The psychology of climate change

That's hilarious you know...  stable temperatures where?  Not here that's for sure... 40 - 45 deg C, BTW, is 104 - 113 F!

The Prime Minister seized on today's scorching temperatures and the "catastrophic" fire danger warning for South Australia, Victoria, ACT and New South Wales as proof the climate change sceptics had it wrong.

"The Bureau of Meteorology weather forecast indicate for the week of 16 to 20 November, we're likely to see these conditions continue with temperatures in the range of 40 to 45 degrees becoming widespread," he said.

"I'm constantly stunned. It's as if we're back into the trial of Galileo or something and they're simply arguing somehow that the science is fiction and that they alone in their own prejudiced universe occupy fact.

"I mean, we are back almost in a medieval court."

I'm amazed how global warming threads become the busiest, rowdiest, longest threads.  every time.  what's that about?

It is the functional equivalent of arguing religion and/or politics.  A pleasurable exercise in vocabulary and futility.

Kind of like using the local weather pattern to predict worldwide weather patterns.  It was a cooler, rainier summer here in the american south( with no major hurricanes).  Guess we stole it from Australia.

Sorry.

strabes

I'd tell you, but I'd probably be banished to the controversial topics room.

Doug

nothing like a gun thread though....

By Michael Vincent from The World Today

Precious reserves: the Arctic will become a battleground as countries vie for its resources. (Reuters)

• Audio: US Navy prepares for climate change (The World Today)

The US navy has issued its Arctic roadmap, outlining the potential for competition, conflict and climate change in the waters of the icy north.

The scientific consensus is that future Arctic summers will have less and less sea ice, and that has massive implications for the surrounding nations.

The lead scientist at the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre, Dr Ted Scambos, says the Artic Ocean is becoming an open ocean.

"What's been surprising is how far the sea ice has retreated over the northern coast of Siberia on the opposite side of the Arctic and off the north coast of Alaska," he said.

"North of the north slope down, what we're seeing in late summer are huge areas of open water.

"The Arctic ocean is truly becoming an open ocean."

Faced with an entirely new marine environment on its northern border, the US navy has issued its response.

The 33-page Arctic roadmap created by its Task Force Climate Change will cover all naval operations, including coast guard and marine corps.

US navy spokesman Lieutenant Myers Vasquez says the Artic may experience ice-free summers in just over 20 years' time.

"The Arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the globe," he said.

"While significant uncertainty exist in projections for Arctic ice extent, the current scientific [research] indicates the Arctic may experience nearly ice-free summers sometimes in the 2030s."

Seeking resources

With just a little more than two decades to prepare for this new challenge, the US navy is looking at its forward presence, deterrence capabilities, the maritime security environment and its ability to respond to disasters.

"This opening of the Arctic mainly to increase resource development, research, tourism could reshape the global transportation system," Lieutenant Vasquez said.

"These developments offer opportunities for growth but also are potential sources of competition and conflict for accessing natural resources."

This access to natural resources has been created by climate change and Dr Scambos says that makes him uneasy.

"In shallow water, oil rigs are already able to withstand the sea ice conditions just north of the Alaskan coast," he said.

"In deeper water I think it would present a real engineering challenge, but in fact there are tremendous resources in the Arctic for oil and natural gas.

"It makes me uneasy anyway to think that we're going to let a trend caused by global warming - the melting of the ice - allow us to explore and exploit more fossil fuels, which led to the warming in the first place.

"That seems wrong-headed to me, but nevertheless it's likely to happen and there's already a debate about exactly who's got the rights to the minerals and the oil that's there under the Arctic continental shelf, and how to go about exploiting it.

"It's unfortunate, from a broader view, understanding the science of what the future holds, but I think it's inevitable because oil and gas are going to be extremely valuable in the coming century as supplies dwindle."

DTM:

"These developments offer opportunities for growth but also are potential sources of competition and conflict for accessing natural resources."

This access to natural resources has been created by climate change and Dr Scambos says that makes him uneasy....

"It makes me uneasy anyway to think that we're going to let a trend caused by global warming - the melting of the ice - allow us to explore and exploit more fossil fuels, which led to the warming in the first place.

"That seems wrong-headed to me, but nevertheless it's likely to happen and there's already a debate about exactly who's got the rights to the minerals and the oil that's there under the Arctic continental shelf, and how to go about exploiting it.

"It's unfortunate, from a broader view, understanding the science of what the future holds, but I think it's inevitable because oil and gas are going to be extremely valuable in the coming century as supplies dwindle."

