New paper: UHI, alive and well in China
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 116, D14113, 12 PP., 2011
Observed surface warming induced by urbanization in east China
- The rapid urbanization has significant impacts on temperature over east China
- A new method was developed to dynamically classify urban and rural stations
- Comparison of the trends of UHI effects by using OMR and UMR approaches
Richard Muller On NPR On April 11 2011 – My Comments
I have already posted on Rich Muller’s testimony to Congress; see
Informative News Article by Margot Roosevelt In The Los Angeles Times On Richard Muller’s Testimony To Congress
Is There A Sampling Bias In The BEST Analysis Reported By Richard Muller?
Comments On The Testimony Of Richard Muller At the United States House Of Representatives Committee On Science, Space And Technology
He was also been interviewed, after that testimony, by NPR on April 11 2011 (see). I have defered posting on this interview as I have been seeking to engage Rich in a dialog on the issues with the surface temperature data. However, I understand from an indirect source that he has a Science article under review, and thus, conclude that presenting comments on his NPR interview now would be informative to others. He is also not replying to my e-mail requests to interact on the surface temperature analysis issue. (Roger Pielke Sr.)
Scientific fraud in the UK: The time has come for regulation
MPs have called on the government to establish a regulator to set standards and help root out wrongdoing in science. Brian Deer anticipates stiff opposition from scientists (Guardian)
A hippie accidentally discovers the solution to the US debt crisis, Ethan Hawke has some ‘splaining to do and Australia gets its Kris Kristofferson on. (Daily Bayonet)
Towards a New Environmentalism (open criticism, midcourse correction, and scholarship needed)
MasterResource is home to a growing number of grassroot environmentalists who are challenging the Washington, D.C. establishment to reconsider industrial wind turbines. Jen Gilbert’s Dear Sierra Club (Canada): I Resign Over Your Anti-Environmental Wind Support and Jon Boone’s three-part The Sierra Club: How Support for Industrial Wind Technology Subverts Its History, Betrays Its Mission, and Erodes Commitment to the Scientific Method of what Robert Bradley has summarized in his post, Windpower: Environmentalists vs. Environmentalists (NIMBYism, precautionary principle vs. industrial wind).
My piece for National Review (reprinted below) looks at the bigger picture of how reasoned criticism and intellectual diversity have struggled to penetrate the environmental mainstream. The result of such intolerance has been Faustian bargains such as the Sierra Club going all-in for wind power (see their response to Robert Bryce’s recent op-edin the New York Times). After all, it was the Los Angeles director of the Sierra Club that coined the moniker, Cuisinarts of the Air.
Scholarship and reasoned dissent are essential for public trust. The faster this is recognized by mainstream environmental groups, the better the result for both the environment and economy. (MasterResource)
Green agenda has parallels with excesses of communism
IN a serendipitous coincidence of timing, in the space of two hours this week, Australians were afforded a sharp, momentary insight into the two opposing ideological mindsets that are competing for the soul of our nation.
UN AGENDA 21 – ABOLISH PRIVATE PROPERTY
JULY 27, 2011 TERRY A. HURLBUT
The United Nations wants to abolish private property worldwide. UN Agenda 21 is their tool—and local governments are already cooperating. (Conservative News and Views)
It seems to escape the attention of many ignorant advocates but carbon constraint is specifically a policy of poverty creation and expansion, ya dumb schmucks! Climate superstition and the attempt to “address climate change” is the antithesis of development and wealth creation.
Kerry plan weaves climate into development programs
By Ben Geman
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) floated legislation Wednesday that would formally integrate consideration of climate change into U.S. foreign policy on sustainable development and poverty reduction. (E2 Wire)
Global climate talks can reach agreement
A global deal on a pact to succeed the U.N.’s main climate agreement is still within reach but will not be struck this year, with the pace of talks still far too slow, New Zealand’s top climate negotiator said on Wednesday.
Inevitably, there would be a gap after the Kyoto Protocol’s first period expires in 2012, Minister of Climate Change Negotiations Tim Groser said in an interview after delegates from 35 nations attended two days of climate talks in Auckland. (Reuters)
Trading Emissions ends carbon portfolio sale talks
British carbon offset project developer Trading Emissions on Wednesday halted talks to sell its portfolio after steep falls in carbon prices, sending its share price to two-year lows. (Reuters)
California offset frustration continues
SAN FRANCISCO (Thomson Reuters Point Carbon) – Carbon market participants on Tuesday said revisions to key rules may not be enough to ensure that trading in secondary offset markets in California is liquid and stable.
