Shock: Top British Scientists force Royal Society into Climate Change U-Turn

source: climatechangedispatch
by: John O'Sullivan

Britain’s Royal Society issue astonishing climate change climb down and disowns scientists who have made predictions about heat waves and rising sea levels.

On September 30, 2010 The Royal Society (RS) published its humiliating climb down under the header ‘Climate change: a summary of the science.’ The sudden move appears to be a desperate attempt to pre-empt a possible rebellion among the ranks of the world’s oldest and most prestigious science institute.

In a new document that replaces the institution’s former official guide, ‘Climate change controversies, a simple guide,’ the RS now officially concedes, “some uncertainties are unlikely ever to be significantly reduced”.

Leading Experts Have ‘Little Confidence’ in Global Warming Numbers

Professor Anthony Kelly and Sir Alan Rudge, senior members of the academic advisory council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, led the victory for climate common sense. They spoke for 43 angry fellows who signed a petition sent to the society’s president, Lord Rees. Rees, who has long been accused by climate skeptics as a key global warming scaremonger now grudgingly admits, “There is little confidence in specific projections of future regional climate change, except at continental scales.”

Why Are Climategate Charlatans Still Free?

source: factsnotfantasy
by: alan caruba

If I had engaged in activities that involved fleecing the governments of the United States and the United Kingdom of billions in public funds in the name of “climate research”, and it was found that I had manipulated the data to advance the “global warming” hoax, wouldn’t I be facing charges of fraud?

Or if the universities for which I worked had benefited from receiving those public funds had conducted hearings that exonerated me, wouldn’t those institutions be considered accessories to the alleged crime?

This is the case today for the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in England and Pennsylvania State University in America. If the CRU is above suspicion, why did the U.S. Department of Energy suspend funds for it in July citing scientific doubts raised by the Climategate revelations last November?

Leaked emails between the principal players, CRU’s Phil Jones and Penn State’s Michael Mann, documented their dismay over the fact that the overall temperatures of the Earth were not increasing and colluded to suppress any expression of global warming skepticism in respected science journals.

Indeed, one of Mr. Jones emails admitted that he had “deleted loads of emails” to avoid being exposed lest someone bring a Freedom of Information Act request. In July a Wall Street Journal commentary by Patrick J. Michaels, a professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia, noted that at the heart of the yet unresolved issues are “professional misconduct, data manipulation, and the jiggering of both the scientific literature and climatic data.”

Piers Corbyn interviewed by Karen Frandsen from Eerie Investigations

source: climaterealists

Karen Frandsen speaks with Meteorologist and Astrophysicist Piers Corbyn. They discuss weather prediction through Solar Sunspot activity, climate change and its causes, HAARP, chemtrails, green politics, and much more. For more information on Piers' work see www.weatheraction.com

Part 1 of 3

Britain's Climate Change Department May Be Cut

source: 21stcenturywire.com
by: Patrick Henningsen

With the current protracted recession still in play and a government budget deficit to reconcile, Her Majesty’s Government may be looking to trim some fat by giving its bloated £3.2 billion Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) the royal chop.

Such budget austerity measures for UK government spending should come as no surprise to anyone who has been following the political slate since the keys were exchanged at Downing Street this past June. It’s an all too familiar story in Westminster and the thing that all bureaucrats fear the most. When your departmental number is called, you realise that all the liquid lunches, expense accounts, canape receptions and conference junkets could soon come to an end. So it was only a matter of time before fiscal reality came home for a seat at DECC’s own annual gravy dinner.

The fact that Britain’s DECC is on the butcher’s block also signals that some ministers and policy gurus might be reconsidering whether the highly politicised global warming movement should be a top priority for the country, and evidence that some are now doubting the legitimacy of such a department. Policy makers are now weighing up the benefits of such a massive bureaucratic department which is steering a politcal agenda based solely upon what is now deemed to be highly questionable science by some- and outright fraud by others.

Cassandra Says It Will Get Very Cold: Romm Insists Hot

source: factsnotfantasy
by: Alan Caruba

In the Greek myth about Cassandra, she could foresee the future, but no one believed her warnings. Her name is believed to be derived from the words for beauty and the sun.

Any number of solar scientists and others are warning that the Earth is on the brink of a new Ice Age at worst, a mini ice age at best. Dr. Achim Brauer of the German Research Center for Geosciences in Potsdam has concluded that the next Ice Age will come on so swiftly that in barely a year much of the northern hemisphere will be incased in ice and snow.

The Little Ice Age from around 1300 to 1850 lasted long enough to transform European society and have a profound affect on the histories of America and France. In England, they went from growing grapes to skating on a completely frozen Thames.

All the signs are in place and throughout the northern hemisphere nations, their leaders prattle on about global warming, clean energy, endangered species, and all the other environmental foolishness without once casting an eye toward the source of all climate on Earth, the Sun!

