Man-Made Climate Change Exposed

So I am flipping through the Fox News articles this evening and I stumble across one that states simply, “Top Climate Scientist Drops Bombshell.” I thought to myself “this should be interesting.” I had no idea what kind of bombshell it might be or who is now considered the top climate scientist, but I figure if it is a bombshell, I have to read it. Imagine my surprise to find out that the top scientist they are talking about is none other than Phil Jones, former head of the Climatic Research Unit at East Anglia University. The same guy who had the email “hiding the decline” and “performing tricks”. But I was even more floored when I read what he had to say in an interview with BBC television. Don’t get me wrong, it isn’t like the guy turned over and admitted that he made it all up, but he admitted to several things that, in my opinion, make the Anthropogenic Global Warming alarmists look a bit foolish.

I am not going to reprint the entire interview here. I will link to it at the bottom, along with the article from Fox News that pointed me to it in the first place. The BBC has been largely supportive of the global warming hoax for quite a long time, so I was surprised to see the BBC’s leading climate investigator asking such tough questions of Jones. I figured when I clicked over there, I would find the equivalent of Keith Olbermann interviewing Nancy Pelosi, a kissy kissy tingle up my leg moment. But that wasn’t the case. A few select questions and answers from the interview:

Question A – Do you agree that according to the global temperature record used by the IPCC, the rates of global warming from 1860-1880, 1910-1940 and 1975-1998 were identical?

An initial point to make is that in the responses to these questions I’ve assumed that when you talk about the global temperature record, you mean the record that combines the estimates from land regions with those from the marine regions of the world. CRU produces the land component, with the Met Office Hadley Centre producing the marine component.

Temperature data for the period 1860-1880 are more uncertain, because of sparser coverage, than for later periods in the 20th Century. The 1860-1880 period is also only 21 years in length. As for the two periods 1910-40 and 1975-1998 the warming rates are not statistically significantly different (see numbers below).

I have also included the trend over the period 1975 to 2009, which has a very similar trend to the period 1975-1998.

So, in answer to the question, the warming rates for all 4 periods are similar and not statistically significantly different from each other.

So my take on this answer is that, despite his floundering around a bit, he admits that the four periods are basically the same in terms of warming rates. This despite the fact that each of the four periods had significantly different impact from “human industrialization”. That only makes sense, in my opinion, to assume. 1860-1880 certainly was far less industrialization than 1975-1998, right? And the industrial output of the world overall has done nothing but increase over time, despite measures to lower this such as the Kyoto Protocol.

So how then is it possible to make the case that time periods having similar warming trends result in a conclusion that man is causing the warming? These are time periods with drastically different world population levels, drastically different levels of industrialization, drastically different levels of the green house gasses that are blamed, drastically different levels of every major thing the government says we must control, yet they all warmed at basically the same rate. That doesn’t make much of a case for saying that any of the things being legislated have anything to do with global warming. Or am I just too dense to understand?

It seems to me that for Jones to have the data he admits to, and to admit that there is no statistically significant difference, and then to conclude that man’s actions are causing global warming is akin to saying: Although we know that water has boiled at 212 degrees since the beginning of time, we can reasonably conclude that the water boiling on that stove is caused by the pot it is sitting in, not the 212 degree flame below the pot.

Question B – Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

Question C – Do you agree that from January 2002 to the present there has been statistically significant global cooling?

No. This period is even shorter than 1995-2009. The trend this time is negative (-0.12C per decade), but this trend is not statistically significant.

Put these two questions and answers together, and what I am getting from it is that Jones feels that the fact that it is now cooling means nothing if he can include data from back when it was warming. This, my friends is the mindset of those that argue the global warming madness. The data we have doesn’t work to support our conclusions. However, if we change the parameters, we can get the results we are looking for. Then we just have to claim that the data is more accurate with our added data than without it. Hence we have things such as “hide the decline” and “performing tricks” to get the desired result.

Question D – Do you agree that natural influences could have contributed significantly to the global warming observed from 1975-1998, and, if so, please could you specify each natural influence and express its radiative forcing over the period in Watts per square metre.

This area is slightly outside my area of expertise. When considering changes over this period we need to consider all possible factors (so human and natural influences as well as natural internal variability of the climate system). Natural influences (from volcanoes and the Sun) over this period could have contributed to the change over this period. Volcanic influences from the two large eruptions (El Chichon in 1982 and Pinatubo in 1991) would exert a negative influence. Solar influence was about flat over this period. Combining only these two natural influences, therefore, we might have expected some cooling over this period.

This one absolutely kills me. Even though we know that the earth has heated and cooled for millions of years, before man was even around, his answer, without saying it directly is “no”. Natural influences would not have contributed significantly to the global warming from 1975-1998, despite the fact that the man made forces you are blaming did not exist during three other periods that had warming periods that were similar in warming. He basically says that because of these two volcanic eruptions, we would guess that cooling would occur. Since cooling did not occur because of these two eruptions, the only viable solution is that any warming could not have been caused by natural influences. I hope that the ridiculousness of such a statement from someone considered to be a climate expert sends a chill down your spine. The fact that he thinks people will actually buy his reasoning should make you angry at how stupid he thinks you are.

Question E – How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

I am interested in Peter or BF’s input here. It seems to me that question #1 answered this quite naturally, in that there is no difference in warming during the period he is referencing and the other periods where the causes that man is responsible for were not present. I have not read IPCC Chapter 9, so I figure perhaps some of you have and will refute this as well. I also find it odd that he claims to be 100% certain that the climate has warmed when he readily admits that there have been similar fluctuations in temperature in the past. Is this akin to an easy statement to refute? I am 100% certain the climate has warmed too, because last summer was hotter than last winter? I am looking to understand how he could make such a statement in light of the other admissions that he makes in this interview.

Notice anything odd about the Temp Station Locations and Grouping?

There is much debate over whether the Medieval Warm Period was global in extent or not. The MWP is most clearly expressed in parts of North America, the North Atlantic and Europe and parts of Asia. For it to be global in extent the MWP would need to be seen clearly in more records from the tropical regions and the Southern Hemisphere. There are very few palaeoclimatic records for these latter two regions.

Of course, if the MWP was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today (based on an equivalent coverage over the NH and SH) then obviously the late-20th century warmth would not be unprecedented. On the other hand, if the MWP was global, but was less warm that today, then current warmth would be unprecedented.

We know from the instrumental temperature record that the two hemispheres do not always follow one another. We cannot, therefore, make the assumption that temperatures in the global average will be similar to those in the northern hemisphere.

I will again defer to PeterB and BF here, as I know that they have already significantly researched the MWP. Basically, my take on this answer was that if the MWP can be proven to be global, then he is all wrong, an easy admission to make because he already knows we don’t have the data to prove that the MWP was global. We simply didn’t know half the world existed at that point. The is akin to Mathius admitting that if I can prove that I could have beaten Muhammad Ali in his prime (when I was a child), then he will admit that I am the Greatest Fighter of all time (Its the GOAT baby!). It is easy to seem pragmatic when you know you can’t be proven wrong. Just ask the economists who predict 50 years from now. Go ahead and try to prove they will be wrong beyond the shadow of a doubt. Without a time machine, they remain safe.

Question H – If you agree that there were similar periods of warming since 1850 to the current period, and that the MWP is under debate, what factors convince you that recent warming has been largely man-made?

The fact that we can’t explain the warming from the 1950s by solar and volcanic forcing – see my answer to your question D.

Question I – Would it be reasonable looking at the same scientific evidence to take the view that recent warming is not predominantly manmade?

No – see again my answer to D.

And then to compound the ridiculousness, he uses his strange deductions from question D (the volcano eruptions answer) as all the proof he needs that warming in the most recent period (which is not statistically significant in difference) has been primarily caused by man. I want to point out that this is supposed to be one of the leading climate scientists in the world. This is who all the alarmist point to as being the guru. And this is the level of logic he is using to convince us that we should spend trillions of dollars, change everything about the way that we live, and pass massive restrictions on the freedom and liberty of Americans? The people who have embraced this man as their “proof” that the debate over whether man causes climate change should be hanging their heads and apologizing to me publicly.

Question N – When scientists say “the debate on climate change is over”, what exactly do they mean – and what don’t they mean?

It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don’t believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well.

I only added this because now every single time I hear someone say that the debate on climate change is over, I am going to point out to them that the guy who started this whole mad scheme says that they are wrong. HE doesn’t think the debate is over. Yet the American media would label you a “denier” and lump you in with birthers, Truthers, and returning veterans as a threat to the country should you ever suggest that the debate is not over. Oh let me at Olbermann….

But it is interesting that the debate is over for him, after all all he has to do is tell you to refer to his answer to question D above. And the only debate he is still interested in is about reducing uncertainties, not in re-evaluating the data and finding out if the original conclusions were false. Then again, he knew they were false from the beginning, didn’t he?

S – The e-mails suggest you were trying to subvert the process of peer review and to influence editors in their decisions about which papers to publish. Do you accept that?

I do not accept that I was trying to subvert the peer-review process and unfairly influence editors in their decisions. I undertook all the reviews I made in good faith and sent them back to the editors. In some e-mails I questioned the peer-review process with respect to what I believed were poor papers that had appeared. Isn’t this called freedom of speech? On some occasions I joined with others to submit a response to some of these papers. Since the beginning of 2005 I have reviewed 43 papers. I take my reviewing seriously and in 2006 I was given an editor’s award from Geophysical Research Letters for conscientious and constructive reviewing.

Interestingly, he spent a lot of time telling us about the peer reviewing that he has done since 2005 and touting his credentials. What he didn’t do was effectively dispel the idea that he was subverting the process of peer review and influencing editors. His answer to that was no, I didn’t. Then he admits to trashing anything that didn’t fit his views, which is his right under freedom of speech.

