Thread: To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here

CFACT

The U.K. put up an infographic showing the footprint of so-called "renewables" vs. a proposed nuclear plant, then pulled it when those reaping £ billions from subsidies deemed it "unhelpful."

The facts you can't handle? Footprint to power 6 million homes:

Wind 250,000 acres
Solar 130,000 acres
Nuclear 430 acres

Share the facts at CFACT.org: http://www.cfact.org/2013/11/02/u-k-...vs-renewables/

CFACT

Climate change was absent from the presidential debate. With the public wise to the scam the candidates, moderator and town hall participants all chose other issues as more important.


Side Bar: A WHOLE Bunch of people need to be locked the hell up behind BARS for this Monumental Money Laundering SCAM

CFACT

Are we planning to fail?

80 billion dollars to green energy from the stimulus. 8 billion ends up in bankruptcy. 39 companies go under, 1900 lawsuits, and 600 convictions. Oh yes another greenie went bankrupt, A123 Batteries.

CFACT


CFACT Europe

http://www.climatedepot.com/.../AlGo...Gore-Takes-100...

AlGorjeera: Gore Takes $100 Million Of Big Oil: Gore 'takes $100 million in cash from Big Oil (after

climatedepot.com

Environmental news and analysis.

CFACT

Graph shows high electricity costs in EU countries that have invested heavily in solar, wind and renewable forms of power. US fares better ... for now. (Source: UK's Dept. of Energy and Climate Change "Quarterly Energy Prices," December 2012)

CFACT

A Secretary of State who out Gore's, Gore? Share if this is cause for concern.

CFACT


CFACT Considering the most recent is not cherry picking. It's current. Contrast Michael Mann trying to wipe out the most recent years when they did not fit his narrative.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/.../michael-manns-new-trick.../


Michael Mann's new 'trick', pulled off at the American Geophysical Union Convention - exposed by McI

wattsupwiththat.com

Mike’s AGU Trick By Steve McIntyre There has been considerable recent discussion of the fact that observations have been running cooler than models – see, for example, Lucia’s discussion of IPCC AR...


Another Side Bar: What you witnessed was from the Democrat Party and the "Democrat Party" ONLY .... in basic terms it was and still is

Extortion
Bribery
Racketeering
Attempted Money Laundering
Falsifying Data for monetary gain
and a SLEW of other Charges

All 50 States Attorney Generals need to start the Grand Jury's

9 December 2013
Last updated at 18:07 ET

Coldest spot on Earth identified by satellite

By Jonathan Amos Science correspondent, BBC News, San Francisco



Antarctica's dry and clear conditions allow heat to be radiated very efficiently out into space

The coldest place on Earth has been measured by satellite to be a bitter minus 93.2 Celsius (-135.8F).
As one might expect, it is in the heart of Antarctica, and was recorded on 10 August, 2010.
Researchers say it is a preliminary figure, and as they refine data from various space-borne thermal sensors it is quite likely they will determine an even colder figure by a degree or so.
The previous record low of minus 89.2C was also measured in Antarctica.
This occurred at the Russian Vostok base on 21 July, 1983.
It should be stated this was an air temperature taken a couple of metres above the surface, and the satellite figure is the "skin" temperature of the ice surface itself. But the corresponding air temperature would almost certainly beat the Vostok mark.
"These very low temperatures are hard to imagine, I know," said Ted Scambos from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colorado.
"The way I like to put it is that it's almost as cold below freezing as boiling water is above freezing. The new low is a good 50 degrees colder than temperatures in Alaska or Siberia, and about 30 degrees colder than the summit of Greenland.
"It makes the cold snap being experienced in some places in North America right now seem very tame by comparison," he told BBC News.
Dr Scambos was speaking here in San Francisco at the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting, the largest annual gathering of Earth scientists.
'Like pearls'He and colleagues have been examining the data records from polar orbiting satellites stretching back some 30 years.
They find the coldest moments in Antarctica occur in the dark winter months at high elevations, where the extremely dry and clear air allows heat to be radiated very efficiently out into space.
It is evident that many super-cold spots are "strung out like pearls" along the ridges that link the high points, or domes, in the interior of the continent.
They are not quite at the ridge crests, but set slightly back down the slope.
"Air chilled near the surface flows downhill because it's denser; and it flows into these very shallow topographic pockets," explained Dr Scambos.
"If you were standing in one of these places, you'd hardly notice you were in a topographic low - it's that gentle and that shallow. But it's enough to trap this air.


