Round Up from Marc Morano

1. Scientists challenge UN Climate Panel to ‘Admit’ CO2 is NOT ‘Driving World Temperatures’

The letter was signed by UK Analytical Chemist Hans Schreuder; UK Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn UK Prof. Em. Human Ecology Dr. Don Parkes and Svend Hendriksen of the Greenland Meteorological Office.

Excerpt: Dear Dr. Pachauri and others associated with IPCC We are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change. […] Icecore data from the ACIA (Arctic Climate Impact Assessment) shows that temperatures have fallen since around 4,000 years ago (the Bronze Age Climate Optimum) while CO2 levels have risen, yet this graphical data was not included in the IPCC Summary for Policymakers (Fig. SPM1 Feb07) which graphed the CO2 rise. More recent data shows that in the opposite sense to IPCC predictions world temperatures have not risen and indeed have fallen over the past 10 years while CO2 levels have risen dramatically. […] A third important observation is that contrary to the CO2 driver theory, temperatures in the upper troposphere (where most jets fly) have fallen over the past two decades. IPCC policy is already leading to economic and unintended environmental damage. Specifically the policy of burning food – maize as biofuel – has contributed to sharp rises in food prices which are causing great hardship in many countries and is also now leading to increased deforestation in Brazil, Malaysia, Indonesia, Togo, Cambodia, Nigeria, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Benin and Uganda for cultivation of crops. […] We ask you and all those whose names are associated with IPCC policy to accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy.

http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/letters/IPCC_letter_14April08.pdf

2. Central Plank Of Global Warming Alarmism Discredited

Excerpt: Inspiration for Al Gore’s movie cover, contention that global warming causes intense hurricanes, discredited by professor who first proposed it. One of the central philosophies of climate change alarmism and an image that adorned the cover of Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth – the contention that global warming causes deadly hurricanes – has been completely discredited by the expert who first proposed it. Hurricane buff and professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT Kerry Emanuel asserted for over 20 years that global warming breeds more frequent and stronger storms and he shot to prominence just one month before Hurricane Katrina in 2005 when he delivered the “final proof” that global warming was already causing extreme weather events and wrecking livelihoods. Emanuel was subsequently acknowledged with a place in Time Magazine’s “100 People Who Shape Our World” list. Al Gore was so inspired by Emanuel’s research that he devoted the iconic front cover image of his 2006 movie An Inconvenient Truth to his warning, portraying a hurricane emerging from a Co2-belching smokestack. Unfortunately for the church of environmentalism, who ceaselessly profess to have a monopoly on truth and insist that “the debate is over” on global warming, Emanuel has completely recanted his position and now admits that hurricanes and storms will actually decline over the next 200 years and have little or no correlation with global temperature change whatsoever.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/041408_alarmism_discredited.htm

3. 6th Graders Scared of Climate ‘Catastrophe’: ‘I just want to make people aware, because I don’t want this to happen to the world, for the world to go extinct’

Excerpt: Frightened that an “environmental catastrophe” is looming after conducting research on global warming, Remington Middle School students launched a public awareness campaign yesterday on the benefits of using compact fluorescent lights. [..] Yesterday, Turner and sixth-graders Danielle Debenedictis, Neal Benson, Quinn Forbes, and Pat Mauher met with J.D. Daddario operations manager Marc Greeson to kick off the wholesale plumbing/electrical/lighting/appliance store’s first day as a drop-off center. “We spend an awful lot of time in our business working on green initiatives, so this rolled right into that. This project makes it a perfect fit,” Greeson said. The students said what they learned about global warming scared them. “I learned it’s slowly but surely damaging our earth. People don’t have the knowledge about this subject, so they don’t really care,” Mauher said. “Highways and even whole cities can be flooded … when heat gets trapped inside the earth’s atmosphere and melts glaciers,” which in turn will cause coastal flooding, he said. “It was kind of scary knowing where we live now could possibly be flooded,” said Mauher. Forbes also fears rising sea levels, he said. “I think it would be like a big accident – it would be a giant catastrophe that you can’t rebuild or anything. It’s scary this could happen if nothing is done to stop it,” said Forbes. The students said they were happy to undertake the green project because they believe it will help Franklin. “We’ve made a big difference (through raising public awareness) and we’re still making a big difference,” said Forbes. “‘And sharing ways to stop it,” Benson added. Through their efforts, people can conveniently help the environment by disposing of old compact bulbs at three Franklin stores where they can also purchase new bulbs. J.D. Daddario is at 5 Forge Parkway, Stop & Shop is in Franklin Village, and Aubuchon is at 240 Cottage St. At Daddario, a 60 watt-equivalent compact bulb costs $2.28. The Recreation Department will collect the bulbs and have them recycled. “We’re leaving the rest up to the community,” Mauher said. “I just want to make people aware, because I don’t want this to happen to the world, for the world to go extinct,” Benson said.

