There is no doubt this is a sea change year in America. We have seen decades of hyper-partisan failures, where one side or the other is allowed a period to lead and they head as far left or right as they can, trying to reshape America in their own fantasy world of perfection. Ignoring the fact that America’s perfection is in its embrace of peaceful diversity and the power of the individual.

Along the way these hyper partisans diss and moan about the great center of America – the diverse heart and soul of America. They rant about those who don’t want a black or white world, who don’t think we have all the answers, who don’t fall for simpleton solutions to complex problems. Centrists have endured a lot of grief for stopping the fringes from going too far, and for allowing the other side a chance at moderate, center-out leadership when things get out of hand. The message has been clearly repeated for many cycles now. Get back to the center, stop trying to mandate and control everything.

But this merry-go-round of the fringes is about to end. The reality is Americans don’t want to be taken care of, told how to live, told how to act, told how to think. They want to explore their individual pursuit of life, liberty and happiness. They want to explore their religion, they want to explore their personal relationships (preferably privately, away from our children) and they want to explore their creativity and see if they can succeed in the free market (whether it is a widget, a piece of art or a some helpful service). We want to explore our individuality, our personal diversity. We want to break from the norm or the conventional wisdom or the ‘way it has been’. We don’t want DC hyper partisans picking winners or losers, best or worst, good or bad.

We do want the individual to have the right to self determination, and we do want them to live with the consequences of their decisions. We can pool temporary safety nets for hard times. But I think we are all fed up with covering for people who had opportunities and squandered them. Those who worked hard and achieved something are not going to be the ones footing the bills for other people’s mistakes and corruption.

What we are finally realizing is our big centralized, federal government is no longer a protection to our individual exploration of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is a threat to all we hold dear. Over the years BigGov, the Orwellian beast we were warned about in the book Nineteen Eighty Four, has tried to tamp out our differences and make us march to the tune of the current minority in power. The truth is politicians, the news media, their consultants and talking heads of the Political Industrial Complex are a tiny minority of what makes up America. They are NOT the heart soul and drive of America. And they have failed to solve almost all domestic problems (the one exception in my mind is engaging the private sector to provide prescription drug coverage to Medicare).

What we would hopefully see this year as centrists come forward to offer their shot at leadership are plans to dismantle the oppressive BigGov and push power (and creativity to solve problems) back to the states and the people. We do need to pool some money for our national defense, for some national endeavors (like exploring space until it becomes economically sustainable) and to fulfill old commitments like Social Security and Medicare. However, for some of these entitlements the commitment will be short lived and for those who cannot move to the new programs that will replace these outdated behemoths.

I don’t need to have the answers because it will take a generation to undo this mess. All I need to know is the path and the promise to do no harm, force no one to make a choice they do not want to make. I live in a business were we can upgrade to the ‘new’ while supporting those on the ‘old’ until they are ready to move on. We can do this for public policy as well.

If the party plank is to pair back the intrusiveness of government, and the horrendous waste of our money that goes with it, I am all for it. And I think the nation is too.

We need to dismantle much of government. We need to cut taxes and spending so the economy can grow and we can fix our own problems. We need to allow the states to innovate on public policies and services. We can even pool some money to help financially strapped districts or regions to keep up with the innovations, but these pools will be small and only for the very neediest cases.

Whatever we do, we need to do it without the heavy hand of the federal bureaucracy. In this information age we can report data and collect results using small, independent groups (more than two) who review the data and report conclusions and make recommendations. We don’t need bureaucracies and mountains of paper. We need independent eyes who cannot be influenced by money.

States can innovate and experiment. The private sector can innovate, experiment and reap the rewards for themselves, their workers and their communities. Pockets of innovation will replace pockets of economic stress. The central reporting function will just communicate to other regions what is working and how it was implemented, or what was not working and why.

The federal government has become the antithesis of America. We don’t need to take back BigGov, we need to take it apart and get back to the Constitution and limited government.

I feel in my bones this is the new path we will embark on, the phoenix that is going to rise from the liberal failures on job stimulus, Obamacare and global warming. They are shining examples of how BigGov has reached the end of its utility.

We need to remove the political know-it-alls who always come up clueless and get back to living our own lives. We need to stop falling for false promises. We need to do this ourselves, and we need to be freed of BigGov to do it.

Update: I do want to comment on the social conservative movement, which I know is being pushed a bit to the side. As long as we remain within the bounds of respecting each other, I think the religious right has an argument that they are singled out and oppressed too much. There should be public prayer, mangers at Christmas and sharing of their beliefs in school (as all should be shared and expressed). Fighting the oppression of the christian right by the intolerant atheists using government to censor them is a cause I champion, even though I am not religious.

In addition, I am pro-life and yet respect the hard choices some have to make when facing medical issues. I am more worried about stem cell industries growing and slaughtering tens of thousands human beings (who happen to be in the embryonic stage of life) than I am about the mother making a choice on one life. We can help women make better choices, pro life choices. We must stop the raising and slaughtering of humans for spare parts for the rich.

It is when the social conservatives attack other people’s life styles, or they want to replace science with divine mythology in school, that they cross the line. To many of us a liberal touting Global Warming is no better than someone touting Intelligent Design. Neither is science.

I would remind our social conservative friends that they have allies when it comes to fighting the oppression they face. We can respect and recall our judeo-christian roots and the meaning of Christmas and share in their view points. That is the boundary of common ground which unites.

First off is this guest post over at Roger Pielke Jr’s website that analyzes how much of the latest IPCC report (AR4) is based on ‘peer-reviewed’ science vs grey and black references – along with a great definition for these classes of scientific confidence:

Overall only 62% of the references in the IPCC report are actually based on science, the rest are grey or black. But as we all know, not even the science references are all used accurately, or are even accurate themselves.