The 2010 cold spot (red) was just south of a ridge running between Dome A and Dome F

"And once in those pockets, the air can cool still further and get down this extra three or four degrees below the previous record air temperature in Vostok."
The cold pockets run in a line for hundreds of kilometres between Dome Argus [Dome A] and Dome Fuji [Dome F]. They all achieve more or less the same low temperature between minus 92C and minus 94C. The minus 93.2C figure is the temperature event in which the team has most confidence. It was recorded at a latitude of 81.8 degrees South and a longitude of 59.3 degrees East, at an elevation of about 3,900m.
Hottest placeOne of the spacecraft instruments being used in the study is the Thermal Infrared Sensor on the recently launched Landsat-8.
It has very high resolution, but because it is so new the team says more time is needed to fully calibrate and understand its data.
"I'd caution Guinness not to take this result and put it in their world record book just yet, because I think the numbers will probably adjust over the coming year," Dr Scambos told BBC News. "However, I'm now confident we know where the coldest places on Earth are, and why they are there."
By way of comparison, the hottest recorded spot on Earth - again by satellite sensor - is the Dasht-e Lut salt desert in southeast Iran, where it reached 70.7C in 2005.
The coldest place in the Solar System will likely be in some dark crater on a planetary body with no appreciable atmosphere. On Earth's Moon, temperatures of minus 238C have been detected.
Jonathan.Amos-INTERNET@bbc.co.uk and follow me on Twitter:@BBCAmos

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25287806

Why have scientists stopped doing science?

By James Delingpole Environment Last updated: December 9th, 2013
1398 Comments

Hasta la vista, toady

Recently I've acquired a second career poisoning the minds of the young in schools. Even in the very posh ones, there's always an element which is mildly appalled that someone like me has been allowed anywhere near their precious charges. Science departments, I find, are particularly resistant and I quite understand why. Being mostly Guardian readers they have this caricature image in their heads of what James Delingpole is like: he's a wanton controversialist; he's anti-science; he's a denier in the pay of Big Oil who harasses all those wonderful principled scientists doing their best to warn us of impending climate disaster before it's too late….
When they see me in the flesh and hear what I've got to say, I think they feel a bit disappointed – not least because they realise that I believe in many the same things they do: stuff like empiricism, integrity, evidence, rigour and the scientific method. What they usually can't quite bring themselves to believe though is that I might actually be right.
Why can't they? Because to do so what would require them to accept that the discipline in which they have trained and to which they have chosen to dedicate their careers is riddled with corruption. Being told this by an arts graduate must be especially galling. Far easier – and again I really don't blame them for this perfectly natural response – to rely, as so many scientists do, on the Appeal to Authority and resist at all costs any ideas that don't fit into the "consensus" paradigm.
I mention this by way of introduction to an essay you might enjoy which I wrote recently in The Spectator. It's on the death of Costa Rican golden toad which, not unlike the polar bear, has been co-opted by environmental scientists as one of the poster children for their ongoing campaign to demonstrate that man-made climate change is the greatest threat the world has ever known.
What it shows very clearly – and I'm indebted to Jim Steele for drawing my attention to it in his excellent book Landscapes and Cycles: an Environmentalist's Journey to Climate Skepticism – is the extent to which disparate fields are being corrupted by a worldwide outbreak of activism-driven science.
We saw in the Climategate emails what this creeping politicisation has done to fields like palaeoclimatology, meteorology and atmospheric physics. But by no means does it end there. It has poisoned everything from polar bear research and the work of the British Antarctic Survey to the study of amphibian extinctions in Costa Rica, glaciers in the Himalayas, and corals on the Barrier Reef.
After Watermelons, I really didn't want to write another book about environmentalism. But once you've begun to appreciate the grotesque scale of the problem – which extends far far beyond climate change to issues like the misguided green campaigns against silviculture, GM crops, cattle grazing, and so on – you end up feeling so angry and disgusted you want to speak out and warn the rest of the world just how many terrible, counterproductive, dishonest, destructive campaigns are being conducted behind a cloak of environmental righteousness. As I argued in Watermelons – and as I amplify in the books mentioned below – these have rather less to do with saving the planet than they do with the ongoing war by a shrill but powerful and scarily influential minority on Western Civilisation.
This is why I have written The Little Green Book of Eco Fascism which you can buy from Regnery in the US and is shortly to be published in the UK by Biteback. It goes without saying that these handy A to Zs of eco lunacy are not only perfect Christmas presents for the evil, Big-Oil-funded climate denier in your life but also ideal tools for annoying the hell out of greenies.
As always I welcome criticisms of these books which are based on facts. For example, if you want to demonstrate to me that the Spotted Owl is not an "endangered fantasy creature" dreamed up by green campaigners to close down the forestry industry in the Pacific Northwest, then I would dearly love to see your evidence. If, on the other hand, the best case you can muster is that James Delingpole is a wanton, anti-science controversialist whose snarky disrespect towards grant-troughing junk scientists you find distasteful, well, let's just say I see this non-argument rehearsed pretty much every day by one or two of the foaming, bedsit losers who troll this blog and I'm not sure it would have cut much ice with Einstein, Newton, Darwin, Watson and Crick or indeed the Royal Society as it was in the days when it could muster a shred of scientific credibility.