IPCC Studies And Reports Have Nothing to Do with Climate Change

source: canadafreepress
by: Dr Tim Ball

Most people have no idea what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) actually studies. They believe their reports are complete reports of climate change. This misconception is mostly because the IPCC arranged it and does little to correct it. In fact, they only look at that portion of climate change caused by humans. Here’s how they limit their study.

“The definition of climate change the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defines climate change as: ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods’. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes.”

The problem is you cannot determine the human portion of climate change if you don’t know how much it changes naturally – and we don’t. The IPCC assumes humans cause most of the changes that are occurring and set out to prove that is true.

Everything they’ve done is contrary to normal scientific practices yet is presented to the public as solid science. The IPCC has done nothing to publicly or formally disavow claims that the science is settled. It is not settled because it never began, or worse, was deliberately diverted.

Lawrence Solomon: Chilling Evidence

source: financialpost.com
by: Lawrence Solomon

Two years ago, William Livingston and Matthew Penn of the National Solar Observatory in Tucson, in a controversial paper that contradicted conventional wisdom and upset global warming theorists, predicted that sunspots could more or less disappear after 2015, possibly indicating the onset of another Little Ice Age.

As they stated then, “the occurrence of prolonged periods with no sunspots is important to climate studies, since the Maunder Minimum was shown to correspond with the reduced average global temperatures on the Earth.” The Maunder Minimum lasted for approximately 70 years, from about 1645 to 1715, and was marked by bitter cold, widespread crop failures, and severe human privation. They concluded their 2008 paper by noting, “Finally, observations of this type during the onset of the next sunspot cycle will be critical in determining if the observed trends continue.”

We are now in the onset of that next sunspot cycle, called Cycle 24 – these cycles typically last 11 years — and Livingston and Penn have this month published new, potentially ominous findings in a paper entitled Long-term Evolution of Sunspot Magnetic Fields: “we are now seeing far fewer sunspots than we saw in the preceding cycle; solar Cycle 24 is producing an anomalously low number of dark spots and pores,” they report.

Venus Is Hot – Mars Is Not

source: climatechangedispatch
by: Steven Goddard

Both planets have atmospheric CO2 concentrations around 95%. Earth’s atmosphere has only 0.04% CO2. The density of CO2 in both planet’s atmospheres is much higher than Earth’s atmosphere.

Temperatures on Venus average a balmy 467°C, but temperatures on Mars average a nippy −63 °C. Why the big difference?

According to the “runaway CO2 greenhouse” theory, both planets should be really hot. Mars is twice as far away from the Sun, so its top of atmosphere receives only 25% of the solar radiation as Venus. But clouds on Venus reflect 75% of the sunlight – so the SW radiation flux at the surface is similar on the two planets.

So why is Venus hot and Mars cold? Simple – it is the atmospheric pressure.

The pressure on Venus is nearly one thousand times higher than on Mars. As the atmosphere convects, descending gases warm and ascending gases cool. The amount of warming is determined primarily by the increase in pressure.

Climate Change: Failures of Global Warming Probes 'Let Down Public'

source: express.co.uk
by: John Ingham

Public inquiries into the Climategate scandal have failed to restore confidence in the science behind global warming, a report claimed yesterday.

It branded as flawed the three inquiries into the leaking of e-mails by scientists at East Anglia university’s world-leading Climate Research Unit.

And it called for independent inquiries into the ethos of climate research and the science itself.

Yesterday’s report for Lord Lawson’s Global Warming Policy Foundation – a climate change sceptic think-tank – said: “The inquiries avoided key questions and failed to probe some of the most serious allegations.”

Study: Coral Reef Damage From CO2-Warming Was Overblown Hype

source: c3headlines.com

The Findings of Three New Peer-Reviewed Studies: Coral Reef Damage From CO2-Warming Was Overblown Hype

Read here. Big-Government funded scientists and Big-Soros funded leftist-AGW-activists all predicted that CO2-induced "global warming" would cause permanent damage to the world's coral reefs. Now three new studies have found that the predictions of coral reefs' demise from AGW is categorically false.

The moral of the story? As is usually the case, government funded climate scientists and left funded activists are primarily on the agenda payroll to mislead and deceive. Their claims and predictions of AGW calamities should be heavily discounted as there is high likelihood that further science will expose them as agenda-driven, political-based garbage.

Global Warming is 'bulls**t' says Ryanair Boss O'Leary

source: independant.ie
by: Martin Hickman

Charging for toilets, weighing passengers and flying with a lone pilot: Ryanair's combative boss Michael O'Leary is renowned for backing unusual ideas, but some passengers may feel that even he has overstepped the mark with his latest comments – denying the existence of global warming.

