Feb 16 2010

What Has Happened To Man-Made Global Warming?

Mark Landbaum of the Orange County Register lays out a very comprehensive list of problems found to date with the IPCC report. He identifies 19 big problems that have culminated in the dawning public realization that this whole man-made global warming thing is a farce.

I can only add a few more items to his extensive list:

Pachaurigate III: It has been well established that Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, serves on the board  of numerous green companies and organizations and is slated to become as rich as Bill Gates on the CO2 schemes being proposed under the guise of global warming. The green is all about greed it seems.

GISSgate: In response to a freedom of information request NASA’s GISS was required to produce a series of emails, which in turn revealed that (a) NASA admits the current warm period is not historically different from the period around 1921-1950, and (b) that there has been no sign of global warming in North America or the US. How is global warming possible when it is not ‘global’?

Coolergate: The real killer is the global temperature itself, which has been cooling since 2000, and not showing any warming since 1995 – according to Dr Phil Jones, previous head of CRU. In addition, Jones admitted there is no data to overturn the long held scientific theory that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) was as warm or warmer than today. Jones admits lack of data in other regions was used by Mann and others to make up the idea the MWP was cooler, but lack of data is not the same thing as proxies showing cooler temps!

It is a great list to clobber the few die-hard Al Gore groupies with.

Update: I guess we can now add Hurricanegate to the list.

12 responses so far

12 Responses to “What Has Happened To Man-Made Global Warming?”

  1. kathie says:

    So when are politicians going to start reading blogs? Maybe after the BBC and MSM do, would be my guess.

  2. WWS says:

    Kathie, it’ll happen when the people who write blogs start influencing elections – maybe even get elected themselves.

    Not a joke, we’re on the edge of that right now.

  3. OregonGuy says:

    Yet unmentioned, the “private/public” partnerships that will be created in order to save us from carbon.

    What do they call that?

    From CafeHayek:


  4. SwedHumanRights says:

    The Register did a great job. Good additions made by S-S.There is now another gate from my own region: Scandinavia. Please read this at the new blog:


    It may be another smoking gun. Somebody should now gather the cases regarding serious errors in the underlying data sets and draw the conclusions from that. All these cases regarding the consequences not based on peer reviewed studies etc are interesting but not as important as the errors regarding the basic datasets.

  5. SwedHumanRights says:

    Additoin to the earlier post:

    Sorry, the adess should not be in capital letters but as:


  6. crosspatch says:

    I was talking to a gaggle of lefties I met at a weekend retreat, one of whom is fairly active with Greenpeace. They had not heard about Climategate at all. They had no idea that any of this information had come out.

    99% of Americans only know what they hear on the top of the hour radio broadcast on their daily commute. If it isn’t there, they don’t know about it.

  7. Whomever says:

    that’s amazing Crosspatch. I was speaking with a student who considers herself aware the other day. She had never heard of Scott Brown. I know many liberals who know the jokes about Palin but not many who know facts. Not to fully defend Sarah, but . . .

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXL86v8NoGk (5 second video clip)

    this comment is what gave rise to Tina Fey’s joke. This was an interview the afternoon after Sarah saw her first son off to Iraq. She went on to tell Gibson that when Russian planes flew over into US territory from that border that she then as governor would have to deal with them through the US Coast Guard and mediate about the illegal “fly overs.”

    hey – I was a close-minded liberal once myself. you only hear what you wanna hear. same for close-minded conservatives.

  8. OLDPUPPYMAX says:

    NO PROBLEM!! The left can apparently just go back to the global COOLING nonsense it was spouting several decades ago. No doubt THAT”S man made too! I wonder when we’ll see the first “we misinterpreted the data, the earth is really getting COLDER” claims?

  9. crosspatch says:

    Add in another IPCC mistake. See Anthony’s site. Apparently they underestimated sea ice growth in Antarctica by 50%.

  10. WWS says:

    Okay, Gov. Rick Perry (Texas) just won my vote today. I have been very ambivalent about him, and it hasn’t been any one issue – he’s been guv here for 10 years and he’s done plenty to make me unhappy during that time, which is why I was ready to look for someone else.

    But gotta hand it to you Rick, you just sealed the deal for my vote.

    “AUSTIN — Texas ratcheted up its attack on the Obama administration’s environmental policies on Tuesday, filing suit against the EPA over a declaration that could broaden government enforcement of carbon dioxide emissions.

    Gov. Rick Perry, Attorney General Greg Abbott and Agriculture Commissioner Todd Staples announced the lawsuit at a joint news conference to declare that the two-month-old declaration is based on bogus conclusions and could cause billions of dollars of economic damage in Texas.”


  11. del says:

    AJ, The fight for truth is not over by a long shot. See below exchange.


    Climate research lament

    By Chick Keller

    Since the last science update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which said recent warming is due mostly to human emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG), the critics have mounted an awesome pushback with some success.

    As a long time student of the amazing research into climate change, this writer must lament. It has been truly observed that “When ignorance is bliss, ’tis folly to be wise.”

    In short, to the extent that the contrarians are succeeding, they are doing it through misinformation and flat-out incorrect statements, using rhetoric to generate uncertainty and outrage. Often they simply alter graphs or information to show their points (just as they charge incorrectly that others do.) Also they make statements that are true, but then lead the reader to interpret them incorrectly.