http://www.milforddailynews.com/homepage/x915821402

4. Scottish union proposes ‘climate wreckers explain actions to children’

Excerpt: Every public sector organization should have to justify the impact on the climate of every decision it takes, under plans to be put forward by the trade union, Unison. Councils, enterprise agencies, government bodies and the government itself would all be accountable for any development or plan which increases the pollution that is warming the globe. Unison is proposing that chief executives responsible for climate-wrecking schemes should be hauled up before school children to explain their actions. Unison, which represents 162,000 public service workers in Scotland, will this week make its submission to the consultation on the Scottish government’s draft climate change bill. The union will propose a “general duty on public bodies to consider climate change in all decisions and report on progress annually”. That would mean introducing legislation obliging public agencies to take account of the effect on global warming in every decision, in much the same way as they have to consider impacts on equal opportunities. Unison will suggest that a selection of the annual reports produced by public bodies should be called in by a Scottish parliamentary committee for scrutiny at Holyrood. Locally, the union says, there should be “an annual schools gathering where students could question appropriate councillors and officials”. According to Unison’s Scottish organiser, Dave Watson, facing direct questions from school children would be the more challenging. “If a public body is going to do something barmy that will damage the climate, it doesn’t mean they can’t do it. But it does mean it has to be flagged up,” he says.

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2192970.0.make_the_climate_wreckers_explain_actions_to_children.php

5. 11-year old climate change messenger takes Gore’s message on the road – ‘What matters more (than age) is actually caring about the earth.’

Excerpt: An 11-year-old Port Elgin girl is the youngest Canadian to enlist in Al Gore’s climate change army. Last year she helped her mother deliver more than 80 slide-show presentations across Ontario based on the Academy Award-winning documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth”. Now Gore has helped train Corrina to deliver an updated slide presentation. Corrina and about 250 other volunteers attended a conference on April 4 and 5 in Montreal to learn how to spread Gore’s environmental message. She said she was the youngest trainee there and that her age will help her connect with people. “I think people will find it interesting for me to be doing the presentations because it is my generation that’s going to be the one that’s going to see the effects of this,” she said in an interview Saturday. “What matters more (than age) is actually caring about the earth.” […] In Montreal, Gore presented his updated slide show, signed a book for Corrina and patted her on the back. “I expected him to be very genuine and care about the earth. But he seemed to be almost a little more than I expected,” Corrina said. “Corrina Serda is an outstanding example of the millions of Canadians who have been energized by the call to action on the climate crisis,” Gore said in a news release from The Climate Project Canada, part of The Climate Project based in Tennessee.

http://www.owensoundsuntimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=984059&auth=Scott+Dunn

6. Activist Kid’s Praise Earth Hour Darkness: ‘We need to save all the juice in the earth’

Excerpt: “Why are your lights on?” asked another, eyebrows furrowed, glaring at me with 120 watts of disappointment. […] “It’s Earth Hour, Mom. We’ve got to save our energy,” he said, flicking off all our lights, including one that left his little brother screaming in a dark bathroom. […] As their parents shared wine and small talk on the sidewalk, the young activists huddled under Saturday’s starlight to discuss the plight of the planet. “We need to save all the juice in the earth so there will be some left when we’re old,” said 8-year-old Dara Pasquino. “Just this hour of darkness is saving, like, trillions and trillions of gallons,” added her brother, Dante, 10. Nine-year-old Daniel Scher expounded on the need to “reduce, reuse and recycle” and “plan for sustainability.” “We’re teaching grown-ups not to be wasters,” added Juliana Pfeifer, 6. “Besides, firelight makes you sing songs and tell stories. Candles make everything more wonderful.” By 10 p.m. — well past their bedtimes — the tired firebrands smiled when they realized most of the block was still dark even after Earth Hour was history. They had changed their world, at least for a few hours. Then, at the prodding of their parents, the kids of High Street headed home to bed, skipping into the balmy night, triumphant in the darkness.

