Posts Tagged ‘global warning hoax’

From NoTircksZone

Spiegel has finally gotten around to conceding that global warming has ended, at least for the time being.

Spiegel science journalist Axel Bojanowski published a piece called: Klimawandel: Forscher ratseln uber Stillstand bei Erderwarmung (Climate change: scientists baffled by the stop in global warming).

We’ve been waiting for this admission a long time, and watching the media reaction is interesting to say the least. Bojanowski writes that “The word has been out for quite some time now that the climate is developing differently than predicted earlier”. He poses the question: “How many more years of stagnation are needed before scientists rethink their predictions of future warming?”

Bojanowski adds (emphasis added):

15 years without warming are now behind us. The stagnation of global near-surface average temperatures shows that the uncertainties in the climate prognoses are surprisingly large. The public is now waiting with suspense to see if the next UN IPCC report, due in September, is going to discuss the warming stop.

The big question now circulating through the stunned European media, governments and activist organisations is how could the warming stop have happened? Moreover, how do we now explain it to the public? To find an answer, Bojanowski contacted a number of sources. The result, in summary: scientists are now left only to speculate over an entire range of possible causes. Uncertainty in climate science indeed has never been greater. It’s back to square one.

One explanation Spiegel presents is that the oceans have somehow absorbed the heat and are now hiding it somewhere. Yet, Bojanowski writes that there is very little available data to base this on: “There is a lot of uncertainty concerning the development of the water temperature. It has long appeared that also the oceans have not warmed further since 2003.” Spiegel then quotes Kevin Trenberth concerning NASA’s claim that they’ve detected a warming of the oceans: “The uncertainties with the data are too great. We need to improve our measurements”.

Spiegel also writes that the missing heat may be lurking somewhere deep in the oceans. But here Bojanowski [Spiegel] quotes Doug Smith of the Met Office: “This is very difficult to confirm”. Jochem Marotzke of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology (MPI) suspects that energy has been conveyed to the ocean’s interior, but there’s a dire lack of data to confirm this. Bojanowski writes over the current state of ocean data measurement: “Without intensifying the data measurement network, we are going to have to wait a long time for any proof”.

Scientists also suspect that the stratosphere may have something to do with the recent global temperature stall. Susan Solomon says the stratosphere has gotten considerably drier, and so warming at the surface may have been reduced by a quarter. But Bojanowski reminds us that under the bottom line, the scientists are pretty much without a clue; he writes:

“However, climate models do not illustrate stratospheric water vapour very well,” says Marotzke. The prognoses thus remain vague.”

Well then, maybe it’s due to aerosols from China and India blocking out the sun, some scientists are speculating, and “thus weakening warming by one third”.  Spiegel writes that “If the air were cleaner, then climate warming would accelerate.” But aerosols have always been used a convenient joker in climate models to explain unexpected cooling, such as from 1945 to 1980.

In fact, all the explanations presented by Bojanowski above have already been thoroughly looked at in a book one year ago by a pair of scientists: Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt and Dr. Sebastian Luning. Last year much of the media massively ostracised them for floating “crude theories”. A year later it’s indeed strange to see that their “crude theories” are now completely in vogue.

How does Bojanowski sum it up? “The numerous possible explanations do show just how imprecisely climate is understood.”

Trenberth is left with only anecdotes, isolated singular events

Yet, as Bojanowski points out, some scientists refuse to give up on the AGW theory. He writes:

Under the bottom line, there are a number of various ominous signs of warming: rising sea levels, Arctic sea ice reduced by a half in the summertime, melting glaciers. At some locations there are signs that extreme weather events are increasing. ‘There are many signs of global warming,’ emphasizes Kevon Trenberth, “near surface air temperatures is only one of them.’”

Sorry, but isolated singular events do not constitute trends, let alone science. Prof. Trenberth really ought to know that. This is pathetic. The observed data and measured trends have stopped showing global warming. So are scientists now claiming that singular events are robust signs? This would be only one step away from astrology!


Bojanowski reminds us again that the science is poorly understood and that a number of factors are at play. He writes:

Indeed new surprising data keep popping up. Recently a new study appeared showing that soot particles from unfiltered diesel engine exhaust and open fires have had an impact on warming that is twice as high as what was first thought.”

