Faked Scandal Against Warming Skeptics Backfires Badly.

In the middle of the month a set of documents made the rounds of the media claiming to expose “climate change deniers” at the Heartland Institute. Most of the set of documents were rather innocuous memos for the Heartland Board, and really of no significance. But attached was a “strategy” memo that supposedly outlines plans by Heartland to prevent the teaching of “science” in government schools.

Heartland immediately said that the board documents appeared genuine but that they had to verify them against the original but also said the “strategy” document was fraudulent. This immediately raised the specter of “climategate” when hundreds of emails by warming activist-scientists discussed matters such as preventing scholarly papers refuting their theories from being published. Those emails were later confirmed to be genuine, even though they blustered at the start that they might be fakes. But, what struck me during that scandal was how often defenders of warming alarmism said the issue isn’t so much the validity of the emails in question, but the issue that they were stolen.

The best theory at the time was the theft of those emails was more an individual stumbling upon an open access online that allowed them to access them. They didn’t engage in deception to obtain them, though you might question whether going through an unlocked door online is an ethical problem. I’m not sure myself and am open on that question.

Yet, I’ve not seen any discussion by the alarmists about the deception used to obtain these documents. When “theft” was the issue during climategate, and content wasn’t, they have now reversed course, ignore the theft and concentrate on content. Unfortunately for them, the content they concentrate on was the one fraudulent document. I will shortly go into how we know the piece is fraudulent, as it gives us clues to the perpetrator of the deception. And, now we have even more evidence as to who is the guilty party as well.

Earlier, Ross Kaminsky, a Senior Fellow at Heartland, posted a blog article at American Spectator, which suggested that the likely culprit was warming activist Peter Gleick of the Pacific Institute—not the libertarian Pacific Research Institute—bit an environmentalist group instead. After Kaminsky named Gleick as the likely culprit Gleick issued a statement through Huffington Post confessing his role in this escapade.

Gleick has closed comments to his confession and said, “I will not comment on the substance or implications of the materials.” Convenient. I will get to Gleick’s confession in a moment. First, we need to see what indicated the strategy document was a fraud and then we can see how Gleick appears to be lying about what he claims happened and his role. Don’t misunderstand; I think he is the guilty culprit. I just think the evidence shows he has only confessed part of his deceptive practices and is hiding the rest. But, in order to show that, we must first understand the indications this strategy memo was a fraud.

Some of the documents were genuine board notes. How were those obtained? Someone called the Heartland Institute and claimed to be a particular board member. He claimed that he did not receive the email with the PDF document for the board and would this employee resend it to a new email address. That was done and then the email address was deleted.

All the original documents were the more innocuous material and were no “smoking gun.” All were created in PDF format and emailed to board members. The real documents were created originally as PDF documents. The so-called memo was a paper document that was then scanned and turned into a PDF document. The memo was the only one with no author listed, and it was produced well after the other documents and only shortly before it was sent to an environmentalist website which immediately announced it to the media, without checking if the document were legitimate.

But they are electronic tags in PDF documents. And the tags in the original, real documents show they were produced at the Heartland offices January 25^th. The fraudulent memo was created on February 13^th and produced via an Epson printer. And the tags show in which time zone the document is produced. The real ones are in Central Standard Time while the fraudulent one is in Pacific Standard Time; Gleick’s office is in California.

The memo not only concocts a fake strategy but also makes claims that can be verified to be false. For instance, it tries to demonize the Koch brothers by claiming they donated $200,000 in 2011 to Heartland. In fact, the Koch Foundation donated $25,000 for a health care project and nothing else. In addition, in 2010 they gave nothing to Heartland. Surely a Heartland memo wouldn’t fake donations figures for the Board to see, especially since they would see the full budget and know this figured was faked.

In his admission Gleick claims that, “at the beginning of 2012, I received an anonymous document in the mail describing what appeared to be details of the Heartland Institute’s climate program strategy.” He says that to “confirm” this document “I solicited and received additional materials directly from Heartland Institute under someone else’s name.” In other words, Gleick was the one who fraudulently pretended to be a board member in order to get the board documents. He then forwarded “anonymously, the documents I had received to a set of journalists and experts working on climate issues.”

So, he combined genuine, innocuous Board notes with a memo he claims he anonymously received, or so he claims. Yet, he had zero evidence that the memo was genuine. And strangely, when Heartland thought they were sending material to a Board member they did NOT include this memo. That should have been a red flag that the memo was not part of the Board packet and was not genuine.

Here is my theory. I think Gleick contacted Heartland as he said. He got the Board packet and then concocted a “strategy memo” to go along with it. He scanned the document into PDF format. The real documents were already in PDF format and sent to the fake email account he set up and then deleted.

I suspect he did not realize that the PDF tags existed and would reveal the location of the forger. Once that evidence came out, he realized that the investigation into the fraud was narrowing down in his direction. Then, when Kaminsky publicly stated that the believed Gleick was the culprit, he had to confess. The problem he faced was that the “memo” was not a stolen document but a forged one. And, while committing fraud to obtain the documents were a problem, the forgery was even more of a problem. He had to find some way to explain how a fraudulent PDF file was produced via what we have to assume was his Epson printer.

That was when he concocted the story that the memo was mailed to him anonymously. Nothing on the memo indicated it was genuine and a cursory reading of it indicated it was not. Whether your like them or not, the warming skeptics, don’t describe their position as anti-science, quite the contrary. Anyone wish to bet that Gleick doesn’t have the original envelope anymore? I suspect that he made no effort to discover the source of this piece of paper because he knew the source. He wrote it. After fraudulently obtaining the Board documents he went through them and found no smoking gun, as he had hoped. But with the genuine documents he thought he could slip a bogus document into the mix and cause trouble for people he hated. That is when I suspect he forged the “memo” and the rest is history.

New York Times writer, Andrew Revkin, himself an alarmist on warming issues, called Gleick an “aggressive critic” of skeptics. He writes that Gleick’s “admitted to an act that leaves his reputation in ruins and threatens to undercut the cause he spent so much time pursuing. Revkin also notes that Gleick’s “acts of deception… will sustain suspicion that he created the summary, which Heartland’s leadership insists is fake.” He says this means Gleick “has destroyed his credibility and harmed others.” True enough.

I’m wondering how many of the sites that published the original memo as genuine are at least cautioning readers that the indications it was faked are overwhelming, and letting them know a prominent warming alarmist used deception to concoct a scandal that ended up backfiring on himself instead? I suspect the answer is: Not many.

The Climategate leaks made the alarmists look bad. And then a scandal comes along to make the skeptics look bad, but when the truth comes it, it too bit the alarmists in the ass.

Where, oh where have the hurricanes gone?

Remember hurricane Katrina? The moment that big one hit the U.S. the doomsayers in the global warming movement said it was all about global warming. Well known alarmist Kevin Trenberth warned: "Computer models also suggest a shift in hurricane intensities toward extreme hurricanes." Trenberth, who was the main editor on hurricanes for the IPCC, wanted opponents of his theory left unpublished. He knew in his heart that hurricanes were increasing in frequency and intensity. Now, he did admit that this was true "even if this increase cannot yet be proven with a formal statistical test."

Trenberth wrote in Science, that during 2004 "an unprecedented four hurricanes hit Florida... Some scientists say that this increase is related to global warming; others say it is not." "Thus, although variability is large, trends associated with human influences are evident in the environment in which hurricanes form, and our physical understanding suggests that the intensity of and rainfalls from hurricanes are probably increasing, even if this increase cannot yet be proven with a formal statistical test. Model results suggest a shift in hurricane intensities toward extreme hurricanes."

Time Magazine ran a story headlined "Is Global Warming Fueling Katrina?" Ross Belbspan, in the Boston Globe wrote that while the hurricane "was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming."

Hurricane Katrina was born August 23, 2005. It has been six years since the media was assuring us that global warming was driving hurricanes to greater intensities and frequency. According to the BBC, "The IPCC 2007 report claimed that global warming was leading to an increase in extreme weather, such as hurricanes and floods." They also noted that the IPCC reported was "based on an unpublished reprot which had not been subject to scientific scrutiny—indeed several experts warned the IPCC not to rely on it." The IPCC used the report because it substantiated the entire theory on which their very existence relies.