http://www.denverpost.com/greene/ci_8763744

7. Hurricane expert reconsiders global warming’s impact

[Note: A prominent hurricane scientist (MIT’s Kerry Emanuel) has publicly reversed his view on global warming’s impact on hurricanes. This is a very important new development in the climate debate. First, 2007 turned out to be the “tipping point” for global warming fears, 2008 continued appears to be the year of vindication for skeptics as many prominent scientists reversed their climate views and more and more skeptical scientists speak out and new data debunked man-made climate fears. Now another major scientist reconsiders his views on a significant aspect of man-made climate fears. MIT’s Kerry Emanuel’s views on hurricanes and global warming have been prominently cited by Gore and other promoters of climate fear. With the new evidence based data flowing in, it is no wonder Gore is being forced to spend $300 million to attempt to once again scare the public. An Oscar, a Nobel and a compliant media all proved woeful at convincing the public to believe in Gore’s “climate crisis.” ]

Hurricane expert reconsiders global warming’s impact

Excerpt: One of the most influential scientists behind the theory that global warming has intensified recent hurricane activity says he will reconsider his stand. The hurricane expert, Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, this week unveiled a novel technique for predicting hurricane activity. The new work suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries. The research, appearing in the March issue of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, is all the more remarkable coming from Emanuel, a highly visible leader in his field and long an ardent proponent of a link between global warming and much stronger hurricanes. His changing views could influence other scientists. “The results surprised me,” Emanuel said of his work, adding that global warming may still play a role in raising the intensity of hurricanes but what that role is remains far from certain. […] Among the first to publish was Emanuel, who, just three weeks before Hurricane Katrina’s landfall, published a paper in Nature that concluded a key measurement of the power dissipated by a storm during its lifetime had risen dramatically since the mid-1970s. In the future, he argued, incredibly active hurricane years such as 2005 would become the norm rather than flukes. This view, amplified by environmentalists and others concerned about global warming, helped establish in the public’s mind that “super” hurricanes were one of climate change’s most critical threats. A satellite image of a hurricane emanating from a smokestack featured prominently in promotions for Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. […] In the new paper, Emanuel and his co-authors project activity nearly two centuries hence, finding an overall drop in the number of hurricanes around the world, while the intensity of storms in some regions does rise. […] By publishing his new paper, and by the virtue of his high profile, Emanuel could be a catalyst for further agreement in the field of hurricanes and global warming, Curry said.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/tech/news/5693436.html

Update: RE: Hurricane expert: ‘Models are simply not faithfully reproducing what nature is doing’

Emanuel told the NY Times: “The models are telling us something quite different from what nature seems to be telling us. There are various interpretations possible, e.g. a) The big increase in hurricane power over the past 30 years or so may not have much to do with global warming, or b) The models are simply not faithfully reproducing what nature is doing. Hard to know which to believe yet.”

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/hurricane-expert-reassesses-climate-link/

8. Polar Bears not Endangered, Experts Tell Senate

Excerpt: Professor Scott Armstrong announced that the Armstrong, Green and Soon paper “Polar Bear Population Forecasts” has been accepted for publication in Interfaces. This is the only peer-reviewed paper on the topic that has been accepted for journal publication. The paper shows that there is no basis for a forecast that polar bear numbers will decline. If there is any change, one might expect a modest short-term upward trend. […]There are no scientific forecasts of long-term global temperature and we therefore do not know whether temperatures will increase or decrease. Even the IPCC and its cadre of presumptive Nobel Peace laureates concede as much. “Even if there were such temperature ‘forecasts,’ the relationship between Arctic ice conditions and global temperatures is not clear and neither is the relationship between ice conditions and polar bear numbers”, said Armstrong. “For example, we do know that polar bears survived much warmer times in the past. In this uncertain situation, it is unscientific to forecast dramatic changes in bear number.”

