Strassel article in the Wall Street Journal: global warming supporters recanting

[cd27]

More and more scientists are contesting the evidence,

Strassel: The Climate Change Climate Change - WSJ.com

Discussed on clip below, about 5 mins 10 secs in,

Euro Pacific Capital | Peter Schiff June 26 2009 CNBC - CNBC Reports: Windows Media Player : Broadband


"Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.

In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of the population believes humans play a role. In France, President Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap-and-trade program.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling."

[cd27]

"The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon."

[seabhac siulach]

All the evidence for global warming has been published in many peer-reviewed papers. That is, it has been rigorously checked before being published.
Where, though, has the evidence against global warming been published? Where is all this evidence against global warming if it is so pervasive? All we get are these limp articles claiming 'scientists' do not believe the evidence. Who are these 'scientists' and what are they 'scientists' in? Sociology? As I understand it, the flat-lining since 2001 is well understood and is related to the El Nino effect.

This is yet another anti-science flat-Earth thread. It is interesting (not) that the Wall Street Journal should be against any environmental restrictions...it might eat into the profit margins of its owner Rupert Murdoch...

[cd27]

Over 5,000 scientists have also signed a petition, the UN IPPC is a political body not a scientific body,

Also, weather channel founder,

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNO2VuLk-Ow"]YouTube - Climate Change, Not Global Warming[/ame]

[Geckko]

All the evidence for global warming has been published in many peer-reviewed papers. That is, it has been rigorously checked before being published.
Where, though, has the evidence against global warming been published? Where is all this evidence against global warming if it is so pervasive? All we get are these limp articles claiming 'scientists' do not believe the evidence. Who are these 'scientists' and what are they 'scientists' in? Sociology? As I understand it, the flat-lining since 2001 is well understood and is related to the El Nino effect.

This is yet another anti-science flat-Earth thread. It is interesting (not) that the Wall Street Journal should be against any environmental restrictions...it might eat into the profit margins of its owner Rupert Murdoch...

A few points to address:

Peer review does not mean "rigorously checked" in any field. In climate science, there is acceptance that it is failing badly (read the very long story about the "Hockey Stick" from all sides as well as numerous associated stories).

Just one very illuminating fact with regard to "rigrous checking". What is regarded as the original and possibly most influental record of global temperatures is the Hadley Centre series (HADCRUT) for average global temperatures. It is compiled from raw data from weather stations and sea water temp reading around the world. The person (Phil Jones) who maintains and publishes this series (under the auspices of his employer the Hadley Centre) refuses to allow access to the raw data so that others can "rigrously check" the various modifications and adjustments he makes before publishing what he claims is a definitive representation global temperature trends.

There are indeed published articles that suggest we don't know enough about climate processes to make the claims of future trends currently held as "fact". It is true, however, that the majority of academics recieve funding only becasue this is claimed to be "indisputable fact". That is the weird perversion of science in this field that is creating some of the present problems in conducting a proper investigation.

Measures of the global mean temperature do show that there has been a cessation in the trend increase over the last 8 years (in fact they show a statistically insignificant fall in temperatures). This was not predicted or flagged by any modelling before the fact. It was always claimed that CO2 forcing was dominating natural climatic variation (including ENSO and PDO events).

With regard to alternatives. Well, we just don't know enough yet to understand climate to the required depth. There are too many BIG failings in the results of modelling based on the CO2 driving theory (current lack of warming one, the absence of a tropical troposheric warming region is another)and too many areas of potential climate significance we don't understand at all, (including cloud and water vapour feedback, solar magnetic flux and cloud formation among a number).

That is what the majority of skeptics are pointing out.

Stop with the draconian policies and overconfidence. We don't yet understand climate enough.

[Seos]

That report is a fake.
Here it is:
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpei...e%20change.pdf

The first thing that aroused my suspicion was the clearly communistic symbol so I went to the the url in that report: Komitet Nauk Geologicznych

Which in itself is suspicious since Polska Akademia Nauk is the also the website for this same organisation, with a different symbol and no mention of any climate change report.(it even has an english version, but I used google translate to navigate the polish version, just in case)

Now if you navigate their site(the ones with the report) you'll see that their only scientific report is the one on climate change. Which is on the main page and then again in a section "Zmainy Klimatu". There's also how it provides an English version for only that report, no other English on this site.

If we then look at pan.pl we see the whole site has an English version, it does not carry reports on it's main page, if you search the site for klimat or klimatu or even atmosferra you get no results:
site:www.pan.pl klimat - Google Search
site:www.pan.pl klimatu - Google Search
site:www.pan.pl atmosferra - Google Search

[Watcher1]

"Global Warming" has now/is changing to "Climate Change" since the global warming theory has been debunked.

I agree with one premise of these people though, and that is the need to ween ourselves off of fossil feuls. We are not at peak oil, we are at peak "cheap" oil. In Ireland, this is especially crucial for us since we rely so heavily on imports and so we need our own source of energy. Alternatives are in rich supply, especially wave energy but there is apparently a long way to go before we can use this technology on as grand a scale as we need.

It is chanelling funds into thgis area the government should concentrate.

[Seos]

"Global Warming" has now/is changing to "Climate Change" since the global warming theory has been debunked.

No global warming and climate change are two names for the same thing.
It has not been debunked.

[Geckko]

For those interested in the postscript to this article, you can track the developments as Stephen Fielding returned to Australia and continued his enquiries with the Climate Change Minister. He asked his three questions to the Minister as well.

Read an account of the meeting from one of the participants.

The Wong-Fielding Meeting On Global Warming | JoNova

[cd27]

IPPC caught hawking fake data around

The world has never seen such freezing heat - Telegraph

They claimed October hottest month on record, turned out it was data for September!

"A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen's institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others."