And, a new hurricane record is about to be set—but not the kind of record you would expect from the dire warnings. The last major hurricane to hit the United States was Wilma which was formed on October 15, 2005. Since then there have no large hurricanes (categories 3, 4, 5) to hit the United States. This record will be 2,232 days from the last major U.S. hurricane. The previous record was a period between September 8, 1900 and October 19, 1906. So this record means we have just gone through a period of the least amount of severe hurricanes since a century ago.

Roger Pielke, Jr. notes that the chances of an intense hurricane before next summer is practically zero, since hurricane season won't start until then. And he says it appears "the days between intense hurricane landfalls [are] likely to exceed 2,500 days." Of course, there is a decent chance that no severe hurricane will hit in 2012 either. But, we can't know until the winter of 2012. What we do know is that we have just gone through a period of the least intense hurricane activity in the memory of anyone alive on the planet today.

Tornado Season: A Little Perspective Please

There are certain people who always like to trumpet something as being worse than it is. And we are getting that from some environmentalists who are using the tornado season to once again hype their claims. This year's tornado season has been the "deadliest" on record but, and this is a big one, NOT REALLY. It all depends on how you want to look at the numbers.

The sad death toll this year is 520, the highest confirmed total previously was in 1953 ,when it was 519. Notice the use of the word "confirmed." Records indicate previous years with higher death totals, but in the past numbers were always estimates. For instance, in 1917 they estimated 551 deaths, 540 in 1927, and 552 in 1936. In fact, if those estimates are close, then 2011 was not the deadliest year, but the fourth deadliest year. And even that is not quite accurate.

What people are forgetting is that the population of areas hit by tornadoes is much larger than it was at any time in history. Consider an imaginary town called Tornadoville. In 1953 the town is wiped out and every single resident, within a one square mile area is killed. In 1953 the population might be 100 people. By 2011 that same square mile might have 300 people living there. If another tornado hits the town and kills 150 people it is the "deadliest" year but the death rate went down from 100% to 50%.

The more people there are in area, the greater the likelihood of some deaths, not because the tornadoes are necessarily worse, but because the population density is higher, making it more likely that some people will be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

By comparison let us take 1953 and compare it to 2011. The US population in 1953 was 160,184,192. Today, it is estimated to be 307,006,550. That is almost double what it was in 1953. The number of deaths per million in 1953 was almost twice as high as it is today. In reality the number of people killed per year by tornadoes has been declining if you take into account the greater number of people who live in the path of tornadoes. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has put together this chart showing the death rates from tornadoes, normalized to take population factors into account.


You can click on it to enlarge it if you wish. Here is how they explain it:

The purple points are the annual death rates, the red line is a simple smoother, the solid black line is a long-term trend in two sections (1875-1925, 1925-2000) and the cyan lines are estimates of the 10th percentile and 90th percentile from 1925-2000. Brooks and Doswell (2002) have an extensive discussion of the record and its possible implications.

But life is always more complicated that it appears on the surface. The death rate can decline simply because we have better houses to protect people, more advanced warning systems, better ability to evacuate an area, faster communication, etc. What about the number of tornadoes? Are they increasing due to evil climate change? Some would want you to think so, and openly claim that is happening. And, once again, on first glance it could look convincing. Consider the chart below, also from NOAA, about the number of tornadoes per year since 1950. It shows a clear increase.



Yet again, life is not so simple. NOAA says: "The number of tornadoes increased dramatically in the 1990s...." Now, some want you to think it was global warming. NOAA, however, finishes the sentence thusly: "....as the modernized National Weather Service installed the Doppler Radar Network." They also "began the Warning Coordination Meteorologist program increasing partnerships with media and Emergency Management across the United States." This included "the training of storm spotters" across the country. NOAA writes, "With more people trained to relay information on storm activity to the Weather Forecast Office and improved communication and digital technology, more tornadoes could be reported."

Consider a tornado in 1900. It might be a very lonely thing, spinning around in the middle of some rural county. Local folks would see it. It might even hit a farmhouse or two. They'd talk about it and the cow that went missing as a result. If the area had a local newspaper it might get mentioned there as well. No one would phone it in and to a central agency. They didn't have phones. Aunt Edith might write her sister about it. But certainly the weather forecaster on the local TV station didn't catch it, there were none. Neither did the radio, it wasn't really around either. Methods for reporting such things were scarce, and that reduced reporting. In some cases a tornado could briefly touch down and no one even realized it. Today, the radar systems pick them up, even if no one actually sees the damn thing.

Joshua Wurman, of the Center for Severe Weather Research admits the frequency of reported tornadoes has increased but says "there's pretty good evidence that it's due to improved reporting efficiency." In the end, since we are using better technology, and have better reporting, we report more tornadoes than our parents, or grandparents did. We don't actually have any evidence that tornadoes are more frequent, only that we are more likely to catch them when they do occur.

But, there is one more fallback for the alarmist: the level of intensity for the tornado. We have a system called the Enhanced Fujita Scale (EFS), which is used to determine storm intensity. And while it tries to include factors like wind speed it also relies heavily on "damage indicators." That means "the type of structure which has been damaged." Since the number and type of buildings damaged, along with the degree of damage, are used to determine the EFS rating, there are some drawbacks. As Wurman noted: "I've seen strong tornadoes going through open fields, and they don't really do a whole lot of damage."

Along with population growth, which increases the raw number of deaths, you get an increase in the number of buildings. More buildings mean more structural damage, which would tend to push up EFS scales. Wurman's tornado in an empty field couldn't easily be rated high on the EFS scale. Two years later a similar tornado, hitting a newly built shopping mall, would register on the scale in ways the previous tornado did not.

Life can be a bitch, a very complicated bitch. It is surely much easier to claim that tornadoes are more frequent, we are all at risk, and global warming is to blame. That at least, will help sell papers and improve broadcast ratings.

Yes, Sometimes They Just Make It Up!

Caroline Spelman is the Environment Secretary in the British government. As such it is her job to invent new catastrophes to justify the existence of her position. Global warming is the perfect disaster for those seeking new political controls. And since global warming can cause everything, and everything is proof of global warming, it is theory that can not be falsified.

Spelman has warned that global warming could disrupt the economy and one of the looming disasters is, "high temperatures disrupt Wi-Fi signals." Now, this was reported in the news so I went and double-checked the official government report and it does list high temperatures disrupting wireless signals as something that the government has to spend money correcting. Time magazine said: "Here's a side effect of global warming no one saw coming: it could negatively affect Wi-Fi signals. A report from the British Government's environmental department suggests that higher temperatures as a result of global warming will reduce the range of wireless signals." The Guardian reports: "Wi-fi internet access and other communications are at risk from global warming..." They even note this is example of how "climate change" would hit the developed world harder than developing nations.

The Guardian quotes Spelman as saying: "If climate change threatens the quality of your signal, or you can't get it because of extreme fluctuations in temperature, then you will be disadvantaged, which is why we must address the question." Remember in politics that "address the question" means spend billions of taxpayer funds on politically lucrative, but scientifically dubious, projects.

For a moment consider the worst-case models predicting global warming. Even the worst of them are nothing compared to normal temperature variations that already exist on the planet. I've lived in places where winter temperatures can average lower than Moscow and in places where summer temperatures go over 100 on a daily basis. The natural variations on the planet regularly surpass anything projected by the doomsayers.

Considering that Spelman was howling about doom in England lets use that country as an example. If the average temperature rose even by the absurdly high projection of 5 degrees this would make visits a lot more pleasant. According to the chart of average temperatures, put out by a London tourist department the average high in London doesn't go much about 70. According to uk.weather.com the highest average day temperature is 73.4.

That is our average temperature for April. Next month our average will be in the mid 80s, then the mid-90s in June and then around 100 for July and August. So all our wireless signals operate in a climate that varies from a winter low of below freezing to a summer high above 100. Those fluctuations take place within a few months time year in and year out and all wireless signals continue to operate fine.