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=43115&cat=5

9. Cold Temps Freeze Start of Gardening Season in Iowa: ‘I’ve never seen spring come this late’

Excerpt: All of this cold weather is freezing the start of the gardening season. Now, outdoor fans are eager for a warm-up. “I’m 71-years-old and I’ve never seen spring come this late,” Robert Ciesleck said. Ciesleck and his family look forward to gardening together every spring. This year, they’re not sure when they’re going to be able to get their hands dirty. “When it starts getting into mid-March and April, then things should change fast, but not this year,” he said. On a typical Sunday afternoon, the Culver’s greenhouse would be packed with people, but the recent cold temperatures scared away a lot of customers. “All the plants are right here. All you can do is come and look for now. I’d hate to take any home quite yet, but it’s getting really tempting,” customer Rhonda Kaczinski said. Cold temperatures aren’t the only problem. This winter’s snow and ice storms drenched the soil and left it soggy.

http://www.kcrg.com/news/local/17646694.html

10. Gore Bars Press From Speech In San Francisco

Excerpt: When Al Gore agreed to talk at the end of the RSA 2008 conference, the 2007 Nobel Laureate stipulated in his contract with RSA that no members of the press would be allowed inside the keynote address. Apparently, this is a common practice now for Gore, at least according to the folks at Wired (emphasis added): Press protestations are becoming a habit of Gore’s. When he gave his now-famous global warming slide presentation at the TED conference in 2006 (Technology, Entertainment and Design) I tried to approach him after the presentation to ask a question and was thwarted by his aggressive spokesman who planted himself between me and the former v.p. and griped that I’d been allowed to attend the presentation. He said the talk was supposed to have been off-limits to press (although the conference organizers never mentioned this to me, and no one tried to prevent me from entering the auditorium, although my badge clearly indicated I was press). Gore’s spokesman took down my name and affiliation and warned that I wasn’t to write anything about the event. […]Is it possible Gore doesn’t want press members present as he recommends people invest in companies that he already has a stake in? This is exactly what he did about a month ago in Monterey, California, as NewsBusters reported Friday. […] During the speech here, the 2007 Nobel Laureate was interrupted by hecklers three times; each was removed by security.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/04/12/gore-bars-press-speech-san-francisco

11. New Zealand group: Climate debate shifts as science cast doubts on ‘predictions of global catastrophe’

Excerpt: Dr Muriel Newman of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research – www.nzcpr.com The climate change debate is forever shifting as science casts long shadows of doubt on the predictions of global catastrophe. The debate gathered a world-wide audience when climate alarmists gained control of the climate science agenda. Its popularisation has given it a political momentum that is proving difficult to halt. At first the alarmists tried to scare us with those exaggerated claims that man-made greenhouse gas emissions were causing the earth’s temperature to rise. They said there was a direct causal relationship between industrialisation (and therefore CO2 emissions) and global temperatures, and that link was so serious that mankind would bring about its own demise if immediate action were not taken. […] These prophets of doom initially ignored the fact that while concentrations of man-made greenhouse gases have continued to rise, global temperatures stopped rising ten years ago. However, with the growing weight of scientific data now indicating the globe could be cooling, not warming, the alarmists are now talking of a ‘climate change’ crisis. They have broadened their rhetoric to accommodate all forms of extreme weather change – in order to hedge their bets! When will these alarmists stop, you might well ask? My answer is they won’t. Those promoting the global warming cause will adapt their reasoning in whatever way is necessary to remain credible in the eyes of the public. Let’s not forget there are powerful vested interests benefiting from global warming alarmism with vast profit opportunities and political reputations at stake. They will hang on as long as a gullible public allows them to. And big money there is. All around the world, carbon offset schemes – many of extremely dubious quality – are growing like topsy.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0804/S00187.htm

12. Vanity Fair Fails To Print Green Issue On Recycled Paper — Again.

Excerpt: At this point, it’s becoming clear that even a boardroom of oil executives might have better organized this year’s green issue for Vanity Fair. First we had the bizarre cover photo of Madonna holding a globe (why?) and then the interview that asked zero questions related to the environment. Now, we have another great article from Frank Locantore lamenting the fact that Vanity Fair once again decided not to use recycled paper for their green issue. From the post, “The fact is that while other magazines like Shape, Fast Company, Inc. and Every Day With Rachael Ray have made important achievements in environmentally responsible publishing, Vanity Fair and CN (Condé Nast) have only “talked green” in their articles. Do they make any mention of their environmental practices in the magazine? No. Is there information about their commitment to sustainability on their Web site? No. Are they at least using recycled paper? No, not even a smidgeon.” Locantore says it’s a classic example of “Do As I Say” and in a time when access to high quality recycled paper stock in no longer a hurdle, we couldn’t agree more. Vanity Fair has every opportunity to make each issue a “green” issue, but is only looking at the circulation numbers and less at the big picture. Sure, writing about the topics in the first place is wonderful — but using that excuse to justify doing nothing yourself is so 2006.