Next is this interesting post at Harmless Sky by TonyN, which looks at one of the insane tables produced by Working Group 1 of the IPCC. In it (reproduced below) TonyN notes that we find some bizarre, mathematically impossible conclusions drawn that simply emphasize the fact you can point to all the scientific papers you want, and still come up with garbage conclusions:

[A] Phenomenon aand direction of trend	[B] Likelihood that trend occurred in late 20th century (typically post 1960)	[C] Likelihood of a human contribution to observed trend b	[D] Likelihood of future trends based on projections for 21st century using SRES scenarios
[1] Warmer and fewer cold daysand nights over most landareas	Very likely c [>90%]	Likely e >60%	Virtually certaine >99%
[2] Warmer and more frequenthot days and nights overmost land areas	Very likely d >90%	Likely (nights) e >60%	Virtually certaine >99%
[3] Warm spells / heat waves.Frequency increases overmost land areas	Likely >60%	More likely than not f >50%	Very likely >90%
[4] Heavy precipitation events.Frequency (or proportion oftotal rainfall from heavy falls)increases over most areas	Likely >60%	More likely than not f >50%	Very likely >90%
[5] Area affected by droughtsincreases	Likely in many regions since 1970s >60%	More likely than not >50%	Likely >60%
[6] Intense tropical cycloneactivity increases	Likely in some regions since 1970 >60%	More likely than not f >50%	Likely >60%
[7] Increased incidence ofextreme high sea level(excludes tsunamis) g	Likely >60%	More likely than not f, h >50%	Likely I >60%

Just focus in on the line highlighted in red text. What we have is three columns of confidence levels for three hypothesis (none of which are really proven): (a) a measured trend in the climate data, (b) the trend has a human component (of any size, it could be insignificant or dominant, IPCC never explains here), and (c) a guesstimate the human influence will drive a future trend – or at least that is the implication. The title of the column actually is much more general and useless, it simply provides a confidence Earth will experience this same trend again.

If the world is going through a natural cycle, of course we will see these things again!

Anyway, so we look at “[3] Warm spells / heat waves. Frequency increases overmost land areas“. For the globe to be warming, one would think the frequency of warm spells and heat waves would naturally increase. But look at the confidence levels (if these numbers are even the mathematical variety of the term).

It is only 60% likely that there has been an increase in warm spells or heat waves in the 20th century! Only 60%? I thought this was the apocalyptic end result of AGW? Even more so, there is only a 50% confidence this barely perceptible trend is human driven (remember a 50% confidence means it could be or as easily could not be = no evidence either way). If you were combining uncertainties (the 1’s compliment of confidence) we would say there is 40% uncertainty in warming trends being detected and 50% uncertainty (basically zero) it is human driven. This would lead any real scientist (or HS math ace) to conclude there is enormous uncertainty that human induced warm spells will be seen in the future.

But not those crazy folks at the IPCC – they claim there is a 90% certainty of future human induced warm spells! Or is that just warm spells, which would be the only sane (but useless) conclusion?

As I said, you can have all the scientific references in the world and still produce garbage.

Next is this real scientific paper that attempts to use shellfish shells to discern historic climate. It looks like it is going to replace all other proxies because it can actually measure down to the month or less. Interestingly it shows a Roman Warm Period, a Medieval Warm Period, and A Little Ice Age. What does it show for today? Strangely the entire thing stops in the 1800’s. H/T Bishop Hill.

Speaking of real scientific papers, SPPI has this interesting paper out discussing the possible mechanisms behind the divergence of Satellite & Ground temp data. I find its exploration of UHI effects and detail on how wind speed is a huge factor in cooling at night very enlightening. If you want to truly glimpse the complexity of instantaneous and long term climactic forces and drivers, this paper is a bit of an eye opener.

This article up at WUWT demonstrates how unsettled the ’science’ really is. You have one major national climate organization, the National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC), refuting the speculative math used by NASA GISS to smear a few warm thermometers over the entire continent of Antarctica and claim there is warming. What is ’settled’ is no one spent any time fact checking GISS, CRU and IPCC until recently.

And finally I want to end with a picture of the pending corruption that is the natural result of all this green madness (and I mean the money type of ‘green’). This starts in the UK and will make its way around the world Australia. First the UK and the fleecing of its citizens for green greed:

Well-off homeowners will be expected to borrow more than £7bn over the next decade to meet ambitious government energy saving targets announced today.

Local authorities will be encouraged to borrow the money needed to make buildings greener and meet local carbon emission reduction targets, for example by entering into public-private partnerships.

Energy suppliers will be required to meet about 60% of the estimated £18.6bn cost of insulating most of the UK’s homes, for which the poorest households will not have to pay. Suppliers will pass these costs on to their customers, but energy secretary Ed Miliband insisted the targets would not lead to additional utility bill rises.

Energy Secretary Miliband must be using that new math, because there is no way to pass on new costs and not see increased rates. Can you see our Federal government mandating we all pay exorbitant prices to insulate our homes? There is more 3rd grade math to come!

Under legislation proposed today, homeowners would be able to take out loans for thousands of pounds to install loft or wall insulation or solar panels. These loans would be fixed against the home, so that if the borrower moved out, they would not have to continue to pay.

The new owner would inherit the annual charge to pay for the green measures, but would also continue to benefit from the resulting lower energy bills.

Do these people understand it can take a decade or more to recoup some of these investments? And if your house is relatively new it will only marginally change your energy use since you can only do so much in upgrading to a modern, energy efficient home. And if it is older, the cost to get it up to par with modern homes is enormous, thus the long time to recoup the investment. This is just silly madness. And when this doesn’t work they will go to energy rationing and the thermostat police will show up.

This is all ripe for exploitation, as we find in Australia from these posts here and here.

Government needs to stop mandating what products we buy. From health insurance, to home upgrades, to the food we want to eat the nanny state needs to be fired. There is no global melt down, stop picking our pockets and lining yours.

Update: Oops! Almost forgot another set of posts I wanted to highlight. This first post is from The Virtuous Republic and ponders some of the effects of the great thermometer die off in the 1980’s and 1990’s. It is my contention you cannot use one thermometer to represent more than 50 km of any region with any accuracy. The Machiavellian has discovered how GISS has trimmed their sensors to a senseless level. Here is another post from the site on the same topic.

Bottom line, anyone who thinks a thermometer in Florida can give you the temperature in VA is pretty much a fool.

The Swedes wrote into Parliament to clarify (see here at Climate Audit) that they have no issues with data being public at all. The blog Bishop Hill beat me to the punch, but here is the key point of contention between Jones and the Swedes. This is excerpt is from Jones in his request to Sweden:

We stress that the data we hold has arisen from multiple sources, and has been recovered over the last 30 years. Subsequent quality control and homogenisation of these data have been carried out. It is therefore highly likely that the version we hold and are requesting permission to distribute will differ from your own current holdings.

