A 25 Year Global Cooling Trend

This article in the Daily Mail, describing “a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years” has certainly stirred the AGW hysteria pot. Click here and here for the peer reviewed science behind the story.

But, what if I told you the planet is already 25 years into a global cooling trend? Well, if we’re talking about the annual rate of global temperature change, even the government funded alarmists at NOAA know -- for certain -- this is the case.

2/19/10 Update & Correction:
On closer inspection, I find I originally misinterpreted the NOAA chart below. The Y axis -- described as “Temperature Change” -- does NOT describe an annual change from one year to the next. Rather, it describes, after ENSO-adjustment, the total (warming biased) temperature change from the year on the X axis all the way through 2008.

Therefore, while the chart does clearly depict a recent flattening of the previous warming trend and even a recent cooling trend, it does not describe -- as I previously thought -- a 25 year decline in the annual rate of global temperature change.

Of greater significance is the following:

1) We see an on-going, uninterrupted 10,000 year cooling trend in BOTH the Arctic AND the Antarctic.

The citation links and more details are found here and here.

2) Click here for a game changing temperature trend revelation found at the intersection of the NOAA report cited in this post and recent admissions from the climate scientist at the center of the ClimateGate scandal.

Examine this NOAA chart.
Click the image to enlarge it:

Click here & jump to page 23 to find the above chart.
Be patient. This is a very large (15MB) file.
Or, see the relevant section as extracted by the U.K. Met Office.

Click here for more on the current cooling trend.
Click here for some basic climate change science.

Coral Reef Hysteria Debunked

Quoting the press office of the University of Exeter:

“Scientists and environmentalists have warned that coral reefs may not be able to recover from the damage caused by climate change and that these unique environments could soon be lost forever. Now, this research adds weight to the argument that reducing levels of fishing is a viable way of protecting the world’s most delicate aquatic ecosystems.”

Click the image & read the rest:

H/T: Paul Biggs at ClimateResearchNews.com.
Of all the incredibly dishonest climate change hysteria mongering, coral reef hysteria may be the most dishonest of all. All of life is far more resilient and far more adaptable than the alarmists care to (publicly) admit.

The article states that:
“Coral reefs have been on the planet for over 400 million years.”

The alarmists at GISS acknowledge that -- at the time of the last glacial maximum (about 18 to 20 thousand years ago) -- sea levels were about 120 meters (394 feet) LOWER than today. According to this source, “[t]ropical corals do not grow at depths of over 50 meters (160 ft).” Ergo, ALL the tropical coral reefs we see today were ABOVE WATER a mere 20,000 years ago. And yet, somehow, tropical coral reefs survived! Or, more accurately, the organisms which produce coral reefs survived and -- once ocean levels rose again -- these organisms revived those reefs which, during the glacial period, had been above water.

Furthermore, NASA has documented “around 100” glacial/interglacial cycles in the last 2.5 million years. All evidence suggests these cycles have produced very similar fluctuations in sea levels. Ergo, today’s tropical coral reefs have survived “around 100” episodes where they have ALL been ABOVE WATER!

Those organisms which produce coral reefs have -- during glacial/interglacial cycles -- routinely survived temperature variations of 13C.

How could anybody be so incredibly STUPID as to assert that a PERFECTLY NATURAL temperature increase of 0.7C OR an extremely tiny move towards the neutral side of the pH scale could threaten tropical coral reefs with extinction?

IT IS WAY BEYOND ABSURD! And, those who fall for this absurdity are WAY BEYOND IGNORANT!

Click here to return to Climate Change 101.

The People STILL Oppose Health Care Tyranny

(Updated on 1/20/10)

As of January 16-17,
38% favor ObamaCare.
12% think it will lower costs.
60% think it will lead to higher costs.
52% think it will reduce the quality of care.
78% expect it to cost more than projected.

Despite our objections,
70% expect the Dims will impose their tyranny.

Click the image & examine the latest results:

The above link is updated with every new polling cycle.
Click here for comprehensive polling data.

Dear Dims: Tyranny has consequences!
Click here and here to understand why our health care problem is a function -- not of too little access to health care, but too MUCH access to health care (on somebody else’s dime).

