Prescott eNews

As the Academic Community reacts to the fraud and data manipulation of Mann et al (The BROKEN HOCKEY STICK-AGAIN) I would urge you all to read and think about your future:

A scientific scandal is casting a shadow over a number of recent
peer-reviewed climate papers. The scandal has serious implications for
public trust in science. The IPCC's mission is to reflect the science,
not create it. As the IPCC states, its duty is "assessing the
scientific, technical and socioeconomic information relevant for the
understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change. It does not
carry out new research nor does it monitor climate-related data." But as
IPCC lead author, Briffa was a key contributor in shaping the
assessment. When the IPCC was alerted to peer-reviewed research that
refuted the idea, it declined to include it. This leads to the more
general, and more serious issue: what happens when peer-review fails -
as it did here?

--Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 29 September 2009




Over the next nine years, at least one paper per year appeared in
prominent journals using Briffa's Yamal composite to support a hockey
stick-like result. The IPCC relied on these studies to defend the Hockey
Stick view, and since it had appointed Briffa himself to be the IPCC
Lead Author for this topic, there was no chance it would question the
Yamal data. Despite the fact that these papers appeared in top journals
like Nature and Science, none of the journal reviewers or editors ever
required Briffa to release his Yamal data. Steve McIntyre's repeated
requests for them to uphold their own data disclosure rules were
ignored.
--Ross McKitrick, Financial Post, 1 October 2009




The official United Nation's global warming agency, the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, is a four-legged stool that
is fast losing its legs. To carry the message of man-made global
warming theory to the world, the IPCC has depended on 1) computer
models, 2) data collection, 3) long-range temperature forecasting and 4)
communication. None of these efforts are sitting on firm ground.
--Terence Corcoran, National Post, 1 October 2009



Media reaction to the Yamal story has been rather limited so far. I'm
not sure whether this is because people are trying to digest what it
means or whether it's "too hot to handle". None of the global warming
supporters in the mainstream media have gone near it. The reaction of
the Guardian - to delete any mention of the affair from their comment
threads - has been extraordinary.
--Bishop Hill, 1 October 2009
Please realize that this OUT RIGHT FRAUD completely undercuts the entire allegation that the AGW movement is basec on science!
tjl

Dear Ed:
Did you notice the way you said Christians-substitute African-American or Native-Americans in that sentence and you’d be called a racist, sexist, homophobe-but use a pejorative slant on Christians and it is just fine. You might want to search your soul-or do you only have a social conscience-over that one!
But Yes We pesky Christians are all over doing all kinds of good things! We read, we think, we encourage others to enjoy their GOD GIVEN rights [please refer to the Declaration of Independence] in America. We even have time to organize social events to educate the public on matters of interest.

Like Cap & Trade, which is based on the AGW alarmism. Cap & Trade, IF IT PASSES and I PRAY every day that it does not...it will increase your energy bills 30-50% and this increase in energy costs will also increase the cost of every other product in the world. You see we Christians worry about the effect BAD PUBLIC POLICY will have on the poor.
I don't expect you to know this but we Christians have been ordered by our GOD, Jesus Christ (maybe you've heard of him-healed the sick, fed the hungry, came back from the dead) to care for the poor and part of that caring is to try to have public policies that HELP instead of hurt the poor.
Mr. Gore and his billionaire pals can pay higher energy costs; they just make another movie full falsehoods and presto-changeo no problem. But if you increase the cost of energy by 30-50% imagine how the poorest two quintiles of the American population will be hurt. Add to that increase the $3,800 Obama’s-it-is-not-a-tax-it-is-a-fine for no health insurance and now you are talking real money.
And even tho man does not live by bread alone-we still need our manna! So my question to you and your anti-knowledge, blame-America-first friends is when will you wake up and realize the answer are blowing in the winds of science and everybody should open their minds and hearts to how hurtful these AGW policies will be to the both the poor and the middle-class?
I do pray for your enlightenment!
Sincerely,
tjl

Dear Ed:

