Posts Made By: Dave Snope

The Miss America runner-up Carrie Prejean scandal keeps fueling controversy and these new photos won't help. NSFW.

http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/05/gay-marriage-opponent-topless-photos-leaked.html

This time the problem is about what most consider the most important measure of global warming: ocean heat retention.

Easy-to-read article by DiPuccio on WUWT explains Pielke's Litmus Test for falsifying the IPCC’s AGW hypothesis.

The Claim:
In 2005 James Hansen, Josh Willis, and Gavin Schmidt of NASA coauthored a significant article (in collaboration with twelve other scientists), on the “Earth’s Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications” (Science, 3 June 2005, 1431-35). This paper affirmed the critical role of ocean heat as a robust metric for AGW. “Confirmation of the planetary energy imbalance,” they maintained, “can be obtained by measuring the heat content of the ocean, which must be the principal reservoir for excess energy” (1432).

The key graphic:
http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/dipuccio-2.jpg

The Conclusion:
It is evident that the AGW hypothesis, as it now stands, is either false or fundamentally inadequate. One may argue that projections for global warming are measured in decades rather than months or years, so not enough time has elapsed to falsify this hypothesis. This would be true if it were not for the enormous deficit of heat we have observed. In other words, no matter how much time has elapsed, if a projection misses its target by such a large magnitude (6x to 8x), we can safely assume that it is either false or seriously flawed.

If anthropogenic forcing from GHG can be overwhelmed by natural fluctuations (which themselves are not fully understood), or even by other types of anthropogenic forcing, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that the IPCC models have little or no skill in projecting global and regional climate change on a multi-decadal scale. Dire warnings about “runaway warming” and climate “tipping points” cannot be taken seriously. A complete rejection of the hypothesis, in its current form, would certainly be warranted if the ocean continues to cool (or fails to warm) for the next few years.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat/#more-7646f

The House Energy and Commerce Committee will begin debate on the Cap and Trade Bill designed to reduce global warming.

How will this $650B tax affect ordinary Americans like you? What should you ask your congressman to do?

Estimates range from $700 to $1400 per year, although IIRC the IBD estimate was $3000 if you live in a coal-powered state. With taxes going up all over the place, can you afford and extra $1400?

Obama in 2008 proudly stated: "Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers."

On April 24th, Congressman John Dingell (D-MI) explained it at a Congressional hearing: "It's a Great Big Tax!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSlK9312nWc

And this week Rahm Emanuel said energy costs are too low anyway.

And what are the scientific justifications for this massive tax increase?
Here is recent top-level summary of global warming theory compiled by the Science and Public Policy Institute. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/april_09_co2_report.pdf reminding us that CO2 has no correlation to global temperatures, and that CO2 and temperature do not behave as IPCC models predict.

And a report from a NASA scientist (now freed to express his skepticism) demonstrates that the idea that CO2 could trap infrared radiation in the atmosphere and change the global climate is mathematically false because the laws of physics (not the theories of physics) don’t work the way the IPCC think they do. Proving scientifically that the global warming theory is not physically possible. http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher%20Basic%20Greenhouse%20Equations%20Totally%20Wrong/article10973.htm

Does your congressman read any scientific reports, or just the IPCC summaries for policymakers, designed, as one IPCC chairperson stated, "to level the playing field"? Does your congressman still say that "the science is settled" in the face of a decade of new science that show that the climate is cooling, the oceans are cooling, tropical storms are at an all time low, and that CO2 doesn't correlate to any of this? Is he still living in the 90's? Send him a letter.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee will begin debate on the Cap and Trade Bill designed to reduce global warming.

How will this $650B tax affect ordinary Americans like you? What should you ask your congressman to do?

Estimates range from $700 to $1400 per year, although IIRC the IBD estimate was $3000 if you live in a mostly coal-powered state. With taxes going up all over the place, can you afford an extra $1400?

Obama in 2008 proudly stated: "Under my plan of a cap and trade system electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Businesses would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that cost onto consumers."

On April 24th, Congressman John Dingell (D-MI) explained it at a Congressional hearing: "It's a Great Big Tax!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSlK9312nWc

And this week Rahm Emanuel said energy costs are too low anyway.

