AMS Survey: 48% of members do not believe in man-made global warming.

Interestingly, those with “liberal political views” were mostly likely to be believers.

Via Daily Caller:

Not all scientists agree that global warming is man-made. Nearly half of meteorologists and atmospheric science experts don’t believe that human activities are the driving force behind global warming, according to a survey by the American Meteorological Society.
The survey of AMS members found that while 52 percent of American Meteorological Society members believe climate change is occurring and mostly human-induced, 48 percent of members do not believe in man-made global warming.
Furthermore, the survey found that scientists who professed “liberal political views” were much more likely to believe in the theory of man-made global warming than those who without liberal views.
“Political ideology was the factor next most strongly associated with meteorologists’ views about global warming. This also goes against the idea of scientists’ opinions being entirely based on objective analysis of the evidence, and concurs with previous studies that have shown scientists’ opinions on topics to vary along with their political orientation,” writes survey author Neil Stenhouse of George Mason University.

Keep on reading…

The Complete and Utter Destruction of Al Gore

I have never seen anyone as completely take apart as Al Gore is in this piece by Walter Russell Mead and it is only part 1. First, Mead accurately paints a picture of an anthropogenic climate change movement that has completely failed under Gore's leadership.

Once out of office, he assumed the leadership of the global green movement, steering that movement into a tsunami of defeat that, when the debris is finally cleared away, will loom as one of the greatest failures of civil society in all time.

Gore has the Midas touch in reverse; objects of great value (Nobel prizes, Oscars) turn dull and leaden at his touch.  Few celebrity cause leaders have had more or better publicity than Gore has had for his climate advocacy.  Hailed by the world press, lionized by the entertainment community and the Global Assemblage of the Great and the Good as incarnated in the Nobel Peace Prize committee, he has nevertheless seen the movement he led flounder from one inglorious defeat to the next.  The most recent, failed global climate meeting passed almost unnoticed last week in Bonn; the world has turned its eyes away from the expiring anguish of the Copenhagen agenda.

The state of the global green movement is shambolic.  The Kyoto Protocol is withering on the vine; it will almost certainly die with no successor in place.  There is no chance of cap and trade legislation in the US under Obama, and even the EPA’s regulatory authority over carbon dioxide is under threat.  Brazil is debating a forestry law that critics charge will open the floodgates to a new round of deforestation in the Amazon.  China is taking the green lobby head on, suspending a multibillion dollar Airbus order to protest EU carbon cutting plans.

Next, Meade exposes Gore for the hypocrite he really is. Meade claims he doesn't consider Gore a hypocrite. He prefers to use the term "narcissistic glitterati" to describe Al Gore's lack of character.

Not all character flaws are inconsistent with positions of great dignity. General Grant’s fondness for whiskey did not make him unfit for command. Other statesmen have combined great public achievement with failure in their personal lives. Franklin Roosevelt was neither a good father nor a good husband; Edward VII was a better monarch than man.

But while some forms of inconsistency or even hypocrisy can be combined with public leadership, others cannot be. A television preacher can eat too many french fries, watch too much cheesy TV and neglect his kids in the quest for global fame. But he cannot indulge in drug fueled trysts with male prostitutes while preaching conservative Christian doctrine. The head of Mothers Against Drunk Driving cannot be convicted of driving while under the influence. The head of the IRS cannot be a tax cheat. The most visible leader of the world’s green movement cannot live a life of conspicuous consumption, spewing far more carbon into the atmosphere than almost all of those he castigates for their wasteful ways. Mr. Top Green can’t also be a carbon pig.

You can be a leading environmentalist and fail to pay all of your taxes. You can be a leading environmentalist and be unkind to your aged mother. You can be a leading environmentalist and squeeze the toothpaste tube from the middle, park in the handicapped spots at the mall or scribble angry marginal notes in library books.

But you cannot be a leading environmentalist who hopes to lead the general public into a long and difficult struggle for sacrifice and fundamental change if your own conduct is so flagrantly inconsistent with the green gospel you profess.

The article is lengthy, but well worth your time to go and read every single word. Walter Russell appears to believe in anthropogenic climate change, but believes Al Gore is a complete failure and the movement needs a new leader. I disagree with those who think the science of global warming is settled. The problem is climate scientists reached a consensus the science was settled before the research even began. Current data does not support the global warming climate models that the "settled science" is based upon. These models have proven inaccurate. The temperature rose 0.7 deg C in the last century. Since we came out of a major ice age 10,000 years ago and a "little ice age" 150 years ago, it might be a good bet the temperature will continue increase in the next 100 years. We don't know what that number will be, but, based on the 0.7 deg C we gained in the last century, the sky is hardly falling.

The Kyoto Protocol is dying and good riddance

The Kyoto Protocol was mostly a scheme to redistribute wealth to third world countries and impose control on free societies by locking down their energy sources. It is dying a slow death because of the global recession and the astronomical costs associated with CO2 reduction.

(The Globe and Mail)- The United States has little credibility at the negotiating table; China is showing signs of “buyer’s remorse” for commitments already made, and the European Union is desperately trying to save the Kyoto Protocol from a premature death.

Negotiators concluded two weeks of climate talks in Bonn on Friday, providing a sobering view of the political roadblocks on the way to Durban, South Africa, where ministers will meet in December

With the world economy still reeling from financial and debt crises, there is a fading hope that countries will accept a pact that would see greenhouse gas emissions peak by 2015 and then begin to drop. And more important, that they will follow through with their own promised emission reductions.

The UN’s chief climate negotiator acknowledged Friday that economic and political challenges are competing with the scientific urgency of reducing emissions.

The thing that should be killing anthropogenic global warming is the data. AGW true believers still claim the science is settled and the refuse to consider recent data. CO2 is still climbing at a steady pace, but the temperature has leveled off. The AGW climate models predicted temperature would rapidly escalate its increase as CO2 rises. That clearly isn't happening. Anyone who can look at the graph posted below and claim CO2 is has a major effect on temperature has left the realm of science and entered Harry Potter's world of magic.

About The Claim Anthropogenic Global Warming is Causing Weather Extremes

It is as fraudulent as the other claims made by anthropogenic global warming (AGW) believers. New analysis by a group hoping to prove the AGW crowds cockamamie ideas has come up empty.

(WSJ)- The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present.

As it happens, the project's initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. "In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years," atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. "So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871."

In other words, researchers have yet to find evidence of more-extreme weather patterns over the period, contrary to what the models predict.

It's Safe for Liberals to Discuss the Weather Again

Liberals in the mainstream media love to use hot weather as anecdotal evidence proof of man-made global warming. In the middle of a scorching heat wave in 2006, CBS proclaimed the global warming argument was over. In 2007, Newsweek blamed the deadly European heat wave of 2003 squarely on man-made global warming. During the abnormally cold weather and record blizzards of last winter, the media either remained silent or tried to blame the extreme cold and snow on global warming. Now, summer has returned and 90+ degree heat is gripping a large section of the U.S. It is safe for liberals and the Anthropogenic Global Warming crowd to discuss the weather again.



Or is it?

Highlights of Lord Christopher Monckton’s Melbourne Presentation (video)

Anthropogenic global warming skeptic Lord Christopher Monckton is great. Here are the highlights of Lord Christopher Monckton’s Melbourne presentation.

Part 1

Part 2

Climatologists Claim They Know the Future, But Can't Predict This Winter

A Eurostar train parked in snow

Computer models can't accurately predict the weather over the next few weeks. The story excerpted below highlights the failure of the UK Met Office to predict a cooler than normal winter. They predicted the opposite. However, anthropogenic global warming believers would have us believe their simplified climatology model versions of weather prediction software can predict a catastrophic increase in the temperature over the next 100 years. They want us to spend trillions of dollars and do long term damage to the worlds economy based on these unsubstantiated predictions. We would have to be insane to comply with out better proof. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. AGW believers have failed to muster that proof.

The Mail reported:

This is our own famous Met Office, which last September confidently predicted a warmer than average winter for Britain. Tell that to Eurostar passengers stuck in the Channel Tunnel for 18 hours before Christmas, the breakdown of their trains blamed on the coldest weather for 15 years.

Not until late November did the Met Office tone down its prediction by saying that there was a '50 per cent chance' of a mild winter.

Spinning a coin could have given the same result ...

If you read the rest of The Mail story, you will learn the UK Met Office is run by an anthropogenic global warming true believer and a former head official of the World Wildlife Fund.

Al Gore Testified In 2007 That Temperatures Cause CO2 Levels To Rise

Al Gore admitted in 2007 Congressional testimony that temperatures do cause CO2 levels to rise. Al Gore and anthropogenic global warming theory advocates have been claiming the opposite is true for years.

