From the AP:
A leading Dutch environment agency reported Monday that the seminal 2007 U.N. scientific report on climate change is too generalized and has even more errors than discovered so far — including one contributed by the agency itself.
But the review by the Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency claimed the errors had no effect on the fundamental conclusion by U.N. panel of scientists: that global warming caused by humans already is happening.
Glaring mistakes discovered in the 3,000-page report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change last year fed into an atmosphere of skepticism over the reliability of climate scientists who have been warning for many years that human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases could have catastrophic consequences, including rising sea levels, drought and the extinction of nearly one-third of the Earth's species.
The errors put scientists on the defensive just as a major conference on climate change in Copenhagen, attended by some 120 world leaders, met with limited success to agree on how to limit carbon emissions and contain the worst effects of global warming.
The President is given a pass on the oil spill … more
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) asserts that carbon-dioxide is the greatest threat to national security.
Tags: boxer, co2, national security
How many times has some celebrity manipulated the public with global warming threats as a result of cow gaseous discharges? Could it be that they were wrong and I can eat that burger without guilt?
In the past environmentalists, from Lord Stern to Sir Paul McCartney, have urged people to stop eating meat because the methane produced by cattle causes global warming. However a new study found that cattle grazed on the grasslands of China actually reduce another greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide.
The habit of overstating the current state of climate science knowledge, and in particular our understanding of the relationship between global warming and present-day weather events, has been difficult for environmentalists to give up because, on one level, it has worked so well for them. — Environment 360
As the director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich Phil Jones has been at the center of the Climategate controversy and authored many of the emails that critics contend undermine the credibility of the organization. In an exclusive interview with Nature Jones defended allegations that he and colleagues published data that they knew might be biased by urbanization of temperature sensors. Jones states,
"The science still holds up" though, he adds. A follow-up study verified the original conclusions for the Chinese data for the period 1954–1983, showing that the precise location of weather stations was unimportant. "They are trying to pick out minor things in the data and blow them out of all proportion," says Jones of his critics.
Regarding his use of surface temperatures instead of tree-ring proxy data (i.e., tree-ring data is used for the past to represent temperatures but is inconsistent with the same over the past 20-years), Jones also defended his practice and suggested,
"We need more reconstructions from different parts of the world to reproduce a better history of the past thousand years". Jones challenges his critics to help with those efforts. "Why don't they do their own reconstructions?" he asks. "The work that's been published has been through the peer-review process; if they want to criticize that they should write their own papers."
Finally, Jones is quite concerned that critics have redefined the peer review process:
But he fears that the aftermath of the climategate affair is undermining the integrity of the scientific review process. "I don't think we should be taking much notice of what's on blogs because they seem to be hijacking the peer-review process," says Jones.
Readers may want to also refer to this post as they consider the veracity of Jones' claims.
Interestingly, a comment on the article, posted by Douglas J. Keenan, states,
This news report discusses my work on the Chinese weather-station data, but provides no references for that work. The main reference is this: Keenan, D. J. Energy & Environment, 18, 985-995 (2007). It is freely available on the web.
The news report also misrepresents my allegations.
My principal allegation is that some of the data on station histories never existed. Specifically, Jones et al. (1990) claim to have sourced their data from a report that was published by the U.S. Department of Energy and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Yet for 49 of the 84 meteorological stations that Jones et al. relied upon, the DOE/CAS Report states "station histories are not currently available" and "details regarding instrumentation, collection methods, changes in station location or observing times … are not known". Those statements imply that the quoted claim from Jones et al. is impossible: "stations were selected on the basis of station history: we chose those with few, if any, changes in instrumentation, location or observation times". My paper presents more details; some updates are available via http://www.informath.org/apprise/a5620.htm .
The comment continues with additional useful information.
Climate change guru Phil Jones made the admission:
THERE has been no global warming for 15 years, a key scientist admitted yesterday in a major U-turn. Professor Phil Jones, who is at the centre of the “Climategate” affair, conceded that there has been no “statistically significant” rise in temperatures since 1995.
Here's more:
The scientist behind the so-called "climate-gate" e-mail scandal now admits there has been no statistically significant global warming since 1995.
Professor Phil Jones also tells the BBC that scientists are unsure whether the Medieval Warm Period was actually warmer than current temperatures. Some skeptics say that is the first time a senior scientist working with the U.N. report on climate change has admitted the possibility that the time between 800 and 1300 A.D. could have actually been warmer than present temperatures. That would be a blow to global warming believers.
Jones also admitted some of his weather data was not organized well enough and that contributed to his refusal to share raw data with critics. But Jones maintains he's just a scientist doing a job: "I have no agenda."
So, the natural question to ask is if global warming is linked to carbon dioxide emissions, and if C02 emissions have continued to increase, why no warming?
I understand the difference between weather and climate but like to point out record cold snowstorms because the opposite is often used to motivate the agenda of global warming enthusiasts. You see, a hurricane or heat wave are apparently evidence of global warming but record cold and snow are meaningless aberrations.
One of the consequences of our recent snowstorm in Washing DC was the delay of a press release announcing the impact of global warming:
NOAA, part of the Department of Commerce, is going to be providing information to individuals and decision-makers through a new NOAA Climate Service office. “More and more, Americans are witnessing the impacts of climate change in their own backyards, including sea-level rise, longer growing seasons, changes in river flows, increases in heavy downpours, earlier snowmelt and extended ice-free seasons in our waters. People are searching for relevant and timely information about these changes to inform decision-making about virtually all aspects of their lives,” the release says.
Interesting … I thought we were witnessing unseasonably harsh Winters witnessed in our own backyard?
Audi's Super Bowl commercial is hilarious at the expense of the eco-nazis.
We know that the IPCC included erroneous conclusions regarding Himalayan glaciers in its 2007 report to advance a political agenda. However, there may be much more to the story. It seems that the claims were used to motivate and secure funding:
The chairman of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), has used bogus claims that Himalayan glaciers were melting to win grants worth hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Rajendra Pachauri's Energy and Resources Institute (TERI), based in New Delhi, was awarded up to £310,000 by the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the lion's share of a £2.5m EU grant funded by European taxpayers.
It means that EU taxpayers are funding research into a scientific claim about glaciers that any ice researcher should immediately recognise as bogus. The revelation comes just a week after The Sunday Times highlighted serious scientific flaws in the IPCC's 2007 benchmark report on the likely impacts of global warming.
Recent Comments