The chairman of the U.N.'s IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, has said "global warming skeptics are like people who see no difference between cancer-causing asbestos and talcum powder" and "I hope that they apply it (asbestos) to their faces every day."

The worlds leading spokesman for Climate Change action is now wishing for death of his critics. This makes me question the whole affair even more. This man has got to be fired from his post.

I urge readers to see McIntyre's remarks at ClimateAudit.com, about Cicerone "then and now". From those remarks, it appears the climategate incident has brought about another welcomed "conversion".

In a nutshell, if the establishment does not institute sufficient change to assure even skeptics (as most of the public are skeptical), it will cease to be relevant, and may have done so already.

'There has been an increase in the number of British people who are sceptical about climate change, a poll commissioned by BBC News has suggested.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk...

"Summary:

http://ncwatch.typepad.com...

It has been shown above that low altitude cloud cover closely follows cosmic ray flux; that the galactic cosmic ray flux has the periodicities of the glacial/interglacial cycles; that a decrease in galactic cosmic ray flux was coincident with Termination II [the warming that initiated the Eemian, the last interglacial] ; and that the most likely initiator for Termination II was a consequent decrease in Earth’s albedo.
The temperature of past interglacials was higher than today most likely as a consequence of a lower global albedo due to a decrease in galactic cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth’s atmosphere. In addition, the galactic cosmic ray intensity exhibits a 100 kyr periodicity over the last 200 kyr that is in phase with the glacial terminations of this period. Carbon dioxide appears to play a very limited role in setting interglacial temperature."

http://ncwatch.typepad.com...

"The Indian government has established its own body to monitor the effects of global warming because it “cannot rely” on the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the group headed by its own leading scientist Dr R.K Pachauri. "

http://www.telegraph.co.uk...

A United Nations report wrongly claimed that more than half of the Netherlands is currently below sea level.

"In fact, just 20 percent of the country consists of polders that are pumped dry, and which are at risk of flooding if global warming causes rising sea levels. Dutch Environment Minister Jacqueline Cramer has ordered a thorough investigation into the quality of the climate reports which she uses to base her policies on."

I seriously doubt that 'Humpty Dumpty' can ever be put back together again, and thankfully so, perhaps now we can get away from ideology and cults of personality and mystique, an on with solid hard science.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty

Best Wishes

This is OT but everyone should check out UAH's results for January, characterized by Roy Spencer as "the warmest January in the history of the satellite...record". See drroyspence.com. Remember that we are in the midst of a pretty strong El Nino (a la 1998).

Andy, I know you hate to focus on short term variations but you will probably want to make an exception in this case.

In 2006, the House Energy and commerce Committee asked Edward J Wegman, a distinguished statistician at George Mason University to form an ad hoc committee to examine the statistics Michael Mann's work relies upon. The question on the table was whether or not the objections to Mann's methodology by McIntyre and McKittrick, often referred to as MM, had any validity. The short answer is that the Wegman committee stated in polite, academic terms that the MM work was correct. Wegman et al noted that it was clear that the Mann team did not include a professional statistician and that their statistical analyses were seriously lacking. Google Edward J. Wegman House Energy and Commerce Committee. Also google Edward J. Wegman reply to Stupak. A faster way to find would be to go to climateaudit.org and look for the titles around 1/2 way down on the left hand side.

It is obvious that if one builds a case on computer modeling that is heavily reliant on statistical analyses, the statistics must be robust enough to withstand careful review by highly qualified statisticians. If they fail this test then the argument must fail on its merits. Anyone who has doubts about the qualifications of Wegman and his co-workers should do a simple search and review their CV's. Res ipsa loquitor,as the lawyers say.

If this isn't sufficient, there exists considerable controversy regarding the quality of the databases that underlie all of the statistical analyses. These, too, may be foud with straight forward web searches.

I'm shocked that proponents of the AGW theory still don't understand the credibility gap.

Every time I've referred acquaintances who wanted to learn about the climate to Dot Earth or Real Climate, they've commented back about how rude, hostile, and belittling the proponents are.

And I don't even mean the blatant Romm/Hansen blasts about locking away deniers and coal trains being Holocaust death cars. I'm referring to continual, underlying condescension from the most radical proponents who comment on this blog (and write for Real Climate).

The statements that skeptics must not understand science, have a hidden agenda, cannot think for themselves, are paid by industry, have been brainwashed by Fox News and Glenn Beck, or otherwise just hate the environment are a daily theme. But this attempt to claim a moral and righteous high ground has alienated 75% of the nation by telling them that not only are they wrong, but they're also stupid.