Fewer Americans Are Buying Global Warming Scam

A new poll by the Pew Research Center has found only 36 percent of poll respondents believe in anthropogenic global warming.

From The Boston Globe:

Only 36 percent of poll respondents said they believe that human activities - such as pollution from power plants, factories, and automobiles - are behind a temperature increase. That’s down from 47 percent from 2006 through last year’s poll....

Many ACS Scientists Reject Man-Made Climate Fears!

The editor-in chief of of the Chemical and Engineering News wrote an editorial that claimed “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.” Many members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) have revolted in an outpouring of scathing letters.

From Climate Depot:

An outpouring of skeptical scientists who are members of the American Chemical Society (ACS) are revolting against the group's editor-in-chief -- with some demanding he be removed -- after an editorial appeared claiming “the science of anthropogenic climate change is becoming increasingly well established.”

The editorial claimed the "consensus" view was growing "increasingly difficult to challenge, despite the efforts of diehard climate-change deniers.” The editor now admits he is "startled" by the negative reaction from the group's scientific members.

The June 22, 2009 editorial in Chemical and Engineering News by editor in chief Rudy Baum, is facing widespread blowback and condemnation from American Chemical Society member scientists. Baum concluded his editorial by stating that “deniers” are attempting to “derail meaningful efforts to respond to global climate change.”

Dozens of letters were published on July 27, 2009 castigating Baum, with some scientists calling for his replacement as editor-in-chief.

The editorial was met with a swift, passionate and scientific rebuke from Baum's colleagues. Virtually all of the letters published on July 27 in castigated Baum's climate science views. Scientists rebuked Baum's use of the word “deniers” because of the terms “association with Holocaust deniers.” In addition, the scientists called Baum's editorial: “disgusting”; “a disgrace”; “filled with misinformation”; “unworthy of a scientific periodical” and “pap.”

Here are a sample of the comments:

Selected Excerpts of Skeptical Scientists:

“I think it's time to find a new editor,” ACS member Thomas E. D'Ambra wrote.

Geochemist R. Everett Langford wrote: “I am appalled at the condescending attitude of Rudy Baum, Al Gore, President Barack Obama, et al., who essentially tell us that there is no need for further research—that the matter is solved.”

ACS scientist Dennis Malpass wrote: “Your editorial was a disgrace. It was filled with misinformation, half-truths, and ad hominem attacks on those who dare disagree with you. Shameful!”

ACS member scientist Dr. Howard Hayden, a Physics Professor Emeritus from the University of Connecticut: “Baum's remarks are particularly disquieting because of his hostility toward skepticism, which is part of every scientist's soul. Let's cut to the chase with some questions for Baum: Which of the 20-odd major climate models has settled the science, such that all of the rest are now discarded? [...] Do you refer to 'climate change' instead of 'global warming' because the claim of anthropogenic global warming has become increasingly contrary to fact?"

Edward H. Gleason wrote: “Baum's attempt to close out debate goes against all my scientific training, and to hear this from my ACS is certainly alarming to me...his use of 'climate-change deniers' to pillory scientists who do not believe climate change is a crisis is disingenuous and unscientific.”

Atmospheric Chemist Roger L. Tanner: "I have very little in common with the philosophy of the Heartland Institute and other 'free-market fanatics,' and I consider myself a progressive Democrat. Nevertheless, we scientists should know better than to propound scientific truth by consensus and to excoriate skeptics with purple prose."

William Tolley: "I take great offense that Baum would use Chemical and Engineering News, for which I pay dearly each year in membership dues, to purvey his personal views and so glibly ignore contrary information and scold those of us who honestly find these views to be a hoax."

William E. Keller wrote: “However bitter you (Baum) personally may feel about CCDs (climate change deniers), it is not your place as editor to accuse them—falsely—of nonscientific behavior by using insultingly inappropriate language. [...] The growing body of scientists, whom you abuse as sowing doubt, making up statistics, and claiming to be ignored by the media, are, in the main, highly competent professionals, experts in their fields, completely honorable, and highly versed in the scientific method—characteristics that apparently do not apply to you.”

ACS member Wallace Embry: “I would like to see the American Chemical Society Board 'cap' Baum's political pen and 'trade' him to either the New York Times or Washington Post."

It doesn't appear anthropogenic global warming is the 'settled science' proponents would have you believe.