A new Senate report is poised to present a major challenge to the dogma of global warming. The preview, made available today, provides some tasty hints as to what the full report will contain. Here’s my favorite quote:
“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly….As a scientist I remain skeptical.” – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
My favorite part of the quote: “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly.” The unspoken implication is deafening.
The article made another interesting point: since 1980, almost half of the land temperature monitoring points have vanished as the old Soviet Union’s science infrastructure has been dismantled. Their location? Siberia. Hmmmm…
Meanwhile, the National Snow and Ice Data Center presents an interesting picture: arctic ice buildup is rapidly increasing to its 30-year average level, while Antarctic ice is ahead of its 30 year average. I thought that the Antarctic was a goner? Hmmmm…
And the voices of reason are raising in unison. The fact is that the IPCC, the organization most responsible for elevating the climate change issue, bases its conclusions not on historic data but on computer models that, among other flaws, do not take into account solar activity. This alone should be sufficient to completely disregard their findings since solar activity vastly overwhelms any man-made factors in determining global climate. Solar activity is a greater issue because data are showing that we are at a historic low for sunspot activity. Fewer sunspots means a hotter solar output.
Climate models wildly disagree with one another as well and do not agree on extraordinarily powerful factors such as clouds. When data are presented which challenge the model, the data are adjusted to fit the model, not the other way around.
I was Googling to find the original NASA report regarding ocean cooling, and learned that NASA has changed its report so that now the oceans aren’t cooling. Perhaps an improvement in the methodology, perhaps political conformism. Who can say?
In the meantime I found this article by Lorne Gunter that deserves a little homage:
In fact, “there has been a very slight cooling,” according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.
Willis was reporting on his findings that have since been adjusted. Gunter goes on to add:
Just look how tenaciously some scientists are prepared to cling to the climate change dogma. “It may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming,” Dr. Willis told NPR.
Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion. Or when I gain a few pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss.
The big problem with the Argo findings is that all the major climate computer models postulate that as much as 80-90% of global warming will result from the oceans warming rapidly then releasing their heat into the atmosphere.
Keep looking, guys. I’m sure that the evidence is out there.