Damn stupid unbelieving deniers.  And this, in spite of the explicit instructions by the liberal media, academia, Hollywood, Al Gore, and Liberal Frenchman Stephane (“the Green Guru”) Dion. 

Amuse yourselves at how the BBC report keeps harking back to Royal Society “scientists” (and interestingly, even the pollsters themselves) to counter and stem if at all possible the tide of public opinion in this story:

‘Scepticism’ over climate claims

 
Accelerating ice-melting may be a sign of global climate change

The public believes the effects of global warming on the climate are not as bad as politicians and scientists claim, a poll has suggested.

The Ipsos Mori poll of 2,032 adults – interviewed between 14 and 20 June – found 56% believed scientists were still questioning climate change.

There was a feeling the problem was exaggerated to make money, it found.

The Royal Society said most climate scientists believed humans were having an “unprecedented” effect on climate.

The survey suggested that terrorism, graffiti, crime and dog mess were all of more concern than climate change.

Ipsos Mori’s head of environmental research, Phil Downing, said the research showed there was “still a lot to do” in encouraging “low-carbon lifestyles”.

“We are alive to climate change and very few people actually reject out of hand the idea the climate is changing or that humans have had at least some part to play in this,” he added.

“However, a significant number have many doubts about exactly how serious it really is and believe it has been over-hyped.”

People had been influenced by counter-arguments, he said.

Royal Society vice-president Sir David Read said: “People should not be misled by those that exploit the complexity of the issue, seeking to distort the science and deny the seriousness of the potential consequences of climate change.

“The science very clearly points towards the need for us all – nations, businesses and individuals – to do as much as possible, as soon as possible, to avoid the worst consequences of a changing climate.”

In this liberal media report, the bottom line isn’t the poll, you see,—it’s what esteemed enviro “scientists”  and their science “clearly point toward”, which is:  “…the need for us all – nations, businesses and individuals – to do as much as possible, as soon as possible, to avoid the worst consequences of a changing climate.” 

Maybe it’s the liberal media which is over-hyped. 

Possibly related posts:

• Liberals: “LA LA LAAA, WE CAN’T HEAR YOU!” (climate scientist debunks “man-made global warming”)
• U.K. starts to see more clearly: officially downgrades the “man-made” in “man-made global warming”
• More climate scientists manage to get word out about man-made global warming bunkum
• “Man-made global warming” hits Mars. Huh. That’s weird.
• Former Liberal defence minister demands govt’s use Martian and UFO info to end global warming

 

Thanks to Frogg for this report:

News Release: Al Gore Confronted by Own Scientists

Written By: Tom Swiss
Published In: Heartland Perspectives
Publication Date: June 29, 2007
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

(Chicago IL – June 29, 2007) On June 28, in an historic move the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released the expert review comments and responses to its latest assessment of the science of climate change. The IPCC report is the primary source of data for Al Gore’s movie and book titled “An Inconvenient Truth.”

Many of the comments by the reviewers are strongly critical of claims contained in the final report, and they are directly at odds with the so-called “scientific consensus” touted by Gore and others calling for immediate government action. For example, the following comment by Eric Steig appears in Second Order Draft Comments, Chapter 6; section 6-42:

In general, the certainty with which this chapter presents our understanding of abrupt climate change is overstated. There is confusion between hypothesis and evidence throughout the chapter, and a great deal of confusion on the differences between an abrupt “climate change” and possible, hypothetical causes of such climate changes.

“It is now abundantly clear why Al Gore will not accept our debate challenge. The supposed scientific consensus on global warming is pure fiction. Hopefully, the public release of comments and responses will enable the debate over global warming to turn to facts and less fiction,” stated Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, a national nonprofit think tank based in Chicago.

The Heartland Institute has been running ads in national newspapers calling on Al Gore to debate Lord Christopher Monckton, a prominent global warming “skeptic.” Starting today, the institute says it is now including Dennis Avery, an economist and coauthor of a book on global warming that is on the New York Times nonfiction best seller list, who Gore has also refused to debate.

To view the IPCC expert comments, go [here]

And thanks to Frogg for this article too:

Forecasts all up in the air

Article from: The Courier-Mail
Bob Carter

June 30, 2007 12:00am

KEVIN Trenberth is head of the large US National Centre for Atmospheric Research and one of the advisory high priests of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

A New Zealander by birth, Trenberth has had a distinguished career as a climate scientist with interests in the use of computer General Circulation Models (GCMs), the basis for most of the public alarm about dangerous global warming.

When such a person gives an opinion about the scientific value of GCMs as predictive tools, it is obviously wise to pay attention.

In a remarkable contribution to Nature magazine’s Climate Feedback blog, Trenberth concedes GCMs cannot predict future climate and claims the IPCC is not in the business of climate prediction. This might be news to some people.

Among other things, Trenberth asserts “. . . there are no (climate) predictions by IPCC at all. And there never have been”. Instead, there are only “what if” projections of future climate that correspond to certain emissions scenarios.

[...READ THE REST (30 seconds)...]

Possibly related posts:

• More facts about bunk that you won’t find in liberal media
• Canadians would choose Hillary, according to scientific consensus
• “Scientific consensus”: Death Penalty Discourages Crime; but don’t worry - liberals don’t believe it
• Regarding April: Environmentalist industry religion cleric to fellow cleric: “D’oh!”
• U.K. starts to see more clearly: officially downgrades the “man-made” in “man-made global warming”

 

Apparently yet another climate scientist didn’t get the memo called “OK shut up, there’s a consensus!  The science is settled!”.  Another scientist—this one Canadian—will have a fatwa issued against him by the scientific community, I guess, and he won’t get many invites to join liberals on the cocktail circuit this summer.  Nor any government or quasi government/environmentalist industry funding. 