I have pre-purchased a copy of this documentary and I HAVE NOT SEEN IT YET. It does not premier until 10-18-09, locally at the Yavapai College Performing Arts Center at 7:00 p.m.,[BTW-You are invited-please come-we are open minded and invite all] and it will not be delivered to me until 10-17-09 and I have bought and paid for my copy, so my question to you is “How can you possibly know anything about a documentary film that has not been released yet? How can you, without seeing the documentary FIRST, immediately dismiss it?” You are not one of those closed minded people who just sends out the talking-points w/o first viewing the evidence? You are not one of those people who operates on blind faith are you? Please see George’s comments above about the pitfalls of faith.
Until you see the film-which will not be available until 10-18-09-locally at the Yavapai College Performing Arts Center at 7:00 p.m.-> I suggest you reserve judgment-keep an open mind-unless you are someone who has accepted Environmentalism as your Fundamentalist Religion/Savior and are just clinging blindly to your faith in the Goracle.
By the way you should know that the court in great Britain has banned Mr. Gore’s film from all science classes, except political science, and has labeled the film as unscientific and suffering from at least 9 major falsehoods. Maybe your friends at the website you listed in your post missed that court decision?
Just in case:
"Al Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, represents 'partisan political views' and must be treated as such by teachers in British schools, a British High Court judge has indicated.
"The British court was swayed by numerous factual inaccuracies portrayed in the movie. Among them:
•"The film claims global warming is responsible for the gradual retreat of the alpine glacier atop Africa's Mount Kilimanjaro. Scientists have conclusively demonstrated no such link exists.
•"The film presents graphs indicating that fluctuating carbon dioxide levels have always preceded and caused global temperature fluctuations. In fact, temperatures changes have always preceded carbon dioxide changes.
•"The film suggests global warming caused Hurricane Katrina. Few hurricane experts believe this, and substantial scientific evidence indicates global warming is having no impact on hurricane frequency or intensity.
•"The film asserts global warming is causing Central Africa's Lake Chad to dry up. In fact, land use practices are causing the drying up of Lake Chad, and Central Africa is in an unusual and prolonged wet period.
•"The film asserts global warming is leading to polar bear deaths by drowning. Yet the only documented drowning deaths occurred due to a freak storm, and polar bear numbers are growing substantially.
•"The film claims global warming threatens to halt the Gulf Stream and initiate a new ice age. The vast majority of scientists who have studied the issue have determined such a scenario is implausible.
•"The film asserts global warming is causing the destruction of coral reefs through bleaching. Scientists have identified other causes for coral bleaching and have additionally noted bleaching is a natural process by which coral continually selects ideal symbiotic algae.
•" The film asserts Greenland is in danger of rapid ice melt that will raise sea levels by 20 feet or more. The scientific consensus is that any foreseeable Greenland ice melt will be gradual and will take centuries to substantially raise sea levels.
•" The film asserts the Antarctic ice shelf is melting. In fact, only a small portion of Antarctica is getting warmer and losing ice mass, while the vast majority of Antarctica is in a prolonged cold spell and is accumulating ice mass.
"Also highlighted in court arguments was Al Gore's admission in Grist Magazine that 'I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it [global warming] is.'
"As a result of the partisan political nature of Gore's film, school teachers will not be allowed to show the movie without telling their students the film is scientifically controversial.
"The British High Court properly recognized that Al Gore's movie is nine parts political propaganda and one part science.

"The British court decision should guide teachers in the U.S. to similarly treat Gore's movie as the inaccurate and misleading propaganda tool that it is."
________________________________________

Ed I am worried about you accepting things on FAITH-please adopt a more scientific approach. In science we OBSERVE THE DATA first, then analyze and then propose theories then test those theories against more data. You might try that-it really works.
Sincerely,
tjl

