Wednesday, 4 April 2012

Carbon Emissions are good - fact.

Australia has plentiful fossil-fuel. Coal is plentiful and is being exported to many countries. We have a government controlled by Green Communist ideals and they are trying to "blacken" coal. The USA is facing similar obstacles.

Nation Review:
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). last week announced its intention to enforce regulations that would effectively ban new coal-fired power plants in the United States.
Are the US Americans as stupid as our Australian Government?
As coal is by far America’s cheapest and most plentiful fossil fuel, and coal-fired power stations account for 45 percent of all electricity generated in the U.S., the destructive economic effects of this edict can hardly be overstated. It is therefore imperative to subject the EPA’s logic to a searching examination.

Do you trust your scientists?

Alarmist scientist James Hansen
The (US) National Academies describe themselves as "Advisors to the (US) Nation on Science, Engineering and Medicine. On their video being a scientist they say: "When the professional standards of science are violated, the fundamental relationship between science and society is damaged."

They write:
The scientific research enterprise is built on a foundation of trust. Scientists trust that the results reported by others are valid. Society trusts that the results of research reflect an honest attempt by scientists to describe the world accurately and without bias. But this trust will endure only if the scientific community devotes itself to exemplifying and transmitting the values associated with ethical scientific conduct.

Although the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a political body, it pretends to be scientific. How often has that body violated the trust?

The ClimateGate e-mails have shown many times how the alarmist scientists have violated the trust. "Hide the decline" and "I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years" are just two examples that come to mind. Can you trust a scientist that tries to hide the temperature decline? Can you trust a scientist who alters temperature data? Surely that trust has been violated.

Peter Gleick violated that trust. As Seth Borenstein (AAP) writes:
In the field of climate science, when someone — especially skeptics — did something ethically questionable or misrepresented facts, scientist Peter Gleick was usually among the first and loudest to cry foul. He chaired a prominent scientific society's ethics committee. He created an award for what he considered lies about global warming.
Now Gleick admits that he posed as a board member to get and then distribute to the media sensitive documents from a conservative think tank that is a leader in questioning mainstream climate change science.
Not only did he distribute media sensitive documents, he also included some fake documents. Did the dishonourable Gleick win his own award? Gleick won a MacArthur genius award. How clever is he really?

Is being a political activist within the realms of science? James Hansen has been arrested several times (see pic above) at political demonstrations. Is this a violation of trust?

Borenstein continues:
"What a mess," said Mark Frankel, head of scientific responsibility for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's leading scientific society, which also had Gleick as a panel member on some committees. "It's compounded by the fact that he was chairman of the ethics committee of a professional society. ... It's an ethical morass that he finds himself in."
"And Gleick's actions cast unwarranted doubt on the work of other scientists," Frankel said.
Unwarranted? Or indeed warranted for the majority of the alarmist scientists?

TCS blog must make clear that we trust the independent scientists who are not paid politically: Bob Carter, Ian Plimer, Stewart Franks, Bill Kininmonth, Garth Paltridge, Tim Ball, Richard Lindzen, Fred Singer, Tom Harris, Chris de Freitas, Nils-Axel Morner, Sallie Baliunas, Willie Soon, William Happer, David Legates,  Roy Spencer, Nir Shaviv, Henrick Svensmark, John Christy, Ivar Giaever, The Idsos, Patrick Michaels, David Deming (who exposed the hockey stick fraud before there was a hockey stick) and so many others, we salute you.

Are Himalayan Glaciers Headed to Hell in a Handbasket?

From CO2 Science:
Bali et al. (2011) introduce their review of what we know about Himalayan glaciers by noting that a "glacial inventory carried out by the Geological Survey of India reveals the existence of over 9,000 valley glaciers in India and at least about 2,000 glaciers in Nepal and Bhutan," citing Raina (2006). And they say that "following the alarmist approach of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)," a number of subsequent reports related to the bleak future of Himalayan glaciers have been issued, mainly through the media. These reports, as they describe them, have suggested that "almost all Indian glaciers including the Gangotri glacier will vanish from the earth in the next few decades." More particularly, they say the reports suggest that "initially, there would be flooding followed by the drying of glacial fed rivers of the Indian subcontinent, desertification, rise of sea level, submergence of the coastal areas, spread of diseases, drop in the production of food grains, etc.," all due, of course, to "anthropogenically induced global warming (AGW)."

So what's the real story?

The four researchers - all of whom are associated with the Centre of Advanced Study in Geology at India's Lucknow University - write that in the Garhwal Himalaya, the Gangotri glacier, which was earlier receding at a rate of around 26 m/year between 1935 and 1971 (Raina, 2003; Sharma and Owen, 1996; Naithani et al., 2001; Srivastava, 2003), "has shown a gradual decline in the rate of recession," coming down to around 17 m/year between 1974 and 2004, and that it has lastly showed "a recession of about 12 m/year during 2004 and 2005 (Kumar et al., 2008)." They also say that the Dokriana glacier has "maintained an overall constant rate of recession (around 16-18 m/year) between the year 1962 and 1995 (Dobhal et al., 2004)," and they indicate that their monitoring of the Pindari glacier in the Kumaun Himalaya suggests that "the rate of recession has come down to almost 6.5 m/year between 1966 and 2007 (Bali et al., 2009), as compared to around 26 m/year between 1845 and 1906."

Read more at CO2 Science - here.

Abrupt climate-change reversal - Washington Times

From an editorial in the Washington Times:
The injection of politics into the global-warming hypothesis has made it difficult to know where facts end and falsehoods begin. While alarmists have been blaming their fellow man for every hurricane, tornado and other ill wind whipped up by Mother Nature, science is now concluding that the cause of these damaging storms has nothing to do with human activity.
The surprise absolution of human beings from the crime of triggering severe weather phenomena was handed down by none other than the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), leader of the campaign to sell the world on anthropogenic climate change (AGW).
The IPCC has probably looked at the data that show extreme weather events are diminishing. For an example, this post by Steve Goddard on Real Science. See also NOAA graph below on the number of Strong to Violent Tornadoes.
The IPCC’s Special Report on Extremes, released March 28, reads, “There is medium evidence and high agreement that long-term trends in normalized [property] losses have not been attributed to natural or anthropogenic climate change.” The breathtaking admission is a sign that objective science is reclaiming a leading role in the discussion.
We can only hope so, but don't hold your breath.
However, climatologists who stick to facts say otherwise. Roger A. Pielke Jr., a professor of environmental studies at the University of Colorado, notes that globally, hurricane wind speed - an indicator for the amount of energy in the atmosphere - has remained steady for the past 15 years. Accordingly, there is no evidence that weather extremes are on the rise globally, much less that they’re increasing because of human activity.