We have real life examples of wireless signals working in all sorts of temperatures. Those of us in desert communities don't have to worry about having the signals constantly calibrated to take temperature fluctuations into account. And the temperature variations we face are far greater than the relatively small fluctuations predicted by warming models. If the average temperature in the UK rose by 5 degrees average there highest average day would be well below our typical spring high and well over 20 degrees below our summer average high.

But then, maybe, English wireless signals operate on different principles than do the signals in the American West. But somehow I doubt it.

Here, there and in-between.

First, this blogger has felt negligent of late when it comes to the blog, particularly to the comments. The reason is simple: I have been in a bit of pain of late due to a back problem which has severely limited mobility and requires I lie down periodically. That means all work is getting shunted aside and since some work is more important than other, such as that which pays the bills, it has to come first and blog comments are rather low on the list.

Those pesky Himalayan glaciers.

You may remember the rather humiliating incident where the InterGovernmental Panel on Climate Change published a 2007 false claim that Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Scientists in India refuted the claims and the head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, who has no credentials in a related field, attacked them quite publicly. It later turned out the 2035 was about as bogus as one could expect. Pachauri eventually admitted his error but made dire predictions.

The general retreat of glaciers began when the Little Ice Age ended, long before carbon emissions were an issue. So, in some ways predicting retreating glaciers is a pretty safe bet. They were retreating prior to the global warming scare and will most likely continue retreating, in general, after the scare is replaced by something else.

But glaciers are troublesome things, they don't always act to pattern or according to human predictions. So scientists from the University of California and the University of Potsdam have just finished a study of 286 glaciers in the Himalayas in order to find out precisely what is going on. They studied six regions of the Himalayas and found that the key factor regarding glacial retreat was debris such as rocks and mud strewn on the top of the glacier as a result of movement. In some areas this is common and other areas it is not. Where it is uncommon glaciers retreat.

In the Karakoram region the majority of glaciers are actually advancing, not retreating. The report of the scientists says, "there is no uniform response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change and highlights the importance of debris cover for understanding glacier retreat, an effects that has so far been neglected in predictions of future water availability or global sea level.." Dr. Bodo Bookhagen, one of the scientsits says "there is no stereotypical Himalayan glacier" and said the IPCC "lumps all Himalayan glaciers together."

The Hindustan Times, notes that officials and scientists from India, have long questioned the IPCC claims about glaciers in India. They write that this new report "support India's opposition to claims by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

Writing Funny, Talking Funny

I periodically go through old posts on the blog catching typos I previously missed. One of the great problems I've noticed, and tried to correct, is an unsteady application of spelling. I often use the British spelling for a word though the blog is published in the United States. It wouldn't be so bad if I were able to apply one spelling consistently. But I confess, that I can't do so easily.

The main problem is that I have lived in the U.S., several nations of the British Commonwealth and a non-English speaking country as well. So I will often write labour, not labor, for instance. I periodically refer to the "boot" of the car and have to consciously stop and consider whether the front window of the car is a windscreen or a windshield. I continue to look for the "lift" to go to my room in hotels.

One humiliating incident took place at a restaurant that served pulled pork sandwiches. I asked for the sandwich with chips. The woman at the counter told me that they don't serve chips. I insisted that they did, I had them on my previous visit. She insisted I was wrong. How could I be wrong? I clearly remember sitting there and eating them on my last visit and several before that. Of course, I realized I meant to say fries, not chips. At least I didn't say: "Eine pommes bitte."

Issues get worse when it comes to what might be described as "slang" terms that are used. So I have slang from several different countries accumulated in my brain. I remember one incident where I used a word and was asked what it meant. I could define it rather easily but when asked where the term was from I couldn't remember. At least regionalism in the U.S. aren't so bad. I do get the "pop," "soda" thing here, which then gets compounded by the fact that overseas it was called a "cold drink." The later phrase seems to be the one I use most now. And I still tell friends I have to stop for petrol. But my "tomato" sounds particularly British unless I catch myself before hand and change the pronunciation.

It is my writing that is most problematic. And that is why I mention it here. In most of these countries I wrote for various publications. And that would mean I had to use the local spellings. Sometimes I rewrite an older piece I wrote and thus end up with different spellings for the same word. I might "subsidise" where I meant to "subsidize." I "went to hospital" instead of "to the hospital," or went to the theatre instead of the theater. Sometimes the boats were in harbour and sometimes in the harbor. There is Labor Day and Labour Day. And then there are the times I just can't remember if the word is US English or British English or slang. And each of the Commonwealth nations were multi-lingual as well, having other languages widely used. And many of those words cross over in English there.

The net result of all this is I often find myself using words from five different countries, at least seven languages, and with multiple spellings.

And to make it worse my computer is so confused by spelling in multiple ways it tends to spell-check in British English when I need American English. It's bloody useless in that sense.

The birth of a panic.

I am betting that this story will go viral precisely because it feeds into the political ideology of people. (Actually this story is already viral, with tens of thousands of websites reporting it.)

The town of Ilulissat, Greenland got glimmers of sunlight two days earlier than normal. So it was panic time. As scientists note this was the only place that got sunlight earlier than normal so it had nothing to do with the earth tilting at a different angle and the sun isn't moving.

But there is a class of panic-mongers always ready to jump on anything and everything as proof that we need to implement their political agenda: that is the global warming hysterics. Here is how Huffington Post explains it:

But the most troublesome theory may also be the truth. Some scientists suggest that the sun rose early due to global warming, namely, Greenland's melting ice capes.

What sort of reporting uses the phrase "may also be the truth" and why did they say this. This certainly wouldn't be the most troublesome theory, the earth shifting on its axis would be a tad bit more upsetting and more obvious.

Huffington Post says there "is some debate" about this. Actually no. They warming hysterics say the sun appeared early because ice sheets melted and are lower than normal. Even if that is the case it doesn't make sense in this case. The ice sheets near this town are to the east. Given the location of the town, north of the Arctic circle, the sun rises almost due south. The ice sheets could disappear completely and it wouldn't change sunrise for this town.

There is one final, conclusive proof that lower ice sheets had nothing to do with the sunrise being earlier than usual. The first day the "sun rose" was January 11th, not January 13th. So what happened January 12th? Nothing. No sun rise whatsoever. And on the 13th the sunrise appeared to be later than normal. Apparently the ice sheets grew substantially in a 24 hour period, if they are the culprits as the hysterics are theorizing. If lower ice sheets explains the sunrise on the 11th, but there was none on the 12th and it was late on the 13th, then the same ice sheets had to have massively expanded. Of course, ice sheets have nothing to do with it.

What is interesting is the dishonest way Huffington Post reports this story. They have one sentence saying that a scientist explains "that the sun's rays may have have a stronger bend than usual, resulting in the sun appearing earlier." But then they have two paragraphs talking about global warming. They then start listing various things to blame on warming including blizzards, faster satellites, allergies, wildfires and "the potential reintroduction of smallpox" and then say: "And now, we just may have to add 'early sunrise' to the list."

Their source is LiveScience. But LiveScience offers a more realistic take than Huffington Post.

LiveScience says experts agree this is "not a sign of earlier spring around the Northern Hemisphere." The appearance of the sunlight was restricted to this one area of the world only. One scientist told LiveScience the cause was most likely "the refraction of sunlight at the horizon." LiveScience writes: "Most of the other scientists interviewed agreed this was the most likely culprit."

So, most the scientists said it was light refraction and not global warming. Yet Huffington Post spends considerable more time theorizing that warming is the culprit and briefly mentions refraction, which is the "most likely" cause. They spend more time on warming, which couldn't be involved in this situation, and hardly mention the "most likely" reason it happened. But then there is no political agenda attached to light refraction—at least not yet.

As bad as the Huffington Post report was, Time was even worse. They use a Reuters report on the incident that says: "Perhaps the most convincing explanation is Greenland's melting polar ice caps." They offer no source whatsoever for why this is the most convincing explanation given the ice sheets are in the wrong direct to be a factor.