The Swedes quite rightly were against Jones making his processed data available under the guise it was raw Swedish data. There have been numerous posts by skeptics looking at raw data from that region of Europe noting how the raw data does not line up with CRU and IPCC graphs (see here for one example). What is stunning about this letter (original here) is how Jones clearly is trying to put the Swedish label on his data. As Bishop Hill notes there is no restriction on CRU publishing data it has massaged, it just cannot call it raw Swedish data:

t seems clear to me that Jones does not actually require permission from SMHI to release the adjusted data. This, by his own admission, is different to what SMHI holds and there can therefore be no issues of intellectual property.

…

Having being asked for permission to release, SMHI felt they were being asked to endorse Jones’ adjusted figures. Quite properly, they refused. It is clear that they had no objection to Jones releasing his adjusted data provided he made it clear that it was just that: adjusted.

How many other countries caught this apparent subterfuge? Is this the smoking gun that proves the AGW zealots did ‘adjust’ the data to make it appear there was significant warming in the last 50 years?

And if Sweden was one of a handful of countries to detect the con, how many are now cross checking CRU and about to blow this mess wide open?

Addendum: Let me be clear on what I think this could mean. As I noted on Bishop Hill this could be the beginning of a huge data manipulation scandal for IPCC and AGW theory. If CRU has sent out this form letter to all nations providing it data, and they missed the lawyerly CYA language about CRU putting that nation’s moniker on CRU adjusted data, the entire house of cards comes crashing down.

Right about now a lot of people are looking at what the Swedes caught onto and are checking for themselves. If Jones was dumb and arrogant enough to try and pull this con off (and all indications are he is), then a list of nations will be pulling the alarm bells next week on CRU, and therefore IPCC, NCDC, GISS, EPA, etc.

The only reason I can see for Jones to keep the national moniker on the CRU adjusted data is because those ‘adjustments’ are key to AGW surviving. Otherwise why run the risk? This could be the incident that blows the entire scientific fraud wide open. The next few weeks will tell if I am right.

You can make change from DC, but you have to know the culture and the pitfalls. George W Bush was incredibly adept at getting what he wanted. It wasn’t until his party screwed up and lost Congress (they do the spending, not the president and not one fighting two wars), that Bush started to lose his magic. But if you look at his list of accomplishments and their scope, it is impressive.

Team Obama has taken their turn at this right of passage, and continue to fail to get the message. Their list contains a huge number of failures, not successes. Once you get into DC you need to learn that there is no instant power, and you need to adapt quickly. Your amazement with your fantastic ideas will not last long in the gristmill. Humility is a good starting point. Team Obama clearly demonstrates why in their crash from such high hopes.

What team Obama has yet to learn is you need to do two things to control DC:

• Play the power brokers right – which Obama has had some success in to a point, except he let the power brokers play him a bit too much.
• Keep public opinion on your side.

In this time of economic downturn there was one other rule which applied, and that was don’t experiment with untried ideas – and definitely don’t fail with them! On the economy the liberals in DC experimented – and failed. They failed because the relied on government spending, which is a slow, lethargic process. So slow that is why 85+% of the job creating money in the bill is still stuck inside the bowels of the federal government, not stimulating a single job.

The DC liberals should have known this. But they went with their warped liberal fantasy that slow government spending is better than quick and broad tax cuts.

The fact is most top people inside the failing White House still don’t get it!

“Typical Washington junk we have to deal with,” Mr. Axelrod said in an interview. The president is deft at blocking out such noise, he added, suddenly brightening. “I love the guy,” he said, and in the space of five minutes, repeated the sentiment twice.

Critics, pointing to the administration’s stalled legislative agenda, falling poll numbers and muddled messaging, suggest that kind of devotion is part of the problem at the White House.

…

Mr. Axelrod said he accepts some blame for what he called “communication failures,” though he acknowledges bafflement that the administration’s efforts to stimulate the economy in a crisis, overhaul health care and prosecute two wars have been so routinely framed by opponents as the handiwork of a big-government, soft-on-terrorism, politics-of-the-past ideologue.

“For me, the question is, why haven’t we broken through more than we have?” Mr. Axelrod said. “Why haven’t we broken through?”

A better question is why haven’t you woken up and figured out your errors team Obama? Let’s see the evidence for “big government”

• We have the takeover of GM – now “Government Motors”
• We have the forced sale of Chrysler to a foreign automaker
• We have the cash-for-clunkers disaster
• We have a “pay czar” telling banks and investment companies how much they are allowed to pay
• We have socialists running amok planning various ways to take from the successful and distribute their wealth
• We have a bunch of from the Religion of The Green God who want to tax fossil fuels into oblivion, sending this WORLD into economic disaster
• We have liberals who won’t face facts that Americans do not want the government to take over and ration health care (i.e., bend the cost curve down).

We have seen big government work and fail, recently and over our lifetimes. We have also seen the free market engine of this country explore the farthest reaches of space, discover so many medical cures our biggest economic threat is living healthier and longer, and connect the world through the internet like no other civilization on Earth. Not to mention we saw it lift us out of the dark horrors of 9-11.

We know which avenue works best, and it is not letting another group of know-it-alls play God in DC with our lives.

Let’s jump to the ‘politics-of-the-past’ argument. What we are seeing is the liberals playing hyper-partisan politics, shutting out and denigrating their opponents – just like the scientists caught perverting the scientific method and peer-review process in Climategate. What we see is gross vote buying and corruption to the point there seems to be special set of laws for the DC power brokers.

We see DC ignoring the voters. Our democracy is being destroyed by fragile, stubborn egos who cannot realize they too must succumb to the will of the people, or be thrown out on their backsides. We have not only lost faith in the government, it has now become a threat to the pursuit of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Trust me Axelrod, it is getting through on this side. Why is the voice of the people not breaking through your delusional, egotistical heads?

And finally, the soft on terrorism claim. From an administration who banned the term ‘war on terror’ this is rich. For an administration that ignored red flags handed to them by the previous administration on Major Hasan, who pushed to prematurely shutdown investigating this traitor turned “soldier of Allah” that is pretty thick denial. He killed and injured almost 50 people.