http://www.ecorazzi.com/2008/04/11/vanity-fair-fails-to-print-green-issue-on-recycled-paper-again/

13. Man-made global warming far from certain

Excerpt: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report that the global warming alarmists point to as proof of the scientific consensus of anthropomorphic global warming was compiled by 50 individuals. They then attached the names of hundreds of other scientists, only some of whom are climatologists or who had done any independent study of the issue. On Dec. 12, 2007, the U.S. Senate released a report from over 400 scientists, many of whose names were attached to the IPCC report without their permission, expressing a range of views from skepticism to outright rejection of the theory of anthropomorphic global warming. In simple terms, the IPCC report lies. The U.S. Senate report runs 149 pages and is well worth reading for any person who wishes to treat this issue as one of science.

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080412/OPINION/804120325/-1/NEWS10

14. Democrats Face ‘Ferocious Infighting’ Over Global Warming Legislation

Excerpt: While Senate Democrats, lead by Sen. Barbara Boxer, vow to play “hardball” with any Senator come Election Day who stands in the way of passing Lieberman-Warner, Boxer may need to start playing hardball with members from her own party – over in the House of Representatives. Rep. John Dingell, (D-Mich,) chairman of the House Energy Committee, warned this week that “ferocious infighting” could hinder passage of any global warming cap-and-trade bill. In addition, an April 9 Congress Daily headline further revealed “Expectations Dim For Passing Climate Change Legislation” and House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) told reporters this week that “he had his doubts that a major cap-and-trade bill would become law in 2008.” […] Developing nations insist that the rich world unilaterally commit to stringent and legally binding CO2 emissions cuts at home. At the same time, they also demand massive wealth transfers from the West in the form of ‘clean’ technologies and financial funds for adaptation and energy initiatives.As a result of promoting environmental alarmism, Western governments find themselves trapped in a perilous, yet largely self-constructed catch. As long as climate change is elevated as the principal liability of industrial countries, as long as Western CO2 emissions are blamed for exacerbating natural disasters, death and destruction around the globe, green pressure groups and officials from the developing world will continue to insist that the West is liable to recompense its exorbitant carbon debt by way of wealth transfer and financial compensation. Ultimately, there is now a growing risk that the whole global-warming scare is creating more anti-Western hostility and further loss of influence on the international stage.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3ef1cdf3-802a-23ad-42c4-99946d2a133d“>http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=3ef1cdf3-802a-23ad-42c4-99946d2a133d

15. UN climate chief ‘dismayed’ at rich countries’ failure to cut carbon emissions

Excerpt: Developing countries, including China and India, are unwilling to sign up to a new global climate change pact to replace the Kyoto protocol in 2012 because the rich world has failed to set a clear example on cutting carbon emissions, according to the UN’s top climate official. […] He said there were “reasons for dismay” at the rich countries’ failure to cut carbon emissions.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/14/climatechange.carbonemissions

16. Canadian Environmentalist Dr. David Suzuki: Global economic growth is ‘suicidal’

Excerpt: Economists believe the economy can grow forever. Not only do they believe it can grow forever, which it cannot, they believe it must grow forever. Since World War II they have equated economic growth with progress. Nobody wants to stop progress but, if economic growth is what we define as progress, who is ever going to ask what an economy is for? With all this growth are we happier? How much is enough? We do not ask those questions. We have fallen into the trap of believing that economic growth forever is possible and necessary. I am going to show you why this is absolutely suicidal. Anything growing steadily over time is called exponential growth and whatever is growing exponentially has a predictable doubling time, whether it is the amount of garbage you make, the number of taxis on the road, the amount of water you use, or the human population.

http://www.climatechangecorp.com/content.asp?contentid=5240

17. Scientist has ‘One cool view of global warming’

[Note: Dr. Aitkin is featured in the Senate report of nearly 500 scientists who dissented from the ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming.]

