Need Top Ten Sites to Explain AGW Climate Skepticism to a Lay Audience (vanity)

A friend's wife is a screaming tree-hugging lib, who happens to teach at a college. She apparently is, amazingly, open-minded enough to want to present both sides of the story to her students.

I want to get to a list of 10 sites to give the AGW Climate Skeptic viewpoint to send to him for her. We definitely need some that start at ground zero, for those student who have only heard the MSM side of this. I've got 4-5 in mind, and want to see what people come up with.

1. The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works”… the emails show the world's leading climate scientists discussing, among other things: • Obstructing release of damaging data and information; • Manipulating data and knowingly using flawed climate models to reach preconceived conclusions; • Colluding to pressure journal editors who published work questioning the climate science "consensus"; and • Assuming activist roles to influence the political process. The correspondence also reveals something significantly more nuanced than a "consensus" on the state of climate science. Contrary to repeated public assertions that the "science is settled," the emails show the world's leading climate scientists arguing over critical issues, questioning key methods and statistical techniques, expressing concerns about historical periods (such as whether the Medieval Warm Period [MWP] was global in extent) and doubting whether there is "consensus" on the causes and the extent of climate change. … We agree with Hayward that this scandal "may represent a tipping point against the alarmists." … Without any analysis or discussion, EPA has either discarded the adverse comments or has prejudged the issues by not providing detailed discussion and analysis of the competing comments. … As it turns out, the IPCC mistakenly claimed that global warming would: • Melt Himalayan glaciers by 2035; • Endanger 40 percent of Amazon rainforests; • Melt mountain ice in the Alps, Andes, and Africa; • Deplete water resources for 4.5 billion people by 2085, neglecting to mention that global warming could also increase water resources for as many as 6 billion people; • Lead to rapidly increasing costs due to extreme weather-related events; and • Slash crop production by 50 percent in North Africa by 2020. In addition, the IPCC: • Incorrectly stated that 55 percent of the Netherlands lies below sea level; • Included a diagram used to demonstrate the potential for generating electricity from wave power that has been found to contain numerous errors; • Used a biased report by the activist group Defenders of Wildlife to state that salmon in US streams have been affected by rising temperatures; and • Downplayed the increase in sea ice in the Antarctic to dramatize the observed decline in sea ice in the Arctic. The divergence problem is the fact that after 1960, tree ring reconstructions show a marked decline in temperatures, while the land-based, instrumental temperature record shows just the opposite. …Briffa later addressed the "pressure to present a nice tidy story" about the "unprecedented warming in the late 20th century." In his view, "the recent warmth was matched about 1,000 years ago." … Jones proceeded, then, to "hide the decline" with his ready-made "trick." … In short, Briffa, Mann, Jones, and others were aware of data that suggested that the world was warmer 1000 years ago, and rather than admit that openly, they intentionally hid it from public view. Moreover, they hid it by including temperature records in a dataset composed of tree ring data, which, by itself, is exceedingly questionable.” The Senate Report is in Three Parts: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1ac57ba3-802a-23ad-4296-5a0c964dff0e http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=207f77ef-802a-23ad-4b5b-0622bba3da4a&Issue_id= http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=25ffc2ad-802a-23ad-4c40-9efa4d43663d ”Al Gore is the most visible beneficiary. The world's greatest climate-change fear-monger has amassed millions in book sales and speaking fees. His science-fiction movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," won an Academy Award for best documentary and 21 other film awards. He was co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his "efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change." Meanwhile, Mr. Gore was laying his own foundations. As he was whipping up hysteria over climate change, he cannily invested in "green" firms that stood to profit in the hundreds of millions of dollars (if not more) from increased government regulations and sweetheart deals from connected politicians and bureaucrats. The multimillionaire climate dilettante was given a free pass by reporters, who refused to ask him hard questions about the degree to which he was profiting from the panic he was causing. … Mr. Gore is heavily involved in this scam through Generation Investment Management LLP, which he chairs, and Mr. Pachauri also has been accused of making millions from carbon trading. The dubious science of cap-and-trade and its productivity-killing implications make the bill unlikely to be passed in an election year, but any moves toward this framework will enhance the fortunes of these and other well-connected adherents to the global-warming cult at the expense of businesses and private citizens.” http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=299f0466-802a-23ad-47f5-5772bfd08972&Region_id=&Issue_id= 2. The Telegraph (UK) . "Weather stations which produced data pointing towards man-made global warming may have been compromised by local conditions, a new report suggests." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7236011/UN-global-warming-data-skewed-by-heat-from-planes-and-buildings.html "Professor Watson, currently chief scientific adviser to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, said: "The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact. That is worrying." http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7241093/IPCC-scientist-dismisses-furore-over-climate-change-report.html ”Since 1988, when the greatest scare the world has seen got under way, hundreds of billions of pounds have been poured into academic research projects designed not to test the CO2 warming thesis but to take it as a given fact, and to use computer models to make its impacts seem as scary as possible. The new global "carbon trading" market, already worth $126 billion a year, could soon be worth trillions. Governments, including our own, are calling for hundreds of billions more to be chucked into absurd "carbon-saving" energy schemes, with the cost to be met by all of us in soaring taxes and energy bills.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7332803/A-perfect-storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html ”Following a number of scandals around the science of climate change, UKIP are promising to launch a Royal Commission led by a High Court judge to investigate whether global warming is man-made. Pending the results of the commission, the party, that has no MPs at the moment, have promised to build new fossil-fuelled power stations to meet energy demands and scrap subsidies for wind farms. Global warming 'propaganda' like the Al Gore film Inconvenient Truth will be banned in schools and public authorities will not be allowed to spend money on climate change initiatives.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/7309204/UKIP-would-ban-Al-Gore-film-in-schools.html 3. WaatsUpWithThat ”And you wonder why we don’t trust you? Here’s a clue. Because a whole bunch of you are guilty of egregious and repeated scientific malfeasance, and the rest of you are complicit in the crime by your silence. Your response is to stick your fingers in your ears and cover your eyes. You want a more effective strategy? Here’s one. Ask every climate scientist to grow a pair and speak out in public about the abysmal practices of far, far too many mainstream climate scientists. Because the public is assuredly outraged, and you are all assuredly silent, sitting quietly in your taxpayer funded offices and saying nothing, not a word, schtumm … and you wonder why we don’t trust you? You want trust? Do good science, and publicly insist that other climate scientists do good science as well. It’s that simple. Do good science, and publicly call out the Manns and the Joneses and the Thompsons and the rest of the charlatans that you are currently protecting. ou will never recover a scrap of trust until you admit that you are the source of your problems, all we did was point them out. You individually, and you as a group, created this mess. The first step to redemption is to take responsibility. You want to restore trust? Come down off your pedestals, forsake your ivory towers, and admit your limitations. And through all of this, be aware that you have a long, long, long climb back up to where we will trust you. As Lincoln warned, you have forfeited the confidence of your fellow citizens, and you will be damn lucky if you ever get it back.” http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/25/judith-i-love-ya-but-youre-way-wrong/#more-16698 4. www.Parliment.UK The Institute of Physics is a scientific charity devoted to increasing the practice, understanding and application of physics. It has a worldwide membership of over 36,000 and is a leading communicator of physics-related science to all audiences, from specialists through to government and the general public. “Reconstructions of temperature over the past 1000 years have been an highly visible part of IPCC presentations to the public. CRU has been extremely influential in IPCC reconstructions through: coauthorship, the use of CRU chronologies, peer review and IPCC participation. To my knowledge, there are no 1000-year reconstructions which are truly "independent" of CRU influence. In my opinion, CRU has manipulated and/or withheld data with an effect on the research record. The manipulation includes (but is not limited to) arbitrary adjustment ("bodging"), cherry picking and deletion of adverse data. The problem is deeply rooted in the sense that some forms of data manipulation and withholding are so embedded that the practitioners and peer reviewers in the specialty seem either to no longer notice or are unoffended by the practices. Specialists have fiercely resisted efforts by outside statisticians questioning these practices - the resistance being evident in the Climategate letters. These letters are rich in detail of individual incidents. My submission today will not comment on these individual incidents (some of which I've commented on already at Climate Audit), but to try to place the incidents into context and show why they matter to the research record. I will not comment in this submission on CRUTEM issues only for space reasons.” http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc3202.htm 5. Washington Post. ”Scientists are debating whether they need to revamp the IPCC process or scrap it. The journal Nature published an opinion section Thursday in which several researchers floated ideas on how to change the U.N. panel, along with a piece written by Moss and others showing how scientists could increase collaboration across disciplines to produce more accurate climate projections more quickly.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/14/AR2010021404283_pf.html 6. CATO Institute. ”The Dog Ate Global Warming. Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December. Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.” http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=10578 ”Scientific Misconduct: The Manipulation of Evidence for Political Advocacy in Health Care and Climate Policy. Science is increasingly being manipulated by those who try to use it to justify political choices based on their ethical preferences and who are willing to suppress evidence of conflict between those preferences and the underlying reality. This problem is clearly seen in two policy domains, health care and climate policy. In the area of climate policy, recent revelations of e-mails from the government-sponsored Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia reveal a pattern of data suppression, manipulation of results, and efforts to intimidate journal editors to suppress contradictory studies that indicate that scientific misconduct has been used intentionally to manipulate a social consensus to support the researchers' advocacy of addressing a problem that may or may not exist.” http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=11201 7. Canadian Free Press. ”Jones only concedes some points but they are enough from the high priest of the CRU and IPCC to completely destroy its credibility. What will the sycophants and exploiters like Gore and the Mainstream Media do now? What about politicians who based positions and policy on environment and energy on the IPCC? What about the massive scams of Cap And Trade? What about the extreme environmental groups who have bullied and preached from the moral high ground? What about the scientists who took vehement positions without understanding? It is a very sad day for science, the people and the world.” http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20029 ” With the fraudulent background to climate claims, we should not have expected anything else - we now find the chosen Climategate Inquiry team of five men consisted of at least two pro-climate change scientists! The scandals just keep on coming – the climate garbage is building up on either side of the information highway, and the rats are still spreading their disease.” http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/19987 8. BBC (UK) . ”Interview with Jones is disgraced ex-director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which has been at the centre of the row over hacked e-mails. "Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming A: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm 9. Science News. ”SAN DIEGO (Feb. 20) Publication of hacked emails exchanged by climate scientists. News accounts of problems in vetting data used in climate-assessment reports. Charges by critics that scientists won’t release their raw data so that others might independently vet published analyses of climate trends. Taken together, these events have marred the reputations of climate scientists, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and perhaps science generally. Or so concluded a distinguished panel of science luminaries, yesterday. They included Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences; James McCarthy, a Harvard climate scientist and chairman of the board of directors of the American Association for the Advancement of Science; Nobel Prize winner Phillip Sharp of MIT, who co-chaired the NAS report last year: “Ensuring the Integrity, Accessibility, and Stewardship of Research Data in the Digital Age;” and Astronomer Royal Martin Rees, President of Britain’s Royal Society.” http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/56466/title/Climate_science_Credibility_at_risk,_scientists_say (Note especially the Comments from attending scientists at the end of the article) 10. New York Post. "These aren't random errors. As former head of the IPCC, the British scientist Robert Watson notes, "The mistakes all appear to have gone in the direction of making it seem like climate change is more serious by overstating the impact." http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/warming_meltdown_iD1hypJAstOrvovafbIbGK ”But the whole climate campaign now resembles a Broadway musical that has run too long, with sagging box office and declining enthusiasm from a dwindling audience. Someone needs to break the bad news to the players that it's closing time for the climate horror show.” http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/the_crackup_of_the_climate_consensus_T3eGnulTAq4Xm76qB0Mr7N ”Looks like the great climate-change unraveling came none too soon. Three states last week filed papers challenging the Environmental Protection Agency's scheme to use global-warming fears to seize sweeping power over much of the US economy. Officials in Texas, Virginia and Alabama charge that recent revelations challenging the scientific "consensus" that humans are causing catastrophic warming also undermine the EPA's decision to regulate greenhouse gasses as a pollutant -- which would give it inordinate power over nearly every industry in the country.” http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/the_epa_climate_con_0V5iFmpmnuneEYGxvnI22J#ixzz0gHRRH8dK ”Gore says, "The heavy snowfalls this month have been used as fodder for ridicule by those who argue that global warming is a myth, yet scientists have long pointed out that warmer global temperatures have been increasing the rate of evaporation from the oceans, putting significantly more moisture into the atmosphere -- thus causing heavier downfalls of both rain and snow in particular regions, including the Northeastern United States." It's an interesting theory, but where are the facts? According to "State of the Climate" from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, "Global precipitation in 2009 was near the 1961-1990 average." And there was certainly no pattern of increasing rain and snow on America's East Coast during the post-1976 years, when NOAA says the globe began to heat up.” http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/opedcolumnists/al_latest_global_warming_whopper_TolFbG2ccT5XPtKtXoOx0L#ixzz0h1Fwiqk3 11. Wall Street Journal. "All of this matters because the IPCC has been advertised as the last and definitive word on climate science. Its reports are the basis on which Al Gore, President Obama and others have claimed that climate ruin is inevitable unless the world reorganizes its economies with huge new taxes on carbon. Now we are discovering the U.N. reports are sloppy political documents intended to drive the climate lobby's regulatory agenda. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703630404575053781465774008.html ”In the next few days, the world's leading authority on global warming plans to roll out a strategy to tackle a tough problem: restoring its own bruised reputation. A months-long crisis at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has upended the world's perception of global warming, after hacked emails and other disclosures revealed deep divisions among scientists working with the United Nation-sponsored group. That has raised questions about the panel's objectivity in assessing one of today's most hotly debated scientific fields.” http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704188104575083681319834978.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wsj%2Fxml%2Frss%2F3_7011+%28WSJ.com%3A+What%27s+News+US%29 12. Global Warming: A closer look at the numbers. “Water vapor constitutes Earth's most significant greenhouse gas, accounting for about 95% of Earth's greenhouse effect (5). Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system, carelessly (perhaps, deliberately) overstating human impacts as much as 20-fold.” http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html 13. Investors Business Daily. ”The study by Science Applications International Corp. at the request of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, the Gas Technology Institute and others shows the U.S. economy will suffer $2.3 trillion in lost opportunity costs over the next two decades, monies that would go a long way to reining in runaway deficits and creating economic growth. These are not climate fantasies derived by running faulty assumptions and bad data through inaccurate computer models. This is simple math, common sense and Economics 101. Energy is expensive. We're leaving vast amounts in the ground while importing it from others.” http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=521249 ”Now the alarmists' agenda is spiraling downward after a series of events embarrassing to anyone affiliated with the environmentalist lobby or sympathetic with its goals. They began with the November release of e-mails from the Climate Research Unit at England's University of East Anglia. The back-and-forth between global warming researchers at the CRU and scientists elsewhere revealed an effort to twist the numbers as well as an intention to cover up any data that didn't support the global warming narrative. … Since those e-mails surfaced, the international Copenhagen climate summit faded weakly into the winter evening; Michael Mann, creator of the hockey stick temperature chart that has been found to be in error, is being investigated by his university; the United Nations used a hunch, not science, to back its claim that the Himalayan glaciers would be melted away by 2035; and weather station measurements used to support the global warming assumption have been shown to be flawed. We've also learned in the last year that scientists cherry-picked tree ring data from Russia to make the case for man-made warming, and more recently Phil Jones, the man who has for now stepped down as chief of the CRU, confirmed there hasn't been "statistically significant" warming since 1995. In contrast to what we've been told for years, climate science isn't just unsettled; it's also agenda-driven, profoundly confused and so unreliable, we are tempted to say it's the work of an insular group of con men. But that might be an insult to con men everywhere.” http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=521421 ”The godfather of climate hysteria is in hiding as another of his wild claims unravels — this one about global warming causing seas to swallow us up. We've not seen or heard much of the former vice president, Oscar winner and Nobel Prize recipient recently as the case for disastrous man-made climate change collapses. Perhaps he's off reading how scientists were forced to withdraw a study on a projected sea level rise due to global warming after finding two "technical" mistakes that undermined the findings. http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=522005 ”If hyperbole and chutzpah had a child, it would be the opening paragraph of Gore's op-ed in Sunday's New York Times. Gore surfaced from the global warming witness-protection program to opine that despite admissions of error and evidence of fraud by various agencies, we still face "an unimaginable calamity requiring large-scale, preventive measures to protect human civilization as we know it." Perhaps he's trying to protect his investments as he knows them, for he is heavily involved in enterprises that deal with carbon offsets and green technology. If the case for climate change is shown to be demonstrably false, a lot of his green evaporates like moisture from the ocean. http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=522575 14. The Daily Mail (UK) . ”But Dr Benny Pieser, director of the sceptical Global Warming Policy Foundation, said Professor Jones’s ‘excuses’ for his failure to share data were hollow as he had shared it with colleagues and ‘mates’. He said that until all the data was released, sceptics could not test it to see if it supported the conclusions claimed by climate change advocates. He added that the professor’s concessions over medieval warming were ‘significant’ because they were his first public admission that the science was not settled.” http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html?ITO=1490 15. Times Online UK. ”We concluded, with overwhelming statistical significance, that the IPCC’s climate data are contaminated with surface effects from industrialisation and data quality problems. These add up to a large warming bias. The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC. These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site.” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7026317.ece ”We have come to substantially different conclusions from the IPCC,” said Chris Landsea, a lead scientist at the American government’s National Hurricane Center, who co-authored the report. He added: ”There are a lot of legitimate concerns about climate change but, in my opinion, hurricanes are not among them. We are looking at a decrease in frequency and a small increase in severity.” Landsea said he regarded the use of hurricane icons on the cover of Gore's book as "misleading". http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7044158.ece ”The Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation this year requires 3¼ per cent of all fuel sold to come from crops. The proportion is due to increase each year and by 2020 is required to be 13 per cent. The DfT commissioned E4tech, a consultancy, to investigate the overall impact of its biofuel target on forests and other undeveloped land. Under the standard, each litre of biofuel should reduce emissions by at least 35 per cent compared with burning a litre of fossil fuel. Yet the study shows that palm oil increases emissions by 31 per cent because of the carbon released when forest and grassland is turned into plantations. Rape seed and soy also fail to meet the standard. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7044708.ece 16. Washington Times. ”The global-warming hysteria, on which the Obama administration wants to base enormous new tax burdens, is just about as reliable as the weather hysteria presented nightly on your favorite television channel. Man is driven by his ego and finds it impossible to think even the weather is not all about him. … The learned professor told his interviewer that for the past 15 years there has been no "statistically significant" warming. He conceded that he has lost track of many of the relevant papers — that his office was overwhelmed by the clutter of paper. Some of the crucial data to back up scare stories might be lying under other stuff, but he's not sure.” http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/16/pruden-the-red-hot-scam-begins-to-unravel/?feat=article_top10_read ”As the frigid winter days pass and the scandals mount, it becomes clear that claims of man-made global warming aren't based on scientific methods at all. The hysteria is based on fraud.” http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/feb/18/more-errors-in-temperature-data/?feat=home_editorials ”The greatest scandal connected to global warming is not exaggeration, fraud or destruction of data to conceal the weakness of the argument. It is those who are personally profiting from promoting this fantasy at the expense of the rest of us. Al Gore is the most visible beneficiary. The world's greatest climate-change fear-monger has amassed millions in book sales and speaking fees. His science-fiction movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," won an Academy Award … Meanwhile, Mr. Gore was laying his own foundations. As he was whipping up hysteria over climate change, he cannily invested in "green" firms that stood to profit in the hundreds of millions of dollars (if not more) from increased government regulations and sweetheart deals from connected politicians and bureaucrats. The greatest potential profits are possible in the ill-defined "carbon trading" industry, currently valued at $126 billion. Mr. Gore is heavily involved in this scam through Generation Investment Management LLP, which he chairs http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/03/global-warmings-biggest-winners/ 17. The State Journal (WVa.) . ”People no longer trust the so-called environmental movement. ... and they never will again. … Trust is built up over years, not days. And once destroyed, you don't get it back. Despite the kindly old scientists and even your likable 10th grade biology teacher falling for this garbage, the folks that hijacked the conservation/ecology message have lost their credibility. Science isn't a vote, but they tried to sell us that it is. With lists of names and petitions of those who agreed in exchange for lifetime employment in government and academic life. With phrases like "peer reviewed," which matter not if your peers are a rubber stamp for socialism. “ http://www.statejournal.com/story.cfm?func=viewstory&storyid=75364&printview=1 18. Orange County Register. ”It has been tough to keep up with all the bad news for global warming alarmists. We're on the edge of our chair, waiting for the next shoe to drop. This has been an Imelda Marcos kind of season for shoe-dropping about global warming. At your next dinner party, here are some of the latest talking points to bring up when someone reminds you that Al Gore and the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change won Nobel prizes for their work on global warming.” http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-234092--.html 19. Toronto Sun. ”Other than their grating self-righteousness, the most annoying thing about global warmists is their double standards. Case in point. All over North America for the past few weeks, they’ve been screaming how dare the Republican right and Fox News in the U.S. suggest the recent wave of record snowfalls and cold temperatures south of the border are evidence man-made global warming is a hoax. Indeed, warmist piling on has been almost as impressive as the snow drifts that recently paralyzed Washington, D.C. http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2010/02/19/12952876.html 20. The American Thinker. ”At one time, some would call them "deniers." The more generous called them "skeptics." But now, increasingly, it appears that they can be called something else: sane. Yes, the climate has certainly changed. Even in the mainstream media, the less liberal organs are waking up. There is now a never-ending barrage of articles on the climate scam, with The Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post firing some recent salvos. And these inconvenient truths are just adding to a case against the Climateers that has become dizzying. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/time_to_turn_up_the_heat_on_th.html ”We have been repeatedly told (perhaps "lectured" is a better word) the past twenty years that global warming is occurring. With Climategate and subsequent confessions and bailouts by scientists at the CRU, Penn State, Arizona State, IPCC, et al., we are learning that little to none of the factual content in their "peer reviewed" articles is true. The Medieval Warming Period did occur, and it was warmer than currently; the oceans are not going to flood the plains; and the Artic Ocean may not be turning into a summer water park. Of course, the mainstream media, especially in the United States, has reported little of this news, and President Obama appears not to be well-informed. But now the global warming story grows more interesting because here in America, we may have our own little "gate." I will call it ATG, for "American Temperaturegate."” http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/a_pending_american_temperature.html 21. The Guardian (UK) . ”Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels. Study claimed in 2009 that sea levels would rise by up to 82cm by the end of century – but the report's author now says true estimate is still unknown. In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.” http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/21/sea-level-geoscience-retract-siddall 22. Pajamas Media. ”It’s been called the “biggest scientific scandal in history.” It has everything to earn Pulitzer consideration: lies and misconduct in high places, political implications, even massive financial transactions that may or may not be legitimate or even legal. It’s big news … as long as you read the Telegraph, the Guardian, the London Times, or even major Indian papers. It’s no news at all if you read the U.S. mainstream media.” http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-the-worlds-biggest-story-everywhere-but-here/ 23. Business Week. “Now we see that that science has been pretty well debunked,” Senator James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican who has called man-made global warming a hoax, said on CNN in December. The UN panel, which shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Gore, has been faulted for exaggerating the pace at which Himalayan glaciers are melting and for using reports by environmental advocacy groups as a basis for some findings. Peabody Energy Corp., the biggest U.S. coal company, said in a court challenge Feb. 12 that the Obama administration’s Environmental Protection Agency relied on flawed science by the UN panel in its decision last year to regulate carbon-dioxide emissions. The EPA “needs to step back and begin a thorough review of the real state of scientific understanding of greenhouse gases,” Beth Sutton, a spokeswoman for the St. Louis-based company, said in an e-mail.” http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-02-22/climate-change-fervor-cools-amid-disputed-science-defections.html 24. News Busters. ”Senator James Inhofe (R-Okla.) is calling for a criminal investigation into the actions of scientists associated with the growing scandal known as ClimateGate. The ranking Republican on the Senate Environment & Public Works Committee also wants former Vice President Al Gore to be brought back to Capitol Hill to defend comments he's made in the past to Congress concerning the theory of manmade global warming. “In [Gore's] science fiction movie, every assertion has been rebutted,” Inhofe said. He believes Vice President Gore should defend himself and his movie before Congress. Inhofe gave citizens a "Sneak Peek" into this report at his EPW blog Tuesday: “What emerges from our review of the emails and documents, which span a 13-year period from 1996 through November 2009, is much more than, as EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson put it, scientists who "lack interpersonal skills." Rather, the emails show the world's leading climate scientists discussing, among other things: • Obstructing the release of damaging data and information; • Manipulating data to reach preconceived conclusions; • threatening journal editors who published work questioning the climate science "consensus"; and • Assuming activist roles to influence the political process.” http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/02/23/inhofe-calls-gore-defend-climate-claims-congress#ixzz0gOB10WSh 25. The New York Times ”After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period. While the nation's weather in individual years or even for periods of years has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one direction or another. The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.” http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us/us-data-since-1895-fail-to-show-warming-trend.html?pagewanted=1&pagewanted=print 26. The American Spectator ”The released emails from both the University of East Anglia and NASA illustrate how far the "scientific consensus" on climate change has been politicized -- to the point of unreliability. Dependent on an alarmist atmosphere for continued government funding, state-sponsored scientific organizations have a strong incentive to hire ideologically committed partisans. Taken together, these