Tags: Costa Rica, golden toad, Jim Steele, Little Green Book of Eco Fascism,polar bear, Watermelons

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...doing-science/

December 10, 2013 By Paul Driessen

A climate of fear, cash and correctitude

Trashing real science to protect grants, prestige, and desire to control energy, economy, lives
Earth’s geological, archaeological and written histories are replete with climate changes: big and small, short and long, benign, beneficial, catastrophic and everything in between.
The Medieval Warm Period (950-1300 AD or CE) was a boon for agriculture, civilization and Viking settlers in Greenland. The Little Ice Age that followed (1300-1850) was calamitous, as were the Dust Bowl and the extended droughts that vanquished the Anasazi and Mayan cultures; cyclical droughts and floods in Africa, Asia and Australia; and periods of vicious hurricanes and tornadoes. Repeated Pleistocene Epoch ice ages covered much of North America, Europe and Asia under mile-thick ice sheets that denuded continents, stunted plant growth, and dropped ocean levels 400 feet for thousands of years.
Modern environmentalism, coupled with fears first of global cooling and then of global warming, persuaded politicians to launch the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Its original goal was to assess possible human influences on global warming and potential risks of human-induced warming. However, it wasn’t long before the Panel minimized, ignored and dismissed non-human factors to such a degree that its posture became the mantra that only humans are now affecting climate.
Over the last three decades, five IPCC “assessment reports,” dozens of computer models, scores of conferences and thousands of papers focused heavily on human fossil fuel use and carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas emissions, as being responsible for “dangerous” global warming, climate change, climate “disruption,” and almost every “extreme” weather or climate event. Tens of billions of dollars have supported these efforts, while only a few million have been devoted to analyses of all factors – natural and human – that affect and drive planetary climate change.
You would think researchers would welcome opportunities to balance that vast library of one-sided research with an analysis of the natural causes of climate change – so that they can evaluate the relative impact of human activities, more accurately predict future changes, and help ensure that communities, states and nations can plan for, mitigate and adapt to those impacts. Unfortunately, that’s rarely the case.
In autumn 2013, Nebraska lawmakers budgeted $44,000 for a study of climate cycles and natural causes – avoiding additional speculation about manmade effects. Several Nebraska researchers rejected the idea, saying the budget was insufficient and they would not be interested unless human influences were made part of the study. They would not compromise their integrity or let politics dictate their research, they said. Ultimately, the project was cancelled in favor of yet another study of human influences.
Integrity is an important concern, especially when so many scientists have accepted far larger sums for research that emphasizes human causes, including some at Penn State, Virginia, George Mason and other institutions associated with the IPCC and EPA. Such grants have brought us “studies” connecting “dangerous manmade global warming” to dwindling frog populations, shrinking Italian pasta supplies, clownfish getting lost, cockroaches migrating, and scores of other remote to ridiculous assertions.
It is essential that some studies now begin to assess, understand and calibrate the powerful, complex, interrelated natural forces that drive climate fluctuations, cycles and changes. Only then will we be able to discern and separate significant human influences – and begin to predict why, when, how and where Earth’s climate is likely to change in the future. Even $44,000 would have enabled these accomplished Nebraska researchers to examine existing scientific papers and prepare a valuable report on natural factors that would help to put human influences in context. Only such comprehensive knowledge will enable us to predict, prepare for, mitigate and adapt to future climate variations with sufficient accuracy.
American taxpayers alone are providing billions of dollars annually for research focused on human factors, through the EPA and other government agencies. The universities and other institutions routinely take 40% or more off the top for “project management” and “overhead.” None of them wants to derail that gravy train, and all fear that accepting grants to study natural factors or climate cycles would imperil funding from sources that have ideological, political or crony corporatist reasons for making grants tied to manmade warming, renewable energy and related topics. Peer pressure, eco-activist harassment, politically correct posturing, and shared ideologies about fossil fuels, forced economic transformations and wealth redistribution via energy policies also play a major role, especially on campuses.
