Global Warming is as real as Al Gore creating the  Internet.  GW is actually nature, ebbs and flows, temperatures go up and down.  Iceland and Greenland, npw ice covered and cold, once were the home to prime farm land.  Nature, not capitalism, determines our weather.

Oh, of course you have the English University fraud, phony and destroyed data, lies and protion of political scientist.

“Here I am using the word “fake” as an adjective, and not as a verb. I mean to say that the scientific conclusions derived from such temperatures are not real, but I don’t imply that the values themselves have been purposefully altered or adjusted. We simply don’t have any information to support such an accusation. But I do claim that the commonly reported and accepted warming between 1978 and 2000 is based only on thermometers from land surface stations and is not supported by any other evidence that I could find. Specifically, ocean data (from 71% of the earth’s surface) and global atmospheric data (as recorded by satellites and independent balloon-borne radiosondes) do not show such a warming at all. In addition, most proxy data, from non-thermometer sources such as tree rings, ocean sediments, ice cores, stalagmites, etc., show no warming during this same crucial period. (One has to be careful in this analysis since the year 1998 shows a major warming spike caused by a Super-El Niño. But by 1999 and 2000, temperatures had returned to pre-1998 values.)”

Thanks to this scientific corruption we have 53 watt bulbs that government promotes as 75 watts.  American jobs have gone to China and India, we driver ticker toys instead of cars.  California is in a generation long Depression thanks to the amateur Arnold and his job killing AB 32.

Hisotry will show that the hallmark of our era was fraud, corruption and government destruction of the economy.  Al Gave done their job–Gore, Arnold and their friends had the goal of killing the American economy–no way they could be that incompetent, they had to know what they were doing.

What do you think?

Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!

S. Fred Singer, American Thinker, 1/2/12

In discussing the recent release of some 5,000 Climategate e-mails, blogger Anthony Watts uses the clever headline “They are real—and they’re spectacular.” He credits Jerry Seinfeld as the source. Following his example, I choose the headline “Fake! Fake! Fake! Fake!”—also taken from a Seinfeld episode—in discussing the surface temperatures generally reported for the latter part of the 20th century; they form the science basis for prosperity-killing international climate policy.

Here I am using the word “fake” as an adjective, and not as a verb. I mean to say that the scientific conclusions derived from such temperatures are not real, but I don’t imply that the values themselves have been purposefully altered or adjusted. We simply don’t have any information to support such an accusation.
But I do claim that the commonly reported and accepted warming between 1978 and 2000 is based only on thermometers from land surface stations and is not supported by any other evidence that I could find. Specifically, ocean data (from 71% of the earth’s surface) and global atmospheric data (as recorded by satellites and independent balloon-borne radiosondes) do not show such a warming at all. In addition, most proxy data, from non-thermometer sources such as tree rings, ocean sediments, ice cores, stalagmites, etc., show no warming during this same crucial period. (One has to be careful in this analysis since the year 1998 shows a major warming spike caused by a Super-El Niño. But by 1999 and 2000, temperatures had returned to pre-1998 values.)

Now, I am well aware of the fact that the recent release of the temperature data from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project does show a warming trend from 1978 to 2000. Many would jump to the conclusion that this represents confirmation of the existence of global warming—or even of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). However, that would be an error in logic.

What the BEST result shows is that surface thermometers from the land area of the globe (about 29% of the earth’s surface) show a warming trend. But this is not global warming. And BEST director Professor Rich Muller explicitly disclaims that his trend results indicate a human cause.

He also correctly points out that many of the weather stations used are badly distributed, mostly in the U.S. and western Europe, and possibly subject to local heating effects, such as urban heat islands. He cautions that a third of his monitoring stations show a cooling, not a warming. And that 70% of the U.S. stations are poorly situated and don’t satisfy the requirements of the U.S. Weather Service. It is likely that stations elsewhere have similar problems.
While we can applaud the fact that the BEST results agree with other analyses of weather station data, we still need to explain why they don’t agree with atmospheric trends that are close to zero, or with ocean data that show no appreciable warming.

As a first step, the BEST data are ideally suited for a number of internal checks. For example, one would like to see if the number of stations changed appreciably between 1970 and 2000, and if their “demographics” changed—which might lead to the formation of artificial trends.

There are many other such tests that can be performed. They might help us discover why land surface data disagree with all other data; thereby, we may get a better handle on whether the planet is really warming. We note here that the BEST results do not show any warming trend in the 21st century—even though carbon dioxide levels have been rising more rapidly than before.
Note again: Professor Muller and his colleagues do not claim that their results indicate a human source for warming—unlike the IPCC, the U.N. Science Panel, which has claimed to be 90-99% sure that the late-20th century warming is anthropogenic. But if there is no warming between 1978 and 2000, then IPCC’s case collapses—and so do all policies built on the IPCC conclusion.

But this whole matter has really moved beyond any academic discussion. Industrialized nations that signed the Kyoto Protocol (including the U.S., which did not ratify) have already wasted hundreds of billions of dollars on policies based on the acceptance of the IPCC claim that greenhouse gases (mainly carbon dioxide from the burning of oil, gas, and coal) are responsible for a reported warming—which may not even exist.

(By now it should be obvious that [1] the enshrined temperature limit of +2 deg C [beyond which climate disasters are supposed to set in] is based on fiction and has no scientific basis. As an annual global average temperature, so climate models tell us, it would mean warmer winter nights in Siberia and Canada—perhaps -35 degrees instead of -40—and little warming in the tropics. [2] It should also be obvious that even strenuous and economy-killing efforts at mitigation will have little effect on atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide, let alone on climate. If a demonstration is needed, just look at the lack of warming since 1998, in spite of rapidly rising levels of greenhouse gases.)

