite data). Tennekes, Lindzen (see smoking is OK). Michaels. What a tawdry list of the usual suspects.
World govt …. ROTFL. Says Sheriff Inhofe.
IPCC corrupt. Blah blah. zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Inhofe’s way forward = zilch? Go figure.
Those warmer droughted parts of the USA sure are helping with the biodiversity. Nothing like a Californian wildfire to help preserve species.
“To put it succinctly, the warmer a region is, the more diverse are its species” – yep so polar beaaaars will simply migrate to the Amazon – to get more diverse?
Inhofe is a denialist neo-con creep.
I knew you’d like this one Luke. If you’re really naughty, I’ll post the whole speech!
Anyway, Christy is one of the good guys and his data is sound.
About as consensual as the new EU?
I agree that only the poor will bear the brunt of any emission taxes.
After all that MSU data was found to have basic calibration data issues I wrote Christy off.
RSS forever !
Is that all you can come up with Flukey? What about;
“Tennekes said in February 2007, “I am of the opinion that most scientists engaged in the design, development, and tuning of climate models are in fact software engineers. They are unlicensed, hence unqualified to sell their products to society.”
“Greenland has COOLED since the 1940’s! A fact the media and global warming activists conceal. Greenland reached its highest temperatures in 1941, according to a peer-reviewed study published in the June 2006 issue of the Journal of Geophysical Research.”
“”The earth has warmed only a net 0.2 degrees C of net warming since 1940. Human-emitted CO2 gets the blame for only half of that—or 0.1 degree C of warming over 65 years! We’ve had no warming at all since 1998. Remember, too, that each added unit of CO2 has less impact on the climate. The first 40 parts per million (ppm) of human-emitted CO2 added to the atmosphere in the 1940s had as much climate impact as the next 360 ppm,” Avery wrote in August.”
All issues of substance and the only “rant” we have seen is from yourself, our resident cheap shot merchant.
Tennekes wouldn’t really know and neither would you. He’s not a GCM moddeller. It’s AN OPINION.
As for your stupid CO2 analysis – you have a rapid warming and no solar driver. The models predict confirm the obs. You’re not a systems modellers bootlace – just a reductionist and linearist.
You may be surpised my little con merchant that sticking a line betwen two peaks is no indication of the valley below. Cooled since 1940 – what a try-on. You’re a gimp.
How many seats in the election Mottsa – will you be storming home with your Wollemi Pine Tordaning and metro-scum policy ?
P.S. It’s considered normal to cite your references.
These statements are total rhetorical horseshit
“There are frequently claims that the UN IPCC Summary for Policymakers is the voice of hundreds or even thousands of the world’s top scientists. But such claims do not hold up to even the lightest scrutiny. According to the Associated Press, during the IPCC Summary for Policymakers meeting in April 2007, only 52 scientists participated. The April 9, 2007 AP article by Seth Borenstein reported: “Diplomats from 115 countries and 52 scientists hashed out the most comprehensive and gloomiest warning yet about the possible effects of global warming, from increased flooding, hunger, drought and diseases to the extinction of species”
Well somehow it seems to agree with the main chapter documents and all the material does seem to be laid out in great detail. Just flossy padding from Inhofe.
“Alabama State Climatologist Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, served as a UN IPCC lead author in 2001 for the 3rd assessment report and detailed how he personally witnessed UN scientists attempting to distort the science for political purposes. “I was at the table with three Europeans, and we were having lunch. And they were talking about their role as lead authors.” – ah bullshit – Christy’s made up some hearsay – how utterly authoritative.
“James Spann, a certified meteorologist with the AMS, openly defied the organization when he said in January that he does “not know of a single TV meteorologist who buys into the man-made global warming hype.” – gee I spoke to taxi driver in February who said the opposite – how utterly authoritative said Mr F Symthe 101 Gumpy Road Screwball Texas.
Does he really write this bilge. Probably like most neo-con pollies written for him by some right wing think tank.
Inhofe is frankly evil. What a shonk.