In an interview with The Independent littered with expletives, the chief executive of Europe's largest airline branded the scientific consensus that man-made pollution is heating up the planet with potentially grave consequences for the future of humanity as "horseshit".

He agreed the climate was changing but denied it was caused by man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, such as those from his planes. "Nobody can argue that there isn't climate change. The climate's been changing since time immemorial," he said.

"Do I believe there is global warming? No, I believe it's all a load of bullshit. But it's amazing the way the whole fucking eco-warriors and the media have changed. It used to be global warming, but now, when global temperatures haven't risen in the past 12 years, they say 'climate change'."

Study: “Arctic Was 5C Warmer During The (LIG) Last InterGlaciation Than at Present”

source: wuwt
by: Anthony Watts

Wikipedia says:

The Eemian was an interglacial period which began about 130,000 years ago and ended about 114,000 years ago. It was the second-to-latest interglacial period of the current Ice Age, the most recent being the Holocene which extends to the present day. The prevailing Eemian climate is believed to have been similar to that of the Holocene.

Last Interglacial Arctic Warmth Confirms Polar Amplification of Climate Change

by the Cape Last Interglacial Project Members

Guest summary by Peter Hodges of the Paper at:

http://chubasco.fis.ucm.es/~montoya/cape_lig_qsr_06.pdf

It is widely accepted that the last interglacial was much warmer than the current. Forests reached the Arctic ocean across most of Eurasia, Scandinavia was an Island due to higher sea levels, and hippos swam in the Thames. As a basic introduction to the subject the Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eemian entry is well worth a quick read.

Polar Ice Loss Estimates Shrinking Faster Than Icecaps Themselves

source: dailytech
by: Jason Mick

Global warming proponents are forced to revise their predictions in the face of mounting evidence

Is the Earth warming? Recent studies have shown that some scientists believe that the Earth is experiencing climate change of the warming variety. And the body of collected evidence seems to support the hypothesis that the Earth is undergoing warming. The more interesting questions are "how much warming is occurring?" and "are humans causing it?"

On those issues there's still much debate and rancor, as illustrated by the recent embarrassing leak of emails from the University of East Anglia. The emails indicated a couple of particularly zealous advocates of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory suggesting a concerted effort to suppress publication and funding of studies that offered alternative or skeptical perspectives.

source: climaterealist
by: cfact

Lord Christopher Monckton refutes Prof. John Abraham of the University of St. Thomas in a series of 21 videos.

Monckton Refutes Abraham: Introduction


Part 2: Sea Level Rise

Climate CO2 Sensitivity Overestimated

source: theresilientearth.com
by: Doug L. Hoffman

It is well known that carbon dioxide cannot directly account for the observed increase in global temperature over the past century. This has led climate scientists to theorize that many feedback relationships exists within the climate system, serving to amplify the impact of rising CO2 levels. One of these is the impact of rising temperature on the ability of the ecosystem to absorb CO2. The temperature sensitivity of ecosystem respiratory processes (referred to as Q10) is a key determinant of the interaction between climate and the carbon cycle. New research, recently published in the journal Science, shows that the Q10 of ecosystem respiration is invariant with respect to mean annual temperature, and independent of the analyzed ecosystem type. This newly discovered temperature insensitivity suggests that climate sensitivity to CO2 is much smaller than assumed by climate models.

Climate sensitivity is generally given as how much temperature rise would result from a doubling of atmospheric CO2 levels. Using IPCC figures for radiative forcing, a doubling of CO2 would lead to a temperature rise of about half a degree (see “Another Look at Climate Sensitivity”). Yet the UN IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) gives a much higher value for climate sensitivity. It claims a 2°C to 4.5°C rise for a CO2 doubling, or from four to nine times higher than what is see in the real climate system. Why? Climate models assume that there are large positive feedbacks as Earth warms. Among these feedbacks is the impact of rising temperature on emission and absorption of CO2 by Earth's biota.

Hot It Was Not... Farewell to Coldest August For 17 years

source: dailymail.co.uk
by: Ryan Kisiel

It should have been the height of summer, but was notable only for its low temperatures.

The UK has just endured its coldest August for 17 years, which was marked, say forecasters, by a complete absence of 'hot days'.

The month also saw the lowest single-day August temperature for 23 years, with it falling to 55f (12.8c) in Edgbaston, Birmingham, last Thursday.

And several 'notably' cold nights were recorded last week.

An exceptionally cloudy period in the South East of England put something of a dampener on the holiday period as heavy rain fell across large swathes of the country.

Climate Change Lies Exposed

source: express.co.uk

The world’s leading climate change body has been accused of losing credibility after a damning report into its research practices.

A high-level inquiry into the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found there was “little evidence” for its claims about global warming.

It also said the panel had emphasised the negative impacts of climate change and made “substantive findings” based on little proof.