Obama’s Gulf (Oil Spill) War: Day 56 – Obama’s Speech

According to the MSM and the “Talking Heads” that claim the title of  ”Democratic Strategists” there is no question. Oppose or criticize and you are branded a racist.

Personal Criticism of Obama, The Man and His Policies 

As an American and as a Conservative I was elated to celebrate the election of our first black President, however, I was not willing to celebrate the election of Barack Obama, the man,  nor am I currently willing to celebrate Obama’s policies. “Content of character not color of skin”.

Oh how I wish our first black President would have been General Colin Powell.  I can only speculate as to how General Powell would have handled our current set of crisis.

While I’ll never know for sure, I’d speculate that under General Powell’s leadership we would now be moving towards securing our borders, that after 53 days the oil leak in the gulf  would be capped.

Under General Powell’s leadership, Operation Desert Storm only lasted 40 days  (01/17/91 to 02/27/91) and the “ground war” with Iraq lasted a total of 13 days (02-14-91 to 02-27-91).

I just can’t imagine General Powell conducting an international “bow and scrape” tour or engaging in a never ending set of apologies for America’s role in world affairs.

I can’t imagine Powell embarrassing his Nation. I have never heard General Powell play CYA and blame others or point the finger of blame. He was probably to busy leading ….

Under Powell’s leadership would we, as a nation, be speculating on whether the latest set of “impotent sanctions” against Iran would have any meaningful effect on stopping that rogue nation from developing nuclear weapons? Would the Nation be wondering, “and if these don’t work, what do we do next?”

I doubt that the national economy would be be any worse than it is today, if General Powell, if he were President, had simply ignored it.

Yes, these are speculations, but my strong criticism of Obama has nothing to do with race. My speculation as to  “what would General Powell do” has nothing to do with race either.   

When Obama was elected the Liberal Main Stream Media and the Democratic Party heralded the beginning of a “post-racial” America. Less than 18 months into Obama’s Presidency the MSM and the Democratic Political strategists are running to the familiar comforts of race and gender baiting.

It is 2010, isn’t it time we move on?  Let us remember and never forget the lessons of the 1960’s, even if those lessons are 50 years old! We, as Americans, need to learn and move on. To understand this is 2010 and not 1960. To learn from the past but not surrender to being a victim of it.

To try and use the disaster in the Gulf to pass “Cap & Trade”, no matter what they are calling “Cap & Trade today, is inexcusable.

If I heard the President correctly, 56 days into the disaster and we still have no idea what really caused  the explosion or fire. The “root cause” is still a mystery. Nor do we have a “sure fire” plan to cap the well.

I may have missed it, but who exactly “serves” of the President’s committee “evaluating our options to cap the well”. What? That committee doesn’t exist? The President is setting up multiple committees, panels and conferences but he is not establishing a national command structure to respond to the Gulf disaster, a committee or working group of the best “deep sea mining specialists” in the world nor is he accepting help from any of the 17 Countries who have graciously extended an offer to assist the United States in its time of need. The President’s focus is always on “Attorneys”, “Courtrooms” and more “regulations”.

The President talked about leading, about his “war against the gulf spill” but unfortunately he has no idea how to accomplish his goals. One thing you can count on, he has called the Attorneys. No matter what the problem, the answer is always the same, call the Attorneys.

FUN FACT: Once again the Obama Administration has claimed that the problem rests with a failure to regulate. Let me suggest that the problem in the Gulf, like our immigration problem is not a failure to regulate but a failure to enforce the existing regulations. Did you know that there are over 16 million pages of regulations concerning offshore oil drilling, over 16 million pages. Regulations on the density of the material used in the pipes, regulations concerning  the compounds used in the seals and gaskets that are used in the various assemblies, regulations concerning the components  in the electrical assemblies to be  used in the various sensors, sensors that are also regulated . Changing or adding regulations to this mess would be meaningless until we start to enforce the regulations that exist today. Just like our immigration problems …. Why write new regulations if you don’t enforce the ones that exist today.

How, exactly, do we write new regulations to address this disaster when we have not figured out exactly what caused it?

Did the President say last night that while he had a vision for the Country, that he wasn’t exactly sure where we were going or how he we would get us there, but that if we gave him our money, he would drive as fast as he could and maybe, just maybe, we might like where we ended up. Is he kidding me … sounds like a  juvenile road trip from my youth not a plan for a “war against the spill in the gulf”.