    Other times they just lie, as in a piece sent to thousands of scientists looking like a reprint from a journal but really just put together. In this they argue that the sun is doing the warming.

    How do they do this when satellites show average solar activity has not increased in the past 30 years? Easy, they falsify their graph of solar activity showing that its activity increases. Now that’s “fudging the data” to make a point (a charge they make against climate scientists).

    Here I am not including the many good scientists who genuinely think the science is not yet certain enough to support the IPCC’s claims. With them we can have civil discussions, exchanging information and looking for common ground.

    They in fact sometimes provide a service by pointing out areas that need further work. The others are very different. They are modern day gothic writers. They paint a picture of a world that is one of intrigue, conspiracy, fraud, and hoaxes worthy of some of our best fiction writers — great entertainment, but not the truth.

    How do they do it? Americans rightly are concerned lest people with political or other motives bend the truth. The contrarians know only too well how to play on this, and are causing even well-meaning people to be increasingly concerned that the IPCC’s statements are wrong — driven by bad people.

    A recent column in the Monitor (Barbara Smith, “Debate looks like it was manipulated”) is another case in point. It is sad that people who write such pieces seem to get their information chiefly from blogs and the like. We all know you can find anything in them.

    They can make unfounded, incorrect and misleading charges and there is no process that demands they be truthful or correct. Ms. Smith’s piece is unfortunately a classic example of what comes from uncritically not getting the whole story and simply repeating unfounded claims.

    The author seems to be a genuinely concerned person, with whom we would agree, if the charges were correct. They are not. She has been told that the purloined e-mails from the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Center (CRU) prove that nearly all climate researchers are scoundrels involved in a 25-year conspiracy to foist the hoax of human-caused global warming on a gullible world.

    The idea that such a conspiracy could involve hundreds of researchers from tens of countries for over a quarter century ignores any semblance of common sense.

    Nobody is losing their job for questioning the IPCC’s conclusions. Contrarians, when they write good papers, get them published. No hoax, no conspiracy — just humans working very hard to learn as fast as possible what we’re doing to our climate. No wonder climate scientists become exasperated at such stuff.

    Perhaps it’s this exasperation that motivated those CRU emails — in which people seemed to be blowing off steam — writing things they didn’t really believe but never putting them into practice. Have you ever done that?

    But how to counter these purveyors of misinformation? It would take the entire page of this newspaper to begin to explain it. Instead you might want to consult a blog written by climate scientists that attempts to explain the errors in the contrarians’ arguments. One such is called Real Climate.

    Yes, it is another blog, but try it for balance. For example, it has some good discussion of the so-called East Anglia emails, which contrarians take out of context to make their points of fraud and deception.

    In this short piece all I can say is the following: There is no fraud, no hiding of information as anyone who reads the scientific publications can verify.

    So sit back, take a deep breath. Then look at Real Climate and its links to the scientific papers themselves. A bit of work, but otherwise you become a victim of the bloggers.

    Chick Keller was the Director (retired) of the University of California’s Institute of Geophysics and Planetary Physics at Los Alamos National Laboratory.
    My response to above
    Climate Research Lament

    I was extremely disappointed in Chick Keller’s article on climate research. I felt it was one-sided to the extreme. To point out that some criticism of the climate research is being done by some who are not as well informed or truthful as they should be does not excuse the fact that some of the key scientists on the AGW bandwagon have been far from truthful and have themselves manipulated the data and the peer review process. The very fact that the Mann made hockey stick graph ever made it through peer review, is beyond comprehension. Add to that the hysterical claims that we are fast approaching dooms day is not science and it is not backed up by science.

    Chick there is no doubt that we have been in a period of warming since the last little ice age. With that warming just as it has occurred several times in the past, glaciers melt, seas rise, and weather patterns change. Nothing about the present period of warming is beyond the parameters of what we have seen from the records of the past. And yet we have unprecedented calls for all kinds of legislation to “control” the coming disaster. Is this science? Not in my books. Do you really believe that the cause and effect between GHG’s and the recent warming have been scientifically established? Do we really understand the importance of clouds on climate? If so why are they not in the models? How about the effects of Teutonic plate movement on heating of the oceans? Do we have any clues? We know about el nino effects on weather. Do we really understand why el nino’s form?

    You down play those who see the AGW THEORY as an attempt to control lives. I am sure that there are many scientists who came up with the theory and have since tried to prove it who are genuine scientists just seeking for truth. But I have to say that I believe there are some politicians who have latched onto that as yet unproven theory and are manipulating the possible results of that unproven theory for all it is worth to them. All of the recent errors in the IPCC report surely should open some eyes. You will note that none of the errors are on the side of conservatism? The glaciers feeding the water to the farmers in India will soon be gone! The amazon forests will disappear! The islands will be under water! The Africans will starve to death!– and on it goes in sickening hype.

    Your suggestion of getting our facts from “Real Climate” is interesting. I see Real Climate as a very controlled blog. And it is controlled by the very people who tried to control the peer review process for climate change articles. All comments are welcome on Real Climate, as long as you agree with the theory of AGW. If you at all question the science or methods, your comments will not be printed. It is completely one-sided. No open debate. I believe there are many good sources of information on climate change, but Real Climate is not one of them.


    Del Harbur 02/17/2010