For an administration which reset our trip wires to react more cautiously to terrorist leads, to respect freedom of speech beyond sane limits (which means you can say any damn thing you want and these fools would give you a mulligan) this confusion is downright scary.

We lowered our response levels to NSA leads and 300 people nearly exploded over the skies of Detroit. We failed to interrogate the would-be bomber and now some unknown number of radicalized and trained American traitors are trying to enter this country and perform mass murder.

We know these things happened due to changes made by Team Obama. They rejected tax cuts and embraced the liberal fantasy of government spending. They rejected letting the markets work out the recession and instead took control of large segments of our economy.  They rejected our message on health care and continue to plow ahead with a government attack on our private insurance. They changed our posture to terrorist attacks right when al Qaeda adjusted to the liberal mind washing on monitoring and interrogation.

We get it Mr. Axelrod – when will you wake up from liberal fantasy land?

Update: Some similar observations at American Spectator

Update: Steve Hawyward has a must read compendium up at the Weekly Standard, not to mention the above excellent artwork showing the high priest of AGW has no clothes. H/T Powerline.

Update: added link to source article – my bad! - end update

When you have drunk the AGW Kool Aid you see human made global warming everywhere – its like hallucinating on LSD spiked in the Kool Aid. All of sudden winters without much snow are a sign of AGW, winters with record snow are AGW, increased rainfall is AGW, reduced rainfall is AGW, ice falling off one side of Antarctica (near its volcanoes) is AGW, ice growing on the other side is AGW. Earthquakes and tsunamis are AGW, disease and war. It’s quite pathetic really.

Recently a Russian report on methane gas in Siberia came out, and all the Kool Aid drinkers were claiming it was all AGW!

But if one knew what the science was reporting one would see that what we have is more evidence  recent warming is a natural part of the normal Earth cycle. Moreover, much of what we are seeing is the world coming out of the recent Little Ice Age, which supposedly “ended” right before the global temperature record began. I say ’supposedly’ because no one knows when or if we passed ‘the end’. If we assume the ‘end’ was the return to the prior Medieval Warm Period, then we may not have passed ‘the end’ yet. Yes, it is getting warmer since the Little Ice Age – so what?

What we do know is that as the Earth warms from these cold spells it out-gasses. Gases once frozen in the Earth and colder oceans are released as temperatures rise, and that alters the chemical make up of our water and air. Basic chemistry at work here. Why this is a shock to so many PhDs puts into question the quality of some PhDs.

So this study in Siberia discovered one of these geological out-gassing sites producing massive amounts of methane – a much more powerful Green-House Gas (GHG) than little old CO2.

The research results, published in the March 5 edition of the journal Science, show that the permafrost under the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, long thought to be an impermeable barrier sealing in methane, is perforated and is leaking large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.

Or it could not trigger warming. Ice cores show how green house gas production lags temperature increases (click to enlarge):

The blue line is temperature, and the CO2 is clearly rising after the temp rises, sometime 100’s of years after. Again, basic chemistry at work here.

This is not the first time the Earth has warmed and outgassed, it won’t be the last. The report goes on to note some interesting facts that need to be understood:

Methane is a greenhouse gas more than 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide. It is released from previously frozen soils in two ways. When the organic material—which contains carbon—stored in permafrost thaws, it begins to decompose and, under oxygen-free conditions, gradually release methane. Methane can also be stored in the seabed as methane gas or methane hydrates and then released as subsea permafrost thaws. These releases can be larger and more abrupt than those that result from decomposition.

The reasons for my highlights are as follows. The report goes on to show the Siberian Shelf is producing more methane than all the world’s oceans combined. With methane being 30 times stronger than CO2 combined with the theory that GHG is driving the warming (and satellite measurements of heat radiation into space do NOT support this) one has to ponder the role of this large area of methane deposits on climate. Is it the cause of the warming in Eurasia which does not show up in North America (thus not being global)?

There is no proof shown in any of this that the sea-bed has warmed (unless its due to local volcanic action). We don’t have any measurements of the seabed temperature or sea surface anomalies, this study was performed from the air. There is no way to prove this is due to recent warming or has been going on for decades, centuries or millenia.

What we do know from chemistry and physics is this (and why I emphasized the ‘oxygen-free’ note above):

The East Siberian Arctic Shelf, in addition to holding large stores of frozen methane, is more of a concern because it is so shallow. In deep water,methane gas oxidizes into carbon dioxide before it reaches the surface. In the shallows of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, methane simply doesn’t have enough time to oxidize, which means more of it escapes into the atmosphere.

This statement is inaccurate. When the ice covers the region the methane is trapped and produces large amounts of CO2, which moves with ocean currents to open water and escapes. For this region of the word ice cover is clearly a common state (just ask the 1,000 or so people now stuck n the arctic ice).

What we have is a newly discovered geological phenomena of outgassing. It happened before when this region warmed to these temperature levels (which are not unique in historic time). The fact it is happening again is NOT another sign from Al Gore’s Green God that humanity has sinned and must repent its fossil fuels.

Anymore than the Yellowstone giant volcano (which also is out gassing) is due to AGW.

But then you read a historical review of how Jones used to be a scientist and used to followed the method, until it was becoming evident that the core data, algorithms and code laying at the foundation of AGW theory was full of errors and unverifiable, and the picture gets much worse. Only then do you realize how much damage Climategate did to the cadre of global warming alarmists and their ‘fans’.

As part of the UK Parliamentary hearings (wonder when the US media will wake up on this one) submissions were made by the many leading scientific organizations rejecting the corrupt methods and practice of ‘climate science’. That too should be headline news.

First to weigh in was in the Institute of Physics:

The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. Its publishing company, IOP Publishing, is a world leader in scientific publishing and the electronic dissemination of physics.

…

The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself – most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC’s conclusions on climate change.

The IOP is clear: without the scientific method there no science is produced.

The e-mails reveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements.

They go on to remind everyone that the manipulation of data, or the misrepresentation of data, is not science. They have many other concerns, which you can read about. This is the view of a huge scientific organization with a honorable and lengthy history, not some bumbling UN panel of ideologues, activists and politicians.