At issue is the question of who should be held responsible for replacing offset credits in the event that a project is found to be flawed. (Reuters)
How Did The Radical Green Fringe Lose The Climate Science Propaganda War & The Public?
Read and view here. The greens/lefties/libs/progressives ludicrous climate exaggerations, science stupidity and gross intolerance of others is on full display in these videos. Let’s hope they keep insulting the intelligence of the public because it’s working big time in winning the war for the lukewarmers and C-AGW skeptics.
In the internet age, the lies, threats and propaganda of the left’s totalitarian ambitions, as represented by Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Defense Fund and the National Resource Defense Council, no longer works so well, eh? In today’s wired world, it’s not such a surprise when it has become common knowledge what the radical green, anti-CO2 movement is all about. (C3 Headlines)
We Get What We Pay For With Disastrous Climate Science
A rapidly growing number of Americans are coming to distrust “scientific” climate report conclusions that emanate from authoritarian government and institutional sources — often with good reason. Such skepticism has arisen in part from revelations of conspiracies among influential researchers to exaggerate the existence and threats of man-made climate change, withhold background data and suppress contrary findings evidenced in the “ClimateGate” scandal.
Other doubt is legitimately fueled by direct observations. We commonly witness alarmist claims based upon short-term warming events, while other equally notable cooling episodes are dismissed in importance, attributed to warming, or cited as proof of disturbing “climate change.”
Who pays for all this bad science, and worse, news? We do, of course. And it doesn’t come cheap. According to data compiled by Joanne Nova at the Science and Public Policy Institute, the U.S. Government spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009. This doesn’t count about $79 billion more spent for related climate change technology research, foreign aid and tax breaks for “green energy.” (Forbes)
Finding common ground with climate-change contrarians
Source: UCAR Magazine
by Scott Denning, Colorado State University
[SPPI is pleased to have been invited to co-sponsor this event]
At least this year they didn’t bring hockey sticks! In late June I attended the Heartland Institute’s 6th International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC) in Washington DC. This was the second time the organizers invited me to the conference. Every attendee at last year’s conference was handed a two-foot-long hockey stick to reinforce Heartland’s complaints about what they see as an incorrect interpretation of published 1000-year temperature proxy reconstructions. Perhaps unsurprisingly, nearly every speaker at the meeting denounced the climate change science consensus, lambasted mitigation policy, or delved into details about solar cycles and natural climate variability.
This year Heartland senior fellow James Taylor invited me to present at ICCC, even though he knew I would deliver a very strong and persuasive case for the physical basis of anthropogenic climate change and the dire need for an aggressive policy response. At the meeting, I was treated with respect and even warmth despite my vehement disagreement with most of the other presenters. Heartland gave me a very prominent platform: both an hour-long keynote debate over lunch with Prof. Roy Spencer and a 15-minute plenary presentation in the final panel of the meeting.
In recent weeks I’ve received a number of emails from scientists and others suggesting that attending the ICCC is a mistake. Their argument is that the Heartland attendees are not acting in good faith, that I would be misquoted or quoted out of context to support Heartland’s position, that my presence would be seen as endorsing the denial of climate change, or that “it only encourages them.” I disagree.
Refusing to engage dismissive voices on climate change may feel like taking the high road, but I suspect it’s the high road to ruin. Ignoring climate contrarians has not made them go away. In fact, their message has resonated with an increasing slice of public opinion for several years. Tony Leiserowitz (Yale University) and colleagues survey public opinion on climate change and find persistent and growing segments of the American public that are doubtful or dismissive about the human role in climate change. It seems to me that strong and persuasive engagement of that audience by more bona fide experts articulating the scientific consensus is essential. (SPPI)
Because people so described apparently are the most likely to believe the media does not exaggerate the “seriousness of climate change”, or maybe they are least likely to say they think the media does so exaggerate. Or something:
Conservative, white men more likely to be climate change sceptics, study shows
The demographic was more than twice as likely than other adults to say the media exaggerated seriousness of climate change (Conservation Magazine, part of the Guardian Environment Network)
Apparently skeptics aren’t skeptical, or something:
Heart of the matter
Nature 475, 423–424 (28 July 2011) doi:10.1038/475423b
Published online 27 July 2011
The Heartland Institute’s climate conference reveals the motives of global-warming sceptics. (Nature)