Obviously there were other questions that I didn’t include here. One of them was his explanation for “hide the decline” and “performing tricks”, which I have heard before, and do not accept. I read a significant amount of the emails. There is little doubt that he and those he was corresponding with were attempting to present data only in ways that supported their conclusions. It is also very evident that they worked extremely hard to not allow their raw data to be reviewed. I have little doubt that the “independent review” will do little to tell us the reality of what was happening, and unless someone wants to go the route that I did and read all the emails, they will accept whatever the review report tells them.

So here is my take overall on this article… This is yet another piece of the puzzle in showing that this entire thing has been a massive fraud. This is the head guy. This is like Obama coming out and giving a speech where he admits that his ultimate goal is to turn the USA into a communist state. Or Congress admitting that all members take a secret oath to obey the party rather than their constituents. Or George Bush giving an interview stating that he only went to Iraq because he figured the best way to end our oil dependency was to conquer a country that had a bunch of it. This is the top guy admitting that we have been cooling. This is the top guy also being exposed for the ridiculous conclusions that he is drawing. The only thing better would have been if he had admitted that this whole plot was hatched at a secret meeting between him, Al Gore, and Elvis.

And you want the best part? As is the usual, The Lame Stream Media is not covering it. Like any story that makes them look like an ass, it isn’t a story at all. Like any story that goes against the agenda they believe in, they figure they can simply ignore it and all those folks currently supporting them simply will never find out. This was on Fox News. And it linked to the BBC article. I checked CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, HuffPo, and some other major left leaning news organizations, and not a single one mentioned a word about this interview. I would think that when the top climate guy at the center of all this buzz about leaked emails, manipulated data, and the rest of it gives an interview, it would be news. Well, not if you are part of the MSM. It isn’t news at all. And that is exactly what folks are talking about when they say that omission is a form of bias that should be called out.

So let me say what I have always said. Man Made Global Warming is a Lie. A hoax. A sham. We are insignificant inhabitants on this planet. It takes a massive amount of arrogance to think that we can impact the climate in this way when we see coral reefs recover completely from multiple nuclear bomb tests in just 50 years. Ring the bell. Flash the lights. Last call for AGW alarmists. You don’t have to go home, but you have to get the hell out of here.

The article links I promised:

The BBC Interview:BBC News – Q&A: Professor Phil Jones

The Fox Article:FOXNews.com – Global Warming in Last 15 Years Insignificant, U.K.’s Top Climate Scientist Admits

And for those interested, the emails:  East Anglia Confirmed Emails from the Climate Research Unit – Searchable

Advertisements

Comments

  1. hopping on the comment train early tonight!

  2. Hi USW,

    You said: “The fact that he thinks people will actually buy his reasoning should make you angry at how stupid he thinks you are.” Sadly, they will. My boyfriend will never accept that AGW is a fraud. I think he’d believe it even if his president came out and admitted it is a fraud. The man is THAT stubborn! I think many Warmers are more stubborn than stupid. At least I hope so. If its stubborness, when they personally suffer the consequences of Big Green’s legislation, most of them will change their tune. If it stupidity, they’ll perish.

    • Cyndi,

      Facts don’t matter. I believe in God, and do not think anyone can convince me he does not exist with any scientific proofs. AGW is a belief for these people, so it’s like a religion for them. Be very careful how you talk to them, or you might end up being burned at the stake! 😆

      • burning at the stake will release CO2, “Al Gore Warming” people wouldn’t do that.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          They could buy enough carbon credits in order to “offset” any CO2 released by the act… that way Al Gore could burn you at the stake AND make money while doing it! 🙂

          • If they burn me at the stake, I don’t want that wind bag Al Gore to make a dime. Can the money go to the charity of my choice? Is that PC enough???

            😉

            Can I geta big juice steak as my last meal???

  3. Cap-n-trade, carbon taxes to feed the BIG Green Monster was the entire reason to push this global warming scam.The public needs to be educated on this matter but instead the media ignores it.What makes me rage inside is that your average citizen will know how many mistresses Tiger Woods has had but not a damn thing about the facts of the global warming scam.

  4. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/climategates_phil_jones_confes.html

    The above link is a great article from Marc Sheppard on American Thinker yesterday on same topic.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35334428/ns/us_news-environment/

    Last two paragraphs from this article:

    Scientists — including top U.S. government officials — argue that the bulk of the reports are sound.

    “The vast majority of conclusions in the IPCC are credible, have been through a very rigorous process and are absolutely state of the science, state of the art about what we know of the climate system,” said National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration chief Jane Lubchenco, who runs the agency that oversees much of the U.S. government’s climate research.

    The above link was posted to MSNBC on 2/10, and indicates clearly the liberal media are still pressing Big Green agenda.

    They’re going to ignore it basically and hope it goes away. Let’s hope Senator Inhofe can bring some reason to the situation in Washington – he’s decrying AGW loud and long, but – again – Fox is the only network to give him the coverage he deserves.

    IPCC lied and now have admitted they lied, but Washington continues to stick their head in the cold, frozen water of the Potomac. It’s what I’ve come to expect from the current crew in charge. They’re going to make sure Al gets his payoff.

    Also noted the student/public protests at Penn State over Michael Mann’s role in all of this went completely unreported.

    Happy Tuesday to ya – keep it real-
    Kelly

  5. USW says: “and returning veterans as a threat to the country”

    D13 says: I keep forgetting how much I am a threat. Wow, D13 and Global warming destroying the globe. I did not know I had such power…. add the Raptor breeding program and I am natural disaster.

    There is nothing that has yet proven to me the theory of global warming.

    • Sadly, I used to hold Academia to high standards. I remember that teachers and professors were regarded with as high a standard as the Pope. But I thought that about CEO’s, POTUS, Doctors, Lawyers as well….then reality set in.

    • They have made a thought I have long held into an absolute belief. No matter how “smart” a person is, degree’s, I.Q., etc, that doesn’t keep them from being an idiot! So there is one “Proof” of global warming.

  6. In Blizzard, Conservatives Mock Global Warming Alarmists, Left and Media Outraged

    By Julia A. Seymour
    Back to back Washington, D.C. blizzards prompted conservatives to mock the global warming crowd last week.

    Grandchildren of Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., built an igloo on the National Mall and christened it :lol:”Al Gore’s New Home.” Fox News anchor Glenn Beck employed his trademark sarcasm to make fun of the “disappearance” of warming priest Al Gore and devotee Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. since the snowfall. Beck picked on Kennedy because of a 2008 op-ed lamenting that global warming had changed the D.C. climate leading to “anemic winters.”

    Left-wingers online at place like Huffington Post and Daily Kos, as well as members of the national news media were furious that the “wingnuts” were using the blizzard to make fun of them. They rushed to defend their theory of man-made global warming (anthropogenic global warming or AGW) by claiming that the snowpocalypse was, in fact, caused by global warming.

    “Science Guy” Bill Nye was so upset by it he attacked :evil:”unpatriotic” climate skeptics on Feb. 10 during the “Rachel Maddow Show” on MSNBC.

    “To deny what scientists or scientific evidence is showing, is inappropriate. And as I said earlier, to me, when I get wound up, it’s unpatriotic,” Nye declared. But there are more questions than ever regarding the science. Prof. Phil Jones, formerly of the Climate Research Unit, admitted this week to losing track of climate change data used to support warming theory and that there hasn’t been “statistically significant” global warming since 1995.

    Some of the critics lied about what most conservatives were arguing, accusing the right of saying the historic snowfall disproved global warming. That wasn’t the case, conservatives were merely turning the tables on the left: using mockery to show the absurdity of assigning a cause and effect relationship from weather events to climate change.

    The fact is that the weather is not climate. Before the “snomageddon” (as many in D.C. called it), AGW believers constantly connected every weather event from heat waves killing thousands in Europe to Hurricane Katrina with global warming. It wasn’t until the weather started acting against them and conservatives suggested it might undermine their theories that they got touchy on the subject.

    ABC’s Bill Blakemore admitted that weather is not climate on Jan. 8 in a feeble attempt to prevent critics from saying that a “cold snap” across the northern hemisphere disproves global warming. Blakemore has a long history of advocating for global warming alarmism on ABC.

    Of course weather isn’t climate, but the global warming alarmists like Blakemore want it both ways. They want weather and natural disasters to be proof of warming, but never proof contradicting it.

    But it’s not just weather. The media and the left have even more ridiculous assertions about climate change. Like the Kevin Bacon game they seem willing to connect everything to AGW.

    Actor Danny Glover blamed global warming for the :?:Haitian earthquake in January 2010. Leaving no tragedy unturned, Joseph Romm, a former Clinton official, actually wondered if the :?:Minnesota bridge collapse in 2007 was a result of global warming.

    In a blog post, Romm wrote: “some may object to even asking the question, ‘Did climate change contribute to the Minneapolis bridge collapse?’ My guess is those are the same people who deny that global warming is caused by humans or that it is a serious problem – the same people who inevitably say ‘we can adapt to whatever climate change there is.'”

    A media outlet called GMANews.TV based in the Philippines was concerned that global warming was forcing poor women into prostitution. The Nov. 19, 2009 story said, “The effects of climate change have driven women in communities in coastal areas in poor countries like the Philippines into dangerous work, and sometimes even the flesh trade.”
    Dr. John Brignell, a British engineering professor, has created a Web site linking to hundreds of media stories blaming AGW. In 2007, he had already posted more than 600 links with a number of unusual connections.

    Contradictions like growth or shrinking of coral reefs, destruction or growth of bananas, and heavy or reduced snowfall were all on his list. A number of health ailments including allergies, asthma, cardiac arrest, cancer deaths in England, West Nile fever, cholera, malaria and yellow fever have also been linked.

    Snowpocalypse Can’t Stop Faith in Warming

    According to AGW believers in and out of the news media, weather can only ever support global warming theory. Not even back-to-back East Coast blizzards that dumped more than two feet of snow in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area can freeze their faith.

    The “snowpocalypse” that shut down the federal government, schools and many businesses for several days became one more “extreme” weather phenomenon in a long list attributed to global warming. It joined heat waves, wildfires, hurricanes, tropical storms, cyclones, tornadoes, ice shelf and glacial melt, dying polar bears and even lack of snowfall.

    MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan told viewers on Feb. 9, “Here’s the problem – these ‘snowpocalypses’ that have been going through D.C. and other extreme weather events are precisely what climate scientists have been predicting, fearing and anticipating because of global warming.”

    Ratigan and others have been upset by conservative mockery about global warming, given the record snowfall of the 2009-2010 winter. The MSNBC host criticized an ad by the Va. GOP designed to ridicule proposed climate change policies that could hurt the state’s job situation.

    Talk about polar opposites. In 2010, Ratigan blamed blizzards on global warming. But just one year ago, NBC’s (MSNBC’s parent company) presidential historian Michael Beschloss claimed global warming could be responsible for the lack of Inauguration Day snow.

    As the camera turned to President Barack Obama, First Lady Michelle Obama and their two children walking to the reviewing box, Beschloss described the scene: “And this wooden path that they’re walking down actually dates to many previous inaugurations because a lot of them had snow. It may just be that because of global warming the last few have not.”

    That was a frigid January day – 28 degrees at noon plus a severe wind chill – and the coldest inauguration since 1985. Still, according to the news media it was a sign of the destruction caused by fossil fuels, SUVs and other human activity.

    But that’s just it. Logic doesn’t matter, according to alarmists the planet is warming, its mankind’s fault and so everything is a result of global warming.

    Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at Competitive Enterprise Institute, told the Business & Media Institute that “global warming alarmism isn’t really a scientific theory as much as it’s a political program.” That becomes most obvious, Ebell said, when they “explain away the facts” such as more snowfall in the mid-Atlantic despite the IPCC prediction of less snow in the region due to global warming.

    Even a tragic Air France plane crash was connected with global warming in Russia Today (RT) on June 4, 2009. Alexei Kokorin, a climatologist for the left-wing World Wildlife Fund’s Russia Climate Program, told RT “”A consequence of global warming is that the frequency and severity of such events (severe weather conditions) is higher. Unfortunately, the risk for airplanes, especially in tropical areas above water, will be higher. This could be difficult for pilots to understand.”

    Another horrible disaster, Hurricane Katrina was also linked to manmade climate change. On May 23, 2006, “Good Morning America” featured two previews: one of the hurricane season and one of Al Gore’s global warming movie, “An Inconvenient Truth.” Gore has been criticized by some for his “very heavy-handed” use of Katrina footage in the film.

    Diane Sawyer linked the two saying, “And of course, there are a lot of people who believe that global warming is in fact to blame, in part, for this surge in hurricanes. One of them, former Vice President Al Gore, who has re-emerged, leading a kind of call to action.” She wasn’t alone, CBS’s Hannah Storm and NBC’s Robert Bazell all tied hurricanes to global warming that year.

    But there are scientific problems with that assertion that even television meteorologists have criticized. And in May 2008, National Geographic reported that a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) study found global warming could actually decrease hurricane activity by about 18 percent.

    Newsweek, a newsmagazine that had repeatedly attacked climate skeptics as “deniers,” has stated that there is “unequivocal” evidence of global warming and “90 percent certainty” that humans are responsible. In July 2007, the magazine called the 2003 European heat wave that killed thousands “a human fingerprint” of global warming. They didn’t consider any other factors such as the lack of air conditioning in much of Europe.

    Citing a scorching U.S. heat wave in 2006, CBS’s Bob Orr declared: “Gulledge says there’s no longer any serious debate” on climate change. When it comes to the media there certainly isn’t “serious debate,” there isn’t a debate at all since skeptics are outnumbered 13-to-1 on the broadcast networks and often excluded or buried in other reports.

    According to the media, everything is proof of warming, even if scientists – including CNN meteorologists – contradict them. Ebell offered one reason that for the media’s constant defense of AGW.

    “I think part of it is that the media which from time to time portray itself as anti-establishment is actually an integral part of the establishment (the liberal establishment). So you can be a bomb-thrower if you’re going after Richard Nixon,” Ebell said. “but if they went after someone on their side” they would lose support. So whenever challenged on an issue like global warming, the media “circle the wagons and defend their own.”

    Want to know what else the media have blamed on global warming? Find the rest of the article at Business & Media Institute.

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/julia-seymour/2010/02/15/blizzard-conservatives-mock-global-warming-alarmists-left-and-media-o#ixzz0fhsfQBq4

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      There is one HUGE problem for the people that think that huge snowstorms in DC are positive evidence of global warming. The problem is this:

      THE SNOW LINE HAS MOVED SOUTH!!!!

      If we were WARMING, the snow line would move NORTH, and DC would get RAIN. However, they had measureable snow in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and even parts of FLORIDA recently. Correct me if I am wrong, but it has to be right around (or even BELOW) 32F (or 0C) for snow to happen. Get much above 32F, and you DON’T GET SNOW, YOU GET RAIN!

      So, the next time someone tells you that snowstorms in DC or in the deep south are a result of global warming, simply ask them what temperature is needed in order for snow to form, and then ask them if they think that that temperature is warm or cold….

      • Peter,
        What evidence do you have that THE SNOW LINE HAS MOVED SOUTH?

        If we were WARMING, the snow line would move NORTH, and DC would get RAIN. However, they had measureable snow in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and even parts of FLORIDA recently.

        It’s obvious from this statement you do not have the slightest understanding of what the SNOW LINE is.

        Correct me if I am wrong, but it has to be right around (or even BELOW) 32F (or 0C) for snow to happen. Get much above 32F, and you DON’T GET SNOW, YOU GET RAIN!

        You are WRONG. It doesn’t have to be right around (or even BELOW) 32F (or 0C) for snow to happen. It is very common for it to snow when the temperature is above freezing.

        It can also rain when the temperature is below freezing.

        So, the next time someone tells you that snowstorms in DC or in the deep south are a result of global warming, simply ask them what temperature is needed in order for snow to form, and then ask them if they think that that temperature is warm or cold…

        First, to answer your questions – 45 degrees, and I consider that quite warm.
        Second, that has nothing to do with global warming.
        Third, this is one of the stupidest questions I’ve ever read.

        Have you noticed an event that’s currently going on in Canada? It’s called the Winter Olympics. At Whistler Mountain, in the Canadian Rockies, they were trucking in snow to try to maintain the courses for the Alpine events. Three events have been postponed so far, and only one has been held. They’ve had warm temperatures and rain, and last night a wet snowstorm.

        Temperatures are predicted to drop below freezing at night, the first time in several days, which should allow them to get the courses in shape and begin having events.

        Using your logic, since it’s above freezing and raining in the Canadian Rockies, that must confirm global warming.

        I think you need to beef up your weather knowledge, especially related to winter.

        • Speaking of beefing up…

          http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/02/15/hatton_on_hurricanes/

          ……When you average the number of storms and their strength, it almost exactly balances.” This isn’t indicative of an increase in atmospheric energy manifesting itself in storms.

          Even the North Atlantic increase should be treated with caution, Hatton concludes, since the period contains one anomalous year of unusually high hurricane activity – 2005 – the year Al Gore used the Katrina tragedy to advance the case for the manmade global warming theory.

          The IPCC does indeed conclude that “there is no clear trend in the annual numbers of tropical cyclones.” If only the IPCC had stopped there. Yet it goes on to make more claims, and draw conclusions that the data doesn’t support…..

          http://www.leshatton.org/Hurricanes_2010.html

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Todd,

          Your ignorance of weather is quite astounding. First of all, CAN it snow above 32 degrees Farenheit?

          Sure, but THE SNOW WILL NOT STICK TO THE GROUND UNLESS IT IS AT OR BELOW FREEZING.

          Secondly, there was snow ON THE GROUND in all 48 contiguous US States this past weekend, INCLUDING FLORIDA, ARIZONA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, GEORGIA, etc. I think that is pretty far south to have snow ON THE GROUND (meaning that it was at or below freezing).

          Thirdly, has it been warm in parts of Canada, especially the Northwest? Yes, but everyone (who knows anything about weather) knows that that is a typical pattern for a strong El Nino, which is what we currently have. HOWEVER, SNOW ON THE GROUND IN FLORIDA is NOT TYPICAL for a strong El Nino, even during a strong El Nino, snow does not sitck on the ground that far SOUTH. Also, in November and December before the El Nino strengthened, WHISTLER HAD RECORD SNOW ON THE GROUND.

          Sorry, your “facts” don’t make the cut.

          • Peter,

            Your ignorance of weather is quite astounding.

            You’re mixed up right at the top – not a good way to start Peter!

            THE SNOW WILL NOT STICK TO THE GROUND UNLESS IT IS AT OR BELOW FREEZING.

            Wrong again Peter! When snow falls on unfrozen ground, it melts. Melting is an endothermic reaction. This means that the melting snow absorbs energy and cools the ground. When the ground has cooled enough, snow starts to accumulate.

            Secondly, there was snow ON THE GROUND in all 48 contiguous US States this past weekend, INCLUDING FLORIDA, ARIZONA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, GEORGIA, etc. I think that is pretty far south to have snow ON THE GROUND (meaning that it was at or below freezing).

            Yes, that is pretty far south to have snow ON THE GROUND. And whether it was below freezing is immaterial. It was a strange weather event, nothing more.

            Thirdly, has it been warm in parts of Canada, especially the Northwest? Yes, but everyone (who knows anything about weather) knows that that is a typical pattern for a strong El Nino, which is what we currently have. HOWEVER, SNOW ON THE GROUND IN FLORIDA is NOT TYPICAL for a strong El Nino, even during a strong El Nino, snow does not sitck on the ground that far SOUTH. Also, in November and December before the El Nino strengthened, WHISTLER HAD RECORD SNOW ON THE GROUND.

            Sorry, your “facts” don’t make the cut.

            Yes, I’m well aware of all of this. I was using your “facts” and “logic” when I referenced Canada. You just proved yourself WRONG.

            Let’s go back to your original post, because you skipped over most of that.

            THE SNOW LINE HAS MOVED SOUTH!!!!

            Please explain this, because it seems to be the heart of your argument.