Professor Dr. Don Aitkin of the University of Canberra is a former foundation Chairman of the Australian Research Council, a member of the Australian Science and Technology Council, founder and past chairman of the Australian Mathematics Trust. Aitkin expressed his skepticism of a man-made climate crisis in an April 2008 speech. “Is the warming unprecedented? Probably not. There is abundant historical and proxy evidence for both hotter and cooler periods in human history. Is it our fault? Again, maybe. The correlation of increasing warmth with increasing carbon dioxide concentrations is particularly weak; that with solar energy and with ocean movements is much stronger.” Aitkin said. “Are we likely to see rising sea-levels? Not in our lifetimes or those of our grandchildren. It is not even clear that sea-levels have risen at all. As so often in this domain, there is conflicting evidence. The melting of polar or sea ice has no direct effect. How reliable are the computer models on which possible future climates are based? Not very. All will agree that the task of modeling climate is vast, because of the estimates that have to be made and the rubbery quality of much of the data,” Aitkin explained. “Why is there such insistence that AGW has occurred and needs drastic solutions? This is a puzzle, but my short answer is that the IPCC has been built on the AGW proposition and of course keeps plugging it, whatever the data say. The IPCC has considerable clout. Most people shy off inspecting the evidence because it looks like science and must therefore be hard. The media have been captured by AGW (it makes for great stories), the environmental movement and the Greens love it, and business is reluctant to get involved,” Aitkin added. (LINK) & (LINK)

http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/articles/1215521.html?src=topstories

18. Climate Scientist Debunks global warming, climate models

Below is written by Gerhard Kramm, Ph.D. is an atmospheric scientist with the Geophysical Institute at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Excerpt: However, there are also indications that the CO2 concentration variations lag behind the atmospheric temperature in the southern hemisphere (Mudelsee, 2001, Quaternary Science Reviews 20, 583-589). Third, climate models are still in a state of infancy. They produce scenarios, but are not able to simulate any real climate change of the past. Fourth, the “overwhelming evidence” is based on so-called cherry picking, i.e., any indication that does not fit the agenda of global warming activists is ignored. It is one of the merits of Professor Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu to document that the rise of the annual mean global near-surface temperature by less than 1.8 degress during the last 160 years may be related to a recovery of the Earth from the Little Ice Age. Last year Science published a paper written by eight authors of the fourth report of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in which recent climate observations were compared with climate projections. This paper documents a fundamental scientific misconduct because the first 12 years of the Mauna Loa CO2 observations were neglected because the projections disagree with the observations. In my comment to this paper I showed that in 1988 when the IPCC was established and thirty years of Mauna Loa CO2 data were available no correlation between a rise of the CO2 concentration and an increase of the mean near-surface temperature in the northern hemisphere did exist. Meanwhile, I wonder why the IPCC was established.

http://newsminer.com/news/2008/mar/30/global-warming-and-fairbanks-power-solution

19. Former Colorado State Climatologist Roger Pielke Sr. Debunks Claim that Lack of Warming is Consistent with Models

Excerpt: Where are these model results that show lack of upper ocean warming in recent years? There is an example of a model prediction of upper (3km) ocean heat content for decadal averages in Figure 1 of Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, and R. Schnur, 2001: Detection of anthropogenic climate change in the world’s oceans. Science, 292, 270-274, but they did not present shorter time periods. Nonetheless, since Figure 1 is presumably a running 10 year average, the steady monotonic increase in the model prediction of upper ocean heat content (the grey shading) suggests that no several years (or even one year) of zero heating occurred in the model results. The layer they analyzed in the figure is also for the upper 3 km but in Figure 2 the Barnett et al study showed that most of this heating was in the uppermost levels. Thus the lack of heating in the upper 700m over the last 4 years does conflict with at least the Barnett et al model results! What the upper ocean data (and lack of warming) actually tells us is that if global warming occurred over the last 4 years, it was in the deeper ocean and is thus not available in the short term to the atmosphere. Indeed, if it is in the deeper ocean, it likely more diffused and therefore could only enter the atmosphere slowly if at all. This heat could also have exited into space, although the continuation of global ocean sea level rise suggests that this is less likely unless this sea level rise can be otherwise explained. The other heat stores in the climate system are too small (and the atmosphere has clearly not warmed over the last few years). Global sea ice cover is actually above average at present (the Antarctic sea ice is at a near record level). The continued sea level rise indicates that the heat is in the deeper ocean (which is not predicted by the models). Finally, there is also no “unrealized” heat in the system. This is a fallacy of using temperature trends as the surrogate for heat trends as has been reported Climate Science (e.g. see, see and see). Josh Willis too easily dismisses the significance of his research findings.