This takes the cake. Like vultures feeding on the last bit remains, our fossil fuel addicted system will continue to exploit a planet which is throwing up warning signs with increasing frequency. Collapse appears inevitable. "Opportunities for growth" are taken at every turn, no matter the warning signs.

http://market-ticker.denninger.net/archives/1648-Global-Warming-SCAM-HackLeak-FLASH.html

"Apparently a "Global Climate Center" was hacked and the contents have been posted to the Internet.  A ZIP file exceeding 60MB and containing a huge number of emails and other documents has been posted worldwide.

Original speculation as to whether the files posted were legitimate or some sort of spoof appears to now be confirmed as legitimate:

“It was a hacker. We were aware of this about three or four days ago that someone had hacked into our system and taken and copied loads of data files and emails.”

I have not had time to read all of the material yet (there are over a thousand files involved!) but what I have skimmed looks VERY damning.  Contained within the documents are what appear to be admissions of intentional tampering with data as well as intentional falsification of results to "show" man-made global warming.

One of the emails says:

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

That is, to hide a decline in global temperatures.

It gets better.  Another message, this one allegedly from 2000:

It was good to see you again yesterday - if briefly. One particular thing you said - and we agreed - was about the IPCC reports and the broader climate negotiations were working to the globalisation agenda driven by organisations like the WTO. So my first question is do you have anything written or published, or know of anything particularly on this subject, which talks about this in more detail?

Oh, so it's not about the planet getting warmer, but rather is a convenient means of advancing an agenda that has already been pre-determined?

Then there's this:

In my (perhaps too
> > harsh)
> > view, there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model
> > results by individual authors and by IPCC. This is why I still use
> > results from MAGICC to compare with observed temperatures. At least
> > here I can assess how sensitive matches are to sensitivity and
> > forcing assumptions/uncertainties.

(Pardon the formatting, it's text-mode email 'yanno.)

Guess who that was addressed to?  Michael Mann.  You know, the (infamous and now discredited) "Mann Hockey Stick"?

Guess where that email originated?  NASA.

Yes, I have the file.  So do a few million other people.

There's enough evidence in there, in my opinion, of outrageously fraudulent conduct to make this the scandal of the 20th and 21st century.

Sorry folks, there's no science here - this is, from what I see, a massive and outrageous fraud, and now that the documents have been confirmed as authentic it is time to pull the curtain down on this crap and start locking up all of the proponents - starting with AL GORE.

Here are some interesting "meta statistics" on the documents, and the number of times the words referenced appear:

• Fraud: 79
• Falsify: 6
• Inflate: 14
• Conceal: 5
• Hide: 19

Just for starters.

If you think that's bad, you might like this - from the file "ipcc-tar-master.rtf":

General Comments

The idea that climate without human intervention can only undergo “natural variability”, and that “climate change” can only result from human activity is false and fallacious. It is in conflict with all that we know of evolution and geology. It is simply wrong to assume that “ climate change” automatically implies human influence on the climate.

 

This fallacy is embraced by the Framework Convention on Climate Change, but the IPCC (Footnote to “Summary for Policymakers. Page 1) claim that they are prepared to accept “natural variability” as “climate change”. They are, however, unwilling to accept the truth, which is that climate can change without human intervention.

 

....

 

47 out of 91 models listed in Chapter 9 assume that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing at the rate of 1% a year when the measured rate of increase, for the past 33 years, has been 0.4% a year. The assumption of false figures in models in order to boost future projections is  fraudulent. What other figures are falsely exaggerated in the same way?

Update 12:58 - Oh oh.... From Phil Jones... and its recent:

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@meteo.psu.edu>, "raymond s. bradley" <rbradley@geo.umass.edu>
Subject: A couple of things
Date: Fri May  9 09:53:41 2008
Cc: "Caspar Ammann" <ammann@ucar.edu>

....

 2. You can delete this attachment if you want. Keep this quiet also, but this is the person who is putting in FOI requests for all emails Keith and Tim have written and received re Ch 6 of AR4. We think we've found a way around this.

And then there's this...

From: Phil Jones <p.jones@uea.ac.uk>
To: "Michael E. Mann" <mann@meteo.psu.edu>
Subject: IPCC & FOI
Date: Thu May 29 11:04:11 2008

Mike,

Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He's not in at the moment - minor family crisis.

Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same?  I don't have his new email address.

We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.

I see that CA claim they discovered the 1945 problem in the Nature paper!!
    Cheers
    Phil

One has to wonder: was the "way around it" (the FOI) mentioned in the first correspondence to intentionally destroy the emails requested?"

Well for news this big, there's very little on the 'net about it apart from people buckering about it on message boards.....  Wasn't this supposed to happen more than two weeks ago?  Why has it not come out before now?  Very skeptical, it's so easy to spread rumours with the 'net these days...

Mike