And, unfortunately, the tactic has destroyed the ability to have a rational conversation about energy policy.

It reminds me of when the extreme anti-abortion wackos were bombing clinics and claiming that even women who were raped couldn't have an abortion at 6 weeks. It was so extreme that the majority of the public swung toward more liberal abortion rights. And now that the wackos are generally out of the press, the public has drifted back the other way.

So, to those proponents of AGW theory who are certain you are right: you'll help your cause a lot more by being gracious. But many of suspect that this isn't about helping a cause; rather, for you, it's about being righteous, superior, and hating the rest of mankind who doesn't fit into your club.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc? It is too easy to blame it all on the emails.

Have you considered the possibility that people are waking up to the multi-billion warmist funding gravy train simply because "wolf" has been cried too many times?

"An Inconvenient Truth" is almost four years old and doomsday as peddled by Al Gore has yet to even begin to trend. People are beginning to realize it was all a scam.

It is always a shock when people start to distrust those that they find are a bit less than honest for the greater good. This is even true if the greater good is deemed for the children.
Some know history and some have lived long enough to see some of the greater good crowd’s prior works.
Others stick to there guns to the bitter end as it is always a blow to ego to admit that you were a fish that took the bait. They almost always are devoid of any knowledge of historic attempts to make things fair for everyone and the results.
I prefer an alternate method and that is to profit as much as possible from the confusion that ensues. “Where there is confusion there is money to be made”.
Take the profit potential but don’t take one side or the other long term. Just feign which side you are on as a given profit potential requires.

The proper web site is ClimateAudit.org the .com will send you off on a tangent.

This is a total non issue. Global warming deniers invent numbers (see George Will, Lomborg, Singer) write instantly debunked papers (Lindzen, Baliunas) and are as likely to be spouting complete BS as not. None of their various harebrained claims stands up to scrutiny, ever.

IPCC made an error in a 987 page report. Criminals, likely paid for by the fossil fuel industry, burglarize and mine 13 years' worth of emails, and Mann is found to have said something bitchy, and some language was taken out of context. The deniers get up in arms, and the public is suckered by the big "scandal".

This has nothing to do with scientific truth or integrity. It's all about powerful interests lying like hell, and using their friends in the media to repeat them.

Greenhouse emissions are a hoax. Carbon dioxide has no influence on climate change. Physicists, fundamental scientists, and the Environmental Protection Agency will vouch there is no scientific data, nor theory to support the Al Gore untruth. A glass cage would need to surround the earth before there could be a greenhouse effect. Even so Carbon Dioxide would play no part in climate change because it constitutes three ten thousandths of the atmosphere and has no special heat trapping chemistry.

University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, CRU, is the global center for merging weather reports. CRU had incoherent data sets. They force fit the data to their model of global warming. This is not science. The climatologists involved in the carbon dioxide global warming fraud are not scientists. They are bureaucrats masquerading as scholars. They are scamming to raise funds. The cabal of scammers fabricated the artificial 'anthropological global warming' and unfounded 'greenhouse gas' concept. They include Prof Jones and his employees at East Anglia Climate Research Unit, Prof Mann and associates at Penn State, United Nations IPCC, NASA Goddard, and WMO World Meteorological Organization. In total they number perhaps 25 people, but they sat in positions of influence and were funded by the United Nations and US research grants.

A tax on carbon dioxide would hobble US industrial production. Business would relocate to more enlightened economies such as China, India, and Korea. Jobs would vanish. The depression would be prolonged.

The physics of light tell us that atmospheric carbon dioxide cannot trap heat, and cannot influence climate. That is all ye know, and all ye need to know: http://nov55.com/ntyg.html 200 years of physics is more difficult to erase than 1000 years of climate data.

References:

We have copies of the computer programs they used at East Anglie University Climate Research Unit. The computer programmer commented every time he fudged the thousand years of raw data to fit the shape of Al Gore's hockey stick hoax. The programmer called it a "fudge factor". He added a couple degrees to the numbers that were too cold and subtracted a couple degrees when it was too warm. The recent global cooling after 1998 was just left off the graph. The whole graph is a fabrication. They obscured the little ice age and the medieval warm period, much warmer than today yet with much lower levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide than today. When confronted with the crime and asked for the raw data to reconstruct the climate history they destroyed one thousand years of publicly funded raw climate data. The Professor resigned in disgrace after he was caught. Hoax detailed:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org... Green-Handed Climategate Scandal.pdf

"It is not reasonable to conclude that there is any endangerment from changes in greenhouse gas levels based on the satellite record" National Center for Environmental Economics, US ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
http://cei.org...