Racial and sexual diversity is applauded, encouraged, even required, on campuses, as is political diversity across the “entire” spectrum from communist to “progressive.” But diversity of opinion is restricted to 20×20-foot “free speech zones,” and would-be free speech practitioners are vilified, exiled to academic Siberia, dismissed or penalized – as “climate skeptics” from Delaware, Oregon, Virginia and other institutions can testify. Robust debate about energy and climate issues is denounced and obstructed.
As The Right Climate Stuff team points out, we cannot possibly model or distinguish human influences on climate change, without first understanding and modeling natural factors. But solar, cosmic ray, oceanic and other natural forces are dismissed in the corridors of alarmism. Even the adverse effects of climate change and renewable energy policies on jobs, economic growth, human health and welfare, and bird and bat populations receive little attention. Sadly, science has been subjected to such tyranny before.
When Copernicus, Kepler and Galileo found that science and observations did not support Ptolemy’s clever and complex model of the solar system, the totalitarian establishment of their day advised such heretics to recant – or be battered, banished or even burned at the stake. Today’s climate models are even more clever and complex, dependent on questionable assumptions and massaged data, unable to predict temperatures or climate events, and employed to justify costly energy and economic policies.
The modelers nevertheless continue to enjoy fame, fortune, power and academic glory – while those who question the garbage in-garbage out models are denounced and ostracized.
A particularly ugly example of junk science occurred in Stalin’s Soviet Union, where Trofim Lysenko rejected plant genetics and promoted the idea that traits were acquired by exposure to environmental influences. His delusions fit the regime’s utopian fantasies so well that a generation of scientists accepted them as fact, or at least said they did, so as to stay employed, and alive. Meanwhile, Lysenko’s crackpot ideas led to agricultural decline, crop failures, starvation, and finally the demise of the centrally planned Soviet economic system that perpetrated and perpetuated suffering for millions of people.
Skepticism and debate would have saved resources and lives. However, the Stalinist political machine would not tolerate dissent. Today’s scientific disease is less pernicious. However, politically driven science still frames critical public policies, because ideologically driven government has become the dominant financier of science. The disease has already crippled Europe’s industry and economy. It now threatens the vitality of the once powerful and innovative American system.
We’re all familiar with the Third World “democratic” process, where voters are “persuaded” by fear, fraud, deception, free meals and sham theatrics to give tin-pot dictators 97% of the “freely” cast votes.
Today we’re told 97% of climate scientists agree that the science is “settled” on climate change. This sham “consensus” is based on 75 of 77 scientists who were selected from a 2010 survey that went to 10,257 scientists. It ignores the 700 climate scientists, 31,000 American scientists and 48% of US meteorologists who say there is no evidence that humans are causing dangerous climate change.
More important, science is not a popularity contest or a matter of votes. As Galileo and Einstein demonstrated, one scientist who is right, and can prove it with evidence, trumps hundreds who have nothing but models, old paradigms, scary headlines and government cash to support their hypotheses.
Few scientists would say the Dust Bowl was caused by humans, even though poor farming practices clearly exacerbated it. Few would say cancer research should be limited to manmade chemicals, even though they may be responsible for some cancers.
Nebraskan and other researchers should end their focus on human causes – and start working to understand all the complex, interrelated factors behind global climate changes and cycles. Government financiers and policy makers must do likewise. Our future well-being depends on it.
Tell Congress: Abolish the EPA! Sign the petition.
Dennis Mitchell joined Paul Driessen in writing this piece.

Print This Post


About Paul Driessen


Paul Driessen is the senior policy adviser for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT); he is also is a senior policy adviser to the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green Power - Black Death.

See more posts by Paul Driessen


http://www.conservativeactionalerts....-correctitude/