I’ll start with a quote from deep within the article:

In some fields the science is indeed “settled.” For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that “the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases.” About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.

There.  Now that the liberals have all left and have headed to their progressive porno sites, let’s carry on getting educated and learning actual facts. 

Read the sunspots

The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change – and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling

R. TIMOTHY PATTERSON, Financial Post
Published: Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Politicians and environmentalists these days convey the impression that climate-change research is an exceptionally dull field with little left to discover. We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that “the science is settled.” At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the rise in world temperatures to 2C.

The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn’t seem to bother our leaders at all. Inviting testimony only from those who don’t question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of “stopping global climate change.” Liberal MP Ralph Goodale’s June 11 House of Commons assertion that Parliament should have “a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide, which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world,” would be humorous were he, and even the current government, not deadly serious about devoting vast resources to this hopeless crusade.

Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long “Younger Dryas” cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade—100 times faster than the past century’s 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.

Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.

[...]

Read the rest of R. TIMOTHY PATTERSON’s article (10 minutes of science).  He’s a professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University. 

There’s another good article today, called

.  Here’s an excerpt:

I recently heard a famous Canadian journalist, whom I know to be astute and well-informed, with above-average income and education, give a speech about the environment. He grew up in Muskoka, he said, where they never used to get smog, but now things are so bad that even up there they have started getting smog warnings. And here in Southern Ontario there are now—for the first time—smog warnings in the fall and winter, which never used to happen. The gist was that it’s high time Ottawa did something.

[...]

So you might be surprised to learn, as was the journalist when I told him afterwards, that Ontario air quality has actually been improving, for decades, even in Toronto. Indeed the same Ontario report begins by saying: “Overall, air quality in Ontario has improved significantly over the past 35 years for nitrogen dioxide, carbon monoxide and sulphur dioxide. However, ozone and fine particulate matter, the major components of smog, continue to exceed the ambient air-quality criteria and set reference levels, and thus remain the pollutants of most concern.”

You read that correctly. Most major categories of air pollution have fallen, in some cases dramatically, since the 1970s…

Also see our Steve Milloy column today:
“Climate Activists’ Credibility Gap”

Possibly related posts:

• Liberal POLITICAL scientists all agree on “man-made global warming”; Real scientists? Not so much.
• Liberals: “LA LA LAAA, WE CAN’T HEAR YOU!” (climate scientist debunks “man-made global warming”)
• “Man-made global climate change cooling warming and wiener stand”
• Al Gore bullied scientists into changing their views on climate change to match his
• Scientists speak out against “man-made global warming” canard. Liberals plug ears.

 

Yet another climate scientist joins the ranks of thousands of climate scientists working against all odds (the “consensus of scientists” —wink!) to debunk the theories of man-made global warming freak-out artists. 

High price for load of hot air

[...]

The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2.

Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).

Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth’s current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades.

[...]

It is past time for those who have deceived governments and misled the public regarding dangerous human-caused global warming to be called to account. Aided by hysterical posturing by green NGOs, their actions have led to the cornering of government on the issue and the likely implementation of futile emission policies that will impose direct extra costs on every household and enterprise in Australia to no identifiable benefit.

Not only do humans not dominate Earth’s current temperature trend but the likelihood is that further large sums of public money are shortly going to be committed to, theoretically, combat warming when cooling is the more likely short-term climatic eventuality.

In one of the more expensive ironies of history, the expenditure of more than $US50 billion ($60 billion) on research into global warming since 1990 has failed to demonstrate any human-caused climate trend, let alone a dangerous one.

Yet that expenditure will pale into insignificance compared with the squandering of money that is going to accompany the introduction of a carbon trading or taxation system.

—Professor Bob Carter is an environmental scientist at James Cook University who studies ancient climate change

Possibly related posts:

• Steve Milloy re-debunks global warming science
• Climate scientist: “Climate change will be considered a joke in five years”
• “Man-made global climate change cooling warming and wiener stand”
• U.K. starts to see more clearly: officially downgrades the “man-made” in “man-made global warming”
• Scientists speak out against “man-made global warming” canard. Liberals plug ears.

 

A professor of Atmospheric Science at the University of Wyoming for 22 years and former Chief Meteorologist for the Meteorological Service of New Zealand says (what I call) the enviromentalist religion’s clerics… have it all wrong, and they know it, and they’re suckering you. 

Global warming debunked

By ANDREW SWALLOW – The Timaru Herald | Saturday, 19 May 2007

AdvertisementClimate change will be considered a joke in five years time, meteorologist Augie Auer told the annual meeting of Mid Canterbury Federated Farmers in Ashburton this week.

Man’s contribution to the greenhouse gases was so small we couldn’t change the climate if we tried, he maintained.

“We’re all going to survive this. It’s all going to be a joke in five years,” he said.

A combination of misinterpreted and misguided science, media hype, and political spin had created the current hysteria and it was time to put a stop to it.

“It is time to attack the myth of global warming,” he said.

Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

“If we didn’t have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time.”

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man’s activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively.

“That ought to be the end of the argument, there and then,” he said.

“We couldn’t do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates.”

Yet the Greens continued to use phrases such as “The planet is groaning under the weight of CO2” and Government policies were about to hit industries such as farming, he warned.

“The Greens are really going to go after you because you put out 49 per cent of the countries emissions. Does anybody ask 49 per cent of what? Does anybody know how small that number is?

“It’s become a witch-hunt; a Salem witch-hunt,” he said.

Possibly related posts:

• Climate Change’s Carnival Atmosphere
• CNN looks at Canada: yet ANOTHER result of climate change…
• Climate change occurs in Vancouver! Crocuses appear (on schedule!)
• 60 leading international climate change experts tell Harper Kyoto is bogus
• “Man-made global climate change cooling warming and wiener stand”