Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

To the Wall Street Journal - sorry if I didn't post a link. Since I have your attention, though, Walter, and since you may not be following speeches of President Sarkozy, in his explanation for why he agreed to several billion annually to 3rd world nations for "combating global warming" he said "Nothing to do with the climate, but...there's only a few miles between Africa and Europe.... we have to pay them to stay home" - this obviously said in French, so not quoted verbatim.

Now we know you deniers don't believe in HadCrut anymore. Get with the program, ican. That graph is NASA/NOAA, our team. And you will notice what I keep telling you--2005 is the warmest year on record. Temps have NOT been going down since 2001. That graph actually covers the period through 2007, if you count the yearbars, and you will note the rolling average (the black line) is NOT going down.

HAdCrut, as established a few pages back, consistently lowballs global temperature increase, since it systematically undercounts the influence of temperature change above the Arctic Circle,, but if you look at the graphs you keep cutting and pasting, which DO NOT support your position, and try, for once, to notice what is really going on in them, you might actually begin to understand what is changing in the world.

THE Climategate scandal continues to unfold. The thousands of emails leaked to the internet from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia reveal a tight-knit, influential group of scientists whose attitude to their profession is, to say the least, distorted.

It seems that a religious belief in disastrous climate change has destroyed their common sense and their appreciation of what is the appropriate way to carry out research.

Climategate may at least demonstrate that the concept of a scientific consensus with regard to global warming is nonsense. There may indeed be thousands of scientists contributing to the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, but on any particular aspect of the overall story all have to rely on the word of the few scientists who are directly involved. And when the particular aspect concerns experimental data on which the whole story rests, the data purporting to show the world is getting warmer, then the consensus argument is indeed on shaky ground.

The great global warming scare is over " it is well past its peak, very much a spent force, sputtering in fits and starts to a whimpering end.
The press has also begun to tire of Armageddon All-The-Time, and (I believe) to position itself for its inevitable attack on the doomsters.The problem is that once you’ve sat up and paid attention enough to examine them a bit more closely, you find that the means by which the figures were arrived at isn’t very compelling… The report contains so many extrapolations derived from guesswork based on estimates inferred from unsuitable data.”
The scientist-scare-mongers, seeing the diminishing returns that come of their escalating claims of catastrophe, also know their stock is falling. Until now, they have all toughed it out when the data disagreed with their findings " as it does on every major climate issue, without exception. Some scientists, like Germany’s Mojib Latif, have begun to break ranks. Frustrated by embarrassing questions about why the world hasn’t seen any warming over the last decade, Latif, a tireless veteran of the public speaking circuits, now explains that global warming has paused, to resume in 2020 or perhaps 2030. “People understand what I’m saying but then basically wind up saying, ‘We don’t believe anything,’” he told The New York Times this week.
And why should they believe anything that comes from the global warming camp? Not only has the globe not warmed over the last decade but the Arctic ice is returning, the Antarctic isn’t shrinking, polar bear populations aren’t diminishing, hurricanes aren’t becoming more extreme. The only thing that’s scary about the science is the frequency with which doomsayer data is hidden from public scrutiny, manipulated to mislead, or simply made up.

"......Perhaps Climategate will provide a medium for introducing typical scientists to the real world and perhaps as well it will re-introduce them to the idea that scepticism is the basis of the profession."

Garth Paltridge is an atmospheric physicist and former chief research scientist with the CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research. His book The Climate Caper is published by Connor Court.

...In 1956, Rosenstein-Rodan told me that then Senator John F. Kennedy, who bought into the altruism argument, had told him that there was no way it could fly in the U.S. Congress. A case stressing national interest and the containment of communism was needed. And so the argument was invented that unless the United States gave aid, the Soviet Union would provide it and, as a result, the Third World might tilt toward Moscow. In fact, the Soviets had already funded the construction of Egypt's Aswan Dam, a project the United States had turned down. The only catch was that if the Cold War became Washington's rationale for giving aid, it was inevitable that much of it would end up in the hands of unsavory regimes that pledged to be anticommunist -- regimes with a taste for gold-plated beds, Concordes, fat Swiss bank accounts, and torture...

Winter system drops record snow, chills the South (AP)

Icicles cling to strawberry plants just after sunrise Monday, Jan. 4, 2010 in Plant City, Fla. Farmers spray water on their crops to help protect the fruit. Temperatures overnight in area dipped into the 30's. (AP Photo/Chris O'Meara)AP - Snow falling like New Year's confetti joined forces with a chill that dipped deep to the South on Monday to close schools, delay commuters, threaten fruit farmers and shut down at least one nuclear power plant.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
345
A 2006 study of Greenland by a team of scientists debunked fears of Greenland melting. The study led by Petr Chylek of Los Alamos National Laboratory, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences found the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995-2005, suggesting carbon dioxide ‘could not be the cause' of warming. (LINK) "We find that the current Greenland warming is not unprecedented in recent Greenland history. Temperature increases in the two warming periods (1920-1930 and 1995-2005) are of similar magnitude, however the rate of warming in 1920-1930 was about 50% higher than that in 1995-2005," the abstract of the study read. The peer-reviewed study, which was published in the June 13, 2006 Geophysical Research Letters, found that after a warm 2003 on the southeastern coast of Greenland, "the years 2004 and 2005 were closer to normal being well below temperatures reached in the 1930s and 1940s." The study further continued, "Almost all post-1955 temperature averages at Greenland stations are lower (colder climate) than the (1881-1955) temperature average." In addition, the Chylek-led study explained, "Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920-1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for a period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within natural variability of Greenland climate. A general increase in solar activity [Scafetta and West, 2006] since 1990s can be a contributing factor as well as the sea surface temperature changes of tropical ocean [Hoerling et al., 2001]." "To summarize, we find no direct evidence to support the claims that the Greenland ice sheet is melting due to increased temperature caused by increased atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide." The co-authors of the study were M.K. Dubey of Los Alamos National Laboratory and G. Lesins, Dalhousie University in Canada. Chylek has authored over 100 studies in peer-reviewed journals. Chylek 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, "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." (LINK)

Nothing but the facts, mam:
http://www.kusi.com/home/78477082.html?video=pop&t=a

50 Things We Know Now That We Didn't Know This Time Last Year

Published: 12/28/09, 12:10 PM EDT
By Jeff Houck

4. Analysis of Greenland ice samples shows Europe froze solid in less than 12 months 12,800 years ago, partly due to a slowdown of the Gulf Stream. Once triggered, the cold persisted for 1,300 years.