Then came the Royal Society of Chemistry:

2. The RSC is the UK Professional Body for chemical scientists and an international Learned Society for advancing the chemical sciences. Supported by a network of over 46,000 members worldwide and an internationally acclaimed publishing business, our activities span education and training, conferences and science policy, and the promotion of the chemical sciences to the public.

3. The document has been written from the perspective of the Royal Society of Chemistry. It is noteworthy that the University of East Anglia is a member of the RSC Partnership Scheme, however this in no way constitutes a conflict of interest. The RSC’s Royal Charter obliges it “to serve the public interest” by acting in an independent advisory capacity, and we would therefore be very happy for this submission to be put into the public domain.

…

6. The dissemination of scientific information is central to progressing scientific developments, as it is based on a sound knowledge of preceding research.[1] Access to reliable, up-to-date information is vital to advancing research and enabling the discovery or development of solutions to global issues. Sharing information is especially important in multi-disciplinary research, where progress is very much dependent on willing and effective communication between different speciality areas.

7. It is also imperative that scientific information is made available to the wider community for scrutiny: the validity and essence of research relies upon its ability to stand up to review. In fact, advances in science frequently occur when the prevailing view is challenged by informed scepticism, this is fundamental to the scientific method and should be encouraged, even if controversial. The RSC firmly believes that the benefits of scientific data being made available and thus open to scrutiny outweigh the perceived risks. To this end, scientific information should be made available on request as outlined in the Freedom of Information Act. Furthermore, research needs to be presented in an accurate and reliable manner in the correct context in order to optimise this process. It may also be necessary to incorporate an independent auditing system into peer review with the ability to demand access to raw data sets to ensure best practices are being adhered to.

Clearly this organization also is rejecting the claims of Phil Jones and the other scientists at the core of the IPCC alarmists who have refused to subject their claims to validation and test.

Then came the Royal Statistical Society:

The Royal Statistical Society (RSS) is the UK’s only professional and learned society devoted to the interests of statistics and statisticians. Founded in 1834 it is also one of the most influential and prestigious statistical societies in the world. The Society has members in over 50 countries worldwide and is active in a wide range of areas both directly and indirectly pertaining to the study and application of statistics. It aims to promote public understanding of statistics and provide professional support to users of statistics and to statisticians.

…

4. The RSS believes that the debate on global warming is best served by having the models used and the data on which they are based in the public domain. Where such information is publicly available it is possible independently to verify results. The ability to verify models using publicly available data is regarded as being of much greater importance than the specific content of email exchanges between researchers.

5. The position of the RSS regarding public dissemination of scientific data is that where the results of scientific analyses have been published or are otherwise in the public domain, the raw data, and associated meta-data, used for these analyses should, within reason, also be made available.

…

9. More widely, the basic case for publication of data includes that science progresses as an ongoing debate and not by a series of authoritative and oracular pronouncements …

That last line is especially refreshing and should remind everyone that Al Gore and the UN’s IPCC are not scientific bodies, and they cannot direct or determine scientific consensus. As is this line from the same citation:

It is well understood, for example, that peer review cannot guarantee that what is published is ‘correct’. The best guarantor of scientific quality is that others are able to examine in detail the arguments that have been used and not just their published conclusions. It is important that experiments and calculations can be repeated to verify their conclusions. If data, or the methods used, are withheld, it is impossible to do this.

Peer-review does not bestow correctness or fact to a claim. The UN IPCC and others have found this out the hard way. A scientific fact, like gravity, evolves out of the challenges of skeptics who determine independently the robustness of a theory. Speculative theories, like AGW and the origin of the Moon have supporting and conflicting evidence as theories come and go. They are not ‘facts’ like gravity, which has been established to the point it is a law of physics.

AGW is unfounded and unproven speculation. It will continue to fall under the scrutiny of skeptics and the reality of the real world as it continues on its path, ignorant of the arrogance of mankind. And this should be the story of the century, if there were any real journalists still plying that dying trade.

Update: More on this at WUWT

Update: And more here at Hot Air

A seven-month-old girl miraculously survived alone for three days after one of her parents shot her in the chest – apparently as part of a bizarre murder-suicide pact blamed on global warming.

The baby was discovered with a bullet casing in her chest and covered with blood by police in the Argentinean city of Goya, near the bodies of her parents and 2-year-old brother, the Latin American Herald reported Saturday.

Police broke into the home after neighbors complained of a stench coming from the house. The boy was found with a gunshot wound in his back, while his parents died from gunshot wounds to the chest.

The parents, 56-year-old Francisco Lotero and 23-year-old Miriam Coletti, are believed to have been spurred by their fears about global climate change, London’s Telegraph reported.

These arrogant, self centered elitists with delusions of grandeur have been acting out the equivalent of crying ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre, and now they have the tragic result of such reckless actions.  It has gone beyond suborning the scientific process, resisting FOI requests and altering data. It has now gone to the more serious crime of reckless endangerment.

I cannot fathom what kind of ego it takes to keep claiming the end of the Earth is coming based on the crappy science, math and code demonstrated by CRU, GISS, NCDC and the IPCC. But I can demand the perpetrators of this con be held accountable, and be banned from the public debate.

Watch as former CRU head Phil Jones claims climate scientists do not do real science, they are too superior to be bothered with cross checks and scrutiny.

Inhofe has her on the record noting US action alone will not impact CO2 levels. But moreover, NASA GISS is on the record noting that THERE IS NO AGW detected in America. If the Dems and EPA are going to use US government agencies as their guidance, then they better know what these AGW alarmist are ACTUALLY saying. No AGW in America and they do not expect to see any for 2-4 decades!

And NASA GISS also noted that this current decade is not statistically warmer than any other decade. The Dems are now trapped by their own illogic.

I really hope these people are reading the blogs!

Update: Bernie Sanders has gone hysterical. He clearly does not have the education to determine what science is valid or invalid. He just compared AGW to Hitler and Nazis. You know what they say when you invoke Hitler – you are in over your head on a topic you can barely grasp.

The Dems are trying to claim we should look at CO2 as a way to reduce reliance on foreign oil. But of course that is a clear attempt to lie to America – on the record! CO2 is not a poison or pollutant. And it is not tied to the level of oil imported.

Clearly these people have lost their minds, making up any excuse to push liberal policies.