Where did Time get their story? According to the web report "via Huffington Post." Follow how this game is played.

First, LiveScience reports the sun appeared two days early, says that there were many theories, dismisses that warming was involved and says the "most likely" cause was stronger light refraction than normal. Huffington Post rewrites the story, de-emphasizes the "most likely" cause and spend an inordinate amount of space on global warming which was dismissed in the original story as being a factor. Then the Reuters reporter, Bob Strong, uses the Huffington Post article, not the original source, to rewrite the story. In his rewrite the "most likely" cause gets NO mention whatsoever. And the theory that was dismissed in the original article becomes "the most convincing explanation" as a result.

It appears to me that Huffington Post rewrote the original story to fit their political agenda. But the Reuters reporter is guilty of sloppy journalism, or more likely, lazy-ass journalism. He read the Huffington Post distortion and simply didn't bother to go to the original source to see what it really said. And then, probably because it fit his politics, he took the HP distortion and reported it as if that is what the original article said. And the false story is spreading, a combination of the fact that most journalists are lazy and most believe warming is a threat so anything confirming that must be truth.

The Daily Mail, who were recently took on due to the bizarre reporting of Peter Hitchens, runs the story claiming that "the most likely explanation is that it is down to the lower height of melting icecaps allowing the sun's light to penetrate through earlier." There is no mention to the original article reporting that the "most likely" explanation was light refraction. Light refraction doesn't sell newspaper, fear stories about warming does.

The UK website, FirstPost runs even further with the bogus take on the story. "Scientists claim to have discovered more evidence of global warming, aster the sun rose two days early in Greenland, apparently because melting glaciers lowered the horizon." This article briefly mentions light refraction as a "possible" explanation right after mention "conspiracy theorists blaming everything from chemtrails to build-up of methane in the atmosphere or a shift in the earth's axis."

The European Union Times actually said this incident "shocked scientist the world over as this historic event leaves many wondering if, in fact, the End of Days are now truly here." Okay, clearly this is a kook site. But so is the Daily Mail.

Here we witness the birth of a panic story that is completely bogus. We witness the distortions being introducted by Huffington Post, we then see other reporters using the HP story as the basis for their own story. But they tweak the story even more. Soon the story is spreading like wildfire that warming melted the ice in Greenland, lowering the horizon, causing the sun to come up early. That, in spite of pretty convincing evidence, that such a claim is entirely false. The theory dismissed by most scientists originally is now reported as the "most likely explanation" while what scientists actually said was the likely cause goes unreported.

Welcome to the modern world of journalism.

Photo: This photo is not Greenland, it is just to illustrate the story.

What doesn't prove global warming?

As much as I try to follow the global warming debate I have yet to find one succinct article that outlines precisely what we should expect to see if there were NO global warming.

The last few winters in Europe have been colder than normal and rather snowy. The Telegraph reports: "The average temperature of the season so far has be -0.8C (32F), colder than any year since 1683/84 when the mercury plunged to -1.17C (29.9F)." So, the UK is headed toward the coldest winter in over 300 years! Met Eireann, the Irish weather office says that temperatures in Ireland are at the lowest they've been for 130 years and "December has officially been the coldest month ever on record." Gerald Fleming, of the Met office says: "At all our stations thus far it has been the coldest December on record. Those records in some cases go back to the the mid-1850s." Ireland also recorded the coldest day ever in its history. You should realize this is the third very cold winter in a row for the UK.

Chattanooga, TN, has had the 4th coldest winter ever on record. In Hong Kong, a sub-tropical city, "temperatures feel to six degrees Celsius" allowing the formation of ice and frost which is "hardly ever seen in the sub-tropical city." Sunny Tampa, Florida, is also facing "the coldest December on record for Tampa." So far this frigid weather has hit North America, Europe and Asia. And it is coming with heavy snowfall.

The left-wing Democracy Now site has any interview by Amy Goodman with Paul Epstein of the Center for Health and the Global Environment. He wants to make it clear that while natural variability is never absent the colder weather IS a result of warming. There has been no shortage of pundits and prophets explaining how warming is increasing the snow levels and decreasing temperatures.

But, if we go back just 10 years, we find that the same gang of pundits and prophets were arguing that the evidence for global warming would be warmer winters and less snow. Consider this article from The Independent, in March of 2000. It was entitled: "Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past."

The article laid out the "consensus" "now accepted as a reality by the international community," that global warming was happening and it was "manifesting itself more in winters which are less cold than in much hotter summers." So 10 years ago the consensus was that warming would mean "less cold" winters. After three years of colder-than-normal winters the media is now telling us the consensus is that warming will cause colder winters. So warmer winters proves warming and colder winters prove warming. Exactly what doesn't prove warming?

The same article not only said warming would cause warmer winters but would mean that snow would become extinct. They wrote:

Sledges, snowmen, snowballs and the excitement of waking to find that the stuff has settled outside are all a rapidly diminishing part of Britain's culture, as warmer winters - which scientists are attributing to global climate change - produce not only few white Christmases, but fewer white Januaries and Februaries.

David Viner, a global warming "expert" at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, which is a major center of the warming hysteria, told the Independent that thanks to warming snowfall will be "a very rare and exciting event." He lamented: "Children just aren't going to know what snow is." David Parker at the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research confirmed that warming will mean warmer winters and much less snow. according to him "British children could have only virtual experience of snow. Via they internet, they might wonder at polar scenes - or eventually 'feel" virtual cold."

The Independent sadly reported:

The chance are certainly now stacked against the sort of heavy snowfall in cities that inspired Impressionist painters, such as Sisley, and the 19th century poet laureate Robert Bridges, who wrote in "London Snow" of it, "stealthily and perpetually settling and loosely lying."

Not any more, it seems

Not any more? Well, unless you count this year, last year, and the year before. Like temperature it appears that any level of snow proves global warming. If snow is absent then global warming is the reason. If snow is overly plentiful then global warming is the reason.

Let me state what I think happens. The warming theorists make predictions and when the predictions turn out wrong they revise them to fit what actually did happen. So that, the current state of warming theory is always "proven" by the past record. But a theory that can't predict the future is useless. The most blatant example of changing forecasts after the fact came from the British Met Office in 2008. In September they sent out a press release forecasting a "milder than average" winter for the UK. In the middle of December they acknowledged "the UK has had the coldest winter in over 30 years." Instead of admitting they got it wrong they sent out a press release claiming: "The Met Office seasonal forecast predicted the cold start to the winter season with milder conditions expected during January and February."

But January remained cold without the milder conditions they predicted. No worries, a new press release announced: "The Met Office correctly forecast the spell of cold weather and kept the public informed via our various forecasts."

In the past I've reported on how increased rain was caused by global warming but when the same areas experienced dry conditions the media reported that too was the result of the warming. More snow in the UK is proof of warming, but warming will also mean snow disappears in the UK. Winters in Europe will be warmer because of warming except for those years when they will be cooler than normal.

I also note that when weather patterns go contrary to warming theory we are reminded that we shouldn't confuse weather with climate: which is good advice. But when weather patterns appears in line with warming theory they are presented as proof that the theory is correct.

I admit I'm a layman just trying to figure out the facts. But what really makes me skeptical about the whole warming theory is the way that everything proves warming. Global warming causes warmer winters, until the winters get colder and then they too are the result of warming. Global warming causes snowless winters and threatens to make snow entirely extinct, until there is massive amounts of snow which are then attributed to warming as well—and in the same area. Dryer summers in one country are the result of warming, but when the same country has wetter weather that too is the result of warming.

Apparently any outcome is proof that warming is happening and that mankind is responsible. Global warming causes everything and everything proves global warming.

Now to explain the photo. That photo was taken today in Scottsdale, Arizona. The white flakes you see on the picture IS snow.

Warming, rain forests and alarmists.

The left-wing British paper The Guardian has reported that trees in rainforests "may be hardier than previously thought." As the Guardian explains it warming won't cause as much "damage" as previously thought.

