Image: National Post

Now that AGW/CC is a religion, in the UK at least, will big Al be their patron saint or their messiah?

Can this whole scene get any more weird than it already is?

“An executive has won the right to sue his employer on the basis that he was unfairly dismissed for his green views after a judge ruled that environmentalism had the same weight in law as religious and philosophical beliefs.

By Stephen Adams and Louise Gray
Published: 3:11PM GMT 03 Nov 2009

In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton said that "a belief in man-made climate change … is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief Regulations".

The ruling could open the door for employees to sue their companies for failing to account for their green lifestyles, such as providing recycling facilities or offering low-carbon travel.”

See the full story at the Telegraph

At long last, proof of what many already believe. Now that we have that out of the way, can we stop calling it climate science?

Last week, we saw this tidbit…

Maldives Cabinet Signs Climate Change Document 20 Feet Under Sea

From Fox News:

AP

Oct. 17: Maldivian Minister of Fisheries and Agriculture Ibrahim Didi signs a document under water.

Excerpts: GIRIFUSHI, Maldives  —

Members of the Maldives’ Cabinet donned scuba gear and used hand signals Saturday at an underwater meeting staged to highlight the threat of global warming to the lowest-lying nation on earth.

To put the matter into perspective, Nils-Axel Moerner wrote a letter to the President of the Maldives…

Open Letter to President Mohamed Nasheed of the Maldives

Mr. President,

You have recently held an undersea Cabinet meeting to raise  awareness of the idea that global sea level is rising and hence threatens to drown the Maldives. This proposition is not founded in observational facts and true scientific judgements, Accordingly it is incorrect. Therefore, I am most surprised at your action and must protest to its intended message.

In 2001, when our research group found overwhelming evidence that sea level was by no means in a rising mode in the Maldives, but had remained quite stable for the last 30 years, I thought it would not be respectful to the fine people of the Maldives if I were to return home and present our results in international fora. Therefore, I announced this happy news during an interview for your local TV station. However, your predecessor as president censored and stopped the broadcast.

When you became president, I was hoping both for democracy and for dialogue. However, I have written to you twice without reply. Your people ought not to have to suffer a constant claim that there is no future for them on their own islands. This terrible message is deeply inappropriate, since it is founded not upon reality but upon an imported concept, which lacks scientific justification and is thus untenable. There is simply no rational basis for it.

Let me summarize a few facts (see Fig. 1, and evidence presented in Moerner, 2007):

1. In the last 2000 years, sea level has oscillated with 5 peaks reaching 0.6 to 1.2 m above the present sea level.
2. From 1790 to 1970 sea level was about 20 cm higher than today.
3. In the 1970s, sea level fell by about 20 cm to its present level.
4. Sea level has remained stable for the last 30 years, implying that there are no traces of any alarming on-going sea level rise.
5. Therefore, we are able to free the Maldives (and the rest of low-lying coasts and island around the globe) from the condemnation of becoming flooded in the near future.

When I was president for the INQUA commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003), we spent much effort on the question of present-to-future sea level changes. After intensive field studies, deliberation within the commission and discussions at five international meeting, we agreed on a “best estimate” for possible sea level changes by the year 2100. Our figure was +10 cm ñ10 cm. This figure was later revised at +5 cm ñ15 cm (as given in Fig. 1).

Such changes would imply small to negligible effects. From our sea level curve in Fig. 1, we can directly see that such a small rise would pose no threat for the Maldives. Rather, it would be a natural return to the conditions existing from 1790 to 1970; i.e. to the position before the sea level fall in the 1970s.

The same non-rising sea level story is recorded for all other areas claimed to be under a flooding already in progress; viz. Tuvalu, Vanuatu and Venice (Moerner, 2007b).

Besides, the proposed global trend derived from satellite altimetry has been tampered by a “personal correction” in order to create a rising trend (Moerner, 2008), actually not measured..

Thermal expansion of the water column may affect the ocean level by some centimetres to a decimetre. At the shore, however, the effect is zero (Moerner, 2000, 2005a, 2009a).

So, Mr. President, when you ignore to face available observational facts, refuse a normal democratic dialogue, and continue to menace your people with the imaginary threat of a disastrous flooding already in progress, I think you are doing a serious mistake.