And what are the scientific justifications for this massive tax increase?
Here is recent top-level summary of global warming theory compiled by the Science and Public Policy Institute. http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/april_09_co2_report.pdf reminding us that CO2 has no correlation to global temperatures, and that CO2 and temperature do not behave as IPCC models predict.

And a report from a NASA scientist (now freed to express his skepticism) demonstrates that the idea that CO2 could trap infrared radiation in the atmosphere and change the global climate is mathematically false because the laws of physics (not the theories of physics) don’t work the way the IPCC think they do. Proving scientifically that the global warming theory is not physically possible. http://met.hu/doc/idojaras/vol111001_01.pdf
http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher%20Basic%20Greenhouse%20Equations%20Totally%20Wrong/article10973.htm

Does your congressman read any scientific reports, or just the IPCC summaries for policymakers, designed, as one IPCC chairperson stated, "to level the playing field"? Does your congressman still say that "the science is settled" in the face of a decade of new science that show that the climate is cooling, the oceans are cooling, tropical storms are at an all time low, and that CO2 doesn't correlate to any of this? Is he still living in the 90's? Send him a letter.

The most prolific fanny grabber ever to sit in the White House still has his touch. The difference is that now he doesn't have the Secret Service faithfully blocking the public's view of his off hand like he enjoyed for eight years in Washington. No woman was safe in a crowd back then, and apparently he hasn't lost his touch.

http://www.tmz.com/2009/05/18/bill-clinton-fran-drescher/

This is a perfect example of how The New Scientific Method is applied by Elite AGW Scientists. In the New Scientific Method being taught at today's most modern universities, it's the results that matter.

When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.

Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html

Once again, people with real thermometers are the Stupids. Only the Elite understand that wind shear = temperature.

Andrew Bolt

April 29, 2009 12:00am

IT'S snowing in April. Ice is spreading in Antarctica. The Great Barrier Reef is as healthy as ever.

And that's just the news of the past week. Truly, it never rains but it pours - and all over our global warming alarmists.

Time's up for this absurd scaremongering. The fears are being contradicted by the facts, and more so by the week.

Doubt it? Then here's a test.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25401759-5000117,00.html

Pinocchio, Snow White, and Superman are out for a stroll in town one day. As they walked, they come across a sign: "Beauty contest for the most beautiful woman in the world."

"I am entering!" said Snow White. After half an hour she comes out and they ask her, "Well, how'd ya do?"

"First Place!" said Snow White.

They continue walking and they see a sign: "Contest for the strongest man in the world."

"I'm entering," says Superman. After half an hour, he returns and they ask him, "How did you make out?"

"First Place," answers Superman. "Did you ever doubt?"

They continue walking when they see a sign: "Contest! Who is the greatest liar in the world?" Pinocchio enters.

After half an hour he returns with tears in his eyes.

"What happened?" they asked.

"Who the hell is this Nancy Pelosi?" asked Pinocchio.

The global climate challenge may have been on the daytime agenda during the recent World Business Summit climate conference in Copenhagen, but in the evenings many businessmen, politicians and civil servants are reported to have availed themselves of the capital’s prostitutes.

“We’ve been extremely busy. Politicians also need to relax after a long day,” says ‘Miss Dina’, herself a prostitute.

http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article719339.ece

My question is: why no mention of climatologists? Don't they like to party too?

Here's what the geniuses of the Committee on Climate Change are dreaming up in between visits to hookers:

GIVE up lamb roasts and save the planet. Government advisers are developing menus to combat climate change by cutting out “high carbon” food such as meat from sheep, whose burping poses a serious threat to the environment.

Out will go kebabs, greenhouse tomatoes and alcohol. Instead, diners will be encouraged to consume more potatoes and seasonal vegetables, as well as pork and chicken, which generate fewer carbon emissions.

“Changing our lifestyles, including our diets, is going to be one of the crucial elements in cutting carbon emissions,” said David Kennedy, chief executive of the Committee on Climate Change.

...

“We are not saying that everyone should become vegetarian or give up drinking but moving towards less carbon intensive foods will reduce greenhouse gas emissions and improve health,” said Kennedy.

The climate committee is analysing emissions from farming and will suggest measures to reduce them. However, it has concluded that people will have to change their habits.


http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6350237.ece