That is almost close to what the article actually reports. Studies conducted by Carlos Jaramillo, of the Smithsonian Tropical Rearch Institute, investigated the claims of warming "models" which indicate that a small amount of warming will mean that "most of the forest is going to be extinct." What he found "was the opposite of what we were expecting: we didn't find any extinction event [in plants] associated with the increase in temperature, we didn't find that the precipitation decreased."

The Guardian started out saying that "rising temperatures will not do as much damage as feared..." That clearly implies that damage will still be done, but it won't be as much as feared originally. But a couple paragraphs down the article says something entirely contradictory to this:

Contrary to expectations, [Jaramillo] found that forests bloomed with diversity. New species of plants, including those from the passionflower and chocolate families, evolved quicker as others became extinct. The study also shows moisture levels did not decrease significantly during the warm period. "It was totally unexpected," Jaramillo said of the findings.

What is the "complete opposite" of damage? It is not damage, but benefits.

Let us start with who Carlos Jaramillo is, other than a reseacher with the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute. He was also president of the American Association of Stratigraphic Palynologist. He specializes in the study of tropical biodiversity. Perhaps it isn't the most exciting field but he's a top expert and shouldn't be ignored. Jaramillo's article, along with 28 contribution authors, wrote a piece in the current issue of Science magazine entitled "Effects of Rapid Global Warming at Paleocene-Eocene Boundary on Neotropical Vegentation." (Hey, I told you it wasn't exciting.)

Here is how the article is summarized:

Temperatures in tropical regions are estimated to have increased by 3° to 5°C, compared with Late Paleocene values, during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM, 56.3 million years ago) event. We investigated the tropical forest response to this rapid warming by evaluating the palynological record of three stratigraphic sections in eastern Colombia and western Venezuela. We observed a rapid and distinct increase in plant diversity and origination rates, with a set of new taxa, mostly angiosperms, added to the existing stock of low-diversity Paleocene flora. There is no evidence for enhanced aridity in the northern Neotropics. The tropical rainforest was able to persist under elevated temperatures and high levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, in contrast to speculations that tropical ecosystems were severely compromised by heat stress.

Less damage? This doesn't sound like less harm, as the Guardian implied, but like thriving instead. The assumption made by the warming alarmists is that warming will destroy the rainforests. The Guardian article noted how the alarmist Hadley Centre previously made claims very much the opposite of these actual studies. They report:

Last year, researchers at the Met Office Hadley Centre reported that a 2C rise above pre-industrial levels, widely considered the best-case scenario, would still see 20-40% of the Amazon die off within 100 years. A 3C rise would see 75% of the forest destroyed by drought in the next century, while a 4C rise would kill 85%.

So the warming theory, based on the models used by the alarmists said that as much as 85% of the rainforests could be destroyed by warming. Jaramillo and his team of researches decided to look at what actually did happen in rainforests in the past during a previous warming period. According to The Scientific American the studies shows that: "In the past, rising atmospheric carbon dioxide and higher temperatures actually drove the evolution of far greater numbers of new rainforest plant species than were wiped out."

By studying fossilized pollent from the Palaocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum they were able to study how plants responded to temperatures that were 3-5 degrees warmer than they are today, and when cardon dioxide levels were 2 to 2.5 times higher than now. Jaramillo said, "The diversity of the tropical forest increased really fast over a very short amount of time." Jaramillo admits he is worried that "some people will look at this and saw 'we shouldn't care about global warming,' but this is what the fossil record is telling us."

Just last year well-known alarmist Chris Jones, of the Hadley Center was claiming that a 2C increase in temperatures would mean that "between 20 and 40 per cent of the forest could die." He told the world that the die out had probably already started and that just a 3C increase in temperatures would kill 70% of the rainforest.

Those were what the models told him and the models drive climate policy. The evidence, unfortunately said that under a warmer, more CO2 rich environment plant life actually didn't die out, but thrived.

Who's deceiving now?

Ever since Bjorn Lomborg came on the scene the Green Left has hated him. I don't. Certainly not as a person, any interactions we have had have always been pleasant. I liked him when we meet and still like him, which is not to say I always agree with him. The Green Left does not share my opinion, but that is not surprising.

So they are quite excited that one of their own has penned an attack on Lomborg, merely because it attacks Lomborg. It is being hyped and praised by all the usual suspects. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation claims that Howard Friel, author of The Lomborg Deception, has "read Lomborg's books and thoroughly checked hundreds of Lomborg's sources and references" and "has concerns." Actually he wrote a hatchet job, which is more than being concerned. George Monbiot, in an attack on science writer Matt Ridley says that that Lomborg made so many errors "that an entire book—The Lomborg Deception by Howard Friel—was required to document them." That's an implicit endorsement of Friel's work though Monbiot's logic is bad. That an entire book was written doesn't mean that an entire book was needed to document errors. In fact, it is clear that Friel spends a great deal of time rebutting things Lomborg didn't say, or going off on tangents unrelated to what Lomborg actually did say. Newsweek gave The Lomborg Deception a less than rousing endorsement but said people should read it if they read Lomborg, much the way if you read the Talmud you ought to have Mein Kampf on hand, I guess.

This is just a blog, not an encyclopedia, so I can focus only on a small portion of Friel's "rebuttal" to Lomborg. Friel was particularly upset that Lomborg had said that the glaciers in the Himalayas would run down toward the end of the century, not much earlier. And he claimed that Lomborg only referenced the decline of the glaciers as being the result of the end to the Little Ice Age. Lomborg had quoted a scientific source for the claim that the end of Ice Age started the decline of the glaciers butFriel says that Lomborg "chopped' off the quote to delete a reference to human caused warming being involved. The problem was that the entire quote from Lomborg actually did mention global warming. Lomborg is less of a skeptic than I am, he does think there is human-induced warming and has said so. He even says it may have serious impact on humans, even though Friel claims to the contrary.

Friel quite specifically says that Lomborg was guilty of "misstating the projected life expectancy of the glaciers" in the Himalayas. Friel then goes on to say that Lomborg ignores the fact that: "Glaciers in the Himalaya are receding faster than any other part of the world and, if the present rate continues, the likelihood of the disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high if the Earth keeps warming at the current rate." Friel, in his "scientific" rebuttal to the bad science of Lomborg makes this claim repeatedly.

He says: "the likelihood of them disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high," and "the Himalayan glaciers will disappear 'by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner,' and not 'toward the end of the century,' as Lomborg wrote." And Friel claimed "the glaciers may disappear by 2035...." Four times in his rebuttal he attacks Lomborg for not saying the Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2035 or sooner. And his source for this claim is the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change itself along with the World Wildlife Fund. Actually the IPCC was quoting the WWF so there weren't two sources and it is a tad bit dishonest to pretend there were.

Of course, Friel's "scientific" rebuttal falls apart because even the IPCC was forced to admit that the 2035 melt date was grossly in error and wasn't based on a peer-reviewed paper. It was a typographical error that just kept getting repeated by the alarmists. Let me recount the story of the 2035 claim. New Science magazine, it turns out, was the original published source used for this claim and they confessed that the claim was a "speculative comment" never submitted to peer review. And they were horrified that the IPCC printed the claim, second hand from the WWF without bothering to check it. They said: "We are entitled to an explanation" as to how this could happen, saying this was further damaging the reputation of the IPCC.

It also appears that the 2035 claim was floating about because of a paper by one V.M. Kotlyakov which estimated the shrinkage of the glaciers and said it expected them to melt by the year 2350. Someone, somewhere along the line, transposed the year 2350 into 2035. In fact, major glaciologists had all attacked the figure as being grossly out of line with the facts. The BBC reported that Michael Kemp of the World Glacier Monitoring System said that it is "not plausible that that Himalayan glaciers are disappearing within the next few decades."

The IPCC eventually admitted that the claim they had made was unfounded and unscientific. They released a statement saying that "clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by IPCC procedures were not applied properly" allowing "poorly substantiated estimates of rate and recession and date for the disappearance of Himalayan glaciers" to appear in their publication. The Guardian newspaper reported the "IPCC has said it regretted the mistake" and blamed it on "human failure."