I love a good hysterical Lukian rant – usually only get one after a post like this!
We’ve got all the predictable political predjudice , name calling and irrationality but now with “evil” we’ve finally reached religious fervour!
We need one of these a day Paul.
I only had to read the first few words of the first posting to guess that it was from Luke.
What he can’t argue with facts he’ll try to dismiss or just try to smear the other person. It’s a worn out approach Luke, try addressing the issues.
And stop prattling on about calibration errors with the lower tropospheric temperature. The difference amounted to less a tiny blip around 2001 and all it did was get RSS alarmists hyperventilating because it increased a trend which is obviously dominated by teh 1998 El Nino.
Also try reading Inhofe’s speech and you’ll find that your claim in reference to the IPCC meeting with 52 scientists, to wit “somehow it seems to agree with the main chapter documents and all the material does seem to be laid out in great detail” is nonsense. Support for the IPCC’s claims stands at less than 5 reviewers and most reviewers had a vested interest.
Time to pack in Luke, unless of course you can come up with evidence that the IPCC, GISS, Hadley Centre, CSIRO etc etc can’t find.
If you guys think Inhofe has anything you’re wanking yourselves. Seriously these bastards are truly evil. Pile upon pile of real sophistic shonky crap.
John – the errors made it go from cooling to warming. Christy is a flake. Anyone who plays around with satellite data knows about calibration. What a pathetic bit of research.
What RSS alarmism ?? – you’ve just added that a bit of rhetorical bullshit. Reference pls?
I mean really if you guys seriously believe Marano and Inhofe you’re soft in the head. Pure political spin doctoring. Probably a whole little swat team sitting in CEI trawling around day and night for another angle.
This stuff is pure evil and needs to be confronted.
As for arguing with facts – you guys haven’t done that for years and I have – and now you having a sook about it – come on.
And John what do we have from you on anything – CSIRO this – CSIRO that – whingey whinegy sook sook – none of you denialists have anything useful to contribute to climate risk management except that “don’t worry about it”.
Tell that to Murray Valley farmers you creeps.
Senator who?
Hey Luke
I’m off to the drug store and I need to know how much or whether I should buy any sun screen. So what do the GCM modelers say about the weather next week?
I see Senator Inhofe supports the Asia-Pacific Partnership as it “serves multiple purposes – it will reduce air pollution, expand our energy supply, increase trade, and along with these other goals, reduce greenhouse gases as a byproduct. Others might put this list together differently in terms of priority, but my point is that the Asia-Pacific Partnership meets the criteria for success – it is a politically and economically sustainable path forward that addresses multiple issues in the context of their relation to other issues.”
As opposed to Kyoto, which is politically unsustainable, exempts the developing countries, and does not achieve emission reductions on a global scale.
And we look like we’re going to elect Kevin07 partly on the basis that he will ratify Kyoto!
Luke, please calm down. After reading your recent posts, I fear you are going to burst a gasket. Just remember, most of the future climate change is going to be down to China and India, if you’re right about AGW, so your anger should be directed at them, not we poor Exxon funded denialist shonks.
Not Paul Biggs,
Please refain from baiting poor (F)Luke(y).
As he so frequently and inelegantly implies he is so superior in every way to all the other poor demented denizens who infest this Blog he should be shown proper deference
So there!
I’m not angry THAT MUCH. But we will be seizing control of the state and introducing martial carbon law – every citizen will only be given a certain number of emission permits – exceed them and the true patriots will eliminate you. All traitors will be shot. NSW Rail will be placed in charge of all public transport and everyone will be in a Union 24 x 7. Our demands:
(1) The Liberal/National Party and Republican Party be declared as illegal.
(2) Anyone that is a neo-con or has ever seen a neo-con to be shot on site
(3) All private transport will be declared as illegal except for the Executive
(4) All air transport will be banned except for the Executive
(5) Personal possession of liquid hydrocarbons will be a drug offence
(6) Consumption of meat products will be outlawed to reduce methane emissions.
Luke!
I am entirely at one with you.