Update: What a snoozer. It is amazing how much ignorance can be displayed by these underwhelming ‘leaders’ in 2 hours. AGW fanatics who struggled through HS science and math are pretending to be able to mediate scientific debate. It really is an amazing display of ignorance. It is hard to believe the intelligent and motivated people of America have such nimrods in Congress. Lord save this great nation.

Final Update: (previous updates at the end) I am listening in on the hearings and I can tell you the Democrats are a pretty ignorant lot, which explains why they are so gullible on AGW. Senator Udall blathered on about ’super computers’, as if processing power guarantees accurate results. Ugh!

Good news: The EPA has decided to delay any ‘restrictions’ until next year, which will bring in a new Congress and bring the EPA back on track. I might live blog the hearings if I hear something interesting. If I do I will start a new post. – end update

There is going to be some interesting developments today in the Senate regarding the debunked theory of man-made global warming. Senator Inhofe is going to be releasing a minority report very soon, prior to a 10 AM session with the EPA on their silly endangerment finding (they claim EPA must control Green House Gases as a pollutant, thought the top GHG is water vapor – a.k.a clouds!).

Inhofe has the outline of the report up which looks quite interesting. It reviews the CRU emails and data files leaked and reviews how the ’settled’ science was all a mirage made by manipulating data, the peer review process and what the IPCC would allow reported.

It then takes an interesting twist about the regulations surrounding federal contracting and grants:

The released CRU emails and documents display potentially unethical, and illegal, behavior. The scientists appear to discuss manipulating data to get their preferred results. On several occasions they appear to discuss subverting the scientific peer review process to ensure that skeptical papers had no access to publication. Moreover, there are emails discussing unjustified changes to data by federal employees and federal grantees.

These and other issues raise questions about the lawful use of federal funds and potential ethical misconduct. Discussed below are brief descriptions of the statutes and regulations that the Minority Staff believe are implicated in this scandal. In our investigation, we are examining the emails and documents and determining whether any violations of these federal laws and policies occurred.

The public trust in spending our tax dollars has been codified over the years in a maze of rules, regulations and laws. They were designed to stop fraud and abuse, but they do apply to all activities.

I look forward to what they have found. One thing the AGW scientists are about to learn is that once you make the big leagues, you have to survive the proper scrutiny and quality tests. And if you fail, you will be crucified in public. All these jet setting arrogant know-it-alls (how they wish!) are now going to face a real test.

And if I were working for NASA GISS or NCDC, I would be watching how this unfolds very carefully. If it goes as I suspect, we will see some more ‘confessions’ by people not caught up on the zealotry of AGW religion.

Update: Ed Morrissey has an interview with Senator Inhofe over at Hot Air.

Update: Reader Tarpon notes there is a 2001 Data Quality Act which is probably going to be one of those legal levers used to expose the shoddy math behind AGW:

Congress enacted the DQA primarily in response to increased use of the internet, which gives agencies the ability to communicate information easily and quickly to a large audience. Under the DQA, federal agencies must ensure that the information it disseminates meets certain quality standards. Congress’ intent was to prevent the harm that can occur when government websites, which are easily and often accessed by the public, disseminate inaccurate information. See Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality, Objectivity, Utility, and Integrity of Information Disseminated by Federal Agencies; Republication, 67 F.R. 8452, 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002).

…

The agency must present the information in the proper context and identify the source (to the extent possible consistent with confidentiality protections) along with the supporting data or models so that the public can assess for itself whether there may be some reason to question the objectivity of the sources. Id. Second, the substance of information disseminated must be accurate, reliable and unbiased. Id. Agencies must identify the sources of the disseminated information, the methods used to produce it, and provide full, accurate, and transparent documentation. 67 F.R. at 8460. Sound statistical research methods must be used to generate original and supporting data and develop analytical results. Id. at 8459. Data subjected to formal, independent, external peer review, is presumed to be of acceptable objectivity, although such a presumption is rebuttable. Id.

Yep, that should do it.

Update: More here at PJM

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.

Professor Jones also conceded for the first time that the world may have been warmer in medieval times than now. Sceptics have long argued the world was warmer between 800 and 1300AD because of high temperatures in northern countries.

Climate change advocates have always said these temperatures cannot be compared to present day global warming figures because they only apply to one specific zone.

Emphasis mine. First off, the current ‘warming’ is not global either, it is only seen in specific zones. It is evident in Europe and Africa, it is not evident in the Pacific or North America. But even worse is the idea a local effect (which Jones admits is seen in all across the Northern Hemisphere in proxy records) that lasts 500 years can’t be global! I mean really, did the ice melt and waters rise only in the Northern hemisphere? If something effects an entire hemisphere (half the globe) for 500 years its global.

Jones admits there is no record of the MWP in other areas because there are too few temperature proxies from that period for those areas. In other words they don’t know one way or the other. A lack of data does not mean you get to make up any old damn assumption you wish and pawn it off as science. If I said there is no evidence of human mind reading, therefore it exists, people would be rightfully skeptical.

For some reason, much of the planet put their brains in neutral when it came to warming alarmists and their tissue of deceit.

Update: Speaking of the scientifically challenged liberal media, the Washington Post comes out with a stunning propaganda piece trying to shore up the alarmists – and fails miserably because it is so transparently wrong. Let’s begin with the subtitle:

Series of missteps by climate scientists threatens climate-change agenda

It should read “Series of unscientific claims destroys false image of ’settled science’, CRU head concurs”. But you know these journalists who struggled through high school math and science – they are geniuses in their own minds. Let me show how much so:

But recent revelations about flaws in that seminal report, ranging from typos in key dates to sloppy sourcing, are undermining confidence not only in the panel’s work but also in projections about climate change. Scientists who have pointed out problems in the report say the panel’s methods and mistakes — including admitting Saturday that it had overstated how much of the Netherlands was below sea level — give doubters an opening.

Typos? The cries that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was no typo – people within the IPCC tried to get that fixed. It was a deliberate lie. How do you typo the claim Africa is going to lose 50% of its food production in 10 years? Is that ’sloppy’ sourcing (i.e., using green propaganda and claiming it is peer reviewed science)? These now proven false and unscientific claims did not give us math and science savvy skeptics an opening – it proved we were right.