CO2 Absorption Spectrum: There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming
http://nov55.com/ntyg.html

Comparison graphs of the Al Gore Hockey stick hoax and real climate change over the past 1000 years:
http://www.examiner.com...

The atmospheric greenhouse effect, an idea that many authors trace back to the traditional works of Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), and Arrhenius (1896), and which is still supported in global climatology, essentially describes a fictitious mechanism, in which a planetary atmosphere acts as a heat pump driven by an environment that is radiatively interacting with but radiatively equilibrated to the atmospheric system. According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist. Nevertheless, in almost all texts of global climatology and in a widespread secondary literature it is taken for granted that such mechanism is real and stands on a firm scientific foundation. In this paper the popular conjecture is analyzed and the underlying physical principles are clarified. By showing that (a) there are no common physical laws between the warming phenomenon in glass houses and the fictitious atmospheric green- house effects, (b) there are no calculations to determine an average surface temperature of a planet, (c) the frequently mentioned difference of 33 ◦ C is a meaningless number calculated wrongly, (d) the formulas of cavity radiation are used inappropriately, (e) the assumption of a radiative balance is unphysical, (f ) thermal conductivity and friction must not be set to zero, the atmospheric greenhouse conjecture is falsified.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0707.1161v4

coverup:
http://biggovernment.com...

#2 Brian M. Flynn

"I urge readers to see McIntyre's remarks at ClimateAudit.com, about Cicerone 'then and now'."
___________

The correct Climate Audit link for the story on Cicerone (then and now) is — http://climateaudit.org/

The Guardian reports that it was an internal "whistleblower" leak. It is every citizen's obligation to report fraudulent activity in their workplace. Nothing "illegal" about that, rather a solemn duty.

Sometimes we mis-speak. That doesn't mean that what we are talking about is wrong or even partially wrong every time.

What I wonder about, as those in opposition to the notion of global warming quibble over mis-statements or verbal snafu's, is how long it will be before our immense oceans will no longer be capable of absorbing the excessive levels of heat mankind continues to generate without there being evidence of a tipping point.

This comment illustrates why alarmist still don't get the problem:

"My reading of the vast scientific literature on climate change is that our understanding is undiminished by this incident"

Our understanding of climate is based almost entirely on complex and unverified climate models and we depend on the scientists who build them to be professionals that would admit that the models failed if that is what the evidence says.

Unfortunately, all of these revelations tell us we cannot depend on the scientists to be ethical professionals which means we cannot trust claims based on these computer models. The net result is our understanding of the science has most definitely diminished significantly.

# 10 Mike Roddy
Is right on the money and we get paid pretty well. How are you doing I wonder.
It's that vast conspiracy of those evil deniers that have caused true science to be questioned. How dare they question science? Science isn't about questioning things, it's about proving computer models are correct. If the models fail just change the data and sleep well.

Washington DC is about to receive 30" or more of snow.
SUV 4X4 time.

If the IPCC told you Warmists to sit in the street and drink cow urine, would you? It's an open question.

One error Roddy? How about the fact the IPCC scientists peer-review each other. How about the Amazon. How about the glaciers in the Himilayas. How about the debunked "storms are getting greater" theory. How about the info on glaciers in the alps all being "anecdotal". How about Michael Mann's "Hide the Decline" graph? How about the falsification of the amount of actual sea rise? How about the arctic ice growing the fastest in it's 30-year tracking history in the past two years?

How long can you Alarmists continue to be the real Deniers?

OH yes and the Netherlands exaggeration:

"The Netherlands is an example of a country highly susceptible to both sea-level rise and river flooding because 55% of its territory is below sea level where 60% of its population lives and 65% of its Gross National Product (GNP) is produced."

Did any of those supposed 2500 scientists actually READ this thing? Maybe the real truth is in Pachauri's soft-core paperback.

UAE has confirmed that all of this material was simply sitting in an archive on a single backup CRU server, available to be copied...

http://www.guardian.co.uk...

Global warming Alarmists make up fantasies about fossil fuel industry burglaries without anything resembling a fact or shred of truth.

We know, we know. It's just a flesh wound, Black Knight.