So, according to Friel, one of Lomborg's major egregious "deceptions" was that he didn't realize the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035, as was documented by WWF and the IPCC. But Friel is the one who is wrong and not even the primary source he uses, to prove Lomborg was deceptive, actually thinks the evidence is accurate. Certainly on these claims Friel was wrong and Lomborg was right to not use the discredited claims.

I should note that this blog first reported on this error in 2009. I covered it again earlier this year, and then again a little later in 2010. Yale University Press published Friel's book in March, 2010. This means that it was already public knowledge that Friel's claim was wrong three months prior to the publication of his book, at the very least. Yet it was still published with Friel's accusations, based on totally bogus data, in place. Newsweek's review of Friel, the one that said people should keep the book on hand when reading Lomborg, says Friel got "tripped up" over the glacier assertion, acknowledges the IPCC admits they were wrong and says: "Friel criticizes Lomborg for saying they would disappear by the end of this century, arguing that he should have accepted the IPCC's date of 2034. Oops."

In reply to the "oops" comment from Newsweek, allow me to quote Arnold Beckoff, the main character in Torch Song Trilogy, in relation to "whoops," which is close enough for the point I want to make:

Whoops?
Ed, did you say "Whoops"?
"Whoops" is when you fall down an elevator shaft.
"Whoops" is when you skinny dip in a school of piranha.
"Whoops' is when you accidentally douche with Drano.
No, Ed.
This was no "Whoops."
This was an "AAARGH!".

But this "oops" raises some questions. Why is Friel being promoted as someone who thoroughly checked out all the facts to rebut Lomborg? Clearly, on something as obvious as the melting of the Himalayan glaciers Friel couldn't have bothered to check out the facts when he was attacking Lomborg. Had he done so he would have investigated what experts said about glaciers and quoted them. And they were rounding condemning the IPCC for getting the facts wrong. So what kind of checking did Friel do?

I suggest that all he wanted to do was show Lomborg "wrong," not because the research he had done proved this, but because he already knew Lomborg had to be wrong and went out searching for evidence to back up his conclusion. He was the proverbial judge with the death sentence already in his book merely seeking what charges to lay against the accused. To show Lomborg wrong he went no further than the IPCC. Yet, the moment the IPCCs was subjected to just a small amount of scrutiny it fell like a house of cards. Even this blogger knew this claim was false. So why didn't the meticulous, thorough, debunking Friel realize the error was wrong? Why did he include it in his book? The only answer I can give is that he didn't actually bother to subject the IPCC's claim to any scrutiny whatsoever, he took it on faith, the way fundamentalists believe the Bible. This isn't an "ooops," not by any means. It's an aaargh!

How Doomsday Types Turn Possible Good News into Bad

The last gray whale seen int eh Atlantic was in the 18th century. According to Discovery.com:

There are, in fact, no gray whales in the Atlantic—–have not been, for that matter, since the eighteenth century, when the species was possibly exterminated from the hemisphere by commercial whalers.

Today, gray whales exist in two populations, both in the Pacific: a critically endangered western Pacific population believed to number fewer than 200 individuals, and an eastern Pacific population of approximately 20,000. Members of the latter breed in the lagoons of Baja California; swim north along the coasts of Mexico, the United States and Canada to feed in the Arctic waters north of Alaska and northeastern Siberia; and then return south.

But, and this is a big but, a gray whale was spotted and photographed off the cost of Israel in the Mediterranean. So is this good news? Nope, the doomsday types say that good news is unlikely——but it always is with this crowd.



Instead of being good news that a whale was spotted back in this hemisphere, for the first time in centuries, it is proof that global warming is destroying the planet.

They argue that the whale took "advantage of ice-free conditions" and swam into the Atlantic. First, there was never ice-free conditions in the Northwest Passage, just reduced ice. Every summer the ice in the passage retreats and grows back in the winter. Watch this time lapse of the retreat and growth of the ice since 1978, which when such records were first kept. You will see that for most summers the ice retreats sufficiently to allow a whale to make this journey, if it so chooses. The Northwest Passage has been navigable to man for well over a century and certainly would be navigable to whales during that same period.

It is true that in recent years wind patterns in the Arctic have blown ice out of the region and into warmer waters where it melted, so the Passage was more easily navigated in the past. Using data collected by NASA a team of researchers at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory found that "the rapid decline in winter perennial ices the past two years was caused by unusual winds." And the winds, they said, were due to " unusual atmospheric conditions [that] set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream and then sped its flow out of the Arctic." You can information on other NASA studies which "confirms many changes seen in upper Arctic Ocean circulation in the 1990s were mostly decadal in nature, rather than trends caused by global warming." These ice changes are not due to global warming.

The Northwest Passage has been navigable multiples times over the last century as the records clearly show—in spite of the false claims in the media that this has been a recent occurrence.

You may remember that when dolphins were spotted in the Baltic we had some people crowing that this proves global warming. Spiegel claimed the appearance was the "the result of warmer temperatures due to global warming. I debunked that nonsense by showing that dolphins were spotted in the Baltic centuries ago and that numerous reputable sources list the Baltic as one area where dolphins are regularly spotted and have been for many, many years. Yet this rather usual sighting was reported by numerous media outlets as another ominous sign of global warming.

There are two possible stories with this whale. One is that a small number of whales survived and were never spotted in the past. This is dismissed as impossible. Of course the coelacanth, which is a rather large fish, was believed have gone extinct during the Cretaceous period, almost 66 million years ago. But one was found again in 1938, millions of years after it was believed to have vanished. Since then many more have been caught. And, quite by coincidence, a hiker in Sweden found an oar fish that had died, on the beach. This fish, which can grow to 39 feet long, was last seen in Sweden around 130 years ago, though two were seen on English beaches last year.

Another story is that a lone whale got lost, took advantage of one the multiple times that Northwest Passage was navigable, and is stuck. The first story is a tremendously good one, the second a sad one for this whale but relatively inconsequential to the fate of the planet. But what this isn't, is a story about global warming and impeding disaster.

But these days global warming theory seems to come down to this: everything causes global warming, global warming causes everything, everything is evil. So everything should be banned, restricted, regulated, controlled or taxed.

If only the weather were as predictable as the alarmists.

It seems that a group of US warming alarmists have been emailing one another discussing an offensive against those nasty people who question their theory. I was looking at those emails and one of them, apparently from David Schindler says:

"I'd add that Edmonton is near snowless and has been shirtsleeve weather for most of 2010 instead of the usual -40C... but of course there are no major media here, so only the locals know!"

Unlike most global warming theory, which is based on models projecting into the future what the theorists think will happen, given the assumptions they make, this claim is easily verified in the here and now. So I did.

First, I wondered if the "usual" temperature in Edmonton is -40C, as the author claimed.

According to the BBC the average minimum temperature in Edmonton, for January, is -20 and the average high is -9. For February it is -17 and -6 respectively. The record low is -50, so it appears that -40C is not usual at all, but would be highly unusual. I went to the Canadian Weather Office for more official data. They say the daily average in January, in Edmonton, is -11.7, not -40 as Schindler claimed in his email. For February, the weather office says the average is -8.4. They say the January "extreme minimum" was -44.4, set in 1943 and for February the extreme minimum was -46.1, set in 1939.

The record lows for Edmonton are barely colder than what Schindler claimed is the "usual" weather in Edmonton. The official data shows the "usual" weather is nowhere near -40C, either an a daily average, or as the daily low. Temperatures of -40 are not "usual."

What about Edmonton having "shirtsleeve" weather this year? Since Schindler said this was "for most of 2010" and since he wrote the email on February 27th, it is fair to look at average temperatures for January and February in Edmonton. Obviously there is no objective definition of "shirtsleeve weather," so that is more ambiguous than the now-debunked claim that the usual temperature is -40C. But I sincerely doubt anyone reading this would actually define the weather in Edmonton, this year, as shirtsleeve weather. I would dare Prof. Schindler to spend much time outside, in his shirtsleeves, during even the warmest of the days this year in Edmonton. At best there were a few hours that might qualify as "shirtsleeze" weather. A few hours over 58 days is not "most of 2010."