There is still a scientific consensus that humans are causing climate change. But in the past year, a cache of stolen e-mails, revealing that prominent climate scientists sought to prevent the publication of works by their detractors, has sullied their image as impartial academics.

Talk about your delusional denial! If there was a consensus, why would these ‘impartial’ academics (whose entire careers and revenue sources rely on said consensus) need to prevent publication of countervailing science by other scientists? How can you have consensus and the need to suppress opposing science? Do these people even know how biased they have now shown themselves to be?

The errors in the U.N. report — a document intended to be the last nail in the coffin of climate doubt — are a serious problem that could end up forcing environmentalists to focus more on the old question of proving that climate change is a threat, instead of the new question of how to stop it.

Yeah, in science you have to prove your claims and survive review – and that review is NOT limited to the lousy peer review of science journals. When you move from abstract theory to affecting human lives the review process gets very real and very stringent – as it should. You don’t have a theory about a new airplane wing design and then just throw it on a Boeing or Airbus plane full of people. You don’t take a theoretical new drug and just start selling it to people.

The laziness of the alarmists is only matched by their pathetic math and science.

Last week, Barrasso called for anindependent probe into the IPCC, suggesting that the United States should halt any action on climate until it verifies the panel’s scientific conclusions.

Absolutely – anyone planning on wasting billions of hard earned American tax dollars should not rely on journalists majors who struggled through math and science in public schools to determine whether the science behind the boondoggle is sound (forget ‘consensus’ – the consensus once was the Sun orbited the Earth and there were no such things as tectonic plates).

The IPCC climate assessments are, by any standard, a massive undertaking. Thousands of scientists across the globe volunteer to evaluate tens of thousands of academic documents and translate them into plain-English reports that policymakers can understand.

Pure claptrap. It has been ADMITTED by the IPCC folks themselves that they are a political propaganda machine which wraps its claims around scientific theories – almost all of which are unproven and have produced failed predictions. They admit they do not do science.

Climate researchers say the errors do not disprove the U.N. panel’s central conclusion: Climate change is happening, and humans are causing it.

Well duh – why would those who screwed up the science and are making buko bucks on it admit the screwed up? That’s like saying a thief claims he did not steal all the stolen goods found in his car.

This is pure propaganda coming from a company (the Washington Post) that should know better. But apparently they want their corporate credibility to go down the tubes with the serial exaggerators at the IPCC.

Update: You can read Ed Morrissey’s take on the WaPo disaster here.

Yet here we are, with one more IPCC dire prediction of pending doom destroyed on the altar of REALITY!

Ever more question marks have been raised in recent weeks over the reputations of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and of its chairman, Dr Rajendra Pachauri. But the latest example to emerge is arguably the most bizarre and scandalous of all. It centres on a very specific scare story which was included in the IPCC’s 2007 report, although it was completely at odds with the scientific evidence – including that produced by the British expert in charge of the relevant section of the report.

…

One of the most widely quoted and most alarmist passages in the main 2007 report was a warning that, by 2020, global warming could reduce crop yields in some countries in Africa by 50 per cent. Dr Pachauri not only allowed this claim to be included in the short Synthesis Report, of which he was co-editor, but has publicly repeated it many times since.

Emphasis mine. Now this is a serious and dire warning. This is akin to screaming fire in a theatre. if Africa lost 50% of its food production capacity there would be mass famine, death and violence. Thankfully, this claim is about as real as Star Trek transporter beams:

The nearest any got to providing evidence for his claim was one for the Moroccan government, which said that in serious drought years, cereal yields might be reduced by 50 per cent. The report for the Algerian government, on the other hand, predicted that, on current projections, “agricultural production will more than double by 2020″.

Down by half, up by twice. Can’t both be true. There are reports that the Sahara has been greening again due to increased rainfall (evidence shows the Sahara transitions from desert to lakes on something like a 12,000 year cycle due to a wobble in the Earth’s orbit). So we know the DATA shows indicates the IPCC dire claims are bunk. Peddling bunk usually destroys credibility:

A LEADING British government scientist has warned the United Nations’ climate panel to tackle its blunders or lose all credibility.

Robert Watson, chief scientist at Defra, the environment ministry, who chaired the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 1997 to 2002, was speaking after more potential inaccuracies emerged in the IPCC’s 2007 benchmark report on global warming.

The most important is a claim that global warming could cut rain-fed north African crop production by up to 50% by 2020, a remarkably short time for such a dramatic change. The claim has been quoted in speeches by Rajendra Pachauri, the IPCC chairman, and by Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary-general.

This weekend Professor Chris Field, the new lead author of the IPCC’s climate impacts team, told The Sunday Times that he could find nothing in the report to support the claim. The revelation follows the IPCC’s retraction of a claim that the Himalayan glaciers might all melt by 2035, dubbed ‘Glaciergate’ by commentators.

All false alarms. So how many times do the alarmist cry ‘wolf!’ before we ignore them for good?

In a BBC Q&A and corresponding interview released Friday, the discredited Climategate conspirator revealed a number of surprising insights into his true climate beliefs, the most shocking of which was that 20^th-century global warming may not have been unprecedented.  As the entire anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory is predicated on correlation with rising CO2 levels, this first-such confession from an IPCC senior scientist is nothing short ofearth-shattering

BTW, these updates are running latest at the top, earliest at the bottom.

Update: Andrew Bolt has the best summary of Phil Jones’ retreat and undermining of the ’settled’ science of man-made global warming:

Update: The crumbling of man-made global warming is accelerating today:

The United Nations climate panel faces a new challenge with scientists casting doubt on its claim that global temperatures are rising inexorably because of human pollution.

…

Terry Mills, professor of applied statistics and econometrics at Loughborough University, looked at the same data as the IPCC. He found that the warming trend it reported over the past 30 years or so was just as likely to be due to random fluctuations as to the impacts of greenhouse gases. Mills’s findings are to be published in Climatic Change, an environmental journal.

And there is more breathless reporting here:

Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.

I see an avalanche of bad news coming for the alarmists. - end update

The climategate leak of emails, date and code from the UK’s Climactic Research Unit (CRU) last fall continues to ripple destruction through the man-made global warming ’settled’ science. One of the most interesting exchanges captured in the emails from the late 1990’s, leading up to the IPCC report in 2000 (AR3?), was the battle between Keith Briffa of CRU and Michael Mann, the hockey stick maker.  I used this exchange as possible evidence that Keith Briffa may have been the person at CRU whose conscience got the best of him and exposed the climategate data to the world.