            If we were WARMING, the snow line would move NORTH, and DC would get RAIN. However, they had measureable snow in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and even parts of FLORIDA recently.

            Again, the snow line? Measureable snow in the south is called strange weather.

            Correct me if I am wrong, but it has to be right around (or even BELOW) 32F (or 0C) for snow to happen. Get much above 32F, and you DON’T GET SNOW, YOU GET RAIN!

            Again, you are WRONG.

            So, the next time someone tells you that snowstorms in DC or in the deep south are a result of global warming, simply ask them what temperature is needed in order for snow to form, and then ask them if they think that that temperature is warm or cold…

            No need to revisit this nonsense.

            You need to spend some time where there is real winter weather.

    • Despite the seriousness of these revelations, much as what happened when the ClimateGate scandal first broke, with the exception of Fox News, America’s media have almost totally boycotted this amazing story:
      Story Continues Below Ad ↓

      * No mention by the New York Times
      * No mention by the Washington Post
      * No mention by USA Today
      * No mention by ANY major U.S. newspaper EXCEPT the Washington Times
      * No mention by the Associated Press
      * No mention by Reuters
      * No mention by UPI
      * No mention by ABC News
      * No mention by CBS News
      * No mention by NBC News
      * No mention by MSNBC

      For its part, CNN FINALLY got around to covering this story with a very brief mention Tuesday:

      JOHN ROBERTS, CNN ANCHOR: There’s also something else that’s out there. Phil Jones from the University of East Anglia, the climate research unit, the guy that was at the center of this recent e-mail controversy late last year, has said in an interview with the BBC that he has not seen any, quote, “statistically significant warming since 1995,” though he says he still believes that the earth’s temperature has warmed. And he also said that he might be missing some of the data that is responsible for his climate models.

      Of course, skeptics are jumping all over this, saying the whole thing is a farce. Global warming doesn’t exist.

      What do you think of the Professor Jones situation, the lack of statistically significant warming, and the fact that he may have misplaced some of the records?

      JOHN CHRISTY, PROFESSOR, ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE, UNIV. OF ALABAMA- HUNTSVILLE: Well, I think what Phil Jones is saying is that Mother Nature is perfectly capable of making the temperature rise and fall through the past several hundred years. And in terms of the data problems, well, we do have to be careful when we’re talking about public policy, that means trillions of dollars, and we haven’t had that very hard and critical situation where you take care of data and make it publicly available to everyone. And that needs to be done now.

      That’s it!

      Bear in mind that the Jones BBC interview was published Saturday. NewsBusters reported the revelations at 6PM Eastern Time the same day. And yet CNN first mentioned the story possibly as much as 72 hours AFTER the BBC piece.

      I guess that’s why CNN is no longer considered the most trusted name in news.

      Speaking of which, much as it did when ClimateGate broke, FNC has been all over this story addressing it on “Fox News Sunday,” on Monday’s “Glenn Beck Show,” on Monday’s “Special Report,” and on Monday’s “Hannity.”

      By contrast, for their part, the rest of the news media have found filmmaker Kevin Smith being thrown off a Southwest plane for being too fat MUCH more important:

      * The New York Times reported it
      * The Washington Post reported it
      * The Associated Press reported it
      * UPI reported it
      * ABC News reported it
      * CBS News reported it
      * CNN reported it — 14 TIMES!

      Well, I guess “journalists” have to have their priorities, don’t they?

      Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/02/16/climategater-jones-stunning-global-warming-revelations-ignored#ixzz0fiuY817w

  7. I am curious as to the lack of comments from those on this site that affirm AGW…I am interested to hear your thoughts on this latest development and the lack of coverage in the lame stream media…???

  8. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    To quote someone that most people on this site think is a blow-hard (at best), “See, I told you so!”

    Question 1:

    Has the earth warmed since 1850 as a general trend? (1850 being the year that a lot of “reliable” surface temperature records started)

    Yes, 1850 is widely cited as the end of the “little ice age”. It would be terribly inconvenient if we hadn’t warmed up since then.

    Question 2:

    Has the earth warmed since 1979? (1979 being the year that satellite temperature data of the lower troposphere became available)

    Yes. Again, 1979 was damn cold. SOME of the “scientists” were shouting from the rooftops that a new ice age was coming (and that humans were responsible for it). All you have to do is check articles from Time, Newsweek, Science, and Nature from the late 1970s to see the hype. Again, it would be pretty inconvenient if we had not warmed since then.

    Question 3: Is human input responsible for any of the warming?

    It is POSSIBLE; however, the most RELIABLE calculations I have seen show that the input to warming from human activities is on the order of 0.05 degrees C, which is WITHIN THE MARGIN OF ERROR for the calculation, so statistically, our input is negligable.

    Question 4: Does CO2 cause warming?

    Yes, CO2 is a “greenhouse gas” and it does absorb IR radiation and re-emit it as heat. However, it does so on a LOGARITHMIC scale (which even institutions such as Yale admit to). Because it is a logarithmic scale, current estimates are that a DOUBLING of the current CO2 concentration would yield a 1 degree C rise in temperature IF ALL OTHER FACTORS ARE EQUAL. This means that to achieve a 1C rise in temperature, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would have to go to nearly 800ppm from the current 390ppm. The current rate of rise in CO2 has been a steady +1.5ppm/year for the past 60 years. At that rate (assuming the rate stayed constant), it would take 260 years for the concentration to double from current levels.

    Question 5: Is the assumption “all other thing are equal” valid?

    No, oceanic cycles (NAO, ENSO, etc.) change frequently, solar cycles and solar activity change frequently, the magnetic fields of the earth and sun are variable, the orbit of the earth is not a perfect circle, precession happens, the position of the solar system in the galaxy changes over time, the earth has a slight wobble on its axis, water vapor feedback looks like it is probably negative, and puts the brakes on warming caused by CO2 due to cloud formation, etc. Essentially, there is a HOST of factors that CANNOT be assumed to be “equal” over time.

    Question 6: Is CO2 a pollutant?

    No, CO2 is plant food. Warm weather is also plant food. Healthy plants produce a lot of oxygen (which animals need to breathe). Greenhouses routinely amp up the concentration of CO2 inside of the greenhouse to several PERCENT of the atmosphere in order to help the plants grow strong and healthy and be more productive. The inside of a greenhouse is also QUITE WARM. The medieval warm period was also called the medieval CLIMATE OPTIMUM because WARM TEMPERATURES ARE HIGHLY CONDUCIVE TO PLANT, ANIMAL, AND HUMAN LIFE! Cold weather KILLS!

    In short, polluting your own nest is dumb. However, we have taken great strides (such as shutting down the vast majority of US heavy industry and upgrading what is left of heavy industry to reduce polution) in cleaning up the air, land, and water here in the US. Back in the 1990s, if you drove through Gary, Indiana on a hot, stagnant day, the air was noticeably brown, and it stank. If you drive through there now on a hot, stagnant day, there is still pollution, but it is NOTHING like it was 15 years ago, and it is ridiculously better than it was in the 50’s and 60’s. CO2 is not a pollutant, it is plant food. Warming input from CO2 is pretty darn negligeable, and may well be partially or even completely counter-acted by other atmospheric forces/phenomena.

    We do not yet even come close to understanding the energy balance of the atmosphere, and we do not even come close to understanding all of the inputs and how they interact with each other. If “climatology” wishes to become a science rather than a religion, the scientists would do well to study the things I mentioned above and get some falsifiable hypotheses which attempt to explain all of the inputs and interactions before they start spouting “hard numbers” which they cannot back up with any well-explained theories.

    Sorry that was so long, but I have been telling all of you this stuff since I first joined the site. Most of you were receptive to my thoughts on the subject, some of you were highly skeptical of my “facts” and my motives. For those of you that were skeptical, I think it is time to admit that my point of view and my facts seem to be pretty well backed up at this point.

    As with anything in science, that COULD change! But for now, it seems that what I have been saying the whole time I have participated here (on this subject anyway :)) has been pretty accurate.

    • Totally agree with your points. Would like to add one thought – since we exhale CO2, how is the guvmint going to police/tax/control that? Could easily lead into the area of population control, etc., ala Van Jones.

      I’m all for good stewardship of the planet, decreasing our dependence on foreign oil through new technology, etc., but abhore the fact the mainstream media has repeatedly ignored the fact AGW is a farce, a fraud and environmental alarmist bunk.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        Perhaps they will simply mandate that we all need to carry a plant in front of our faces, or wear masks that filter the CO2 out of our exhalations….

        Also, using subsidies to “reduce our dependence on foreign oil” is MORE EXPENSIVE than buying the foreign oil. You are basically paying for a highly inefficient source of energy to be developped, and then you are paying higher prices for that inefficient source of energy.

        The ONLY way to become independent of foreign oil is to develop our own oil, natural gas, and coal resources WHILE WE WAIT for the scientists to come up with something which is equal to or better than these existing resources for reliable and efficient energy generation as well as being on par or cheaper than the existing energy sources.

        SOME of the MSM (especially outside of the US) is starting to do an about-face on global warming and is exposing the fraudulent aspects of the whole thing. Here in the US, the media is still far too heavily invested in the whole thing for any of them to admit that they were completely wrong.

        Read the papers in England and Australia and you will see that at least SOME of them are starting to significantly question the whole thing.

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          I forgot to also point out that for right now anyway, it is cheaper to buy foreign oil than it is to even develop more of our own oil resources. However, we might be sitting on THOUSANDS of times more natural gas than we thought was present in this country, and it MIGHT be fairly cheap to develop (unless the government outlaws “fracking”, in which case we will never develop it because development will have been made artificially expensive through government regulation).

          Anyway, as BF would point out if he were here, economically at present, buying foreign oil is cheaper than any current alternatives, which is why we do it. Part of the reason we are constantly “invovled” in the Middle East is to attempt to drive oil prices high enough that it becomes too expensive, and we are forced to develop something else. However, our manipulation only succeeded in spiking the price, which then collapsed when the global economy went to hell (partially BECAUSE OF the oil price spike). Oil is now back to about 50% of the level it was at during the spike, but that cost is not sufficient to make other energy sources more attractive.