For the last third of January the temperature never got higher than -5.1C (yes that is negative) and the minimum temperature went down t0 -21.5C.

Here is the maximum temperature, per day, for February: 1st, -6.4C; 2nd, -7.4C; 3rd, -4.7C; 4th, -6.6C; 5th, -8.9C; 6th, -6.7C; 7th, -5.9C; 8th, -5.6C; 9th, -2.4C; 1oth, 1.7C; 11th, -1.7C; 12th, -8.6C; 13th, -14.6C; 14th, -6.1C; 15th, 4.8C; 16th, 1C; 17th, 2.3C; 18th, 2; 19th,-2.4C; 20th, -6.3C; 21st, 0.4C; 22nd -5.1C; 23rd, -5.1C; 24th, 4.2C; 25th, 5.5C; 26th, 7.3C; 27th, 0.6. I end with the day of Schindler's email since he was referring to the weather to that date.

Considering that when Schindler made his claim, there had been only 58 days in 2010, it certainly was easy to check how accurate he was. He said that "most of 2010," as of that day, had been shirtsleeve weather. The official data shows the average day to be below freezing. Only a few days crept above freezing and just a handful had highs in the 40s (F). Even defining "shirtsleeve weather" very broadly it is impossible to say that "most of 2010" was "shirtsleeve weather." Mr. Schindler grossly exaggerated the warming.

I have also looked at his other claim, that the "usual" temperature in Edmonton is -40C. I don't know if "usual" is supposed to be the mean temperature or the usual low temperature. Normally I would take his comment as referring to the usual mean temperature. Unfortunately for him, neither would substantiate his claim. The most favorable interpretation would be to say he meant the mean low temperature for those months. But that is still far off the mark since the mean couldn't be that close to the record low. For the record, the mean temperature for Janaury, 2010 in Edmonton was -12; for February it was -8. In addition to exaggerating Edmonton's "warm" weather, Schindler grossly exaggerated it's "usual" cold weather as well. This seems par for the course with the alarmists, hence the designation "alarmist."

Perhaps Mr. Schindler thought he could get away with it because, as he said, "there are no major media here." Unfortunately for him, there is weather data available. Of course, that is before they "adjust" the data with unknown formulas in their climate models. No doubt when they finish that process Edmonton will have had the "warmest" winter in recent memory.

But, doesn't Mr. Schindler's claim—even if it were true—confuse weather with climate? After all, we constantly hear that record colds don't disprove warming theory since the one is weather, and the theory is about climate. Of course, when we have extraordinarily warm days the warming alarmists bleat about it constantly. So apparently the "weather isn't climate" slogan only applies to weather that contradicts their theory, not weather that is alleged to confirm it. As far as I know, all weather, of whatever kind, for however long, is considered proof of warming. I've yet to find out what the alarmists say would falsify their theory.

I also note, with some amusement, that one of the prominent names among the emailers about countering the evil skeptics was Paul Ehrlich. Ehrlich is certainly an alarmist, if ever there was one. His history of unsubstantiated looming disasters are well known. And, again par for the course, his solutions were always massive government control of individuals. His first alarmist work was The Population Bomb, which said: "By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth's population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion people." He predicted a massive famine in America with populations plunging to around 2.6 million by 1999. (Yep, still waiting for that one as well.) He predicted the oceans wouldbe destroyed by 1979 and said: "If I were a gambler, I would tekae even money that Engliand will not exist in the year 2000." If anyone deserves the lable "alarmist" it is Ehrlich. I know of no prominent left-wing environmentalist who has been as hysterical, on as broad range of topics as Ehrlich. I should also note that I can't think of anyone in the field of public academia who has been so consistently wrong either.

Given Ehrlich's history of paranoid alarmism I'm not suprised he is now in a warming alarmist. Given his track record, when it comes to being right, I find his presence in the warming camp actually rather assuring.

Updates on the politics and finances of warming

The UK's left-wing Guardian has a report on battered warming alarmist Phil Jones, the principle participant in the Climategate controversy. You will remember that Jones was the man who told a skeptic that he wouldn't release his data because the skeptic would be looking for errors in it.

Jones appeared before a Parliamentary Investigation and was asked about his refusal to release data so that it could be scrutinized. Jones said replied: "I have obviously written some very awful emails." MP Graham Stringer asked again: "But you wouldn't let him have the data." Jones replied: "We had a lot of work and resources tied up in it."

The Guardian said that was Jones "digging himself in a little deeper." Truly it is, but does reveal something that is true about human nature that explains a lot about the politics of warming. This is an example of what Tyler Cowan would call the "inner economist." People invest in things, and when they invest, they don't want to know that their investment was wrong or misguided. They want confirmation and don't want bad news. There is a natural tendency to seek out what verifies our beliefs and avoid material that doesn't. Jones was protecting his investment.

Jones admits that he didn't give out the material because he had a "lot of work and resources" invested in his theory and he simply didn't want someone finding the flaws. That is an honest admission. It is also one of the reasons I try to reconsider my positions on issues with some regularity—hence the reason I recently changed my mind on hate crime legislation (which is not the same thing as hate speech legislation which I oppose). My reasoning is at the end of this post.

Jones brought his vice chancellor, Edward Acton, with him as part of his support and defense. Acton made an important concession, and Jones didn't repudiate him when he did so:

Acton conceded that not everything pointed in the same direction. It's acknowledged that several hundred years ago Earth became much warmer. If we knew why, we could explain a lot. "The early medieval period is something we should spend more time researching," he mused. This was probably the first time anyone had said that to a parliamentary committee since Simon de Montfort ran the place.

In a previous interview with the BBC Jones admitted that there has been no significant global warming global warming since 1995. And he said that since 2002 the temperature trend has been toward cooling "but this trend is not statistically significant" as well. Jones also said that the if the Medieval Warm Period "was shown to be global in extent and as warm or warmer than today then obviously the late-20th century warmth would be be unprecedented." This is one reason the alarmists spent so much time and energy trying to eradicate the MWP. Many of them have gone so far as to say the MWP is a myth and didn't exist. So for the Jones "defense team" to admit "that several hundred years ago Earth became much warmer" is a significant concession.

Jones said he collaborated with climate units in the US, Russia and Japan and "We may be using a lot of common date." Telegraph columnist Gerald Warner says that is significant. "It is the raw data that matters. If that is wrong, nuances of interpretation based on it are irrelevant..."

A column published by the Australian Broadcasting Company makes an interesting point that is often neglected in this debate: almost all the funding pushes research in one direction. Joanne Nova looked at the "money trail" of the climate debate and said that the skeptics "are actually the true grassroots campaigners, while Greenpeace defends Wall St." She notes the skeptics are up agains "a billion dollar industry aligned with a trillion dollar trading scheme." Nova notes "that there are no grants for scientists to demonstrate that carbon has little effect. She writes:

...there is no group or government seriously funding scientists to expose flaws. The lack of systematic auditing of the IPCC, NOAA, NASA or East Anglia CRU, leaves a gaping vacuum. It's possible that honest scientists have dutifully followed their grant applications, always looking for one thing in one direction, and when they have made flawed assumptions or errors, or just exaggerations, no one has pointed it out simply because everyone who could have, had a job doing something else. In the end the auditors who volunteered — like Steve McIntyre and AnthonyWatts — are retired scientists, because they are the only ones who have the time and the expertise to do the hard work. (Anyone fancy analysing statistical techniques in dendroclimatology or thermometer siting instead of playing a round of golf?)