Robbie Gibbs Blames CO2 for Record COLD!

ROTFLMFAO!
But, only to keep from crying.

For the AGW hysteria faithful,
CO2 is to blame for everything:

Gibbs: Worldwide Record Cold Result of Climate Change
by hotairpundit

Click here to examine the latest on the current cooling trend.
Click here for some basic climate change science.
Click here for a related cartoon.

Senator Reid & The Usual Dim Hypocrisy

Quoting Newsbusters:

“Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in 2002 agreed with former Sen. Trent Lott's (R-Miss.) decision to resign his leadership role after Lott made what some felt were racist remarks at former Sen. Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party.

‘He had no alternative,’ said Reid at the time claiming, ‘If you tell ethnic jokes in the backroom, it's that much easier to say ethnic things publicly. I've always practiced how I play.’…

As liberal media members work overtime to spin racist comments Reid made about presidential candidate Barack Obama in 2008, it's going to be very interesting to see how many recall Lott's resignation or what Reid said about the incident.”

Click the image & read the rest:

Click here for two other viewpoints.

Meteorologists are (rightly) skeptical on CAGW

Updated on 6/19/11
Quoting Vol. 90, Issue 10 (October, 2009) of
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
(in an article clearly written by a CAGW propagandist):

“The question of whether John Coleman is an isolated skeptic or represents a larger community of skeptical TV weathercasters was one of several research motivations for a recent national survey of AMS weathercasters sponsored by the National Environmental Education Foundation (NEEF).”

Click the image for the most relevant finding:

Click here for the BAMS article.
Click here for more key findings & commentary.
Click here to further refute the “scientific consensus” bunk.
Click here & expose the “leader” of the IPCC.
Click here for some basic climate change science.
This Wikipedia page is oft cited by alarmists as evidence of a mythical consensus among scientists which is ostensibly fully supportive of the IPCC and calls for governments to regulate CO2. That page includes a section which many falsely construe as evidence that American meteorologists are part of this mythical “consensus”. The Wikipedia page cites this statement from the AMS asserting that “[t]he changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities”. However, the polling data cited in this post clearly and directly demonstrates that only 24% of meteorologists polled share that view!

I strongly suspect that if ANY of the cited organizations were to conduct a comprehensive poll of all their members, they would find very little agreement with their “official” statements. And, that is precisely why -- without exception -- the “leadership” of these organizations has NOT conducted ANY such polling of their members (despite Dr. Bill Gray having openly challenged the AMS to “conduct a survey of its members”).

Three more points:

1) The evidence demonstrates that Leftists have been very actively slanting Wikipedia information dealing with Climate Change. And, that is precisely why you will never see this polling data in this Wikipedia section.

2) There is NO uniformity in the statements offered by various organizations. They are all over the map.

3) The TINY MINORITY of scientists who agree with the IPCC and calls for government to regulate CO2, are the ones who are mostly likely to directly profit (at tax payer expense) from the alarmism and/or the regulations.

NPR Ombudsman Alicia C. Shepard is Hideously Dishonest

Quoting NPR Ombudsman Alicia C. Shepard
(who was commenting on this controversy):

“NPR does not receive direct funding from the federal government. Less than 2 percent of its annual budget comes from competitive grants from federally funded institutions.”

Click the image & read the rest of the non-apology:

Click here to expose the NPR funding deception.
Click here for more commentary.
NPR’s Alicia C. Shepard further suggests that NPR showed political balance “On Dec. 31, [when] Fiore took after Obama on npr.org.” Is Ms. Shepard SO ideologically blinkered that she TRULY BELIEVES political balance is achieved by:

1) Mocking Obama for -- in the eyes of Fiore -- not being enough of a leftwing extremist.

2) Simultaneously mocking “Rightwing Ralphie”.

Sadly, at NPR (and CPB) this IS what they regard as “balance”.

I might suggest that NPR find a new (and less ethically challenged) Ombudsman. But, I am certain the next one would be no better than this one. What I REALLY want is for the utterly dishonest and pathetically propagandistic NPR to STOP ROBBING ME AT GUNPOINT!