PLEASE can I be a member of the Executive?
BTW here is the URL to the Inhofe speech which I just know you would want to have:-)
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Speeches&ContentRecord_id=dceb518c-802a-23ad-45bf-894a13435a08&Region_id=&Issue_id=
Fair enough then, Luke. That is bound to stop global warming!
Not sure how you’re going to get the neo-cons to the site to shoot them, without transport. And won’t the guns be banned?
Luke, you need to get some sleep, this 24/7 blogging is playing with your lobes.
Luke will probably go into orbit over this piece, in Nature mag titled Time to Ditch Kyoto
”
“The Kyoto Protocol was always the wrong tool for the nature of the job.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7165/full/449973a.html
You’re all against me. I can sense it.
No time to sleep – the future of the planet is at stake.
That tiny red light on your monitor…left hand side, top corner….I can see you
..and whats this obsession with wanking, did you have a deprived childhood?
For a supposedly grown up person you do spend a lot of time on self gratification.
No wonder you cant do simple maths….
You guys and that are all I have in the world Rog. I love you guys.
Having watched the Dukes of Hazard last knight, it has become clear to me the Luke has been subjected to CIA brain scans. What you need, mate, is a helmet made of Armadillo shell, preferably with the tail left on.
It could only improve your credibility.
Please Lukey Boy – I’m to be shot just for BEING a neo-con?
Isn’t there some rehab or something I can do?
Perhaps re-education camps could be a suitable compromise?
You blokes pioneered those.
Just not Flannery for Commandant ; I beg you…..
Anyway got a bit soppy there so better get back into the biffo ….
Actually I’m starting to appreciate Inhofe and thanks for the link Lawrie. You’ve encouraged me greatly. Inhofe is pretty good for distilling all the bogus arguments into a cohesive gooey pile.
So we also have the “windows are saturated ruse”;
“Synchronized Chaos: Mechanisms For Major Climate Shifts” – the odd cycles shell game – which contradicts the solar but hey who’s counting;
CO2 didn’t end the last Ice Age – yep who’s arguing otherwise.
The old solar ruse “Svensmark – Friis-Christensen.” Which hypothesis is it this week?
The diversionary water vapour ruse.
Cripes all there in one tidy reference. The Encyclopaedia Shonktania of denialism.
“American Enterprise Institute scientist” is that a contradiction in terms?? ROTFL
Tim Ball and Bellamy – this is now getting side-splitting. Hohohohohoho – where’s Bob Carter? oh no Bob’s in there too.
Cold in Australia – but also warm. shhhhh don’t mention the drought eh !!! shhhhh …
Former Harvard physicist Dr. Lubos Motl – you mean that upstart string physicist – hehehehe – hey can someone explain how n-dimensional M-branes work again.
And the IPCC report copped it from Reiter on mossies – boys mucked that up a bit nut I reckon Reiter’s a sour bugger too for various reasons, anyway
it’s your midges ins’t it – bringing blue tongue and Africa horse sickness virus (like afflicts Rog)
Then you’ve got your chikungunya and your West Nile virus and your Rift Valley fever. And your St Louis encephalitis (Mottsa disease in Aussie).
OK here’s the rave – how come Inhofe’s didn’t tell me that?? Biggsy might get Marano on that one with the pine beetle job. I want here how the Great Pacific Shift has caused these !! ROTFL
Bluetongue virus springs nasty surprise
SO BLUETONGUE virus is in northern Europe, perhaps to stay. While its arrival was predictable, the manner of its appearance was quite the opposite. It comes as a timely warning of the surprises that might be in store as global warming upsets the exquisite balance between Earth’s creatures.
Bluetongue is a virus of ruminants that is carried by biting flies called midges (or in some places, no-see-ums). It is resident in the tropics and in warm areas of North America and Australia, where livestock have mostly evolved resistance. Since 1998 it has crept north into Europe as the tropical midge that carries it has moved into new territory (see http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn12756).
