Posted 14 February 2010 - 08:20 PM
The academic at the centre of the ‘Climategate’ affair, whose raw data is crucial to the theory of climate change, has admitted that he has trouble ‘keeping track’ of the information.
Colleagues say that the reason Professor Phil Jones has refused Freedom of Information requests is that he may have actually lost the relevant papers. . . .
Professor Jones also conceded the possibility that the world was warmer in medieval times than now – suggesting global warming may not be a man-made phenomenon.
And he said that for the past 15 years there has been no ‘statistically significant’ warming.
The admissions will be seized on by sceptics as fresh evidence that there are serious flaws at the heart of the science of climate change and the orthodoxy that recent rises in temperature are largely man-made. . . .
Daily Mail, February 14
Posted 16 February 2010 - 01:17 PM
Of all the different industry groups scrambling to shape climate policy in Washington--from electric utilities to Detroit automakers--one stands out as a bit unexpected: Wall Street. Financial giants like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan have enlisted, all told, more than 100 lobbyists to roam the Capitol and influence the debate over how to curb greenhouse gases. There’s a reason for that: Any cap-and-trade bill that puts a limit on emissions and allows polluters to buy and sell permits will create a vast carbon market. That will mean new opportunities for financial firms to broker deals, package carbon offsets, or offer hedging instruments. And that, in turn, will mean profit. Little wonder that investment banks have been bulking up their carbon-trading desks in recent years.
But, given what happened the last time bankers went wild on a hot commodity, some politicians are leery of their interest in cap-and-trade. . . .
New Republic, December 11
What to say to a global warming advocate
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. . . .
Mark Landsbaum, Orange County Register, February 12
Posted 29 July 2011 - 01:45 AM
- - -
New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism
NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Study co-author Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite, reports that real-world data from NASA's Terra satellite contradict multiple assumptions fed into alarmist computer models.
"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.
The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate. . . .
James Taylor, Forbes, July 27
Posted 29 July 2011 - 08:38 AM
Ditto (although other than setting some kind of record for most uses of the word "alarmist" in a fairly short article, I'm not sure why this piece strikes you as an op-ed).
I would have preferred a straight news story to an op-ed piece, which is basically what this article is, but at any rate, I'm curious to see what sort of follow-up/responses the underlying study gets.
Posted 29 July 2011 - 10:44 AM
: Ditto (although other than setting some kind of record for most uses of the word "alarmist" in a fairly short article, I'm not sure why this piece strikes you as an op-ed).
Well, it clearly reflects the writer's opinions, for one thing. Does that not make it an "op", at least?
Posted 29 October 2012 - 03:58 PM
The end of this article also notes that the editor of the journal that published Spencer and Braswell's paper ended up resigning because of it.
Spencer and Braswell's study uses an overly simplistic climate model, their conclusions rely on using one particular data set, and their paper does not provide enough information to duplicate the study. The paper is fundamentally flawed and has no scientific merit.