Dear Tom:
I am shocked that the Pentagon, NOAA and NASA are without errors. As I recall NASA has blown up more than one Space Shuttle based on their best science. You want to bet your future on their current track record. I wouldn’t let my family ride the shuttle on a daily basis. Many scientists have left NOAA & NASA over the politicization of the issue of climate and if you would like list of award winning scientists who disagree with AGW, you can start with the Alfred Sloan Chair of Meteorology at MIT Dr. Richard Lindzen, or Dr. Tim Ball, or Dr. John Christy or go to http://www.oism.org/pproject/ and read the names of 31,000+ scientist, 9,000 doctorally qualified who disagree with this so-called theory. You may even wish to read about the retaliation within the mainstream scientific community when you do not tow the line (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/exile_for_non-believers.html) as just happened to Dr. Mitch Taylor the leading expert on North American Polar Bears. By the way the population of North American Polar Bears has increased from 5,000 in 1950 to 25,000 in 2008 according to the peer-reviewed published research of Dr. Taylor. That doesn’t sound like an endangered species to me-but the EPA just added them because the MODELS OF WARMING THAT MIGHT HAPPEN are very scary. When you I took the graduate course in statistical modeling we were all instructed that:
ALL MODELS ARE WRONG-BUT SOME ARE USEFUL! KEEP IN MIND AGW is just a model of possible future states of possible climate and EVEN the IPCC said the following about climate prediction:

When the IPCC writes in their Third Assessment Report (and they have not changed this to date) that:
“…the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
I don’t want to pay TRILLIONS of dollars on a fool’s errand when they very authority you wish to quote states that the type of prediction they make-are in their own words: NOT POSSIBLE.
To me that settles the argument.
Spend those trillions on schools, colleges and universities or better yet spend those trillions on the poorest 3 billion people on Earth who live EACH DAY without clean water, electricity or enough food. But please do not flush that money down the toilet based on a model that is easily shown to be wrong.
Sincerely,
tjl

This link explains the problems with the movie:

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2009/08/16/new-junk-science-movie-not-evil-just-wrong/

Christians are involved with promoting this movie? It's loaded with falsehoods. Why would Christians promote it?

I'm not a climate scientist so I try to follow who says what about climate change. Here are a few groups convinced about it, ranging from scientists to hard nosed businesses to Pentagon generals. First, you can easily find links to all of the world's major related science bodies that say it's real: NASA, NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association), The National Academies of Science, the U.N. report, the British Royal Institute, the Nobel Foundation, etc. The majority of Nobel Laureates *in science* are convinced (dieoff.org/page123.htm). The "Petition Project" claims to have the signatures of thousands of dissenting scientists, but right in its rules on its web site it allows for signatures of B.S. level engineers and veterinarians. On the other hand search the U. of Illinois at Chicago (UIC.edu) for "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change" for a recent survey of *climatologists who are active in the field*, over 97% of whom believe that "human activity is a significant contributing factor". The Pentagon has been planning for years for the resulting resource wars and population disruptions. Their most recent report to congress was in June of 2008; one reference to this is W.P. "Climate Issues Tied to U.S. Security". The Pentagon is also buying more ice breaker ships so as the North passage around the Arctic melts they can be some of the first to break through and be able to patrol it. On the 21st of this month in W. P. "Firms Start to See Climate Change as Barrier to Profit" over 50% of the S&P 500 companies are developing climate change strategies to deal with issues such as "shortage of raw materials and supply-chain disruptions because of severe weather". Nike said, ""If we don't move now, it just becomes more expensive". Levi Strauss said, "Climate-related water shortages threaten cotton supplies, to say nothing of the tornadoes and floods that could threaten the company's cut-and-sew operations in Bangladesh, Cambodia, Vietnam and other countries. 'This is very practical and happening for us. We really do get it.'" When Wal-Mart was asked why they started making plans they said, "No one really thought about what it would do to our supply chain." These are big players with lots of resources for studying this and a strong motivation to dismiss it and not spend any money on it, but they're convinced. If can you convince all of them they're wrong, then I'll be impressed.

I have had the opportunity to listen to Terry speak on at least three separate occasions, and it saddens me to have to say that his entire message has always been contaminated by his desire to push his very fundamental christian beliefs. The questions that I would have regarding this movie and Terry's position have to do with exactly how much they are related to his religious beliefs and not science at all? Repeatedly I have listened to Terry suggest that Christianity is only seriously represented by the uniquely American brand of fundamental evangelical belief which does not agree with many of the 21st century tenants of modern science. This is too bad, because that mystical thinking is definitely not easy to defend in a discussion about scientific research, there are many other branches of Christianity which do not agree with him on these topics. It might be a very nice thing if we could not mix up science and religion when we are having a discussion about a topic as serious as climate change, and the problem is that I have yet to listen to this speaker when he does not encourage such confusion.