As Phil Jones finally spills the beans on the relative warming between 800-1300 AD and the last 100 years, it is worth noting why the lie about the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) – perpetuated by the scientifically challenged liberal media – was bogus on the face of it. Here is the lie repeated again for those who can’t remember it:
Professor Jones also conceded for the first time that the world may have been warmer in medieval times than now. Skeptics have long argued the world was warmer between 800 and 1300AD because of high temperatures in northern countries.
Climate change advocates have always said these temperatures cannot be compared to present day global warming figures because they only apply to one specific zone.
Nobody likes to be lectured by those claiming superior wisdom but lacking common sense
by Victor Davis Hanson
National Review Online, February 11, 2010
What’s behind the Tea Party protests, low approval ratings for Congress, distrust of the media, and unease with experts in the Obama administration?
In short, a growing anger at the sermonizing and condescension by many of America’s elites.
We see this specifically, for example, in the debate over global warming, which a year ago was accepted as gospel.
The high profile of prestigious scientists, former public officials like Al Gore and Van Jones, and the Obama administration all made impending cap-and-trade legislation seem likely. Skeptics were derided as “deniers” and virtual know-nothings. Continue reading »
When the glacier story broke, IPCC apologists returned over and over again to a saving grace. The bogus glacier report appeared in the body of the IPCC document, but not in the much more carefully vetted Synthesis Report, in which the IPCC’s senior leadership made its specific recommendations to world leaders. So it didn’t matter that much, the apologists told us, and we can still trust the rigorously checked and reviewed Synthesis Report.
But that’s where the African rain crisis prediction is found — in the supposedly sacrosanct Synthesis Report.
So: the Synthesis Report contains a major scare prediction — 50% shortfall in North African food production just ten years from now — and there is no serious, peer-reviewed evidence that the prediction is true.
But there’s more. Much, much more.
Most scientists likely sincerely fear that we face massive man-made climate change. Yet they have little idea how much temperatures might rise or how that might affect various parts of the world. Warning that something big might happen someday isn’t much of a battle cry. So many scientists seem to have decided that alarming the public, by any means necessary, is justified. Because they knew climate predictions can’t really be proved or disproved, they didn’t question even the most outlandish claims.
The original Climate-gate scandal showed that key researchers appeared to hide and distort key data and try to blacklist dissenters. Now it’s clear that many widely touted predictions had scant evidence or were simply made up. The upshot? Climate scientists and their political allies are going to have a much harder time winning over the public … even if the crisis truly is one of biblical proportions:
by Mark Steyn
National Review Online, February 6, 2010
As Jonah and I have written here previously, “climate change” is not only a scientific scandal but also a massive journalistic failure. While the “Canadian Journalism Project” continues to insist that dissenting from the orthodoxy is “irresponsible journalism,” Matt Ridley at the Spectator acknowledges the reality:Continue reading »
By David S. Van Dyke
American Thinker, February 4, 2010
Although it has been only a little over twenty years since the Montreal Protocol, which effectively created a global ban on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), the interesting history of the ozone hole has slipped under the radar, largely eclipsed by the much greater story of the anthropogenic global warming fraud. It’s interesting to revisit the CFC/ozone depletion scam and note the striking similarities to the current campaign against CO2. [See also: IPCC: International Pack of Climate Crooks]Continue reading »
by Mark Steyn
National Review Online, February 2, 2010
You have to assume that America’s dying monodailies are now actively auditioning for state ownership. How else to explain the silence of the massed ranks of salaried “environmental correspondents” on the daily revelations emerging from the fast disintegrating “scientific consensus” on “climate change”? You get livelier coverage from the Chinese press.
But in competitive newspaper markets they still know a story when they see one. Surely the most worrying sign for the thuggish enforcers of “settled science” is that even the eco-lefties at the Guardian and the Independent, two of the most gung-ho warm-mongers on the planet, are beginning to entertain doubts. From the Independent:Continue reading »
by Rich Trzupek
BigJournalism.com, February 3, 2010
This April, USEPA expects to finalize a rule intended to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources (cars, trucks, buses, etc.), largely by demanding greater fuel economy in the transportation sector. No doubt there will be much rejoicing among the tree-hugging set when that happens, but there is another consequence to that action that has largely flown under the old media’s radar: the day that the mobile source rule goes final is the day that the Agency starts to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from power plants and other large industrial sources.Continue reading »
Global Warming: If we’re serious about restoring science to its rightful place, the head of the U.N.’s panel on climate change should step down. Evidence shows he quarterbacked a deliberate and premeditated fraud.
The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been forced to back off its now-discredited claim that the Himalayan glaciers would soon disappear. But it’s not true, the panel’s vice chairman, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, told the BBC, that it was simply a “human mistake.”Continue reading »