Mr. President we want answers …. We want action on capping that well.

Wikipedia & Peer Review: Real Climate.Org Allowed To “Edit Or Delete” 5,428 Climate Articles

By Lawrence Solomon

THE NATIONAL POST – Canada’s Largest National, English Language Paper http://www.canada.com/entertainment/product/national-post-0x138c3b/topic.html

The Climategate Emails describe how a small band of climatologists cooked the books to make the last century seem dangerously warm.

The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD.

The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history.

The Medieval Warm Period, which followed the meanness and cold of the Dark Ages, was a great time in human history — it allowed humans around the world to bask in a glorious warmth that vastly improved agriculture, increased life spans and otherwise bettered the human condition.

But the Medieval Warm Period was not so great for some humans in our own time — the same small band that believes the planet has now entered an unprecedented and dangerous warm period. As we now know from the Climategate Emails, this band saw the Medieval Warm Period as an enormous obstacle in their mission of spreading the word about global warming. If temperatures were warmer 1,000 years ago than today, the Climategate Emails explain in detail, their message that we now live in the warmest of all possible times would be undermined. As put by one band member, a Briton named Folland at the Hadley Centre, a Medieval Warm Period “dilutes the message rather significantly.”

Even before the Climategate Emails came to light, the problem posed by the Medieval Warm Period to this band was known. “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” read a pre-Climategate email, circa 1995, as attested to at hearings of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. But the Climategate transcripts were more extensive and more illuminating — they provided an unvarnished look at the struggles that the climate practitioners underwent before settling on their scientific dogma.

The Climategate Emails showed, for example, that some members of the band were uncomfortable with aspects of their work, some even questioning the need to erase the existence of the Medieval Warm Period 1,000 years earlier.

Said Briffa, one of their chief practitioners: “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. … I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago.”  

In the end, Briffa and other members of the band overcame their doubts and settled on their dogma. With the help of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the highest climate change authority of all, they published what became the icon of their movement — the hockey stick graph. This icon showed temperatures in the last 1,000 years to have been stable — no Medieval Warm Period, not even the Little Ice Age of a few centuries ago.

But the UN’s official verdict that the Medieval Warm Period had not existed did not erase the countless schoolbooks, encyclopedias, and other scholarly sources that claimed it had. Rewriting those would take decades, time that the band members didn’t have if they were to save the globe from warming.

Instead, the band members turned to their friends in the media and to the blogosphere, creating a website called RealClimate.org. “The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are doing the rounds” in aid of “combating dis-information,” one email explained, referring to criticisms of the hockey stick and anything else suggesting that temperatures today were not the hottest in recorded time. One person in the nine-member Realclimate.org team — U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley — would take on particularly crucial duties.

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear.

Financial Post
LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com

Normal 0 0 1 32 184 1 1 225 11.512 0 0 0

 Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe and Urban Renaissance Institute and author of The Deniers: The world-renowned scientists who stood up against global warming hysteria, political persecution, and fraud.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx

Climate Gate: Wikibullies at work. Wikipedia allows RealClimate.Org to “Edit” or “Delete” 5,248 Climate Articles

From: Watts Up With That       - The 2008 Weblogs Award Winner – Best Science Blog

http://himaarmenia.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/wikipedia-logo.jpg?w=157&h=189

UPDATED: see stats below the “read more” line.

Lawrence Solomon at the National Post writes about a topic that WUWT readers have known about for a long time: How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.

We’ve known for some time that Wikipedia can’t be trusted to provide unbiased climate information. Solomon starts off by talking about Climategate emails.

The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD.

The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history.

He then focuses on RealClimate.org co-founder William Connolley, who has “touched” 5,428 Wikipedia articles with his unique brand of RC centric editing:

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear.

Wikipedia suffers from the same problem that climate science in general suffers from now. A few determined zealots have influenced the vast majority of the published information.

IMHO it is time for Connolley to step aside from Wikipedia, one person should not have so much influence over so many articles. At the same time, the number two person, almost as influential, is Kim Dabelstein Peterson. Here’s a National Review article on the kind of things Petersen has been doing in similar to the work of Connolley.