          Steven Chu wasn’t lying when he said he wanted $8.00/gal gas here in the US. He IS lying now when he says that he no longer thinks that is a good goal.

          • I have my plant ready – it likes my CO2 emissions!!!

            My thinking is that, had we had spent half the money on R&D for new, cheap renewable energy sources as we have AGW, we could’ve come up with some phenomenal new ideas.

            Wind energy is a pipe dream – solar is showing some promise – but it is expensive, and I agree with your take there.

            Using ocean currents for a form of hydroelectric power is interesting.

            I’m with you on natural gas and believe we should also develop more nuclear power plants.

            Thoughts?

            • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

              I cannot remember the exact statistic, but I think France gets about 61% of it’s power from fission (nuclear).

              That won’t ever happen here. Even with the latest technology, the media here has purposely scared the people to death with 3-Mile Island and Chernobyl. Also, nuclear would be a good, cheap short-term solution, but it wouldn’t necessarily be the long-term solution.

              Solar – too expensive and inefficient, at least for now, and also too variable. Clouds and darkness happen too often for this to be really viable.

              Wind – WAY too variable. See http://saveourstateri.org/wind_power_problems.htm

              Ocean currents/hydro- can be used quite reliably in SOME places to AUGMENT the existing power supply. Cannot currently be used at all in many places due to lack of proximity to an appropriate ocean, river, etc.

              Geothermal- usually the best sources of geothermal energy are near volcanic regions or fault lines. Current processes for extracting the energy are thougt to add to geological instability in such regions, and many projects have been abandoned.

              In short, will there be technological innovation which will provide newer, cheaper, and cleaner energy sources? Most likely yes.

              The problem is that at least currently no viable options for large-scale energy provision have been formulated that fit the bill.

              Technology and the free market will win in the end (they generally do unless there is simply MASSIVE government intervention, in which case we ALL lose).

              • Well said!

              • Kathy,

                It is important to keep in mind the human condition.

                Humans solve problems;
                the solutions to these problems create brand new consequences;
                these consequences cause problems;
                humans solve problems….

                There exists no such thing as “problem free” in the human existence except death. Only then you have no problems.

                In modern civilization we have found the best way to solve problems is to let free men act.

                It has been so effective that we have solved more problems in the last 100 years than the entire 10,000 years of human history prior, combined.

                It means we have created more problems than all of human history combined, too.

                But that’s ok. We seem to be solving them faster every day.

                …as long as men are free to do so…

              • ummm, OK.

  9. Happy Fat Tuesday everyone!

    Special call out to SUFAers Richmond Spitfire and BF who are sharing a birthday today! Have a celebration beer on me!

    To PeterB – yes you did tell us so. We are lucky to be able to learn from you. Kudos!

    • Kristian Stout says:

      Happy Birthday to BF and RS, today is my oldest girls birthday too! She’s 19 today. She just got married in Dec and I think she’s about to announce that I’m gonna be a grandma! Yay me…NOT…LOL! I’m too young to be a grandma and she’s too young to be a mommy. So keep your fingers crossed for me ya’ll!

      • My youngest is having his golden birthday today; more freedom comes tomorrow when he gets his Drivers License! YEAH!

        • Kristian Stout says:

          When my girl got her license I didn’t see very much of her anymore! She had places to go and people to see and Mom was not top of the priority list. I don’t blame her though, in her place I would have done the same thing…LOL

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      Don’t forget Kim Jong Il, it is his birthday today too!

      Perhaps Black Flag will head over to his house to have a beer and discuss political philosophy later today!

      🙂

    • Thanks, all!

      Interestingly, I was supposed to be a Spring baby. But I was a bit ahead of my own time by 6 weeks.

      I seemed to have decided to get a head start in the midst of the worst winter storm on record up to that time. Poor Dad told stories of barely avoiding getting stuck in snow getting to the hospital while dodging snow plows furiously trying to keep the streets open…

      They settled Dad in the “Father’s Room”, explaining it would take quite a few hours. He barely got a coffee, sat down with other expectant fathers, who all had been there for hours…

      …only to get a call that I was me! He barely got out of the room alive before the other expecting father’s exhausted hands killed him…

      I appeared small but healthy so the doctor was unconcerned and I went home normally like most other babies….

      Born on a stormy night – portended a destiny for me, I’m afraid! 🙂

      • Kristian Stout says:

        My girl was almost born in the parking lot of a gas station because her father didn’t believe that I was in labor and so spent 4 hours getting ready to go to work. He has to be one of the vainest men that I know, that being said I got a beautiful daughter because he is a handsome devil…LOL! Too bad he is just as hardheaded as he is vain or we might still be married…LOL!

      • Richmond Spitfire says:

        Dad had to get the Boy Scout Troop over to shovel out the driveway. Dad was telling me this weekend that he was in the father’s room and no one would tell him anything…Finally, the nurses wheeled Mom out of the delivery room so that he could see her.

        I was born, weighing 10 lbs, 6 oz. Mom said that the doctor and nurses were taking bets that I was a 12 pounder. The doc told my Mom that she was made for having babies…she told him to shut his mouth.

        When they presented me to Dad, he told them that I wasn’t his baby (apparently, I looked like I was 3 months old and somewhat like an eskimo.

        My oldest baby will be 20 tomorrow…hard to believe….

        Hugs and and very best of wishes to all of you in SUFAland.

        Richmond Spitfire

  10. A word of explanation. Jones mentioned 95% confidence limits. This is a test to see if a result is statisically significant. Normally uncertainties are reported as one standard deviation (±σ, or +/- sigma) which for a normal distrubution (Gaussian) includes about 68% of the data. Thus one would say that you have 68% confidence that the number will call between x – σ and x + σ. One can usually approximate a 95% confidence limit using 3 standard deviations. Hence the confidence range is from x – 3σ to x + 3σ. If the value of zero falls in this range, x can be said to be not significantly different than zero. So when he says there is a 0.12°C change in temperature that is not statistically significant, it means that 3σ is greater than 0.12°C.

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      T-Ray,

      That is absolutely correct. For people who don’t get into statistics much, what this means is that the error bars on the calculation are larger than the calculated number, so it cannot be clearly said that the number is significantly different from zero.

  11. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    When I was a little kid and didn’t want to go to school for the day, I would have my mom take my temperature. If I was lucky, she would leave the room AND the heat would be on in the house. I would take the thermometer and stick it directly in the heat vent until it read about 108 F, and then stick it back in my mouth. By the time mom got back in the room, the temperature reading on the thermometer would settle back down to about 100.5.

    High enough fever to stay home, not high enough for her to rush me to the doctor.

    I should have grown up to be a “climate scientist!”

  12. Judy Sabatini says:
  13. Question E – How confident are you that warming has taken place and that humans are mainly responsible?

    I’m 100% confident that the climate has warmed. As to the second question, I would go along with IPCC Chapter 9 – there’s evidence that most of the warming since the 1950s is due to human activity.

    I am interested in Peter or BF’s input here. It seems to me that question #1 answered this quite naturally, in that there is no difference in warming during the period he is referencing and the other periods where the causes that man is responsible for were not present.

    He is speaking very tight and specifically – like I do on this blog sometimes – by leaving out specific goal posts to his words. I know you hate me when I do that, too!!

    You have to look at what he didn’t say to understand what he did say.

    He said the climate has warmed. But he gave no time period to qualify his statement. Therefore, one must apply the broadest timescale.

    As such, his confidence of climate warming is mine as well. We know North America was buried under miles of ice, and now we are not. Ergo, we have warmed.

    Then he creates a timescale – from 1950 – where he changing his words; from “confidence” into “evidence”.

    There is a HUGE difference between KNOWING and noting EVIDENCE creating a possibility. He was very careful in choosing his words.

    He says there is evidence that most of the warming is human caused.

    There is evidence that most of the warming is not human caused as well.

    Most of IPCC AR4 Chapter 9 references computer models. It is wholly incorrect to use computer climate models as a proof – they are appropriate to base a hypothesis – a guess – about what may be happening as an aid to study and understanding.

    The models have shown to be completely wrong in predictive ability. This is no surprise to any real scientist but appears to be a surprise to the AGW disciples.

    BUT this does not dispute his claim of evidence. Simple chemistry and physics provides the evidence – more CO2 does increase the warming in air – this is a fact.

    The dispute is by “how much?”. If man-made CO2 increases the temp. by 0.01 degree, we ignore it. If it is 10.0 degrees, we better pay attention.

    So far, the physics says it is closer to 0.01 degrees. The Environmentalists do not believe the physics.

    Regarding MWP;

    There is debate – most of it frivolous – regarding the MWP. The overwhelming evidence shows the warming throughout the North Hemisphere – North America, China and Europe.

    We know very little about the Southern Hemisphere because of the lack of human civilization to record such stuff. However, some sediment samples demonstrate that there may have been a warming there too. But that’s about all we can say.

    But, again, he is careful. He did not deny it. He merely laid out his conditions for the MWP to be significant for him. Fair enough.

    Re: Solar
    His bias showed up here. Because he does not understand the mechanisms of Solar forcing – though there have been many papers demonstrating it – and proving it by experimentation is still insufficient for him. He is not physicist. His degrees are in environmental science. Many environmental scientists do not understand physics. That is why they went into environmental science instead of physics.

    Because he says that by fact no one can prove the Solar forcing as single cause, yet, by fact no one can prove Human forcing as any cause either.

    He chooses his side, and demanding that absolute proof of one, while accepting suspect evidence of the other. Fair enough. This gives him cause to prove his assertion. I wait for such proof – and I suspect I will wait until the end of time.

    All in all, it is a HUGE about face for Dr. Jones.

    He restrained his hysteria, carefully selected his words and replaced his total certainty with suspicion by hypothesis.

    I think he has learned a hard lesson and is trying to dig himself out of the big hole.

    But this is the end of the AGW hysteria. The wind is gone out of its sails and it is merely surviving on the past momentum.