The disease’s path precisely tracked the pattern of increasing night-time and winter temperatures. Europe’s livestock have no resistance, and as the midge moved through Italy, Iberia, southern France and the Balkans, bluetongue killed more than a million sheep.
Scientists warned in 2002 that northern European midges can carry bluetongue too, and might pick up where the southern midge left off. Then in 2006 the virus sprang a surprise: a South African strain, different from the viruses then creeping northwards, appeared in the Netherlands and spread rapidly across northern Europe. In August 2007 the same strain surfaced again: it had overwintered, though no one quite knows how. One idea is that it may lurk, ingeniously, in cows’ immune cells.
This was not a simple matter of a disease-carrying insect moving north but complicated nature adapting in complicated ways. Global warming had created conditions in northern Europe that allowed a one-off infection to explode. Midge species that normally do not carry bluetongue can do so when it gets warmer. They have temperature-sensitive genes. As the climate warms, the midges grow faster and have thinner gut walls, which the virus can penetrate. Warmer, wetter weather means more flies, while the virus replicates faster. A perfect combination for invasion.
There is more waiting in the wings. West Nile virus is affected by warming in similar ways to bluetongue, as are its relatives such as St Louis encephalitis virus and other insect-borne maladies such as chikungunya and Rift Valley fever, which has already moved out of Africa. African horse sickness can go wherever bluetongue goes. Farmers just beyond bluetongue’s reach in North America and Australia may be no safer than Europe was.
Who knows what other plagues of people, animals or crops will follow from global warming? We are about to find out.
From issue 2625 of New Scientist magazine, 13 October 2007, page 3
I know – we can spray DDT – hehehehehe – ooooo it hurts.
OK then DiCaprio is a wanker.
Wow !
Turnbull wants to ratify Kyoto: Labor
The Federal Opposition has criticised the Government over reports that Environment Minister Malcolm Turnbull unsuccessfully tried to convince Prime Minister John Howard to ratify the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.
The Australian Financial Review is reporting that Mr Turnbull recommended to Cabinet that Australia ratify the document about six weeks ago.
A spokeswoman for Mr Turnbull was unable to confirm whether he made the recommendation, but says the Minister agrees there would be no economic harm in Australia signing the protocol.
Opposition environment spokesman Peter Garrett says the move shows Mr Turnbull supports Labor policy.
“What we see today is Environment Minister Turnbull effectively backing Labor’s position on climate change policy, and being knocked back by the Howard Government, particularly on the issue of the ratification of the Kyoto protocol,” he said.
Mr Garrett says Mr Turnbull is now in disagreement with his party’s leader.
“Mr Turnbull seems to know that in actual fact the arguments that his Government, he and the Prime Minister have been putting for the last five years and more are completely spurious,” he said.
“There has never been any substantial reason for Australia not to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, given that we will meet our generous targets.”
Prime Minister John Howard, campaigning in Parramatta, refused to deny the newspaper reports, saying he does not comment on Cabinet discussions.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/27/2072146.htm
Turnbull/Garrett/Howard should read this:
http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002481.html
Meanwhile, here’s a blog task – find the peer reviewed climate science papers by NZ IPCC scientist David Wratt. I’ll start you off with the stunner I found:
Wratt, D.S.; Gimson, N.R.; Brailsford, G.W.; Lassey, K.R.; Bromley, A.M.; Bell, M.J. (2001). Estimating regional greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture using aircraft measurements of concentration profiles. Atmospheric Environment 35: 497–508.
I’m wondering why the bluetongue didn’t move to northern Europe during the MWP?
But I am mostly wondering if my neck will get sunburned this Thanksgiving.
Waiting on that GCM computer forecast.
Well you’ll be waiting a long while. Such technology does not exist. NWPs (numerical weather models have some skill out to 7-10 days) – that’s it.
But interesting comment because it exposes the old “can’t predict the weather so how can you do the climate” ruse.
Tides are very predictable but from wave action the actual water level at any instant could make the water height out by a centimetres to metres. That’s the analogy. Broadly right on average but no predictive detail for any moment from tide forecasts.
