Archive for the ‘Tom Harris’ Category

Al Gore Gets Roasted on global warming

March 3, 2008

Editor
Al Gore had been invited to the conference and to speak and that The Heartland Institute was prepared to pay his US$200,000 speaking fee – but he declined the invitation.
Why? Because he would have to debate real scientists.  Both Gore and Suzuki keep saying the debate is over. What they are really doing is trying to keep the spotlight from shining on the truth.

ONE WORLD ORDER 

Climate skeptics roast Al Gore on global warming

Photo
By Steve James NEW YORK (Reuters) – Al Gore, who won the Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar for his environmental advocacy, was the main target on Monday at a conference of dissident scientists skeptical of his views on global warming. Several speakers at the conference on climate change whose theme was “Global warming is not a crisis,” took pot-shots at the ex-vice president and his film, “An Inconvenient Truth,” which won last year’s Academy Award for best documentary. “Whether we like it or not, it was extremely effective propaganda,” said Timothy Ball, an environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. “It was appropriate that he got an Oscar from the land of make-believe,” he joked.

The gathering was sponsored by the Heartland Institute, a non-profit libertarian organization that studies environmental and other issues “from a free-market perspective” and argues that “property rights and markets do a better job than government bureaucracies.”

Attendees watched a movie, “A Climate of Fear,” by conservative TV commentator Glenn Beck, who charged that anyone who opposes the view that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are causing the earth to warm up, are branded “heretics or Nazis.”

“Al Gore’s version of climate change has no longer become science. It’s dogma. And if you question it, you are a heretic,” Beck said in the film.

The conference challenged a strong majority of world scientific opinion that has concluded that greenhouse gases are contributing to global warming.
This view has been backed by bodies such as the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, American Geophysical Union, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

“Our imperfect understanding of the causes and consequences of climate change means the science is far from settled,” said Fred Singer, of the Science and Environmental Policy Project.

“Proposed efforts to mitigate climate change by reducing greenhouse gas emissions are premature and misguided. Any attempt to influence global temperatures by reducing such emissions would be both futile and expensive,” he said.

Lord Monckton, who advised former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, blamed “the international left,” for promoting that global warming is dangerous.

“It’s the media wanting a scare story,” he said.

(Additional reporting by Timothy Gardner, editing by Alan Elsner)

uk.reuters.com

Advertisements

Global Warming Conference in New York City

March 3, 2008

Report #1 from the Global Warming Conference in New York City
Joseph Bast – March 03, 2008
The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, hosted by The Heartland Institute and more than 50 cosponsors, got off to a fast and successful start … (read more)

Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate (pdf)
Edited by S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. – March 02, 2008
The public’s fear of anthropogenic global warming seems to be at a fever pitch. Polls show most people in most countries believe human greenhouse gas … (read more)

Media Advisory: Presentation of the Summary for Policymakers of the NIPCC Report on Global Warming
Diane Carol Bast – March 02, 2008
The Summary for Policymakers of the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) is being officially released at the 2008 International … (read more)

Policy Study (pdf): Understanding Visual Exhibits in the Global Warming Debate
Ronald J. Rychlak, J.D. – March 02, 2008
The manipulation of visuals–bar and line graphs, pie charts, even photographs–has proven to be a highly effective way “to offer up scary scenarios” … (read more)

Global Warming Visuals Often Distort Scientific Data
Diane Carol Bast – March 02, 2008
(Chicago, Illinois and New York, New York – March 3, 2008) A new study on the use of visual exhibits in the global warming debate–a tactic employed regularly … (read more)

Heartland Institute

Global Warming? New Data Shows Ice Is Back

February 19, 2008

 Editor:
I can hardly wait to hear Gore and Suzuki proclaim “Global cooling caused by CO2”
Hope they do time, like any other two bit scam artist. Hope they throw the self serving politicians in prison with them.
Scaring and brainwashing innocent children. Hang your heads in shame.

Are the world’s ice caps melting because of climate change, or are the reports just a lot of scare mongering by the advocates of the global warming theory?

Scare mongering appears to be the case, according to reports from the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) that reveal that almost all the allegedly “lost” ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost back to their original levels.

Moreover, a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, challenging the global warming crusaders and buttressing arguments of skeptics who deny that the world is undergoing global warming.

The Daily express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his “Inconvenient Truth” lectures about mankind’s alleged impact on the global climate.

Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years.

As winter roars in across the Northern Hemisphere, Mother Nature seems to have joined the ranks of the skeptics.

As the Express notes, scientists are saying the northern Hemisphere has endured its coldest winter in decades, adding that snow cover across the area is at its greatest since 1966. The newspaper cites the one exception — Western Europe, which had, until the weekend when temperatures plunged to as low as -10 C in some places, been basking in unseasonably warm weather.

Around the world, vast areas have been buried under some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades. Central and southern China, the United States, and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms. In China, snowfall was so heavy that over 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of snow.

Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman, and northern Saudi Arabia report the heaviest falls in years and below-zero temperatures. In Afghanistan, snow and freezing weather killed 120 people. Even Baghdad had a snowstorm, the first in the memory of most residents.

AFP news reports icy temperatures have just swept through south China, stranding 180,000 people and leading to widespread power cuts just as the area was recovering from the worst weather in 50 years, the government said Monday. The latest cold snap has taken a severe toll in usually temperate Yunnan province, which has been struck by heavy snowfalls since Thursday, a government official from the provincial disaster relief office told AFP.

Twelve people have died there, state Xinhua news agency reported, and four remained missing as of Saturday.

An ongoing record-long spell of cold weather in Vietnam’s northern region, which started on Jan. 14, has killed nearly 60,000 cattle, mainly bull and buffalo calves, local press reported Monday. By Feb. 17, the spell had killed a total of 59,962 cattle in the region, including 7,349 in the Ha Giang province, 6,400 in Lao Cai, and 5,571 in Bac Can province, said Hoang Kim Giao, director of the Animal Husbandry Department under the Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, according to the Pioneer newspaper.

In Britain the temperatures plunged to -10 C in central England, according to the Express, which reports that experts say that February could end up as one of the coldest in Britain in the past 10 years with the freezing night-time conditions expected to stay around a frigid -8 C until at least the middle of the week. And the BBC reports that a bus company’s efforts to cut global warming emissions have led to services being disrupted by cold weather.

Meanwhile Athens News reports that a raging snow storm that blanketed most of Greece over the weekend and continued into the early morning hours on Monday, plunging the country into sub-zero temperatures. The agency reported that public transport buses were at a standstill on Monday in the wider Athens area, while ships remained in ports, public services remained closed, and schools and courthouses in the more severely-stricken prefectures were also closed.

Scores of villages, mainly on the island of Crete, and in the prefectures of Evia, Argolida, Arcadia, Lakonia, Viotia, and the Cyclades islands were snowed in.

More than 100 villages were snowed-in on the island of Crete and temperatures in Athens dropped to -6 C before dawn, while the coldest temperatures were recorded in Kozani, Grevena, Kastoria and Florina, where they plunged to -12 C.

Temperatures in Athens dropped to -6 C before dawn, while the coldest temperatures were recorded in Kozani, Grevena, Kastoria and Florina, where they plunged to -12 C.

If global warming gets any worse we’ll all freeze to death.

Source 

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax

December 15, 2007

Editor: How long can the media ignore the truth about the Global Warming Scam? The entire scam is about One World Order and the carbon tax is the vehicle to accomplish the task. The entire renewable energy business is about creating carbon credits for the large multi-national corporations. They win you lose. Not hard to understand if you open your eyes. What is to become of Al Gore, former Vice President and David Suzuki, recipient of the Order of Canada? Will the media continue to hide the truth until North America is a wind farm ghetto. Interesting times indeed.

A salute to the scientists who continue to work under difficult conditions to bring the truth forward.

 

The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax

By Tom Harris: John McLean Friday, December 14, 2007

Al Gore, Climate ChangeIt’s an assertion repeated by politicians and climate campaigners the world over – ‘2,500 scientists of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) agree that humans are causing a climate crisis’.

But it’s not true. And, for the first time ever, the public can now see the extent to which they have been misled. As lies go, it’s a whopper. Here’s the real situation.

Like the three IPCC ‘assessment reports’ before it, the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) released during 2007 (upon which the UN climate conference in Bali was based) includes the reports of the IPCC’s three working groups. Working Group I (WG I) is assigned to report on the extent and possible causes of past climate change as well as future ‘projections’. Its report is titled “The Physical Science Basis”. The reports from working groups II and II are titled “Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability” and “Mitigation of Climate Change” respectively, and since these are based on the results of WG I, it is crucially important that the WG I report stands up to close scrutiny.

There is, of course serious debate among scientists about the actual technical content of the roughly 1,000-page WG I report, especially its politically motivated Summary for Policymakers which is often the only part read by politicians and non-scientists. The technical content can be difficult for non-scientists to follow and so most people simply assume that if that large numbers of scientists agree, they must be right.

Consensus never proves the truth of a scientific claim, but is somehow widely believed to do so for the IPCC reports, so we need to ask how many scientists really did agree with the most important IPCC conclusion, namely that humans are causing significant climate change–in other words the key parts of WG I?

The numbers of scientist reviewers involved in WG I is actually less than a quarter of the whole, a little over 600 in total. The other 1,900 reviewers assessed the other working group reports. They had nothing to say about the causes of climate change or its future trajectory. Still, 600 “scientific expert reviewers” sounds pretty impressive. After all, they submitted their comments to the IPCC editors who assure us that “all substantive government and expert review comments received appropriate consideration.” And since these experts reviewers are all listed in Annex III of the report, they must have endorsed it, right?

Wrong.

For the first time ever, the UN has released on the Web the comments of reviewers who assessed the drafts of the WG I report and the IPCC editors’ responses. This release was almost certainly a result of intense pressure applied by “hockey-stick” co-debunker Steve McIntyre of Toronto and his allies. Unlike the other IPCC working groups, WG I is based in the U.S. and McIntyre had used the robust Freedom of Information legislation to request certain details when the full comments were released.

An examination of reviewers’ comments on the last draft of the WG I report before final report assembly (i.e. the ‘Second Order Revision’ or SOR) completely debunks the illusion of hundreds of experts diligently poring over all the chapters of the report and providing extensive feedback to the editing teams. Here’s the reality.

A total of 308 reviewers commented on the SOR, but only 32 reviewers commented on more than three chapters and only five reviewers commented on all 11 chapters of the report. Only about half the reviewers commented more than one chapter. It is logical that reviewers would generally limit their comments to their areas of expertise but it’s a far cry from the idea of thousands of scientists agreeing to anything.

Compounding this is the fact that IPCC editors could, and often did, ignore reviewers’ comments. Some editor responses were banal and others showed inconsistencies with other comments. Reviewers had to justify their requested changes but the responding editors appear to have been under no such obligation. Reviewers were sometimes flatly told they were wrong but no reasons or reliable references were provided. In other cases reviewers tried to dilute the certainty being expressed and they often provided supporting evidence, but their comments were often flatly rejected. Some comments were rejected on the basis of a lack of space – an incredible assertion in such an important document. The attitude of the editors seemed to be that simple corrections were accepted, requests for improved clarity tolerated but the assertions and interpretations that appear in the text were to be defended against any challenge.

An example of rampant misrepresentation of IPCC reports is the frequent assertion that ‘hundreds of IPCC scientists’ are known to support the following statement, arguably the most important of the WG I report, namely “Greenhouse gas forcing has very likely caused most of the observed global warming over the last 50 years.”

In total, only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter in which this statement appears, the critical chapter 9, “Understanding and Attributing Climate Change”. Of the comments received from the 62 reviewers of this critical chapter, almost 60% of them were rejected by IPCC editors. And of the 62 expert reviewers of this chapter, 55 had serious vested interest, leaving only seven expert reviewers who appear impartial.

Two of these seven were contacted by NRSP for the purposes of this article – Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand and Dr. Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph, Canada. Concerning the “Greenhouse gas forcing …” statement above, Professor McKitrick explained “A categorical summary statement like this is not supported by the evidence in the IPCC WG I report. Evidence shown in the report suggests that other factors play a major role in climate change, and the specific effects expected from greenhouse gases have not been observed.”

Dr. Gray labeled the WG I statement as “Typical IPCC doubletalk” asserting “The text of the IPCC report shows that this is decided by a guess from persons with a conflict of interest, not from a tested model.”

Determining the level of support expressed by reviewers’ comments is subjective but a slightly generous evaluation indicates that just five reviewers endorsed the crucial ninth chapter. Four had vested interests and the other made only a single comment for the entire 11-chapter report. The claim that 2,500 independent scientist reviewers agreed with this, the most important statement of the UN climate reports released this year, or any other statement in the UN climate reports, is nonsense.

“The IPCC owe it to the world to explain who among their expert reviewers actually agree with their conclusions and who don’t,” says Natural Resources Stewardship Project Chair climatologist Dr. Timothy Ball. “Otherwise, their credibility, and the public’s trust of science in general, will be even further eroded.”

That the IPCC have let this deception continue for so long is a disgrace. Secretary General Ban Kai-Moon must instruct the UN climate body to either completely revise their operating procedures, welcoming dissenting input from scientist reviewers and indicating if reviewers have vested interests, or close the agency down completely. Until then, their conclusions, and any reached at the Bali conference based on IPCC conclusions, should be ignored entirely as politically skewed and dishonest.

John McLean is climate data analyst based in Melbourne, Australia. Tom Harris is the Ottawa-based Executive Director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (nrsp.com).

Visit Canada Free Press