http://climatesci.org/2008/04/01/comment-on-weblog-by-josh-willis-titled-josh-willis-on-climate-change-global-warming-is-real/

20. Another Scientist Dissents: No Consensus on Global Warming (works at Lawrence Livermore National Labs)

[Scientist Jack Dini, a materials engineer and section leader of fabrication processes at Lawrence Livermore National Labs, is a past national president of the American Electroplaters Society. Dini is the author of 2003 book Challenging Environmental Mythology: Wrestling Zeus. Dini is also the author of book Electrodeposition: The Materials Science of Coatings and Substrates and has written for American Council on Science and Health’s Health Facts and Fears.]

Excerpt: Assertions by zealots and politicians, who should really know better, that climate change is the ‘most important environmental problem facing the world,’ ought to be subjected to the cold light of reason says Michael Shaw. Before untold resources are spent, shouldn’t we at least compare climate change to other problems facing mankind? (9) What about issues like communicable diseases, malnutrition and hunger, sanitation and access to clean water? Many, if not all, of these demand immediate attention and can aid folks in serious need at present, not some future generations, that may or may not be affected by the weather in the 2100s. Lastly, 30 years ago we were supposedly headed into a cooling cycle akin to the Little Ice Age. (10) Now, it’s an unprecedented heating cycle. If you ask me, that’s an awfully quick time for a flip-flop on the weather. If the 14 billion year cosmic history were scaled to one day, then 100,000 years of human history would by 4 minutes and a 100 year life-span would be 0.2 seconds. (11) So, in less than 0.1 second in cosmic time we’ve switched on climate change. Seems like we need a few more cosmic time seconds to gather more data.

http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?16e3c4d7-287a-46af-b53a-75c160c73bd4

20. Meteorologist Questions Man-Made Global Warming Crisis (Formerly of CNN, Topper Shutt, holds AMS Seal and is now Chief Meteorologist for DC Ch. 9)

Excerpt: I read three books while I was on vacation [last week]. One book really made a lasting impression on me. it is entitled ‘Cool It’ by Bjorn Lomborg. I don’t want to give it away, but he doesn’t dispute global warming is occurring but rather how we should attack that issued from an economical viewpoint. Lomborg also prioritizes what world issues are most pressing and what actions would give us the highest return from our investment, in terms of lives saved and dollars. It is refreshing to learn about a new perspective on this highly charged issue. I try and remind our viewers that climate is always in a state of flux and yes, the world has warmed over the last 25 years but claiming that Katrina is a product of global warming is absurd. We have had much stronger hurricanes hit the United States in the past, the Labor Day or Keys hurricane of 1935 and Camille in 1969 to name just two. There is much more development now on our shores

http://blog.nam.org/archives/2008/04/the_weatherman.php

21. The Sacrificial Temptation of Global Warming

French physicist Dr. Serge Galam, director of research at the National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS) and member of a laboratory of Ecole Polytechnique, has published a new paper entitled: ‘Global Warming: the Sacrificial Temptation’

Excerpt: The claimed unanimity of the scientific community about the human culpability for global warming is questioned. Up today there exists no scientific proof of human culpability. It is not the number of authors of a paper, which validates its scientific content. The use of probability to assert the degree of certainty with respect the global warming problem is shown to be misleading. The debate about global warming has taken on emotional tones driven by passion and irrationality while it should be a scientific debate. The degree of hostility used to mull any dissonance voice demonstrates that the current debate has acquired a quasi-religious nature. Scientists are behaving as priests in their will “to save the planet”. We are facing a dangerous social phenomenon, which must be addressed from the social point of view. The current unanimity of citizens, scientists, journalists, intellectuals and politicians is intrinsically worrying. The calls to sacrifice our way of life to calm down the upset nature is an emotional ancestral reminiscence of archaic fears, which should be analyzed as such.

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002839.html

22. BBC: ‘Global temperatures have not risen since 1998’ (As written before BBC pressured by activist to change article)

Excerpt: Global temperatures this year will be lower than in 2007 due to the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said. The World Meteorological Organisation’s secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer. This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7329799.stm

All from Marc Morano
Communications Director
US Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) Inhofe Staff
www.epw.senate.gov

Thanks.