Additionally, there are many Wikipedia editors and contributors that do so anonymously, and I think that is terribly wrong. There’s no accountability, no quality control, and no recourse to people who falsify information, or mold it to fit a personal agenda. Wikipedia relies upon an honor system, and as we’ve seen from the Climategate emails, there’s no honor in some circles of climate science.

Here is another example:

The Opinionator
Posted: May 03, 2008, 2:53 AM by Lawrence Solomon

Connolley is not only a big shot on Wikipedia, he’s a big shot at Wikipedia — an Administrator with unusual editorial clout. Using that clout, this 40-something scientist of minor relevance gets to tear down scientists of great accomplishment. Because Wikipedia has become the single biggest reference source in the world, and global warming is one of the most sought after subjects, the ability to control information on Wikipedia by taking down authoritative scientists is no trifling matter.

One such scientist is Fred Singer, the First Director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, the recipient of a White House commendation for his early design of space satellites; the recipient of a NASA commendation for research on particle clouds — in short, a scientist with dazzling achievements who is everything Connolley is not. Under Connolley’s supervision, Singer is relentlessly smeared, and has been for years, as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry. When a smear is inadequate, or when a fair-minded Wikipedian tries to correct a smear, Connolley and his cohorts are there to widen the smear or remove the correction, often rebuking the Wikipedian in the process.

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales recently put out an appeal for donations here. He writes:

I believe in us. I believe that Wikipedia keeps getting better. That’s the whole idea. One person writes something, somebody improves it a little, and it keeps getting better, over time. If you find it useful today, imagine how much we can achieve together in 5, 10, 20 years.

In a perfect world, maybe. In a perfect world unicorns frolic in the park, free money falls from the sky, and people are honest and without bias 100% of the time. But when you have Wikibullies, such as Connolley and Peterson, your honor system goes up in smoke. Fact is Jimmy, your honor system is as corrupted as the peer review process is for climate science these days. In my view, don’t give Wikipedia another dime until they make some changes to provide for a more responsible information environment.

Making free reference information available to the public shouldn’t be a battle of wills between Wikibullies with an agenda and the rest of society.

Here’s where to write to complain to Wikipedia:

Wikimedia Foundation

Postal address

Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
149 New Montgomery Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
USA
Phone: +1-415-839-6885
Email: info(at)wikimedia.org
Fax: +1-415-882-0495  (note: we get a large number of calls; email or fax is always a better first option)

UPDATE: I’ve located Solomon’s source of information, an independent Wikipedia author tracker. Here is Connolley’s base statistics:

Click image for full report

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/

Vote Totals For the 2008 WEBLOG AWARDS – Best Science Blog:  

Real Climate’s Vote Total:   1,446 votes or 4.6 %                                                                                                                                              Watts Up With That Vote Total:  14,150  or  37.6%

http://2008.weblogawards.org/polls/best-science-blog/ 

Shame on Wikipedia: Web Site Allows RealClimate.Org To “Doctor” or “Delete” 5,428 climate articles –

The National Post exposes Wikipedia over climate information

Watts Up With That?
December 21, 2009

UPDATED: see stats below the “read more” line.

Lawrence Solomon at the National Post writes about a topic that WUWT readers have known about for a long time: How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.

We’ve known for some time that Wikipedia can’t be trusted to provide unbiased climate information. Solomon starts off by talking about Climategate emails.

The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD.

The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history.

He then focuses on RealClimate.org co-founder William Connolley, who has “touched” 5,428 Wikipedia articles with his unique brand of RC centric editing:

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear.

Wikipedia suffers from the same problem that climate science in general suffers from now. A few determined zealots have influenced the vast majority of the published information.

IMHO it is time for Connolley to step aside from Wikipedia, one person should not have so much influence over so many articles. At the same time, the number two person, almost as influential, is Kim Dabelstein Peterson. Here’s a National Review article on the kind of things Petersen has been doing in similar to the work of Connolley.

Additionally, there are many Wikipedia editors and contributors that do so anonymously, and I think that is terribly wrong. There’s no accountability, no quality control, and no recourse to people who falsify information, or mold it to fit a personal agenda. Wikipedia relies upon an honor system, and as we’ve seen from the Climategate emails, there’s no honor in some circles of climate science.