Here is Briffa reminding everyone that Mann’s fudged data is not conclusive and that CRU’s data clearly indicates there were past periods of similar or even higher warmth than the present day:

‘I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more”.’ …  ‘In reality the situation is not quite so simple – I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago.’

There are a lot more exchanges in the emails that illustrate how Mann’s ‘trick’ of overlaying raw data on top of tree ring estimates was not science but fantasy, and that CRU had study results that confirmed the previous warm periods, the best know of which is the Medieval Warm Period (MWP):

Even allowing for the reduction in the number of represented sites before 1400 (ECS Fig. 2d), and the reduction in overall sample size (ECS Fig. 2b), there is still some evidence for significantly above average growth during two intervals that can be plausibly assigned to the MWP.

…

In any case, the replication in the MWP of the ECS chronology is at least as good as in other published tree-ring estimates of large-scale temperatures (e.g., NH extra-tropical) covering the past 1000+ years.

I remind people of this context of the so called ’settled’ science because the tarnished ex-head of the CRU has come out and made an admission which completely destroys the foundation of man-made global warming theories:

But he [Dr. Phil Jones] agreed that two periods in recent times had experienced similar warming. And he agreed that the debate had not been settled over whether the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than the current period.

These statements are likely to be welcomed by people sceptical of man-made climate change who have felt insulted to be labelled by government ministers as flat-earthers and deniers.

My, my – unsettled science. Whodathunkit! And Jones admits this is a global warm period, not isolated to only some regions (like today’s warming, which is not really global and has not been detected in North America).

There is a companion piece at BBC that covers the exact Q&A for the articles (H/T Bishop Hill). It is an illustration in cherry picking question in order to deny the counter evidence. The BBC makes sure to only ask about warming periods at first, dodging all the intervening cool periods.

Then they ask Jones about the recent cooling over the last 12 years, and Jones claims HIS arbitrary line of ’significance’ (over 12 years) means the cooling exists, but is not significant. It’s a really lame dodge.

The fact is we are learning that the period 1990-2009 is not much warmer than 1925-1950. If the BBC had asked the question “is the current period from 1990-2009 significantly warmer than the period 1925-1950?” Jones would have had to answer with ‘no’. Because it is not any warmer now than back then (statistically speaking).

In fact, NASA GISS is on record noting that the ten warmest years are spread throughout the last century and are all statistically tied for warmest year. Because of the margin of error in global indexes, there is no way to determine which of the following years are warmer than the others. For the earlier period these are the warmest years in the top ten: 1921, 1931, 1934, 1938, 1939 – 5 all told. For the latter it is: 1990, 1998, 1999, 2006 – which is 4. And then there is the outlier 1953. These all have a temperature index that are statistically the same – and it proves there is not ’significant’ reason warming, which blows the AGW theory right out of the water. As I said before, someone call the EPA and Al Gore, their reputations are collapsing.

This is why fools like Chris Mathews who go on TV claiming 2006 was the warmest year on record are simply demonstrating their poor math skills and general ignorance. NASA GISS is adamant that none of these years can be deemed warmer than the others, even if the computed index is a tenth of a degree or so higher than the others (actually, the margin of error limit is nearly .5°C).

So what have we learned since climategate? We have learned that the current warm period is not only stalled but has been cooling. We have learned that statistically it is no warmer now than a 70 years ago, before the huge increase in human CO2 production. And thanks to Dr Phil Jones finally being honest about the science, we know there is no scientific proof today is any warmer than the two previous warm periods (Medieval and Roman) that have been established science for a couple hundred years now.

And they call us skeptics deniers!

Jeff Id at Air Vent has an excellent post up by some researchers who have started to demonstrate this is in fact the source of three major climate engines on Earth, research snuffed out the by elitist snobs who support the AGW nonsense:

In gist, Smoot and Leybourne noted that each high pressure (HP) and low pressure (LP) cells of the three global oscillation systems that control the world weather are underlain by typical geological structures with vortex geometry and with other typical geomorphological and geophysical characteristics. (Surge Tectonics had already recognized these vortex structures as something not explicable by the mainstream geodynamic concept, the plate tectonics.) Thus, the best studied Southern Oscillation, with which El Niňo is associated, has its HP cell hovering over Easter and Juan Fernandez Islands (two adjacent islands on the East Pacific Rise) and LP cell over the Banda Sea (Indonesia) in the western Pacific Ocean. North Pacific Oscillation (NPO) controlling North American weather patterns, and the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) controlling European and Siberian weather patterns have a similar underlying geology. In the background of then existing observations by seismologist Daniel Walker — pointing to increased tectonic activity (seismicity, magma upwelling and hydrothermal venting) along portions of the East Pacific Rise preceding by up to six months each El Niňo event studied from 1964 to 1997-98 (thus termed “Predictors of El Niño”) — the observations of Smoot and Bruce made an interesting connection for us. We made an attempt to explore this connection with the study of the European heat wave of 2003, and found some apparent confirmation. We argued for deepening the frontier of climate research to see if sun’s magnetic field via Earth’s Core-mantle boundary processes is somehow linked to climate modulation. However, several proposals for funding by Bruce to explore this link didn’t succeed get us pass through the climate establishment camp guards.

The studies are linked by Jeff in the post. This makes a lot more sense if you understand the power required to heat water even by fractions of degrees. And it means that solar system wide dynamics which play out as features in the planet’s mantle are probably the engine behind warming and cooling, ice ages and warm periods, than anything humankind can impact on this massive planet.

It makes sense, since all the warming and cooling cycles are linked to the oscillation currents in the oceans (which dwarf the land masses 3-1, of which we humans only inhabit a portion of that). It has been shown over and over that tracking the oscillation patterns can indicate what the climate will do for years ahead (unlike IPCC predictions which are 100% wrong all the time). And it makes sense that these oscillations are driven by something much larger and subtle and slower than humans are used to grasping.

Now this is science! And it is a crime this work is being silenced by the cult of IPCC/Al Gore.