    The damage to science in general, however, has been huge. And deserving.

    Science by government has rested on the laurels of the Manhattan project. But since then, it has been a huge disaster.

    The more ludicrous government science is seen, the faster science will be rescued from its evil clutch.

    • OK, I’ll play devils advocate, since some of our playmates are absent.
      Just a partial post, the full article is long.

      http://mediamatters.org/research/201002160014

      Fox News twists words of climate scientist Phil Jones in its continued assault on global warming theory

      Following a February 13 BBC Q&A with Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, Fox News’ Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Stuart Varney and Fox & Friends have distorted Jones’ comments to suggest that they undermine the consensus that human activities are contributing to warming global temperatures.

      Beck and Hannity suggest Jones’ statement that warming since 1995 is not statistically significant is an “admission” that undermines man-made global warming theory

      From the February 15 edition of Fox News’ Glenn Beck:

      BECK: Jones admits that there has been no significant warming since 1995, no statistically significant warming since 1995. Just doing the math in my head – that’s 15 years. Fifteen years – that’s weird.

      Doesn’t it go all the way back to when Al Gore was just a dull vice president and not a dull atmospheric scientist slash Nobel Prize- winning slash climate profiteer? Yes, I think it does – 1995.

      […]

      BECK: The warming – not unprecedented. No significant warming since 1995. Is this the head of the global warming alarmist or a right wing think-tank? I’m not sure. After everything else that has happened lately, if this really was about science and we’re really in a debt and the problems we’re in now, wouldn’t you already say, “Whew, we don’t have to spend that money”?

      From the February 15 edition of Hannity:

      HANNITY: Now keep in mind that Jones’ findings have been used for years to bolster the U.N.’s findings on climate change. In an interview with the BBC over the weekend Jones admitted that there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995, that the world may have been warmer in Medieval Times, that is to say up until now, which would undermine the theory of this manmade global warming all together. And that warming in recent times mirrors warming patterns from pre-industrial periods.

      In fact, longer-term data establishes warming trend

      Jones: “Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms” is “less likely for shorter periods.” When asked, “Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming,” Jones stated:

      Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.

      RealClimate.org: “It is extremely difficult to establish a statistically significant trend over a timer interval as short as 15 years.” In a February 15 post, RealClimate.org’s staff, which is comprised of several working climate scientists, similarly stated that “it is extremely difficult to establish a statistically significant trend over a timer interval as short as 15 years.”

      Met Office: Climate shows “continued variability, but an underlying trend of warming in the previously steady long-term averages.” The Met Office states: “In 1998 the world experienced the warmest year since records began. In the decade since, however, this high point has not been surpassed. Some have seized on this as evidence that global warming has stopped, or even that we have entered a period of ‘global cooling’. This is far from the truth and climate scientists have, in fact, recognised that a temporary slowdown in warming is possible even under increasing levels of greenhouse gas emissions.” [Met Office, accessed 9/22/09]

      The Met Office further notes:

      After three decades of warming caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions, why would there suddenly be a period of relative temperature stability — despite more greenhouse gases being emitted than ever before? This is because of what is known as internal climate variability. In the same way that our weather can be warm and sunny one day, cool and wet the next, so our climate naturally varies from year to year, and decade to decade.

      Before the twentieth century, when man-made greenhouse gas emissions really took off, there was an underlying stability to global climate. The temperature varied from year to year, or decade to decade, but stayed within a certain range and averaged out to an approximately steady level.

      In the twentieth century we have had continued variability, but an underlying trend of warming in the previously steady long-term averages. This is what we observed in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Now we have seen a decade of little change in the average global temperature — but that doesn’t mean climate change has stopped, it’s just another part of natural variability.

      2000-2009 was warmest decade on record. NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), The National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), The U.K. Met Office, and the World Meteorological Organisation have all stated that 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on record for the globe.

      • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

        This article fails on several levels.

        First of all, the KEY sentence is that 2000-2009 is the warmest decade ON RECORD for the globe.

        Once again, the “record” either starts in 1850 (the end of the little ice age), or 1979 (near the end of the last ice-age scare). So, no matter which start-date that you use, the start-date was COLD.

        This paragraph:

        “In the twentieth century we have had continued variability, but an underlying trend of warming in the previously steady long-term averages. This is what we observed in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Now we have seen a decade of little change in the average global temperature — but that doesn’t mean climate change has stopped, it’s just another part of natural variability.”

        Makes no sense at all. The claims by the AGW alarmists HAVE ALWAYS BEEN that human-caused warming WOULD CONTINUE UNABATED, and yet now that the warming HAS ABATED, they blame “natural variability”.

        You CANNOT have it both ways. Either human activities are the PRIMARY DRIVER of the climate system, in which case they would ALWAYS DOMINATE, and the warming would continue unabated, or NATURAL VARIABILITY is the PRIMARY CLIMATE DRIVER, and human activity is NOT.

        Finally, by admitting that the MWP may have indeed been warmer than the present, Jones himself debunks the following:

        “Before the twentieth century, when man-made greenhouse gas emissions really took off, there was an underlying stability to global climate. The temperature varied from year to year, or decade to decade, but stayed within a certain range and averaged out to an approximately steady level.”

        If there really was a Medieval Warm Period which was as warm or even warmer than what we have currently, and if there really was a Little Ice Age, the claim that temperature stayed within a certain range and averaged out to an approximate steady level prior to the 20th century is demonstrably false. You cannot have a Medieval Warm Period followed by a Little Ice Age and make the statement, “well, that averages out to a steady temperature.” Sheer and utter nonsense.

  14. Judy Sabatini says:
  15. Following…

  16. Judy Sabatini says:
  17. Judy Sabatini says:

    The Continuing Climate Meltdown
    More embarrassments for the U.N. and ‘settled’ science.

    It has been a bad—make that dreadful—few weeks for what used to be called the “settled science” of global warming, and especially for the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that is supposed to be its gold standard.

    First it turns out that the Himalayan glaciers are not going to melt anytime soon, notwithstanding dire U.N. predictions. Next came news that an IPCC claim that global warming could destroy 40% of the Amazon was based on a report by an environmental pressure group. Other IPCC sources of scholarly note have included a mountaineering magazine and a student paper.

    Since the climategate email story broke in November, the standard defense is that while the scandal may have revealed some all-too-human behavior by a handful of leading climatologists, it made no difference to the underlying science. We think the science is still disputable. But there’s no doubt that climategate has spurred at least some reporters to scrutinize the IPCC’s headline-grabbing claims in a way they had rarely done previousl

    Take the rain forest claim. In its 2007 report, the IPCC wrote that “up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state.”

    But as Jonathan Leake of London’s Sunday Times reported last month, those claims were based on a report from the World Wildlife Fund, which in turn had fundamentally misrepresented a study in the journal Nature. The Nature study, Mr. Leake writes, “did not assess rainfall but in fact looked at the impact on the forest of human activity such as logging and burning.”

    The IPCC has relied on World Wildlife Fund studies regarding the “transformation of natural coastal areas,” the “destruction of more mangroves,” “glacial lake outbursts causing mudflows and avalanches,” changes in the ecosystem of the “Mesoamerican reef,” and so on. The Wildlife Fund is a green lobby that believes in global warming, and its “research” reflects its advocacy, not the scientific method.

    The IPCC has also cited a study by British climatologist Nigel Arnell claiming that global warming could deplete water resources for as many as 4.5 billion people by the year 2085. But as our Anne Jolis reported in our European edition, the IPCC neglected to include Mr. Arnell’s corollary finding, which is that global warming could also increase water resources for as many as six billion people.

    The IPCC report made aggressive claims that “extreme weather-related events” had led to “rapidly rising costs.” Never mind that the link between global warming and storms like Hurricane Katrina remains tenuous at best. More astonishing (or, maybe, not so astonishing) is that the IPCC again based its assertion on a single study that was not peer-reviewed. In fact, nobody can reliably establish a quantifiable connection between global warming and increased disaster-related costs. In Holland, there’s even a minor uproar over the report’s claim that 55% of the country is below sea level. It’s 26%.

    Meanwhile, one of the scientists at the center of the climategate fiasco has called into question other issues that the climate lobby has claimed are indisputable. Phil Jones, who stepped down as head of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit amid the climate email scandal, told the BBC that the world may well have been warmer during medieval times than it is now.

    This raises doubts about how much our current warming is man-made as opposed to merely another of the natural climate shifts that have taken place over the centuries. Mr. Jones also told the BBC there has been no “statistically significant” warming over the past 15 years, though he considers this to be temporary.
    ***

    All of this matters because the IPCC has been advertised as the last and definitive word on climate science. Its reports are the basis on which Al Gore, President Obama and others have claimed that climate ruin is inevitable unless the world reorganizes its economies with huge new taxes on carbon. Now we are discovering the U.N. reports are sloppy political documents intended to drive the climate lobby’s regulatory agenda.

    The lesson of climategate and now the IPCC’s shoddy sourcing is that the claims of the global warming lobby need far more rigorous scrutiny.

  18. Judy Sabatini says:

    Summary of Life

    GREAT TRUTHS THAT LITTLE CHILDREN HAVE LEARNED:

    1) No matter how hard you try, you can’t baptize cats.
    2) When your Mum is mad at your Dad, don’t let her brush your hair.
    3) If your sister hits you, don’t hit her back. They always catch the second
    person.
    4) Never ask your 3-year old brother to hold a tomato.
    5) You can’t trust dogs to watch your food.
    6) Don’t sneeze when someone is cutting your hair.
    7) Never hold a Dust-Buster and a cat at the same time.
    8) You can’t hide a piece of broccoli in a glass of milk.
    9) Don’t wear polka-dot underwear under white shorts.
    10) The best place to be when you’re sad is Grandma’s lap.

    GREAT TRUTHS THAT ADULTS HAVE LEARNED:

    1) Raising teenagers is like nailing jelly to a tree.
    2) Wrinkles don’t hurt.
    3) Families are like fudge…mostly sweet, with a few nuts
    4) Today’s mighty oak is just yesterday’s nut that held its ground..
    5) Laughing is good exercise. It’s like jogging on the inside.
    6) Middle age is when you choose your cereal for the fiber, not the toy.

