http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/20...ience-programs/
During a 2008 CBS 60 Minutes interview, Al Gore, who was launching a major global warming crisis advertising campaign at the time, responded to a question by Leslie Stahl about skeptics stating, “I think those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view. They’re almost like the ones who still believe that the Moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat.” So wouldn’t you expect that some of those people who actually witnessed the Earth from orbit and walked on the Moon… those “flat-Earthers” … to know better than to question the scientific basis for his alarmist climate claims? Well, apparently, this just isn’t the case.

Seven Apollo astronauts, along with two former NASA Johnson Space Center directors and several former senior management-level technical experts, have recently lodged formal complaints to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, Jr. regarding the dismal and embarrassing state of the agency’s climate science programs. These charges were presented in two separate letters that were hand-delivered, then publicly released.

The first letter, dated April 10, admonished the agency for its role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change, while neglecting basic empirical evidence that calls the theory into question. The group also charged that NASA in general, and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in particular, has failed to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change, and is relying too heavily upon complex climate models that have proven to be scientifically inadequate for climate predictions. It specifically asked that GISS, headed by Dr. James Hansen, be required to “refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites.”



How Eight Possible GOP Tickets Stack Up On Environment And Energy Policies Larry BellContributor

Green Public Equity Ventures: The Bain Of Obama's Campaign Message Larry BellContributor

Former Top USN Admiral Sees Navy Moored In Shallow Climate Science And Green Energy Hype Larry BellContributor

Global Warming Alarmism: When Science IS Fiction Larry BellContributor

The second letter, dated May 11, took issue with formal statements by NASA Chief Scientist Dr. Waleed Abdalati, which contradicted a response he had made to the first letter that: “As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue ‘claims’ about research findings.” Yet only eight days later, Abdalati testified at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing that the sea level was projected to rise between 0.2 meters and 2 meters within the next 87 years. He said that the lower ranges were less likely, and that “…the highest values are based on warmest of the temperature scenarios commonly considered for the remainder of the 21stcentury.” He added: “The consequences of a 1 meter rise in sea level by the end of this century would be very significant in terms of human well-being and economics, and potentially global socio-political stability.”

The second letter from NASA retirees observed that the range of Abdalati’s conclusion is “astounding”, and “…if hard data points to a probable rise, it should be stated with its probability. Can you imagine one of your predecessors, Dr. Thomas Paine, declaring, ‘Our Apollo 11 Lunar Lander’s target is the sea of Tranquility [in the Moon’s equatorial region], but we may make final descent within a range that included Crater Clavius [near the South Pole]?’” The letter then urged Administrator Bolden to make a commitment to equal or exceed, “…the agency’s reputation for careful reliance upon rigorous science.” It asked him to “Join us, please, in encouraging your colleagues to achieve the level of excellence the world has come to expect from America’s National Aeronautics Administration!” Expressing the need for urgency, the letter ended with: “Waiting is not an option!”

Have you heard of global dimming?

Usual climatezience clutching at straws. Global particulate and aerosol pollution has not changed much in the last decade - in fact has decreased from the 90's [China and far east have not changed much whilst Europe, US and particularly Russia have decreased their emissions significanlty. Given that CO2 has increased significantly in this period, where then the global dimming to come from?

Do you have any links to back up your claims Arnost?

This paper contradicts what you said about China and East Asia...

Sulfur dioxide emissions in China and sulfur trends in East Asia since 2000

With the rapid development of the economy, the sulfur dioxide (SO2) emission from China since 2000 is of increasing concern. In this study, we estimate the annual SO2 emission in China after 2000 using a technology-based methodology specifically for China.

From 2000 to 2006, total SO2 emission in China increased by 53%, from 21.7 Tg to 33.2 Tg, at an annual growth rate of 7.3%.

Emissions from power plants are the main sources of SO2 in China and they increased from 10.6 Tg to 18.6 Tg in the same period. Geographically, emission from north China increased by 85%, whereas that from the south increased by only 28%.

Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) are found to be highly correlated with the Surface Solar Radiation (SSR) measurements in East Asia. Using MODIS AOD data as a surrogate of SSR, we found that China and East Asia excluding Japan underwent a continuous dimming after 2000, which is in line with the dramatic increase in SO2 emission in East Asia.

How the IPA feeds kids lies about climate change

The Institute of Public Affairs, a lobby group funded by big business, miners and the tobacco industry, is sending schools misleading and inaccurate books about climate change. Frances Quinn from the UNE reports.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012...climate-change/

Oh you mean AGW lies & gross exagerations about alarming disasters that are always coming to destroy us all!

There is always a counter argument to counter when things don't go the way they are predicted to. CO2 levels continue to rise - no argument.

Temperatures have not risen in line with the increase in CO2 based on the latest data. That is what is supposed to be happening according to AGW. This flattening of temperatures can't be explained adquately so now we have namby pamby hypothesis(global dimming? really? aerosols? really?, to explain away the fact the predictions are not happening as predicted.

I will continue to ingnore those who can't consider the opposite to their ideals and find every avenue to counter attack with more and more ludicrous claims to explain away why what was predicted is not happening. They need to at least consider they may in fact be wrong and review the evidence at hand.

A true scientist looks at all the evidence and weighs up the argument - not just one sided data that FITS their theory. For some, that data - notably the temperature increase that is supposed to go hand in hand with CO2 increases is not being observed. I didn't say its not happening I'm saying the data being published is not showing a direct causal relationship between CO2 levels and global warming.

I'm not talking about the manipulated data either, the true raw data thats posted above that shows a flattening of the temperature increase which goes against the grain of AGW.

I have no side, but I review (or did until recently) all the arguments. Right now the data is not fitting the theory so either the data is wrong or the theory is in need of review. The science is certainly not settled.

At the moment its like proving a religious argument, you either do or dont beleive, and for me there is no right or wrong in this argument. We just need more data I've said it before and I'll say it again. The world is in a state of chaos and there are far too many inputs into the world weather patterns/climate that are being ignored and/or overlooked. It's too complex an issue to just say CO2 is why we see/saw the temperature increases.

Well said Liberator...

Good post liberator. Many of the points you raise are answered here.

Does CO2 always correlate with temperature (and if not, why not?)

This graph shows how temps go up and down due to climate variability but the upwards trend is the same as the CO2 rise.



This article is also a must read. It lists many of the influences on climate.

CO2 is not the only driver of climate

Great post Mr Liberator.....

Yes, good post Lib.
One can produce graphs to prove anything I fear, just select the right selected period, the right selected up and down size, the right selected altered data to suit, and away you go!

I wonder why CB picked a GISS graph from 1964 on!!!...

This is earlier graph of hansen 1981 black line
Hansen altered later graphs follow on slowly getting more cooling earlier and warming later!
red was his last attempt but he has gone on further and further with GISS alterations all the same way!
(If we follow CB's CO2 trace downwards from 1964 it suddenly goes into the big white void area way below the temp trace!!!rce

Here is that paper you quote in full:

http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/10/6311/2010/acp-10-6311-2010.pdf

I accept that between 2000 - 2005 China did increase emissions. However - if one knows a bit about global economics then one would know that China drastically reduced the SO2 following that. If you at least read the abstract you would note:



The reason for this was three-fold. A) the Olympics were comming up and China HAD to clean up its act; B) shoving a scrubber on a smokestack would get lots of Carbin Credits; and C) the GFC reduced demand from China significantly and so electricity demand for manufacturing decreased. And so it came to pass. China today has reduced its SO2 to levels to about that what it emmitted in 2000.



On the left are figs 2 & 4 from your paper, and fig 3 from this paper:

Anthropogenic sulfur dioxide emissions: 1850–2005

The small uptic in the global SO2 (in top fig 3 above) is driven principally by China - which has since began to reduce the SO2 emissions as supported by your paper [which by the way was modeled "estimates"] as well as by empirical observation:

http://aura.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/feature-102009a.html
http://so2.gsfc.nasa.gov/pdfs/CanLi_OMISO2_China_2010GL042594.pdf

There has been no increase in SO2 pollution and in fact, globally, there has been a decrease since the 70's. And thus blaming the decrease in Global Temps on SO2 driven "Global Dimming" is the usual diversionary climatezience crap.

I stand by my point.

As to the Hatchet piece on the IPA

I’m guessing that you support that… that big business and mining is bad for us. [Wouldn’t it be nice if got rid off all the nasty businesses and industry – all Australians could happily live on the dole and march off singing the internationale]

I too feel disdain and disrespect for teachers that are activists and provocateurs and who instead of teaching classical science they push post modernist clap-trap, political correctness, right thinking and conformity. No Pressure to respond this time CeeBee.

All that just reinforces my point that Global levels of sulphate aerosols spiked upwards around 2000, which in turn has had a cooling effect during the decade.

China Coal Consumption Linked To Global Cooling

Disgusting behavior by skeptics...

FOI reveals nasty hateful emails sent to Phil Jones right after Climategate

"Be warned, this is very, very ugly stuff, and there are several messages in there that seem to me to be criminal."

http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/6/13/uea-death-threats-published.html

Yes Arnost that add was disgusting but as the politically correct were running it or at least agree with it's message, it was fine. Just imagine if that was say a hunting group running a similar add to point out guns are no more dangerous as a car so long as the user is responsible..... Of course there would have been howling protests!

I am reading a great book at the moment called the real disaster of global warming. It is a fascinating and distusturbing chronological account of how we and the IPCC got to the point we are at now. I have not finished it yet but would recommend it to anyone(including even Ceebee as it might wake you up) who wonders how such ridiculous claims have been able to make it into fact and politics resulting from it. It also shows how deeply in crap the europeans are in due to their adoption of flower power wind turbines.

I'm very skeptical of anything that comes from Christopher Booker. He does have a history of misleading people.

The book (the real disaster of global warming) was described by The Observer as being as "the definitive climate sceptics' manual," although the reviewer found that much of the book, "including the central claim, is bunk".

In December 2009, Christopher Booker and Richard North published an article in The Sunday Telegraph in which they questioned whether Rajendra Pachauri, chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was using his position for personal gain, with a followup Telegraph article in January 2010.

On 21 August 2010,The Daily Telegraph issued an apology, and withdrew the December article from their website having reportedly paid legal fees running into six figures. Dr Pachauri described the statements against him as "another attempt by the climate sceptics to discredit the IPCC."

Christopher Booker argues that asbestos, passive smoking and BSE have not been shown to be dangerous. His views on these matters go against scientific consensus, and as a result have attracted much criticism from other journalists as well as public bodies.

Thus his articles on asbestos and on global warming have been repeatedly challenged by George Monbiot of The Guardian, and the UK Health and Safety Executive has repeatedly refuted his claims about asbestos.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/nov/15/real-global-warming-christopher-booker

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

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andre...annerys_salary/

Yep and activist groups and Governments including ours are paying scientists and others who are just willing preach to spew out warmist propaganda too. Wonder how much a media's non reporting of a story is worth to a warmist government/lobby group??? Hope your house is not a glass one ceebee. Thing is that the argument of "funded by big oil etc. is no longer valid as there are Govts and windmill, solar companies and god knows how many other people who have invested in carbon schemes that need this stuff to go on to make their money.