More Proof That Global Warming is Bogus

Besides the fact that temperatures have been falling, and ice caps have been growing, there is anecdotal evidence that the Global Warming Craze is like some cult where adherents are going to don purple Nikes and transmit themselves to a waiting spaceship hovering right outside of Alfa Centuri.

First of all is the consensus, or at least the apparent consensus. Whenever the scientific community says they have consensus on ANYTHING, especially something without definitive proof, run as fast as you can the other way because their next step will be to lure you into a three-card-monte game or some pyramid scheme. SCIENTISTS NEVER AGREE ON ANYTHING. Einstein developed his theory of relativity in 1915 and most scientists thought he was crackers for the better part of twenty years, until it was proved by an eclipse in Australia. In the 1930's scientists were just as convinced that we were approaching a new Ice Age. The Point is Scientists like to disagree just to be disagreeable, and this supposed love-fest about a theory of the effect of man on the climate is just too accepted to be real. Especially when you consider there is still no evidence that the theory is true. In fact the emprical data suggests otherwise. Like the fact that global tempatures haven't risen for ELEVEN YEARS.

The second anecdotal proof is that US newspapers are only reporting one side of the story, they ignore all of the evidence that disproves the global warming cult. When the mainstream media pushes one side of the story, you know they are no longer reporting but pushing their favorite agenda (Boys and Girls can you say BHO?).

Three weeks ago Dr. James Hansen, Al Gore's global warming witch doctor did his little dance, rattled some beads and announced that October 2008 was the warmest on record. It seemed like such a strange announcement, after all, most of the recent reports showed that temperatures were actually cooling. But now the MSM started using those October figures to prove that we must throw away our cars and move into caves because the world was going to end a week from Thursday and we will never know who the next American Idol will be.

Just a few days later, a brand new message about those October numbers came out. OOPS NEVER MIND!! Seems like the Grand Poobah of warming screwed up the numbers. It was actually a quite average month. Ranked 70th in the last 114 years. And guess what? Its wasn't the first time Hansen has screwed up his numbers. What did the MSM say NADA. All we heard about the screw up was the sound of crickets chirping.

But here we go, ready to screw up our economy based on an unproven theory. Next thing you know we will have curfews on full moons because of the Werewolves. But that doesn't prove the scientists and newspapers are pushing a bogus agenda....but:

When the Warmest in History Isn't
Debra J. Saunders
Monday, December 01, 2008

Here's another reason why people don't trust newspapers. When science reporters write about, say, hormone therapy or drinking red wine, they report on studies that find that hormones or red wine can be good for you, as well as studies that suggest otherwise. Any science involving complex organisms is rarely black and white.

When it comes to global warming, newspapers play up stories that reinforce the prevalent the-sky-is-falling belief that global warming is human-caused and catastrophic. But if a study or scientist does not portend the end of the world as we know it, it rarely rates as news.

In that spirit, many papers (including The Chronicle) have reported on a UC San Diego science historian who reviewed 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed articles on global warming published between 1993 and 2003, and concluded, "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

Over 10 years, not one study challenged the orthodoxy -- does that sound right to you? If that were true, it would strongly suggest that, despite conflicting evidence in this wide and changing world, no scientist dares challenge the politically correct position on the issue.

No wonder, David Bellamy -- an Australian botanist who was involved in some 400 TV productions, only to see his TV career go south after he questioned global warming orthodoxy -- wrote in The Australian last week, "It's not even science anymore; it's anti-science." Bellamy notes that official data show that "in every year since 1998, world temperatures have been getting colder, and in 2002 Arctic ice actually increased." Exhibit B: Richard S. Lindzen, the MIT Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, recently wrote, "There has been no warming since 1997 and no statistically significant warming since 1995."

Such findings rarely are reported, even as, Marc Morano, communications director for the Republicans on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee told me, "Scientists keep coming out of the woodwork" to challenge the so-called consensus. "It's almost like a bandwagon effect."

The Global Warming Petition Project urges Washington to reject the Kyoto international global warming pact as there is "no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate." So far, The Politico reports, more than 31,000 scientists have signed it.

The latest skirmish in the global warming war -- barely reported in America -- occurred after two bloggers found that the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies data wrongly cast this October as the warmest in recorded history. It turns out that the mistake was due to an error that wrongly tapped September temperature records from Russia. Christopher Booker of The Sunday Telegraph of London found the mistake "startling" in light of other contrary climate statistics, including National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration findings of 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month.

In an e-mail, Goddard researcher Gavin Schmidt explained, "The incorrect analysis was online for less than 24 hours." (Thank bloggers Anthony Watts, an American meteorologist, and Canadian computer analyst Steve McIntyre for catching the mistake.) The error occurred because a report "had the wrong month label attached. There is quality control at NOAA and GISS but this particular problem had not been noticed before and the existing QC procedures didn't catch it. These have now been amended."

As for the snowfall records and low temperatures cited by Booker, Schmidt chalked them up to "cherry picking" data. He added, "Far more important are the long-term trends."

Now, honest mistakes happen -- even in high-powered, well-funded research facilities. Just last year -- again thanks to the vigilance of Watts and McIntyre -- Goddard had to reconfigure its findings and recognize 1934 -- not 1998, as it had figured -- as the hottest year on record in American history.

Alas, it is hard to see Goddard as objective when its director, James Hansen, testified in a London court in September in support of six eco-vandals. A jury then acquitted the six Greenpeace activists on charges of vandalizing a British coal-fired power plant based on the "lawful excuse" defense that their use of force would prevent greater damage to the environment after Hansen predicted the one Kingsnorth plant could push "400 species" into extinction.

Of course, he could be wrong.