As is evident from the Climategate e-mails, a small group of scientists, mainly in the U.K. and U.S., have managed to freeze out contrary evidence from being published in the scientific literature or in IPCC reports. The self-described “Team” members brazenly discuss strategies and action plans to further “The Cause.” Unfortunately, they have largely succeeded—and continue to influence publications, thanks to some key journalists and editors. In consequence of this evident conspiracy, it is hardly surprising that politicians, the media, and the general public are receiving entirely wrong information about supposedly catastrophic effects of a future warming.

The just-concluded Durban conference, the 17th in an annual series, demonstrates clearly that the whole discussion is no longer about science, but instead is all about money. (1) How to assure continuing government careers for nearly 200 delegations, with annual vacations paid by taxpayers. (2) How to transfer $100 billion a year from industrialized nations to LDCs (or more precisely, to their kleptocratic rulers), using “climate justice” or “climate guilt” (depending on who is doing the talking). (3) How to gain a national advantage by setting differential emission limits of CO2—supposedly to keep the planet from reaching a “dangerous” level of warming.

Durban did succeed in extending Kyoto till 2015—presumably to allow time to fashion a successor protocol to include all nations. But it is a hollow victory. Russia and Japan have already announced that they are not continuing—and Canada is formally withdrawing from Kyoto. In the U.S., the White House has never submitted Kyoto to the Democrat-controlled Senate for ratification. Instead, as promised, Obama is using indirect ways to “skin the cat” and make “electricity prices skyrocket”—relying on EPA regulations to destroy domestic coal as a boiler fuel.

Yet hope springs eternal in the hearts of true warmistas that China, by far the largest emitter of carbon dioxide, will join a future protocol in 2015. In Durban, China’s chief climate negotiator Xie Zhen Hua dropped all kinds of hints that China might be willing to join a second commitment period of emission targets—provided certain conditions are met. Not surprisingly, a number of environmental activists have taken the bait and really believe that China is willing to sacrifice economic growth to satisfy the elusive goal of controlling global warming.

Within the United States, and also elsewhere, global warming scares have become a means of transferring taxpayer money to politically influential cronies. There is now so much “crony capitalism” that it would be difficult to reverse or even stop the ongoing subsidies, outright grants, tax breaks, and other transfers to privileged groups.

Time is becoming short. We’re reaching a tipping point—not of the earth’s climate, but of the financial schemes that permanently divert funds from productive activities into wasteful ones, all in the name of “saving the climate.” The results are evident: higher levels of spending, deficits, or taxes; higher prices for energy and electricity and therefore for all manufactured goods; less productive activity; less employment; and more misery.

It seems odd that all of this is essentially based on a fake—the data that seem to show a (nonexistent) warming. It will be difficult to overturn this notion, but we must keep trying.

S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, is Research Fellow at the Independent Institute, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former founding Director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service. He is author of Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate (The Independent Institute).

Previous Post

Next Post

 (4 comments so far)
Got something to say? Post a comment.

 
By posting you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy
   

RC

Follow the money! Big money will be made selling & buying carbon credits. It’ll worsen the pollution in some areas. “I can polute all I want, I paid China to take my carbon signiture!”

January 9, 2013 at 9:25 am

Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Reply

Cloak Revealer

If you plan on moving from say The Peoples Republic of California to escape a bad economic situation, mobbed-up legislator etc well you’re wasting your time. The presidential election along with Prop 37 vote in California is proof how the Democrats (New World Order/ UN) will turn red states blue over the next few years to a decade. Many people are moving to TX thinking it’s a good state for jobs, housing etc. Well that’s true today however, for example a stretch of road between Austin and Houston is now open as a toll road. The Agenda 21 plan is to make living outside of large city-centers to be too expensive, forcing most to live within the city limits. This mechanism of control is now here in TX. Obama and the other UN politicians will take over the states that currently are republican strongholds by using voting machines and or not requiring voter ID. In the soon approaching future there won’t be a so-called 2nd option on the ballot, as we see now in CA where there’s a Democrat super-majority. With the states firmly under Democrat (UN) control the congress will begin to sign treaties to destroy our constitution. So see, while it seems like you’re securing your future moving to a “red” state, in reality you’re only one step ahead of the storm that will wash over us all. We had one chance this past election to hold off, all be it temporarily, the takeover we see now that the left has insured a takeover of the United States.

November 11, 2012 at 9:56 am

Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Reply

Andrew

It is normal for Earth’s temperature to vary. This is mainly due to sun’s activity. There is no such thing as man-made global warming – that one’s just a story used by governments and politicians to scare people and make big time money.

May 18, 2012 at 5:01 am

Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1

Reply

Russell C

I’ve seen it said elsewhere, Dr Singer is a national treasure, considering the amount of abuse he has had to put up with since the late ’80s when he first locked horns with Al Gore and the enviro-activists who pushed highly questionable efforts to regulate CFCs.

Most conservatives know how he and other skeptic scientists have been vilified by enviro-activists via an accusation about being corrupted by fossil fuel industry funding. I, so far, am the only one who is reporting on how that accusation borders on libel/slander, originates at a small enviro-activist group called Ozone Action, has Al Gore’s fingerprints on it, and how that accusation has been either promoted by the mainstream media or used by the MSM to ignore skeptics from the start.

Please allow me to direct readers to a pair of my online articles about this: “Monumental fault in manmade global warming notion hiding in plain sight” http://junkscience.com/2011/12/24/monumental-fault-in-manmade-global-warming-notion-hiding-in-plain-sight/ and “PBS and Global Warming Skeptics’ Lockout” http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/08/pbs_and_global_warming_skeptics_lockout.html

January 5, 2012 at 5:51 pm

Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1

Reply