Bojanowski also tells his readers that “Computer simulations have shown that warming has made tropical storms more seldom.”

He also mentions other factors that are poorly understood, such as: solar radiation�s impact on clouds, water vapour cycles, and natural and man-made aerosols.

Short term prognoses remain “especially uncertain”. But longterm ones are sure?

Spiegel at the end of the article seems to be duped into thinking that short-term prognoses are uncertain, but longterm ones are rather sure. Spiegel quotes warmist Jochem Marotzke of the MPI:

Climate prognoses over time periods of a few years still remain especially uncertain. ‘Our forecasting system in this regard still lets us down,’ says MPI director Marotzke. “But we’re still working on it.”

This to me appears to be an attempt to have readers believe that although they’ve botched the short-term projections completely, they are likely still right about the longterm projections of warming. Now take five minutes to get your laughing under control. … If the models failed for the first 15 years, then they are no good! Period! They’re crap, and you cannot rely on them for projecting the long-term. They belong in one place only: the dustbin! How long must we wait before climate scientists return to science?

Don’t get me wrong, at least this article, admitting something is terribly amiss, is a very encouraging step in the right direction. But it’s difficult to remain hopeful when climate scientists continue demonstrating that they do not even know what proper scientific methodology is.

Lastly, I like they way Bojanowski ends his piece:

Current prognoses warn of a 5C warming if CO2 emissions continue as before. But it is not now well-known just how much natural climate impacts are able to change the temperature development the new NASA data have revealed this as well.”

Spiegel science writers would be well-advised to read Fritz Vahrenholt’s and Sebastian Luning’s “Die kalte Sonne”. Practically every question brought up by Bojanowski has been answered there � one year ago. Moreover, Luning’s and Vahrenholt’s temperature model for the next 100 years so far has been dead on.

Jim Hatem

Keeping with my ongoing project to document recent climate trends in the U.S., I present to you the continuing cooling trend in the contiguous U.S.  Cooling trend is a remarkable 10.5 deg F per century!  Of course, this is just a trend and it will change in the future.  This data comes from the National Climate Data Center and NOAA. 

Climate alarmists have gone on record to proclaim that there has been no significant global warming since 1998.  The NOAA data doesn’t just confirm the lack of warming for the U.S. but demonstrates significant cooling during this period.  This is all very embarrassing to the global warming crowd and you can bet that if this same data set were showing a warming trend over the same time period that they would be making a lot of noise about it and the national press would be proclaiming  doom and gloom.  You will not see any mention of this cooling trend in any of the popular press.



Most Recent 12-Month Period (May – Apr) 1998 – 2011 Average = 54.06 degF
Most Recent 12-Month Period (May – Apr) 1998 – 2011 Trend = -1.05 degF / Decade (-10.5 deg F/century)


One of the arguments given by the global warming community when challenged about the recent warming being man-made is that although there  have been equally warm periods in historical times, the RATE at which we are seeing warming now is “unprecedented.”  In other words, if we were to plot global temperatures over “recent” decades it would show a rising slope unmatched in earlier warming events.  Of course these statements usually go unchallenged by the media but thanks to the internet such claims are easily testable and the results easily transmitted.  Reproduced below are two graphs.  One shows the temperature anomalies for the period from 1895 to 1946 and the other shows the temperature anomalies for the period from 1957 to the present.  Notice that there is a slight cooling trend at the ends of each graph.  More importantly, notice that the overall slope of the two graphs is pretty much identical.  In fact, I will not even tell you which graph is which.  You can figure it out with a little research (hint: there is a tell-tale 1997-98 super El Nino event on one of the graphs).

Both are scaled the same (each line on the y-axis is 0.2C, each x-axis division is 5 years) — in fact, both are clips from the exact same image—provided by the Hadley CRUT3 chart showing the global monthly mean temperature anomalies.  Be aware that the global levels of CO2 in the period from 1895-1946 were relatively level while the rise in CO2 from 1957 to the present is supposedly “unprecedented.”  Of course their quantum jump in logic is that this recent unprecedented rate in warming must be caused by the corresponding unprecedented rise in CO2.  Well, take a look for yourself!