Climate models simulate a broad state of climate with its attendant variation – not a specific day.
If you don’t get that you’re not on the page I’m afraid.
Seasonal climate forecasts are a bit different in that they might use a climate simulation but they might also just be a statistical analysis of the past. Usually on something like El Nino. In any case you’ll only get something like probability of exceeding the median or probability of being in a tercile rainfall/temperature class (high, low, middle). Not specific days.
So asking for a GCM forecast for Thanksgiving is a non-question and should tell you James how much “you don’t get it”.
So weather forecasting ain’t seasonal forecasting ain’t climate modelling.
On bluetongue moving during the MWP – well maybe it did. But population and agriculture are now different. However have we not been told here on blog what a joyous time the MWP was. No poxes and pestilence has been discussed. Wasn’t everyone out building cathedrals and dancing around the maypole.
Gosh, we don’t have to worry about a thing because Rudd will sign Kyotos interruptus. And that will fix it?
Talk about cargo cults for the cognitively impaired. These dumb turds seem to think Kyoto was some sort of “get well card” for the planet. All you need to do is sign it and all will be well.
Meanwhile families out there in barbie world are doing it tough. It seems housing is at its least affordable in history. Could that be because houses have more bathrooms, pools, electronics and garage space than ever before? And have double the floor area and half the occupants?
Well folks, if times are tough then it might be because you are overspending. And if you are overspending you are probably over-emitting. And uncle Kevie has just the thing to fix that. It is called the dole queue. You know, the one that will grow after Kevie signs the Kyoto Ugly?
James
it gets very boring with the same old tired displays of ignorance, like that question about forecasting the weather. The information is all there about why climate is different to weather, but for some reason just about *no one* here seems to be able to ever understand it, and just repeats it over and over again, as if they are making some point.
SJT,
Yeah, we get it. “The weather is not the climate.” Or, conversely, ‘The weather never lines up with computer models’.
Or, most accurately, ‘Climate modelers are completely unable to correlate their models to climate, weather, or anything else’.
SJT, someone forgot to tell you that climate is composed of weather. And that climate change is composed of changes in the weather.
Since the “experts” have failed completely to forecast the weather, and that all measures of global temperature are within a range of error equal to the alleged “climate change,” you and your buddies are exposed as complete and absolute frauds.
Please don’t interpret this as questioning your faith. Some believe in Allah, too.
Times arent too tough at all, its just how the media/pollies like to beat it up. After berating us with affluenza the AIS now find what most sensible people already knew; that most people are doing OK, there is no widespread mortgage stress and in general people have never had it so good.
“• the widespread view that middle-class families are suffering mortgage stress is overstated. In fact, only about a third of middle class families actually have a mortgage and only eight per cent have a mortgage over $200,000;
• the median disposable income for the typical Australian family today is almost $70,000, 43 per cent higher than the median income for all household”
http://www.tai.org.au/documents/downloads/MR257.pdf
Rog, I think you’ll find the AIS only suggested the ‘middle class’ isn’t batting – did you see the sample they took? They are not suggesting for one second that there is not a real issue at the lowest income quartile…
I can see Schiller hasn’t improved as the resident red-necked idiot so I’ll only tell you one more time – then you may rant on like a deranged hillbilly as much as you like
“Since the “experts” have failed completely to forecast the weather” – climate modellers don’t predict the weather weeks in advance. It’s called chaos – James Gleick wrote a book on it. Weather is chaotic around a mean climate state.
There are over 5 million housing loans of which 20K are under stress, less than 1%.
“The data show that few typical Australian families are struggling financially; in fact, most are doing very well.”
Like I said Schiller, there are people here who just can’t get it.
Imhofe is a skanky Exxon whore. Luke is the only relevant commentor here and I have appointed him my senior acolyte on any AGW threads.
He has my full authority to burn any of you denial heretic scum and your families at the stake.
Gaia’s peace be upon thee but not thee heathen denialist filth scum, I hope Gaia goes big arse whoop with lightning, thunder, 100 ft floods, millions of hurricanes and dieing polar bears on all of your houses.