Nova notes the corporatist elements, how the State Capitalists (as opposed to free market types) stand to benefit from carbon trading schemes. She says there was $126 billion in carbon trading in 2008. "Every major finance house stands to profit as brokers of a paper trade. It doesn't matter whether you buy or sell, the bankers take a slice both ways. The bigger the market, the more money they make shifting paper." And this poses a problem for the skeptics:

Unpaid sceptics are not just taking on scientists who conveniently secure grants and junkets for pursuing one theory, they also conflict with potential profits of Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, BNP Paribas, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Barclays, Morgan Stanley, and every other financial institution or corporation that stands to profit like the Chicago Climate Exchange, European Climate Exchange, PointCarbon, IdeaCarbon (and the list goes on… ) as well as against government bureaucracies like the IPCC and multiple departments of Climate Change. There's no conspiracy between these groups, just similar profit plans or power grabs.

I have repeatedly tried to point out, to my friends on the Left, that their efforts routinely are corrupted by the political process. Any honest history of Big Business will show that the Left has routinely handed Big Business massive amounts of wealth, via the regulatory process, which they could not earn honestly in free, competitive markets. Nova is correct when she notes that Greenpeace is the ally of Wall Street.

Here is a great musical number from Evita that is appropriate.

Debating the facts, who has the most to lose?

Joe Romm is one of the leading climate alarmists around and operates the ClimateProgress blog, which is associated with the left-wing Center for American Progress. Romm is one of the people the warming groupies turn to in order to learn their "talking points" in dealing with those big, bad, nasty skeptics.

Romm has been particularly unpleasant to Roger Pielke, Jr., perhaps because Pielke is also on the left side of the political spectrum but is most decidedly not a warming alarmist. Like most skeptics he does not deny warming (the deniers label is just one of the many inaccuracies that the alarmists like to push). But he also thinks the problems are grossly overstated and questions some of the science used to justify various political agendas.

Romm has used the usual tactic of sneer and smear that the alarmists seem to love. As much as they talk about science they really won't debate the science, instead they question the morality of their opponents, or their intelligence. That is not debate, that is the argument from intimidation that Rand exposed long ago.

Pielke offered to debate Romm and people put up a lot of money, to go to the charity of the choice of the debate victor. Romm immediately came up with multiple excuses as to why such a debate will never happen—mainly more of the same sneer and smear tactics again.

The matter started when Andy Revkin, a faithful alarmist who writes for The New York Times, said that Pielke should be part of the IPCC review of documents. In his typical hyperbolic fashion Romm called that suggestion "the most illogical climate post on Earth." It's not a bad suggestion, or a wrong suggestion. Nor is it just illogical. It is the most illogical post on Earth, which I guess means the most illogical post ever posted to the best of our knowledge. Wow! No sir, Romm isn't prone to exaggeration.

Romm then went on to attack Pielke in the same hyperbolic fashion saying that Pielke "is the single most disputed and debunked person in the entire realm of people who publish regularly on disasters and climate change." Wow! Now you know what to expect when he talks about the single warmest winter if the history of the planet and other such rot. Sneer, smear and gross exaggeration—that is the arsenal of the the warming alarmist in a nutshell.

Pielke offered to debate Romm and gave Romm virtually total control of the debate. Romm could veto any moderator for the debate. He could veto any resolution to be debated. He can pick the time and place of the debate. Foreign Policy magazine agreed to host the debate. And a donor would put up $20,000 to the charity of Romm's choice. None of that was good enough. Romm says that you can't trust audience votes at a debate because "antiscience ideologues" (the term he uses for scientists who disagree with his hysterical exaggerations) go to debates intending to lie.

I was wondering how they would explain three major debates I knew about—one in New York, one in London and one in Montreal—where the shift in audience perception was decidedly in favor of the skeptics. Apparently the reason the sneer, smear and exaggerate alarmists believe the audience is lying, even though many of the audience members are regular attendees at the series of debates.

Pielke says he is "offering Joe a chance to come out from behind his blog, where he bullies and systematically misrepresents my views. He has a chance to air his arguments about me in public and where I can respond to them directly. He will have a chance to explain why my views are so very wrong. At the same time, regardless of the outcome of the debate itself, we can do some good for people who need help, thanks to a generous donor."

Romm, of course, says that he won't debate because he doesn't want to give Pielke any publicity. That claim is disproved by the 75 posts he has written on his own site going after Pielke, including a recent 4,000 word extended attack. Pielke says: "Should Joe Romm turn down this offer, he will reveal his true colors to all -- a bully who hides behind his blog and who would rather call people names than engage in a serious policy debate on a topic of critical importance to our generation. There is no reason for Joe to turn this offer down, other than knowing that his arguments cannot stand up to scrutiny were he to emerge from behind his blog."

Mr Pielke doesn't understand that the entire purpose of the argument from intimidation is precisely to bully people into adopting a viewpoint. It is meant to bully. I think Rand's formulation of the argument was one of her more insightful contributions. She defined it:

There is a certain type of argument which, in fact, is not an argument, but a means of forestalling debate and extorting an opponent’s agreement with one’s undiscussed notions. It is a method of bypassing logic by means of psychological pressure . . . [It] consists of threatening to impeach an opponent’s character by means of his argument, thus impeaching the argument without debate. Example: “Only the immoral can fail to see that Candidate X’s argument is false.” . . . The falsehood of his argument is asserted arbitrarily and offered as proof of his immorality. In today’s epistemological jungle, that second method is used more frequently than any other type of irrational argument. It should be classified as a logical fallacy and may be designated as “The Argument from Intimidation.” The essential characteristic of the Argument from Intimidation is its appeal to moral self-doubt and its reliance on the fear, guilt or ignorance of the victim. It is used in the form of an ultimatum demanding that the victim renounce a given idea without discussion, under threat of being considered morally unworthy. The pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.”

Personally, when I see this argument used I conclude the user has an an empty intellectual quiver. They resort to the sneer and smear tactic because ultimately it's all they have. One reason, but only a small one, that I have to wonder if the skeptics aren't right, is because their opponents, the alarmists, act precisely the way individuals without good evidence act when debating opponents. They don't face the arguments head on, they instead use tactics to try and silence their opposition.

We saw precisely that in the emails from Climategate. Of course the alarmists immediately started screaming: "There's nothing to see here folks, move along." But the more people actually looked at the emails the more they concluded that there was most definitely something there worth discussing. Of course, Romm's talking points on the matter was to dismiss them and resort to sneer and smear. Consider this memorandum submitted to the British Parliament by the Institute for Physics. These are not scientific lightweights, nor are they known to be skeptics. In their submission to Parliament they said:

1. The Institute is concerned that, unless the disclosed e-mails are proved to be forgeries or adaptations, worrying implications arise for the integrity of scientific research in this field and for the credibility of the scientific method as practised in this context.

2. The CRU e-mails as published on the internet provide prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law. The principle that scientists should be willing to expose their ideas and results to independent testing and replication by others, which requires the open exchange of data, procedures and materials, is vital. The lack of compliance has been confirmed by the findings of the Information Commissioner. This extends well beyond the CRU itself - most of the e-mails were exchanged with researchers in a number of other international institutions who are also involved in the formulation of the IPCC's conclusions on climate change.

They also say that the emails "eveal doubts as to the reliability of some of the reconstructions and raise questions as to the way in which they have been represented; for example, the apparent suppression, in graphics widely used by the IPCC, of proxy results for recent decades that do not agree with contemporary instrumental temperature measurements." They write that the emails show an intolerance that "impedes the process of scientific 'self correction', which is vital to the integrity of the scientific process..." And they indicate the "possibility of networks of like-minded researchers excluding newcomers."

The Institute says that the entire climate change network needs investigation, not just the one center in England. They write "there is need for a wider inquiry into the integrity of the scientific process in this field."

What went out with the Climate Research Unit, and Romm's actions, both seem manifestations of the same sort of attitude. Even though they act like people who know they are wrong, I suspect they are true believers who think they are absolutely, 100% correct—they are the fundamentalists of science, with an infallible, inerrant scripture (the IPCC report)—at least they like to think way. And like fundamentalists, they get downright nasty when someone questions the infallibility of their beliefs. The intolerance of fundamentalists exists because of their own insecurity. Deep down they fear they might be wrong. The more they fear that their arguments are false the more intolerant they become.