    GREAT TRUTHS ABOUT GROWING OLD

    1) Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional.
    2) Forget the health food. I need all the preservatives I can get.
    3) When you fall down, you wonder what else you can do while you’re down
    there.
    4) You’re getting old when you get the same sensation from a rocking chair
    that you once got from a roller coaster..
    5) It’s frustrating when you know all the answers but nobody bothers to ask
    you the questions.
    6) Time may be a great healer, but it’s a lousy beautician
    7) Wisdom comes with age, but sometimes age comes alone.

    THE FOUR STAGES OF LIFE:

    1) You believe in Santa Claus.
    2) You don’t believe in Santa Claus.
    3) You are Santa Claus.
    4) You look like Santa Claus.

    SUCCESS:

    At age 4 success is . . . . not piddling in your pants.
    At age 12 success is . .. . having friends.
    At age 17 success is . .. . having a driver’s license.
    At age 35 success is . .. . having money.

    At age 50 success is . . . having money.
    At age 70 success is . . . having a drivers license.
    At age 75 success is . .. .. having friends.
    At age 80 success is . .. . not piddling in your pants.

    Pass this on to someone who could use a laugh.

    Always remember to forget the troubles that pass your way;
    BUT NEVER forget the blessings that come each day.

    Have a wonderful day with many! *smiles*

    • Kristian Stout says:

      Judy,

      I hope you don’t mind but I had to pass that on! That was too funny and way too true…LOL

      • Judy Sabatini says:

        Hi Kristian

        That’s why I put these up, to share with everybody. Please, Feel free to share with anybody you’d like.

        Hope you’re doing well today.

  19. Off Topic,

    WASHINGTON (AP) — The government said Tuesday that foreign demand for U.S. Treasury securities fell by the largest amount on record in December with China reducing its holdings by $34.2 billion.

    The reductions in holdings, if they continue, could force the government to make higher interest payments at a time that it is running record federal deficits.

    The Treasury Department reported that foreign holdings of U.S. Treasury securities fell by $53 billion in December, surpassing the previous record of a $44.5 billion drop in April 2009.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Foreign-demand-for-Teasury-apf-1402391707.html?x=0&.v=6

    Is this unexpected???

    • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

      No, lots of us here have been predicting that one for quite a while.

      Let me tell you what happens from here:

      Ben Bernanke keeps rates artificially low, in spite of the unwillingness of other countries to buy our debt.

      Economy stagflates.

      Ben Bernanke reluctantly raises interest rates to attempt to attract somebody… ANYBODY other than the FED into buying our debt.

      It doesn’t work.

      Economy inflates, but still no one is buying our debt (other than the Fed).

      Gold hits $2500

      Obama is not even nominated to run for a second term (Hilary or Evan Bayh or someone else supplants him).

      Democrats lose anyway.

      Some “Republicans” have some very good ideas on how to help the situation, but they are all deemed “conservative libertarian nutjobs” by both the Democrats and the “establishment” Republicans. The Fed continues to be the only institution that will buy US debt.

      20% inflation and 20% unemployment (or worse) cause major social and political upheaval. The dollar does NOT become completely worthless, because too many other countries are having the exact same problems, and ALL fiat currencies are rapidly losing value as well. Dow 1500, Gold $5000.00.

      Not sure what happens after that… it will be up to people like us here I HOPE….

      I also sincerely hope that list of predictions is a worst-case scenario, but my gut feeling is that it actually could take longer than what I have outlined here, in which case the scenario could well be EVEN WORSE.

      • 😦

      • Peter….you always depress me. Do you always have to tell the truth???? Geez can’t you butter it up just a little?

        • PeterB in Indianapolis says:

          Unfortunately I pretty much agree with BF’s assessment that as a society we have pretty well passed the tipping-point of being able to recover without a major upheaval first.

          However, I do have endless faith in the resilience of the people, and I have great hope that in the aftermath of the upheaval we may finally end up with a society where freedom and individual liberty are honored, respected, and the basis for the new society.

          All is not lost, and as long as there are people on the planet, all never will be lost.

          Sure, not ALL people are enlightened to the great benefits of freedom and individual liberty, but everyone is capable of learning.

          The glass may be near empty, but with a little luck and a lot of hard work, we might just be able to fill it up again and maybe even have a chance at keeping it relatively full.

  20. Judy Sabatini says:
  21. Judy Sabatini says:

    ALWAYS ASK, NEVER ASSUME !!

    His request approved, the CNN News photographer quickly used a cell
    phone to call the local airport to charter a flight.

    He was told a twin-engine plane would be waiting for him at the
    airport.

    Arriving at the airfield, he spotted a plane warming up outside a
    hanger.

    He jumped in with his bag, slammed the door shut, and shouted,
    ‘Let’s go’.

    The pilot taxied out, swung the plane into the wind and took off.

    Once in the air, the photographer instructed the pilot, ‘Fly over
    the valley and make low passes so I can take pictures of the fires on the
    hillsides.’

    ‘Why?’ asked the pilot.

    ‘Because I’m a photographer for CNN’ , he responded, ‘and I need to
    get some close up shots.’

    The pilot was strangely silent for a moment, finally he stammered,
    ‘So, what you’re telling me, is . . . You’re NOT my flight instructor?’

    “Life is short.

    Drink the good wine first”

  22. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    http://www.aynrand.org/site/DocServer/ee_climate_vulnerability_keith_lockitch.pdf?docID=2221

    This is a really interesting paper about why the answer to global warming (if it is even happening) is more free-market capitalism.

    It is a bit long, but I found it to be pretty good 🙂

    • http://mediamatters.org/research/201002140007

      Wallace says he “stud[ied] up” for climate change discussion — then repeats tired falsehoods

      Wallace claims “climate change advocates were suppressing opposition”

      From the February 14 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace:

      WALLACE: But, Liz, on the other hand, there’s an awful lot of the, quote, “science” that keeps being challenged. We had those email reports that were leaked out of East Anglia that seemed to indicate that some of the climate change advocates were suppressing opposition. Now we have this 2007 report by the U.N.’s international panel on climate change. One thing that I was studying up for this segment — that there was a claim that the Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035 — wasn’t an academic study. It was one expert who says he was misquoted. Hasn’t a lot of the science turned out to be somewhat sketchy?

      CRU emails did not show attempt to “suppress opposition”

      Mann email proposing boycott of Climate Research cited specific paper. Critics have frequently pointed to a March 11, 2003, email in which Penn State University professor Michael Mann wrote that a paper by Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas (of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) “couldn’t have cleared a ‘legitimate’ peer review process anywhere. That leaves only one possibility — that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board.” Mann further stated, “I think we have to stop considering ‘Climate Research’ as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board …”
      Wallace has repeatedly used CRU emails to make false accusations about climate change

      Wallace has previously attacked CRU emails. Claiming that the emails “were either leaked or hacked” from CRU, Wallace said the messages discussed an attempt to “hide the decline in temperatures,” and he also called climate scientists “fudgers” who “tried to suppress the opposition.”
      Global consensus on climate change is unaffected by the release of the emails

      NASA scientist: Emails show “no manipulation.” Wired’s Threat Level blog reported on November 20, 2009, that Gavin Schmidt, a climate scientist at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said: “There’s nothing in the e-mails that shows that global warming is a hoax. …

  23. PeterB in Indianapolis says:

    Disillusioned Bayh advocates electoral “shock” to broken system:

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1134

  24. Hi Ya’ll! 🙂

    As we have seen over the past year, this Administration and Congress have worked very hard to get as much control of the population and it’s actions a never before seen. Bad luck for them that the AGW fraud has has been exposed for what it is, a fraud. I won’t call it a hoax, because it is not one, it is fraud.

    They also wanted to control healthcare, which seems to have been crushed as well. Today, the Fed says inflation is on the horizon.

    These power hungry people have been kicked in the teeth and pushed back. But what are they capable of doing in the future to get that power they so desire? Does evil have a name?

    Peace!

    G!

  25. Judy Sabatini says:

    I’d like to share this story that I just got from my son. Anybody who lives in Montana might have read about it.

    BUTTE, MONTANA

    Shotgun preteen vs. Illegal alien Home Invaders:
    Butte, Montana November 5, 2007

    Two illegal aliens, Ralphel Resindez, 23, and Enrico Garza, 26, probably
    believed they would easily overpower home-alone 11 year old Patricia
    Harrington after her father had left their two-story home.

    It seems the two crooks never learned two things: they were inMontana and
    Patricia had been a clay shooting champion since she was nine.

    Patricia was in her upstairs room when the two men broke through the front
    door of the house. She quickly ran to her father’s room and grabbed his 12
    gauge Mossberg 500 shotgun.

    Resindez was the first to get up to the second floor only to be the first to
    catch a near point blank blast of buckshot from the 11-year-old’s knee
    crouch aim. He suffered fatal wounds to his abdomen and genitals.

    When Garza ran to the foot of the stairs, he took a blast to the left
    shoulder and staggered out into the street where he bled to death before
    medical help could arrive.

    It was found out later that Resindez was armed with a stolen 45 caliber
    handgun he took from another home invasion robbery. That victim, 50-year-old
    David 0Burien, was not so lucky. He died from stab wounds to the chest.

    Ever wonder why good stuff never makes NBC, CBS, PBS, MSNBC, CNN, or ABC
    news……..an 11 year old girl, properly trained, defended her home , and
    herself……against two murderous, illegal immigrants…….and she wins,
    She is still alive.

    Now that is Gun Control !

    Thought for the day:

    Calling an illegal alien an ‘undocumented immigrant’ is like calling a drug
    dealer an ‘unlicensed pharmacist’

    I like this kind of e-mail. American citizens defending themselves and
    their homes.

  26. Everybody deserves a good laugh! This is funny!

    http://www.flixxy.com/wedding-ceremony.htm

  27. OK, I’ve waited all day and nothing.

    There must be some left wing conspiracy going down today.