That will be $180,000 green backs.
PS
Vote Al Gore, Best Scientist of the World by Consensus.
Al Gore is not a scientist.
at risk of getting way off topic…
“A truer picture of the economic well-being of the typical Australian family is given by looking at the incomes of those households comprised of a couple with at least one dependent child and headed by someone of prime working age. These households account for 41 per cent of the population.
In 2005 the median disposable income of all households was $48,193. In contrast, the median disposable income of the typical Australian family as we have defined it was $69,073, 43 per cent higher. The average income for these households was $76,778, 37 per cent higher than the average for all households. The standard of living afforded by a disposable income close to $70,000 is comfortable by any measure and conflicts with the widespread view of struggling families.”
Just to clarify who is not struggling – a family type which accounts for 41% of the population. Like I said, says nothing about the lowest quintile, income distributions etc.
PS, if you are relying in Inhofe, the signs aren’t good
Yeh, but like you said..you have said nothing.
Who’s Inhofe? Nothing.
Hay Luke I am a Murray valey farmer who has had 0% water allocation for two years. A couple of years drought does not mean we are sufering due to global warming. There are sand dunes around here with trees hundreds of years old growing on them. Past droughts have been much worse than we have got now for these dunes to have formed.
Those of us who rely on the weather for our income have had droughts and floods for years. We relize the media loves scare campains as it makes them money. City people seem easely scared by them.
I am wondering why satellite data which matchs radiosonde data would need adjustment?
So I take it on that trip to the drug store I should pick up an umbrella just to be safe?
Who is this Luke fella? Because he is certainly a Marxist moaner isn’t he?
Sea levels have not risen(Sat. data)
The island that was sinking 20 years ago is still there.
Seems like Luke is full of hot air!
Hehe, pun intended.
James try reading every RC post ever before posting again. Are you that absolutely bereft of any intelligence. Yes we knew you’d be into drugs too. Bloody hippie – take an umbrella by all means to repel drop-bears,
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=179
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=170
Goodoo – well given the 6 YEAR drought is all old news to you guys then and no surprise I guess you’ll be handling the 3 Billion $ plus back in assistance.
Well you’re the one banging on about sea levels not me John Dick. Satellite sea rises for Tuvalu if that’s what you’re on about is 4-6 mm /year. So better turn your brain out of lying skunk mode you neo-con wanker.
It appears that at least from 2000, the sea level around Australia is declining. WRT to Tuvalu (and the Carteret islands which made an appearance on the CNN report last night) – if the sea level is not increasing around Australia, then it’s unlikely to be increasing elsewhere in the world let alone at 1/2cm per year… Maybe this has something to do with these islands being on top of subsiding volcanoes? (And I’m not even going to mention La Nina / El Nino sea level changes).
I sourced most of this from BoM at their Australian Baseline Sea Level Monitoring Project page, and specifically from the three, yearly reports that can be accessed via this link.
http://www.bom.gov.au/oceanography/projects/abslmp/reports_yearly.shtml
These are the Australian sea level anomalies at various sites over the last 15 years or so and the 2006 to 2007 sea level change:
http://i20.tinypic.com/ddkjg7.jpg
By the way, this supports the findings (correction notwithstanding) in:
Lyman, J. M., J. K. Willis, and G. C. Johnson (2006), Recent cooling of the upper ocean, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L18604, doi:10.1029/2006GL027033
(Because if the oceans were warming, you would expect that the water would expand and sea levels rise…!)
cheers
Arnost
Luke, the walker from Onan
The Carteret Islands are only about 250km from the island in the Solomons that rose by three metres after the last earthquake. But the ABC’s resident but unnamed experts are adamant that the area is geologically stable.
Funny how no-one claimed it was sea level dropping.
Which reminds me. There are scum to be prosecuted.
Inhofe who?
SJT – was that crickets chirping?
Arnost
What is an Inhofe?
Tamino roasts Inhofe – excellent !
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/10/30/frozen-north/#more-452