revelations all show that we actually know much less about the workings of the climate than politicized scientists and advocates like Al Gore say we do. Yet virtually all calls to "action" to prevent climate change are based on the belief that the extent to which greenhouse gases have overwhelmed natural forces in affecting the climate is a settled question.” http://spectator.org/archives/2010/03/02/climategate-this-time-its-nasa 27. The Cyprus Times ”… the time has come to strip Albert Arnold Gore of his Nobel Prize on the grounds that it was awarded to a man who knew nothing at all about anything remotely related to climate and weather and had his own financial gains in mind rather than the good of the world when he accepted it. This man hasn't the slightest clue about the mechanics of climate, the variations it goes through from year to year, or viable physical proof of his warming theory. … Al Gore is a hypocrite to his own idealism when it comes to his lifestyle of using more energy resources than perhaps anyone in the world. … If anything Gore should be sued by every business entity affected by his flawed theory and brought up on charges of fraud and conspiracy for such lies. http://www.thecypresstimes.com/article/News/Opinion_Editorial/AL_GORE_SHOULD_BE_STRIPPED_OF_NOBEL_PRIZE/28194 28. WorldNetDaily ”Today's global warming hysteria is the hoax of the 21st century. H.L. Mencken had it right: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." In a matter of months, what have we learned: • In its 2007 report claiming that the Himalayan glaciers are melting, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relied on a 1999 news story in a popular science journal, based on one interview with a little-known Indian scientist who said this was pure "speculation," not supported by any research. The IPCC also misreported the supposed date of the glaciers' meltdown as 2035. The Indian had suggested 2350. • The IPCC report that global warming is going to kill 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest and cut African crop yields 50 percent has been found to be alarmist propaganda. • The IPCC 2007 report declared 55 percent of Holland to be below sea level, an exaggeration of over 100 percent. • While endless keening is heard over the Arctic ice cap, we hear almost nothing of the 2009 report of the British Antarctica Survey that the sea ice cap of Antarctica has been expanding by 100,000 square kilometers a decade for 30 years. That translates into 3,800 square miles of new Antarctic ice every year. • Though America endured one of the worst winters ever, while the 2009 hurricane season was among the mildest, the warmers say this proves nothing. But when our winters were mild and the 2005 hurricane season brought four major storms to the U.S. coast, Katrina among them, the warmers said this validated their theory. You can't have it both ways. • The Climate Research Unit at East Anglia University, which provides the scientific backup for the IPCC, apparently threw out the basic data on which it based claims of a rise in global temperatures for the century. And a hacker into its e-mail files found CRU "scientists" had squelched the publication of dissenting views. What we learned in a year's time: Polar bears are not vanishing. Sea levels are not rising at anything like the 20-foot surge this century was to bring. Cities are not sinking. Beaches are not disappearing. Temperatures have not been rising since the late 1990s. And, in historic terms, our global warming is not at all unprecedented.” http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126661 29. National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) ”According to scientific measurements, Arctic sea ice has declined dramatically over at least the past thirty years, with the most extreme decline seen in the summer melt season. In February, Arctic sea ice extent continued to track below the average, and near the levels observed for February 2007. Ice extent was unusually low in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic, and above normal in the Bering Sea. During February 2010, ice extent grew at an average of 25,700 square kilometers (9,900 square miles) per day. Sea ice extent in the Antarctic has been unusually high in recent years, both in summer and winter. Overall, the Antarctic is showing small positive trends in total extent. For example, the trend in February extent is now +3.1% per decade. A recent report (Turner, et. al., 2009) suggests that the ozone hole has resulted in changes in atmospheric circulation leading to cooling and increasing sea ice extents over much of the Antarctic region.” http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ And, for a good laugh: 30. Conservative for Change. ”The most exalted of the world's eminent scientists – ever – are predicting a new warm period set to begin in the very near future, which could increase the the earth's temperature by as much as 60-70 degrees Celsius in some places. That's 120-140 degrees Fahrenheit. It has been confirmed by really advanced super-computer models written by the world's most intelligent people that, should this take place, and there's absolutely no doubt whatsoever in the minds of all reasonable people everywhere – at least the smart and scientific ones – that it will, vast amounts of ice and snow will melt quickly, creating a huge volume of run-off water that will overwhelm rivers and streams creating local flooding before eventually raising the levels of lakes and oceans. Much of the ice currently covering small lakes will also disappear. The event will be so dramatic that it requires a special scientific term. Called “summer” by top experts, it is expected to transform our daily lives.” http://www.conservativeforchange.com/2010/02/climate-new-warming-expected-obviously.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.