Let us be constructive. Let us discuss available observational facts. Let us continue and extend our sea level project to new sites in the huge Maldivian atoll archipelago. And let us, for Heaven’s sake, lift the terrible psychological burden that you and your predecessor have placed upon the shoulders of all people in the Maldives, who are now living with the imagined threat that flooding will soon drive them from their homes, a wholly false notion that is nothing but an armchair fiction artificially constructed by mere computer modelling constantly proven wrong by meticulous real-world observations.

Your cabinet meeting under the water is nothing but a misdirected gimmick or PR stunt. Al Gore is a master in such cheap techniques. But such misconduct is dishonest, unproductive and certainly most un-scientific.

Stockholm, Sweden, October 20, 2009 Nils-Axel Moerner Head of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics at Stockholm University, Sweden (1991-2005) President of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999-2003) Leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project (2000 on) Chairman of the INTAS project on Geomagnetism and Climate (1997-2003) Awarded the Golden Condrite of Merit from Algarve University (2008) “for his irreverence and contribution to our understanding of sea level change”

A new study using satellite data uses computer modelling to project a cooling trend for the next several decades.

TREND ANALYSIS OF RSS AND UAH MSU GLOBAL TEMPERATURE DATA
Craig Loehle

ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT
VOLUME 20 No. 7 2009

ABSTRACT
Global satellite data is analyzed for temperature trends for the period January 1979 through June 2009. Beginning and ending segments show a cooling trend, while the middle segment evinces a warming trend. The past 12 to 13 years show cooling using both UAH and RSS data, with lower confidence limits that do not exclude a negative trend until 16 to 22 years. It is shown that several published studies have predicted cooling in this time frame. One of these models is extrapolated from its 2000 calibration end date and shows a good match to the satellite data, with a projection of continued cooling for several more decades.

The two charts below are taken from the paper.

The whole paper is available at the NCASI site.

I think that it is too early to proclaim global cooling, but if this trend is real and it continues as postulated in Loehle’s paper, we may be in store for a much different future than the IPCC predicts and the alarmist press continues to parrot. One sure thing is that we will adapt to the new reality.

Mitch Taylor has worked with polar bears for years as a biologist in the Nunavut region of Canada. His considered opinion is that polar bear populations have increased and that the nears are not impacted by current climate changes in their habitat ranges. Dr. Taylor has over 30 years of experience with polar bears and has attended many meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (PBSG) over the years. It seems that he is no longer welcome in that group. Below is a letter from the outgoing chair of the PBSG telling Taylor that he is not welcome and outlining why.

Hi Mitch,

The world is a political place and for polar bears, more so now than ever before. I have no problem with dissenting views as long as they are supportable by logic, scientific reasoning, and the literature.

I do believe, as do many PBSG members, that for the sake of polar bear conservation, views that run counter to human induced climate change are extremely unhelpful. In this vein, your positions and statements in the Manhattan Declaration, the Frontier Institute, and the Science and Public Policy Institute are inconsistent with positions taken by the PBSG.

I too was not surprised by the members not endorsing an invitation.

Nothing I heard had to do with your science on harvesting or your research on polar bears – it was the positions you’ve taken on global warming that brought opposition.

Time will tell who is correct but the scientific literature is not on the side of those arguing against human induced climate change.

I look forward to having someone else chair the PBSG.

Best regards,

Andy (Derocher)

The letter appears to be authentic since other people have contacted Dr. Derocher to follow up on this matter. Given that, it appears that Dr. Taylor has been censored because he doesn’t share the same political views as many of the other members of the group. Indeed, Derocher makes it clear that Taylor’s exclusion from the PBSG is not based on his scientific knowledge, but because of “the positions you’ve taken on global warming.”

Just to be clear, Dr. Taylor was not appointed by the Canadian government to attend the PBSG meeting since he no longer works for the government. However, it appears that the PBSG can invite others to attend if they choose to do so.

Science is about holding up theories and hypotheses to the light of day, to be challenged to determine their veracity. The PBSG has abandoned science and now appears to be a political body pushing an agenda rather than searching for truth.  They should have their science grants revoked. But we know this won’t happen.

Another sad day for scientific principle.

Last week Marco Tedesco and Andrew Monaghan reported on Antarctic ice in the journal Geophysical Research Letters:

A 30-year minimum Antarctic snowmelt record occurred during austral summer 2008–2009 according to spaceborne microwave observations for 1980–2009. Strong positive phases of both the El-Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) and the Southern Hemisphere Annular Mode (SAM) were recorded during the months leading up to and including the 2008–2009 melt season.