    All of our resident far left, or self proclaimed moderate left, antagonists have vanished all at once.

    • Shocking! 🙂

      I thought the same thing, but maybe they are realizing what we have said all along, it’s a fraud!

      Peace to you my Friend!

      G!

    • Buck the Wala says:

      Not vanished — just extremely busy after the holiday weekend…. — and definitely not ‘realizing what was said all along, that its a fraud’ as much as you and G may hope!

      Let me also just quickly echo the birthday wishes!!

    • I am mostly just a “reader” here at SUFA, but I agree with you. In response to USW’s great post today, I have been curious to hear from the friends that you mention so that I could be informed of both sides in a balanced way.

      After the intense discussions of many subjects on many layers in previous days and weeks, I too find the silence interesting . . . and disappointing.

      Perhaps tomorrow?

    • JAC,

      I know that Mathius was off to some beach destination and is gone for the week. Buck and Ray I can’t speak for but my guess is that they are busy rather than scared or abandoning us. I do so hope they will weigh in, though. I would be interested in hearing their take on what Mr. Jones had to say.

      USW

  28. I would like to wish a very Happy Birthday to Mr. Black Flag and Ms. Richmond Spitfire 🙂

    I lift my beer and salute you!

    G!

    • Here’s a joke to celebrate!

      Air Force One crashed in the middle of rural America . Panic stricken, the local sheriff mobilized and descended on the farm in force.

      When they got there, the disaster was clear. The aircraft was totally destroyed with only a burned hulk left smoldering in a tree line that bordered a farm. The sheriff and his men entered the smoking mess but could find no remains of anyone, including the President.

      They spotted a lone farmer plowing a field not too far away as if nothing at all happened. They hurried over to the man’s tractor. “Hank,” the sheriff yelled, panting and out of breath. “Did you see this terrible accident happen?”

      “Yep. Sure did.” The farmer mumbled unconcernedly, cutting off his motor. “Do you realize that is the airplane of the President of the United States?” “Yep.” “Were there any survivors?” “Nope. They’s all kilt straight out” the farmer answered. “I done buried them all myself. Took me most of the morning..”

      “President Obama is dead?” the sheriff shouted.

      “Well,” the farmer grumbled, restarting his tractor.

      “He kept a-saying he wasn’t … but you know what a liar he is…

  29. Judy Sabatini says:

    Three Major Firms Pull Out of Climate Change Alliance

    ConocoPhillips, BP America and Caterpillar pulled out of a leading alliance of businesses and environmental groups pushing for climate change legislation on Tuesday, citing complaints that the bills under consideration are unfair to American industry.

    A plane flies over a British Petroleum gas station at Heathrow in London Feb. 2. (Reuters Photo)

    The sudden pullout of three corporate giants from a leading alliance of businesses and environmental groups could be the death knell for climate change legislation languishing on Capitol Hill.

    ConocoPhillips, BP America and Caterpillar’s announced Tuesday they will pull out of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, citing complaints that the bills now in Congress are unfair to American industry.

    BP spokesman Ronnie Chappell said Tuesday’s announcements are not a statement on the likelihood that climate change legislation will fail.

    “I would never speculate as to what would happen with a pending piece of legislation,” Chappell said.

    But he said the bills on the table no longer “conform” with what USCAP envisioned for a climate change bill. He said the legislation — including one bill that passed the House but is stalled in the Senate — does not provide adequate protections to U.S. refineries.

    If any bills are passed, they will result in more oil imports, the closure of U.S. refineries and the loss of U.S. jobs. Plus he said it’s too hard on the transportation sector.

    “We do not believe that the bills now pending in Congress conform to the USCAP blueprint, in that a disproportionate share of the emissions reductions and disproportionate share of the cost fall on the transportation sector and on transportation consumers and motorists,” he said.

    Both BP America and Caterpillar were founding members of the group.

    ConocoPhillips CEO Jim Mulva also said in a statement that the House and Senate bills “disadvantaged the transportation sector and its consumers” and “unfairly penalized” domestic refineries that would have to face international competition on an unbalanced playing field.

    “We believe greater attention and resources need to be dedicated to reversing these missed opportunities, and our actions today are part of that effort,” he said.

    The companies described their withdrawal from the group as a way to advocate for climate change legislation in other ways.

    “Our position on the need for comprehensive climate change legislation has not changed,” Chappell said. “We can be a more effective voice in the climate change debate if we participate as BP and not as part of a larger organization. … We will still be very active in the climate change discussions and we will still be advocating for legislation that conforms to the USCAP blueprint.”

    USCAP released a brief statement Tuesday announcing that the member companies were leaving the organization. The group said the companies “provided invaluable assistance, expertise and significant commitments of time and resources” in pushing for a major climate bill.

    The group reiterated its view that Congress should act on a climate bill this year.

    “We believe that U.S. action on energy and climate legislation in 2010 will preserve and create American jobs, secure our energy future and generate new investment in the global clean energy economy,” the statement said.

    The statement noted that while three companies were leaving, others have recently joined and USCAP “expects to add new members in the coming months.”

    The push for climate change legislation has been hampered by more than just concern over its impact on the U.S. economy. The record snowfall this year in Washington, D.C., and other areas of the country has fueled skeptics who see the snow-covered capital as evidence that global warming is a myth, though scientists argue that temperatures have risen over the long term and that extreme weather — even snow — can be a symptom of climate change.

    The U.N. Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen in December ended with a non-binding agreement. And that was preceded by controversy over leaked e-mails from a British climate research center that appeared to show scientists discussing ways to obscure certain climate data.

    Add to that Republican Scott Brown’s election to the U.S. Senate from Massachusetts in January — a win that broke the Democrats’ 60-vote filibuster-proof majority.

    The conservative Competitive Enterprise Institute seized on the departure of the three companies from USCAP as a sign that “cap-and-trade legislation is dead in the U.S. Congress and that global warming alarmism is collapsing rapidly.”

  30. Judy Sabatini says:

    White House Seeks to Regain Control of Its Message With New Strategy

    By Wendell Goler

    Dan Pfeiffer, the new White House communications director, vows to do a better job of delivering the Obama’s message and says the strategy in 2010 will include a sharper focus on the president’s signature issues and a faster and more aggressive response to Republican attacks.

    Reuters

    Feb. 9: President Obama gives an impromptu news conference in the briefing room of the White House.

    The White House — knocked off balance by a resurgent Republican Party, stagnant poll numbers and partisan gridlock in Congress — is seeking to regain its stride with a new communications strategy.

    Dan Pfeiffer, the new White House communications director, vows to do a better job of delivering the Obama’s message and says the strategy in 2010 will include a sharper focus on the president’s signature issues and a faster and more aggressive response to Republican attacks.

    Obama will spend more time reminding Americans he’s the candidate who promised to change Washington’s toxic ways and will spend more time out of Washington where his message is more warmly received, Pfeiffer said.

    The refined strategy already has been put into effect. Last week, right after a meeting with Republicans, the president conducted his first news conference in six months to make sure the GOP comments to reporters outside the White House didn’t define the day.

    On Sunday, Vice President Biden countered former Vice President Dick Cheney by appearing in two morning news shows instead of waiting until the next day to respond.

    And the president is expected to hit the road at the end of the week.

    Stephen Farnsworth, a communications professor at George Mason University, says the strategy might work.

    “No matter how unpopular a president is, the Congress is still more unpopular than the president,” he said.

    But other experts doubt a new strategy will make a difference.

    It’s hard to make the case that voters don’t know what Obama wants, since he had more prime time news conferences in his first year than any president in history, said Dana Perino, the last press secretary for President George W. Bush.

    Perino thinks the White House’s tone has been too aggressive.

    “I think aggressive tactics is one thing,” she said. “I think a softer tone would be helpful.”

    In the case of health care reform, Farnsworth said the president’s “deference to Capitol Hill” was costly, He thinks the White House gave Republicans an opening that they exploited.

    The Republican insistence that the reforms would be a government takeover drowned out the president’s contention that the reforms are needed to keep future budget deficits in check, he said.

    In his news conference last week, Obama conceded the public’s view of legislative deal making in the debate turned people against the reforms.

    “I think that actually contaminates how they view the substance of the bills,” he said.

    But Perino believes it’s not a matter of packaging. She said Obama spent “most of his political capital on the health care bill when he should have been focusing on jobs.”

    Farnsworth said the overreach was typical.

    “It’s very tempting for an administration to pull all of the levers at the same time and Washington simply cannot work effectively if the president’s attention moves in 10 different directions,” he said.

    Perino also said the White House picked fights it should have left to surrogates, including disputes with Cheney, Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh.

    Sunday’s virtual confrontation between Biden and Cheney served as an example. While Cheney moderated his tone, Biden said Cheney was “either misinformed or misinforming” the American public about the Obama administration’s efforts in the war on terror.

    Farnsworth said a more partisan atmosphere and the Democrats’ lopsided majorities in the House and Senate exacerbate the problem.

    “There are fewer and fewer moderate elected officials,” he said, explaining that for Republicans “there is no downside to opposing the president.”

    Farnsworth suggested likely Republican Congressional gains in the 2010 elections could lead to “more of an environment that is conducive to compromise,” as Republicans have more chance to influence legislation instead of simply blocking it.

    Every president adjusts his ways of dealing with Congress and talking to the American people at some point in his administration, Farnsworth said.

    He said the changes happening in the Obama White House are “something a lot like you saw in the third year of the Clinton presidency or the fourth year of the Bush presidency,” suggesting that the mistakes of the first year aren’t necessarily fatal.

    Perino feels the proof of the pudding will be the 2010 midterm elections. She said the Obama White House both misread the polls before Republican Scott Brown won the Senate seat in Massachusetts previously held by the late Ted Kennedy, and misread the meaning of the win afterward.

    “So where do they go from here is the big question,” Perino said.

  31. Judy Sabatini says:

    Come to think of it, where has Mathius been lately?

%d bloggers like this: