Himalayan glaciers are not melting because of global warming

An article in "The Telegraph" discusses the findings of three researchers. They found that about half of Himalayan glaciers were actually advancing rather than retreating. It seems debris cover is the determining factor in rather the glaciers are growing or shrinking.

Climate is such a complex thing that it seems any prediction of its direction is about as accurate as putting your finger up in the wind.

Nothing to see here. Please move along.

Professor Jones of the Climate Research Institute:

And he claimed it was not 'standard practice' to release data and computer models so other scientists could check and challenge research.

'I don't think there is anything in those emails that really supports any view that I, or the CRU, have been trying to pervert the peer review process in any way,' he said.

This is a rather disturbing comment. The scientific method dictates that data and models be reviewable. The whole idea is to have your findings tested, and either verified or refuted. But, there is nothing here that would indicate attempts to pervert peer review? Puhleaze!!!

We are supposed to reorganize the world economy based on these findings, but it is not "standard practice" to allow anyone to review the data or the computer models? Mind boggling hubris.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1254660/Climategate-expert-tells-MPs.html#ixzz0gzHLphIu

The Thinking Mans Thinking Man

That was the title of the Newsweek cover on October 31, 2009. In reference to... Al Gore!

Geez, that is about the stupidest thing I've ever read. This is the thinking man that says, "shut up, it is settled science." So much for thinking. This whole movement has been about not thinking, but just accepting what ever falderal is dished up.

It seems that Nobel Peace Prize winner Gore has been missing in action since the global warming nuts' "science" has been unraveling. Maybe I have just missed it. (Which wouldn't be hard, since I tend to ignore anything that Manbearpig has to say.) But it seems he hasn't even stepped forward to say that obviously this is the work of skeptics who want the planet to be destroyed.

Of Hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons

Again the IPCC has apparently fudged statistical data in order to promote the theory of anthropological global warming.

There is no statistical basis for the idea that warming has contributed to the number or intensity of tropical storms. If you remember the 2005 Atlantic hurricane season then you can see where anecdotally this seems plausible. But statistical analysis does not seem to confirm that there are more, or more intense storms.

I have always been skeptical of the global warming enthusiasts, mainly because the dire warnings seemed overwrought. It is becoming more difficult by the day to credit any proponent of "the sky is falling" syndrome.

The hits just keep coming

Phil Jones, the Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA), which is the target of Climategate, in answer to a question from the BBC:

B - Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming

Yes, but only just.

I left off the ...yes but, weasel words that followed.

So, one of the leading proponents of anthropogenic global warming admits that there has been no warming for the past 15 years? But never mind, it is scientifically proven consensus that warming is happening.

Oh, and the IPCC made another little error of fact in its report, when it stated that 55% of the Netherlands was below sea level. The real percentage is 26. That's an exaggeration of just over 100%. But again, never mind, a report rife with errors "do(es) not affect the core conclusions that human activities, led by burning fossil fuels, are warming the globe."

Global warming v. science

The problem with global warming theory is, and always has been, that the scientific consensus (an oxymoron) is not really science. The data is cherry picked and incomplete, and then in order to create a forward looking climate model, it is pushed into computer models that must assume facts that are not only unknown, but unknowable. The variables of climate are almost infinite, certainly too large to control for in any meaningful way.

Climate modelers promote modeled findings of climate in 100 years as given fact. These very models have been inaccurate over the last decade. Meteorological modeling becomes problematic after a 24 hour period, yet climate modelers express confidence in there 100 year models.

Michael Crichton, who was a scientist, discusses the problems with global warming consensus, and the science in general. This speech does not so much question warming, which may indeed be happening, and may be the fault of man, but questions the scientific method, and the reason for scientists promoting the theory.

As to the modeling, he says:

Let's think back to people in 1900 in, say, New York. If they worried about people in 2000, what would they worry about? Probably: Where would people get enough horses? And what would they do about all the horseshit? Horse pollution was bad in 1900, think how much worse it would be a century later, with so many more people riding horses?

This is succinct and to the point. What was unknown in 1900 regarding 2000 is probably several orders of magnitude less than what is unknown about 2100 from 2000.