There is a new report in the journal Nature that some climate change alarmists are saying repudiates criticisms leveled at the IPCC over the Glaciergate scandal. In the “news feature,” a reporter looks at the “clues” scientists have found regarding the fate of the Himalayan glaciers from ground- and space-based studies. Though the scientists quoted clearly state they do not have enough data to draw meaningful conclusions—only 15 of 20,000 glaciers were examined on-site—the article still misleadingly says the glaciers are in trouble. It still had to admit the Himalayan glaciers won't vanish by 2035 and that they are not receding faster than glaciers in any other part of the world, both claims made previously by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
It has come to light that a number of climate scientists have been less than truthful with regard to climate data. As shocking and embarrassing as this has been to the scientific community, it serves only to emphasize the huge blind spot that scientists have for their computer models. It is a career ending offense to knowingly falsify data, yet the entire climate science community engages in even worse deception without a second thought. This is because lies are generated for them wholesale by their faithful yet duplicitous servants: computer climate models.
Although the story of the “Asteroid that killed the Dinosaurs” has become common knowledge for most people, there are still those scientists who back alternative causes of the end Cretaceous extinction even. Volcanoes, multiple meteor strikes and even widespread forest fires have been suggested as the cause of the dinosaurs' demise. The extinction event 65.5 million years ago did coincide with a large asteroid impact at Chicxulub, Mexico, and occurred within the time of Deccan flood basalt volcanism in India. A new review article by 41 scientists in the March 5 edition of Science runs down the list of what science thinks it knows about the extinction that set the stage for the age of mammals.
Fox threw a party for James Cameron and producer Jon Landau to drum up publicity before the pending release of their mega-blockbuster movie, Avatar, on DVD. The gathering of nearly 100 journalists from around the world included a screening of sample video clips from the movie. Not that the people in attendance had never seen Cameron's sexy blue aliens before—the clips were to show the quality of the conversion from big screen 3D to 2D for home consumption. The movie mogul opened the program by pledging an environmental theme to the release of Avatar into the home video market. The video release of Avatar is now set for April 22, which just happens to be Earth Day. And then someone mentioned Glenn Beck.
Recently, a number of papers have surfaced that use advanced statistical methods to analyze climate data. The techniques involved have been developed not by climate scientists but by economists and social scientists. These new tools belong to the field of econometrics. The use of statistical break tests and polynomial cointegration to analyze the relationships between time series data for greenhouse gas concentrations, insolation, aerosol levels and temperature have shown that these data are non-stationary. The implication of these findings is that much of the statistical analysis applied by climate scientists is flawed and potentially misleading. So strong is the statistical evidence that a couple of economists are claiming to have refuted the theory of anthropogenic global warming. This, on top of everything else that has recently transpired, may indicate that a climate change paradigm shift is imminent.
The authors would like to announce that The Resilient Earth is now available as an eBook on the Amazon Kindle. Kindle Books include wireless delivery—you can be reading The Resilient Earth on your Kindle within a minute of placing your order. Books are delivered wirelessly in less than 60 second—no PC required—and the latest version of Kindle has 3G wireless coverage in over 100 countries.
Earth's climate history includes numerous incidents of rapid warming and cooling. While Pleistocene ice-age glacial terminations are arguably the most dramatic recent examples of sudden climate change, during the last glacial period the climate of the Northern Hemisphere experienced several other significant episodes when the climate rapidly warmed. Scientists call these episodes Dansgaard-Oeschger (DO) events after the Danish and Swiss researchers who documented them using ice-core studies. These rapid oscillations are marked by rapid warming, followed by slower cooling. The most prominent coolings are associated with massive iceberg discharge into the North Atlantic Ocean known as Heinrich events (HE). The melting icebergs add large volumes of cold fresh water to the ocean, disrupting circulation patterns and causing further climate changes. Scientists look to past events like these to help us understand how Earth's climate system functions—what causes our planet to cool or suddenly warm. Recently, new data on past climate changes have led one commentator to predict the end of winter skiing in the American Southwest.
On the first of February, 2010, Dr. John A. Shanahan sent a letter regarding the future of American energy policy to Dr. John P. Holdren, Director of the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy and President Obama's Science Advisor. Attached to the letter were more than thirty pages of signatories—309 scientists, engineers and citizens from 22 countries and 36 US states. The purpose of the letter was to ask for a clarification of the Obama administration's stand on nuclear energy policy. Dr. Shanahan's conclusion: if anyone thinks that the current administration's nuclear policy solves America's energy problems, they have no idea what they are talking about.
Back in 1974, the late Richard Feynman wrote an essay based on the address he gave at Caltech's commencement that year. He titled the essay “Cargo Cult Science,” a reference to the practice of sympathetic magic by South Sea Islanders following World War II. The central point of his lecture was how science should and should not be practiced. His thoughts are well worth reviewing in light of the string of troubling revelations that have surfaced regarding climate science. In the face of what Gallup calls a sharp decline in the public's belief in global warming, it looks like many of the IPCC's scientists are practicing Cargo Cult Climate Science.
Best-known for her role as Xena in Xena: Warrior Princess, New Zealand native Lucy Lawless is speaking out about the environment and global warming. Famous for sword play in skimpy outfits, Ms Lawless has no-doubt been the center of many a fan's personal fantasy. Her latest fantasy is saving the planet. In a recent interview the former warrior princess was asked what she would say to those who do not believe in global warming to get them to change their minds. “I think the people running climate change denial campaigns are sociopaths,” Lawless answered. Obviously her persuasive technique has not progressed much beyond the use of sharp edged weapons.
The golden toad of Costa Rica was declared extinct in 1994, five years after it was last sighted in the wild. The unfortunate toad's was the first extinction to be blamed on anthropogenic global warming and it has often been cited as an example of things to come if mankind doesn't change its CO2 spewing ways. But humanity's conviction of toadacide was premature and based on circumstantial evidence. After years of study scientists have a new finding: humans were not at fault after all.
Experts predict that, over the long term, food security can't be achieved without energy security. Add in mechanization, storage, and transport and the energy impact of a typical meal in industrialized nations is many times the amount of energy the meal's consumer derives. Recently, researchers have been taking a close look at just how much energy it takes to produce even seemingly similar foods. The conclusion: Food choices can have a significant impact on energy use in agriculture, and by extension, on greenhouse gas emissions as well. Beef lovers beware! As the world diverts more of its grain harvests into meat production, some scientists are taking a closer look at more environmentally friendly sources of protein, including insects.
There have been a rash of bogus reports in the news media about rapidly rising sea-levels supposedly caused by global warming. Sea-levels are notoriously hard to measure on a global basis since land also rises and sinks due to tectonic activity. With historical records mostly unreliable how can we tell if current conditions are normal for Earth 14,000 years after a deglaciation? A new report, based on calcium growths in caves on the Mediterranean island of Mallorca, says that sea levels around 81,000 years ago were higher than today. Higher sea-levels imply less glacial ice and warmer temperatures than today as well. Even more interesting is that this occurred during a warm period called marine isotope stage (MIS) 5a, which was more than 30,000 years after the Eemian interglacial ended and glaciation had resumed. This could mean that current theories about how ice age glacial periods start are wrong.
Kendrick Frazier, long time editor of the Skeptical Inquirer magazine, has been caught whining on the Inquirer's Facebook page about people canceling their subscriptions. The motivation for the canceled subscriptions is SI's un-skeptical view of anthropogenic global warming. Under Frazier's leadership the “Magazine for Science and Reason” has been sucking up to the climate change mongering American Association for the Advancement of Science and acting as a cheering section for AGW.
Whenever a skeptic points out a new paper or journal article refuting some claim made by the theory of anthropogenic global warming, climate change alarmists often shout “cherry picking!” Evidently, most climate change true believers do not understand how science works or how theories are tested. Scientific theories must make predictions by which they can be tested. Providing evidence that AGW has failed in its predictions is not cherry picking, it is refutation. Unfortunately, when confronted with failed predictions the standard alarmist answer is to disavow the predictions. They will say that those are not predictions at all, they are projections—and that means AGW is not a scientific theory at all.