Figure 1. Standardized values of the Antarctic snow melt index (October-January) from 1980-2009 (adapted from Tedesco and Monaghan, 2009).

Let’s be clear, the report and the included chart show a record low ice loss (read more ice) for 2008, not a new record for minimum ice volume.

One would assume that this would be good news and that it would be reported widely. Think again. Reports like this are passed off as weather effects, not a climate signal. While that may be correct in its basic form, we could apply the same reasoning to the reports of minimum ice extent in the Arctic, its just weather, not a climate signal.

There would seem to be a double standard at work, warm=climate change, cold=weather.

It is also worth noting that the records from both poles are very short term, starting when satellite surveillance became possible. That’s just entering the threshold of 30 years, the bare minimum for establishing any trends in climate fluctuation.

The Central England Temperature (CET) record, starting in 1659 and maintained by the UK Met Office, is the longest unbroken temperature record in the world. Temperature data is averaged for a number of weather stations regarded as being representative of Central England rather than measuring temperature at one arbitrary geographical point identified as the centre of England.

A Scottish statistician, Wilson Flood, has collected and analysed the 351 year CET record. Here is the comparison of the 18th Century with the 20th Century:

Wilson Flood comments: “Summers in the second half of the 20th century were warmer than those in the first half and it could be argued that this was a global warming signal. However, the average CET summer temperature in the 18th century was 15.46 degC while that for the 20th century was 15.35 degC. Far from being warmer due to assumed global warming, comparison of actual temperature data shows that UK summers in the 20th century were cooler than those of two centuries previously.”

Source: Carbon Sense Coalition

Bishop Hill has a new entry on his blog entitled The Yamal implosion that is worth a read if you have been following the Yamal story at Climate Audit or Watts Up With That.

The next major UN climate summit extravaganza in Copenhagen is fast approaching. Thousands of delegates from world governments and NGO’s will burn several tons of fuel to attend a conference aimed at stopping such flagrant use of petroleum products.

In the lead up, the IPCC published a new hockey stick seen below.

The source of this damning revelation? Wikipedia. Not a peer reviewed journal of science. It turns out that the graph’s author is not a climatologist. Apparently he is a Norwegian ecologist, Hanno Sandvik. Sandvik claims no expertise regarding the data used in his graph. It seems the IPCC just picked the chart because it fits their predefined criteria. As an aside, the resolution isn’t great, so one can’t be 100% sure, but the blue line looks like it’s curving down after 2000, hmmm. For more details on the current Hockey Stick science, see Watts Up With That.

Last week UN

Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued this missive, “The science has become more irrevocable than ever: climate change is happening. The evidence is all around us. And unless we act, we will see catastrophic consequences, including rising sea-levels, droughts and famine, and the loss of up to a third of the world’s plant and animal species.”

Now if the science was settled and beyond question, how is it that every new proclamation from the UN and others tells us that the evidence is even more irrevocable or stronger than before? Unless they weren’t really sure, there is no reason to make such statements.

The pro-AGW science tells us that increasing CO2 leads to increasing temperatures and that it is a proven fact, there is no room for discussion. Oddly, while CO2 levels continue to rise, the temperature line isn’t following as they want it to as seen in the graph below.

 

With the current state of the economy world-wide, it is doubtful that most leaders will be willing to create new policies that cause more harm to our economies. Indeed, India and China have made indications that they will not do so.

While I could be accused of putting the economy ahead of the dire straights of the human condition (remember millions will die if we don’t act now) I do believe that if we destroy our economy we will have nothing to pay for relief programs, necessary in helping to mitigate the human condition in many countries. Simply put, if you reduce the economic well being of the richer nations, you starve the poor.

Let’s hope cooler heads prevail, but don’t count on it.

I watched the course of Hurricane Bill with some interest. As it tracked towards the USA, there was the usual hype about more and bigger storms threatening our safety. All caused by global warming of course. Oddly, when Bill shifted course and beat the hell out of the Atlantic Provinces of Canada, the media in the states lost all interest. I guess if it doesn’t affect them, it doesn’t really happen.

The next hurricane in the pipeline  now dubbed Danny (if my information is correct) looks like it too will turn north and possibly bash the Maritime Provinces. It too will be of little interest to big media if it does.

Don’t these people know that all that rain plays havoc with our igloos? ;^)