Hundreds of feet thick ice in the Himalayas has been under threat of melting for two years now from, what else, global warming. Now the United Nations is riding to the rescue. Their agency for “climate change” is, uh, reconsidering.
Seems they had zero proof after all. Just an old New Scientist clipping they liked. So they made it the centerpiece of their alleged “latest research” report in 2007. Now they’ve been caught out. Oops. Al Gore, call your publicist!
UPDATE: Why the mistake? A number of reasons, including a typo: “…predicted date for shrinkage of the world total from 500,000 to 100,000 km2 is 2350, not 2035.” More here. Hee.
Very considerate of it, don’t you think? Funny how it can do that, eh?
That’s me, the climate contrarian. I still think it’s overblown, if not altogether bunk. But I find this Scientific American answer to the seven most prominent quibbles reasonably persuasive.
UPDATE: ON the other hand…
That’s this year, according to NASA’s shrill sign-waving climate "scientist" James Hansen, and it was the opening line of the Copenhagen climate conference. As if the gang that couldn’t keep from destroying two space shuttles, killing everyone aboard including a school teacher they recruited for the privilege, could possibly know what happened to the October temperature in All. Of. Human. History.
Is that unfair? Maybe. But their "warmest October in human history" prompts it because the claim is so obviously stupid. Better to say, to paraphrase Accuweather meteorologist Joe Bastardi: [It’s] "the warmest you ever measured with the way you measured it." Which is a lot more accurate, but not sufficiently alarming, apparently. Not enough to keep the grant money flowing to sustain the bureaucracy they created getting to the moon. For what? To come home and trash the enabling technology and never go again.
SciFi writer Jerry Pournelle, likewise, is skeptical: "…few of us would have thought that last October was all that warm. Didn’t seem that warm to me, and my impression from the radio and TV was that it was actually pretty cold." Moreover, others were finding a flaw in the data. It was cool enough in Texas, in a precursor to our latest early winter–now into the start of its third week of overnight lows in the 30s and 40s. Which is unusually cold for us this time of year. The "sleeping" sun seems a lot more potentially devastating to me than any supposed rise in sea level fifty years from now, according to, ahem, the famous crockumentarian Al Gore.
Bastardi again: "Go look back through all the data, and understand that you can’t measure at the time of Rome, or the Vikings, or the Great Depression, the way you measure things now… Al Gore, who doesn’t have the guts to debate anyone on this issue, a man who may soon be a carbon billionaire, is claiming people who are fighting him are in the pockets of polluters. You do the math."
The anthropogenic global warming guys have been whacked again and again and, now, again. But these scientific fraudsters (in it to keep their research funding and salaries healthy) keep rolling on. Barry may be sliding on Cap & Trade, but the EPA still is penalizing emitters of carbon dioxide and trying to put the coal industry out of business. So even if Copenhagen now deserves to be stopped in its tracks, the "climate-change" circus likely will keep traveling on for a while longer.
Via the Seablogger and Power Line.
That’s the trouble with the global warm-mongers. You can shoot down their arguments time and again and they just keep recycling them. Comes now an Ohio State researcher riding Al Gore’s favorite pony in claiming that global warming is doing in the glaciers on the famous African mountain. Only problem is there’s been no global warming for more than a decade.
That’s why the warm-mongers have taken to calling it "climate change." Get it? Anthony Watts shot this one down just last year, with data from a Harvard researcher, among others. Can you say: evapotranspiration impeded by deforestation from intensive farming? Sure you can. Fortunately, Watts is game to explain it once again, and with two new contradicting studies.
Cobb does a fine job summarizing a scientific scandal about, what else, human-induced global warming. Seems a goodly portion of the worldwide scare’s convincing data was cherry picked:
"Twelve trees whose growth rings were the basis of the conclusions that have shaken the world were selected by a dude named [Keith] Briffa and another dude named [Steve] McIntyre has called him on it. But it took years. Huh what? I mean to say quite plainly that the ‘overwhelming majority of scientists’ made their conclusion on the basis of a report whose original data was not made available for scientific review. The big bloody secret was that it was twelve measly trees."
It’s a complicated argument, in case you’re entering it late, but the Register and Bishop Hill also explain it well.
Via Cobb and Random Jottings.
MEANWHILE: Climate science heads are already being sought in the UK.
Anthony Watts posts Briffa’s defense, such as it is, and then pithily rejects it.
TREE COUNT: Rereading Bishop, I see there were twelve, ten or five trees depending on which year of research you choose to deplore. Twelve is the more generous. Still measly.
MORE from McIntyre’s co-researcher Ross McKitrick: "Whatever is going on here, it is not science." I wonder if it all began as Briffa’s attempt to save his job for some reason. You know, make a big discovery, prove his worth? And then Al Gore and his cronies took over. Pols are always looking for a big controversy to justify their existence. Stir in the Dictators Club’s IPCC, and the earth is doomed.