Here is another example:

The Opinionator

Posted: May 03, 2008, 2:53 AM by Lawrence Solomon

Connolley is not only a big shot on Wikipedia, he’s a big shot at Wikipedia — an Administrator with unusual editorial clout. Using that clout, this 40-something scientist of minor relevance gets to tear down scientists of great accomplishment. Because Wikipedia has become the single biggest reference source in the world, and global warming is one of the most sought after subjects, the ability to control information on Wikipedia by taking down authoritative scientists is no trifling matter.

One such scientist is Fred Singer, the First Director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, the recipient of a White House commendation for his early design of space satellites; the recipient of a NASA commendation for research on particle clouds — in short, a scientist with dazzling achievements who is everything Connolley is not. Under Connolley’s supervision, Singer is relentlessly smeared, and has been for years, as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry. When a smear is inadequate, or when a fair-minded Wikipedian tries to correct a smear, Connolley and his cohorts are there to widen the smear or remove the correction, often rebuking the Wikipedian in the process.

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales recently put out an appeal for donations here. He writes:

I believe in us. I believe that Wikipedia keeps getting better. That’s the whole idea. One person writes something, somebody improves it a little, and it keeps getting better, over time. If you find it useful today, imagine how much we can achieve together in 5, 10, 20 years.

In a perfect world, maybe. In a perfect world unicorns frolic in the park, free money falls from the sky, and people are honest and without bias 100% of the time. But when you have Wikibullies, such as Connolley and Peterson, your honor system goes up in smoke. Fact is Jimmy, your honor system is as corrupted as the peer review process is for climate science these days. In my view, don’t give Wikipedia another dime until they make some changes to provide for a more responsible information environment.

Making free reference information available to the public shouldn’t be a battle of wills between Wikibullies with an agenda and the rest of society.

Here’s where to write to complain to Wikipedia:

Wikimedia Foundation

Postal address

Wikimedia Foundation Inc.
149 New Montgomery Street, 3rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
USAPhone: +1-415-839-6885
Email: info@wikimedia.org
Fax: +1-415-882-0495 (note: we get a large number of calls; email or fax is always a better first option)

UPDATE: I’ve located Solomon’s source of information, an independent Wikipedia author tracker. Here is Connolley’s base statistics:

media  The National Post exposes broad trust issues over Wikipedia climate information

Click image for full report

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/the-national-post-exposes-wikipedia-over-climate-information/blog-219897/

Shame on The IPCC: Climate Change Consensus Was Phoney – Climate Gate Continues

NATIONAL POST.COM

(The National Post is Canada’s largest english language national newspaper. The Post exposes how an ‘Editor” at Wikipedia “rewrote” 5,248 climate articles – http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/the-national-post-exposes-wikipedia-over-climate-information/blog-219897/). 

The IPCC consensus on climate change was phoney, says IPCC insider

 

Claims that 2500 scientists agreed were "disingenuous"

The UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change misled the press and public into believing that thousands of scientists backed its claims on manmade global warming, according to Mike Hulme, a prominent climate scientist and IPCC insider.  The actual number of scientists who backed that claim was “only a few dozen experts,” he states in a paper for Progress in Physical Geography, co-authored with student Martin Mahony.

“Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous,” the paper states unambiguously, adding that they rendered “the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.”

Hulme, Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia –  the university of Climategate fame is the founding Director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and one of the UK’s most prominent climate scientists. Among his many roles in the climate change establishment, Hulme was the IPCC’s co-ordinating Lead Author for its chapter on ‘Climate scenario development’ for its Third Assessment Report and a contributing author of several other chapters.

Hulme’s depiction of IPCC’s exaggeration of the number of scientists who backed its claim about man-made climate change can be found on pages 10 and 11 of his paper, found here.

Additional quotes taken from his paper:

Consensus and Uncertainty

Understanding consensus as a process of ‘truth creation’ (or the more nuanced ‘knowledge production’) which marginalizes dissenting voices – as has frequently been portrayed by some of the IPCC’s critics does not do justice to the process {the process of scientific investigation} ….

Consensus-building in fact serves several different goals. As Horst and Irwin have explained, seeking consensus can be as much about building a community identity – what Haas refers to as an epistemic community – as it is about seeking the ‘truth’.

Pielke and Sarewitz agree that the IPCC has failed in its role as an ‘honest-broker’ and has moved towards being an ‘issue advocate’ in Pielke’s terminology, or even on some occasions a ‘stealth issue advocate’.

