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

So what exactly do you think it is that you;re talking about?

A group of us noted that the snowpack in the Cascades was NOT rapidly melting away, in contrast to some publications by some local climate scientists and publicized by Mayor Nickels. The reaction was intense. One of my colleagues, Mark Albright, who was the first to notice the lack of snowpack loss was fired as associate State Climatologist and the media went wild...we called it Snowpackgate...and it got national attention. I was told in the hallways to keep quiet about it...the denier types would take advantage of it!

We then wrote a paper on the subject (the main contributor being Mark Stoelinga) and submitted it to the Journal of Climate. I have published a lot of papers in my life (roughly 100) and I never had problems like we had with this paper. Very biased associate editor and some reviewers. Four review cycles and it was about to be turned down, until we appealed to the editor, who proved fair and reasonable. This paper has now been accepted for publication, but it really revealed to me the bias in the system. Here is the paper if you are interested:

http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-pdf&doi=10.1175%2F2009JCLI2911.1

Poor papers with significant technical problems, but reflecting the "official" line, get published easily, while papers indicating the global warming is weaker or delayed, go through hurdle after hurdle.

I have heard case after case of similar treatment...so this is no anomaly.

For example, climatologist John Christy at the University of Alabama in Huntsville accepts that global warming is happening, but he says there is a lot of uncertainty about its causes and impacts. He says he has trouble getting some of his results published.

"I've done a pretty thorough study of snowfall of the Southern Sierra mountains of California, and the Southern Sierra find no downward trend in snowfall," he says.

That's important because snowfall is forecast to decline because of global warming, and that would seriously affect California's water supply. Christy says he has tried three times to get his paper published. So far, it's been rejected, and he suspects it's because scientists are trying to stifle his message.

"Everyone from the secretary of Energy [on down] who has talked about the snowfall in the Sierra going away will not find any comfort in the fact that the trends in snowfall are essentially zero for the last hundred years," he says.

What ever came of those scientists' efforts to cover up the fact that snow levels in the Cascades are increasing?

Did you actually read the abstract of the paper they wrote, oralloy?

It says, very clearly, that the icepack IS decreasing, and, removing causes of interdecadal variability, that it has been melting for the last eighty years. They attribute 9% of the melting to anthropogenic causes. That is a definite outlier on the results that many others have gotten. But he does think the skeptics are wrong, and in his blog, which you cite he says that anthropogenic climate change is happening and is real. And, I might add, the question of whether snowfall is decreasing or not is not the particularly relevant question. It is whether or not the glaciers are melting. You can have the same amount of snowfall and the snowpack and glacier ice will still melt at a faster rate if the temperature rises. And the glaciers and snowpack do seem to be melting. And your authors say the onset of melt has begun on average five days earlier.

That was why I was confused by your statement oralloy. I am still confused by your statement since you still haven't shown any effort to cover up an increase in snow levels.

Do you really think we should include all statistics that are not significant when we talk about trends?

The article that you state was suppressed clearly states the data was not significant from a statistical standpoint.

Diageo to end funding of Heartland Institute after climate change outburst
Leo Hickman
Guardian.co.uk, Sunday 6 May 2012 17.15 BST

Firm has 'no plans' to work with thinktank following campaign comparing people concerned about climate to mass murderers


Ted Kaczynski was shown on a billboard alongside the caption: “I still believe in global warming. Do you?” Photograph: Elaine Thompson/AP

Diageo, one of the world's largest drinks companies, has announced it will no longer fund the Heartland Institute, a rightwing US thinktank which briefly ran a billboard campaign this week comparing people concerned about climate change to mass murderers and terrorists such as Osama bin Laden, Charles Manson and Ted Kaczynski.

On Thursday, a billboard appeared over the Eisenhower Expressway in Illinois showing a picture of Kaczynski, the Unabomber, who in 1996 was convicted of a 17-year mail bombing campaign that killed three people and injured dozens. The caption read: "I still believe in global warming. Do you?" A day later it was withdrawn.

The London-based drinks giant, which owns brands such as Guinness, Smirnoff, Johnnie Walker and Moët & Chandon, said this year that it was "reviewing any further association with Heartland" following the release online of internal Heartland documents which revealed its corporate donors as well as a plan to promote an alternative climate change curriculum in US schools. Following the widespread outcry triggered by Heartland's billboards, a Diageo spokeswoman told the Guardian: "Diageo vigorously opposes climate scepticism and our actions are proof of this. Diageo's only association with the Heartland Institute was limited to a small contribution made two years ago specifically related to an excise tax issue. Diageo has no plans to work with the Heartland Institute in the future."

In February, a US scientist, Peter Gleick, admitted obtaining and publishing internal Heartland documents which showed that Diageo had given the thinktank $10,000 (£6,190) in 2010. The documents, one of which Heartland later claimed was a fake, said the thinktank was expecting another $10,000 from Diageo this year.

On Friday, Heartland, which is trying to promote its annual conference for climate sceptics, to be held in Chicago this month, said it was withdrawing the billboard campaign. However, it refused to apologise, claiming the campaign was an "experiment". Its website is still hosting the original press release, which includes the claim that the "most prominent advocates of global warming aren't scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen."

Microsoft, which has a policy of supplying free software to all non-profit organisations in the US, posted a blog on its website on Saturday distancing itself from Heartland. The thinktank received software from Microsoft worth $59,908 in 2011. The blog said: "Microsoft believes climate change is a serious issue that demands immediate, worldwide attention and we are acting accordingly … The Heartland Institute does not speak for Microsoft on climate change. In fact, the Heartland Institute's position on climate change is diametrically opposed to Microsoft's position. And we completely disagree with the group's inflammatory and distasteful advertising campaign."

In March, General Motors, the world's largest carmaker, said it was ending its funding of Heartland after 20 years owing to the thinktank's hardline climate scepticism

There is a general consensus that some warming has occurred and it is likely due to GHG accumulation in the atmosphere. However the science indicates a lot less of it than the catastrophe fictions the zealots are trying to impose on us

I'll wager I know a lot more about the science involved than do you.

Even the credulous Europeans are discovering that the billions they have spent on wind power are simply not economically sustainable.