It would be preferable to compare the slope of the rise during the onset of the medieval warm period to the modern supposed rise, but the degree of resolution in the earlier period needed to make that comparison is just not very reliable.

So which graph shows the rate of global warming from 1895 to 1947 and which one shows the rate from 1957 to the present?


Jim Hatem


I am constantly getting emails from people who privately admit to me that after reviewing the literature concerning human induced global warming they have been swayed into the skeptical camp.  Usually, it is someone who in the past just assumed that man-made global warming must be real because everybody said so.  I am never surprised by this because this whole consensus business is largely media-driven.

It has become all too obvious to me that when intelligent lay people take a critical view of the subject and do the appropriate research, at the very least, they come away with the notion that the science is obviously not settled—that there is a great deal of uncertainty in the science.  Fair enough.

It has also become obvious to me that when people trained in virtually any of the sciences looks at the evidence objectively and free of pre-conceived notions they walk away with a large degree of incredulity.  Often, they feel as though they have been duped.  Strangely enough, this is typically not true of climate scientists because, almost by virtue of their credentials, they are tainted.  Fortunately, one does not have to be a climate scientist to review the relevant literature.  In fact, in many regards, climate scientists are often ill-equipped to understand some of the most fundamental lines of evidence against the Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) hypothesis.

That being said, I am often asked if there are scientists who have changed their position concerning AGW as a result of examining the evidence.  Is there anyone out there with proper credentials who used to sound the AGW alarm but who now say it is largely a bunch of hooey?  The list below is not meant to be comprehensive but I think it is somewhat representative of a larger number who are, for whatever reason, hesitant to “come out.”


Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is “unknown” and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of being motivated by money, noting that “the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!” “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L’EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.” Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster “simplistic and obscuring the true dangers” mocks “the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man’s role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters.” Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. “By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century,” Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.”

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997.  Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor’s New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.”  A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel’s conversion while building his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures.” Wiskel now says “the truth has to start somewhere.”  Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, “If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years.”  Wiskel also said that global warming has gone “from a science to a religion” and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. “If you funnel money into things that can’t be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed,” he said.

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. “”Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” “Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming” and “it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 “will not dramatically increase the global temperature.” “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views.”  Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don’t add up to support the AGW picture. So many had to change their views,” he wrote.

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. “But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker — better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds,” Evans wrote.  “As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?'” he added. Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. “And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990’s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn’t believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!  But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed,” Evans wrote. “The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role,” he added. “Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics,” he concluded.

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic.  “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006.  “I switched to the other side in the early 1990’s when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”  

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears “poppycock.” According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon.  The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy’s conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy’s long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy “won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain’s peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest.” 

Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson (recently deceased), the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences) converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms “sky is falling” man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. Of course it’s going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we’re coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into the air,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added. “We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind’s addition of ‘greenhouse gases’ until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question — too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem,” Bryson explained in 2005.

Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research.  Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.”  “After that, I changed my mind,” Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book “Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma,” with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “‘Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.'”

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson  wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles.  About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics.  “When I go to a scientific meeting, there’s lots of opinion out there, there’s lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. “They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn’t — come out to a scientific meeting sometime,” Patterson said.  In a separate interview Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. “I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we’re about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere,” he said. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it’s not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles.”   

Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. “At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution,” Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. “With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies,” Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time.” “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming–with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy–is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels,” Jaworowski wrote. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time,” Jaworowski wrote. “The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seem now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same fate awaits the present,” he added. Jaworowski believes that cosmic rays and solar activity are major drivers of the Earth’s climate.

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe,” Clark said in a 2005 documentary “Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You’re Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change.” “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added. 

Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario,” Veizer wrote. “It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved,” Veizer explained. “The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver,” he added. Veizer acknowledgez the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of climate modeling. “The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional energy is needed to drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both nature and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language ‘positive water vapor feedback’,) Veizer wrote. “Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor is needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into the system,” he continued. “Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed energy equivalent (model language ‘prescribed CO2’). Yet, the models (and climate) would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy input from the CO2 greenhouse,” he wrote.

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”
– Kevin Trenberth, Lead Author IPCC (2001, 2007)–From the hacked emails of the East Anglia Climate Research Center

The headlines are on the way.  You can bet that come the end of the year the media will be touting 2010 as one of the warmest years on record.  Of course, the implication will be that it is a sign of global warming.  We are all going to die!  Relax.  In the big scheme of things, one single year means nothing.

I am not very confident in temperature measurements coming from other parts of the globe and I certainly don’t have access to the raw data so I am not equipped to comment on such data.  However, US temperature data is abundant, more reliable and freely accessible.  I say “more reliable” with a certain degree of hesitation because it is artificially skewed to the warm side—but that will be the subject of another essay.  Anyway, I took data directly from the NOAA archives , ending with the most recent 12 months (Oct. 2009-Sept.2010) for the period from 1998 to the present in 12 month blocks.  I chose 1998 because that year is often touted as the warmest year on record (it was not).  Word has been circulating that global warming all but ceased since that year and what I discovered seems to confirm the cooling trend. 

For the U. S., temperatures since 1998 have been in a downward trend.  It is cooling at the rate of 8.8 deg F per century!  Of course this is just the current trend.  Only a climate fool would suggest that a warming one will not follow some day.  The point is that over this 12 year time span there has been no warming within the US.  In fact, the opposite is true.  What makes this important is that none of the IPCC climate models predicted this.  It was not predicted in their 1997 report, their 2001 report, or even acknowledged in their 2007 report.

The leaked emails from East Anglia last year suggest that the climate modelers are in agreement about global conditions being very similar to what we are seeing in the US.  This is all very embarrassing for the AGW people who would love the last 12 years to fit nicely into their exponential graph.  It is funny how empirical data can mess up a hypothesis.

 Continental U.S. Temperatures Cooling

Most Recent 12-Month Period (Oct – Sep) 1998 – 2010 Trend = -0.88 deg F / decade (-8.8 deg F / century)


Each red line in the graph represents a 12 month period ending in September of the related year.  The black horizontal line represents the average temperature over this time period.  The green line is the statistical trend.  Please be aware that a trend is not a prediction—this trend can and will change.  Source:

Jim Hatem

Al Gore emitting more global warming carbon dioxide

It is usually pretty comical to watch the AGW proponents point out weather events as proof of global warming but this is getting ridiculous.  Al Gore and his minions do nothing but spread hysterical fear to win converts to their side.  They have to because they can’t use science.  There is not one bit of empirical evidence that proves a link between human emissions of carbon dioxide and global warming.

Weather is not climate.  You cannot point to a weather event and use it as evidence for climate change.  Al Gore never pointed to the severe winter across much of Europe and Asia last year, yet here he is, echoing the same nonsense that Osama Bin Ladin was preaching just last week.  Hear his own words in this video.  The quality isn’t the greatest, but it is clear that (1) he doesn’t know the difference between weather and climate, and (2) he shares the same opinion about the floods in Pakistan as does Osama Bin Ladin.

By the way, to listen to these two clowns you would think that the aforementioned floods in Pakistan were something extraordinary.  In a list of the most deadly floods in history, this year’s Pakistan floods rank No. 64.

It is amazing, but spewing this kind of crap won him a Nobel Prize.

The new spokesman for global warming activism

“Discussing climate change is not an intellectual luxury, but a reality. All of the industrialized countries, especially the big ones, bear responsibility for the global warming crisis.”

OK, pretend you didn’t read the headline to this blog.  Who do you think made this statement?  Al Gore?  Well, he could have.

In a newly released tape from Osama Bin Ladin, the master of terror blamed America for causing global warming and thereby killing thousands in the floods that have ravaged Pakistan recently.  Never mind that floods have been occurring in Pakistan long before there was even an America to blame.   He says that our unrelenting release of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere has caused the deaths of more people than has all the wars.

He blasted America for not signing the Kyoto Protocol on regulating carbon emissions and called for the world to boycott America.

In an ealier tape, Bin Ladin warned of the dangers of climate change and said that the way to stop it is to “bring the wheels of the American economy to a halt.”  It is no secret that Bin Ladin’s aim has always been to destroy the American economy.  So is it really a surprise that he would be in favor of International treaties that limit carbon emissions from the “Great Satan”?

The global warming alarmists have a new ally in their war on the Western way of life.  How nice.

Jim Hatem