Without a careful explanation about what it means, this drive for consensus can leave the IPCC vulnerable to outside criticism.

 Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. { –adjective lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere: Her excuse was rather disingenuous}.

That particular consensus judgment, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts ….. questions about the status of climate change knowledge synthesized by the IPCC remain less widely investigated, questions which emerge from the agendas raised by the new geographers of science ……….knowledge that is claimed by its producers to have universal authority is received and interpreted very differently in different settings. …………

 http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/13/the-ipcc-consensus-on-climate-change-was-phoney-says-ipcc-insider/

Minority report: 50 year warming due to natural causes: 06/08/10 By Roy W Spencer, PhD

Minority report: 50 year warming due to natural causes

Minority report: 50 year warming due to natural causesPosted on June 7, 2010 by Anthony Watts  http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/07/minority-report-50-year-warming-due-to-natural-causes/

Warming in Last 50 Years Predicted by Natural Climate Cycles

by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

One of the main conclusions of the 2007 IPCC report was that the warming over the last 50 years was most likely due to anthropogenic pollution, especially increasing atmospheric CO2 from fossil fuel burning.

But a minority of climate researchers have maintained that some — or even most — of that warming could have been due to natural causes. For instance, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation (AMO) are natural modes of climate variability which have similar time scales to warming and cooling periods during the 20th Century. Also, El Nino — which is known to cause global-average warmth — has been more frequent in the last 30 years or so; the Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) is a measure of El Nino and La Nina activity.

A simple way to examine the possibility that these climate cycles might be involved in the warming over the last 50 years is to do a statistical comparison of the yearly temperature variations versus the PDO, AMO, and SOI yearly values. But of course, correlation does not prove causation.

So, what if we use the statistics BEFORE the last 50 years to come up with a model of temperature variability, and then see if that statistical model can “predict” the strong warming over the most recent 50 year period? That would be much more convincing because, if the relationship between temperature and these 3 climate indicies for the first half of the 20th Century just happened to be accidental, we sure wouldn’t expect it to accidentally predict the strong warming which has occurred in the second half of the 20th Century, would we?

Temperature, or Temperature Change Rate?
This kind of statistical comparison is usually performed with temperature. But there is greater physical justification for using the temperature change rate, instead of temperature. This is because if natural climate cycles are correlated to the time rate of change of temperature, that means they represent heating or cooling influences, such as changes in global cloud cover (albedo).

Such a relationship, shown in the plot below, would provide a causal link of these natural cycles as forcing mechanisms for temperature change, since the peak forcing then precedes the peak temperature.
                                                                     

Predicting Northern Hemispheric Warming Since 1960
Since most of the recent warming has occurred over the Northern Hemisphere, I chose to use the CRUTem3 yearly record of Northern Hemispheric temperature variations for the period 1900 through 2009. From this record I computed the yearly change rates in temperature. I then linearly regressed these 1-year temperature change rates against the yearly average values of the PDO, AMO, and SOI.

I used the period from 1900 through 1960 for “training” to derive this statistical relationship, then applied it to the period 1961 through 2009 to see how well it predicted the yearly temperature change rates for that 50 year period. Then, to get the model-predicted temperatures, I simply added up the temperature change rates over time.

The result of this exercise in shown in the following plot.

What is rather amazing is that the rate of observed warming of the Northern Hemisphere since the 1970’s matches that which the PDO, AMO, and SOI together predict, based upon those natural cycles’ PREVIOUS relationships to the temperature change rate (prior to 1960).

Again I want to emphasize that my use of the temperature change rate, rather than temperature, as the predicted variable is based upon the expectation that these natural modes of climate variability represent forcing mechanisms — I believe through changes in cloud cover — which then cause a lagged temperature response.

This is powerful evidence that most of the warming that the IPCC has attributed to human activities over the last 50 years could simply be due to natural, internal variability in the climate system. If true, this would also mean that (1) the climate system is much less sensitive to the CO2 content of the atmosphere than the IPCC claims, and (2) future warming from greenhouse gas emissions will be small.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/06/07/minority-report-50-year-warming-due-to-natural-causes/

The Great Global Warming Swindle – The Video Produced By WAGTV For The BBC

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: