For those who believe the manmade climate change theory, the new year cannot get here fast enough. As 2009 comes to a close, many are faced with the realizations that not only are they losing in the court of public opinion, the ‘consensus’ about anthropogenic global warming is far from solid. The year saw preeminent scientists join the chorus of those saying that other drivers besides man influence the climate, a scandal erupted that shook the very foundation of climate science and a much touted climate summit fell into disarray.
As 2009 dawned, climate change advocates continued to sound the alarm about carbon dioxide’s accumulation in the atmosphere and the warming they believe it causes. With President Barack Obama taking office in January, it was thought their brand of climate science would find a new foothold on which to advance the cause. As Obama prepared to take office, Dr. James Hansen sent the president-elect a letter warning of the dire consequences at hand saying that he had four years to save the world.
Climate Change Examiner on Twitter
Or be notified by email when a new article from the Climate Change Examiner is posted. Click the 'Subscribe' link at the top or bottom of the article and enter your email address.
All seemed to be pointing toward a banner year for the advancement of the manmade climate change theory. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced that the year prior, 2008, was the eighth warmest on record for the globe. The United States however saw its coldest temperatures in 10 years but that mattered little.
High hopes were soon dashed as many noted scientists and public figures raised their voices in dissent. From meteorologists to geologists to climate scientists, those who don’t agree with the theory refused to be silenced.
Former astronaught and moon walker Dr. Harrison Schmitt
joined those that believe other forces are at work driving
the earth's climate. (NASA)
John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, railed against the manmade climate change theory calling it a hoax and ‘bad science.’ Former astronaut Harrison Schmitt stood tall among doubters saying that global warming was simply a ‘political tool’ and that many scientists had sold out their objectivity. Dr. John Christy of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama continued to be an unbiased dissenter. Princeton’s Dr. William Happer appeared before Congress saying, “what used to be science has turned into a cult.”
Another prominent voice in weather and climate, William (Bill) Gray, Professor Emeritus of Colorado State University, said the American Meteorological Society was being hijacked by alarmists. Other scientific organizations including the American Physical Society (APS) and the American Chemical Society (ACS) saw rifts grow in their membership. It became clear as the year progressed that the so-called scientific ‘consensus’ was anything but.
Even the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) saw its share of controversy. The Obama administration which had promised new transparency was accused of suppressing a report from its own employees that voiced doubt in the manmade climate change theory. Later in the year two of its lawyers released a YouTube video warning that proposed legislation would not accomplish anything.
Advocates that believed man was the dominating force in the climate continued to sound their warnings, often with outrageous claims that sometimes appeared laughable. James Hansen, as usual, was the most prominent of these as he took the final leap from scientist to activist not only in words but in actions as well. Not to be outdone, Dr. James Lovelock famously pronounced that 90% of the world’s population would be culled by 2100 due to climate change. President Obama joined in making false and extreme statements warning of ‘cataclysmic’ storms despite evidence to the contrary that no such thing is occurring.
Al Gore had a pretty rough year with his mission of saving man
from climate change. (AP Photo/Anja Niedringhaus)
Former vice president and Nobel Laureate Al Gore was as visible as ever throughout the year. He however continued to make a number of visible gaffes that did more to damage the cause than advance it. He was forced to pull slides from a presentation he gave that were incorrect, the cover of his new book contained scientific impossibilities and at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen he misspoke on a number of issues.
In Congress, cap and trade legislation aimed at curbing carbon emissions seemed on the fast track but soon fell by the wayside. The Senate and the House of Representatives held many hearings on the topic with the House eventually passing legislation. The upper house however was hesitant to move on the issue for fear of facing a disgruntled electorate not willing to bear any additional financial burden and public opinion polls showing greater doubt. It now appears unlikely the issue will see a vote in the Senate until after the next election cycle.
November brought forth an event that would shake the very foundation of climate science. The Climategate email scandal broke right before Thanksgiving when thousands of emails from some of the world’s top climate scientists were released on the Internet. The messages were not only embarrassing for those involved but proved to be more damning as they revealed collusion amongst scientists to withhold climate data, foil openness in the debate, silence dissenting opinions and modify data to fit their theories.
The mainstream media ignored the event for days and weeks but the Internet gave the story life and it soon turned into a major controversy. Investigations into the actions of the climate scientists have been launched and new revelations about the actions of those involved continue to be discovered.
Climategate’s effects cast a pall over the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP15) in Copenhagen early in December. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) had hoped the summit would yield a comprehensive climate change treaty. In the weeks leading up to the event, that seemed doubtful and soon it became an impossibility.
.jpg)
Delegates to the United Nations Climate Change Conference
(COP15) saw years worth of work leading up to the event fail.
(AP Photo/Heribert Proepper)
Not a day went by that scientists and politicians weren’t forced to address the email scandal and the doubts it had sewn into the public consciousness. Divisions amongst developed nations and poorer nations soon turned into insurmountable rifts and chasms. Richer nations demanded accountability for all nations while developing nations insisted on billions of dollars in financial aid.
President Barack Obama flew to Copenhagen in the closing days of the summit and many hoped he would be able to salvage the talks. The differences were too large though and the Copenhagen Accord that emerged had many saying it wasn’t worth the paper it was written on.
Arguably 2009 was one of the most eventful since the manmade climate change theory was first put forth. The year started with the science seemingly ‘settled’ and a ‘consensus’ pointing to man being the dominant influence on climate. In 12 short months however, the tide shifted. Scientific evidence to the contrary finally saw the light of day, cracks emerged amongst the so-called consensus and major events rattled the basis of what had been thought to be fact. The year has proven that the debate is not over nor is anything truly settled about anthropogenic global warming.
Comments
I think you've tried to present a balanced, unbiased view of how the climate change dynamic has unfolded in the last 12 months. As such, congratulations. Here are a few comments. Editorially, I would avoid the terms "climate change advocate". What is a climate change advocate? Also, you use the term "manmade climate change theory" several times. There are those who definitely believe this debate is the result of a "manmade theory".....see the confusion?! Lastly, the EPA scientists you refer to were specifically arguing against a Cap and Trade system, not legislation per se. I recall that they were advocates of a carbon tax.
I am a believer that anthropogenic global warming is, on a more probable than not basis, real, and may present the need for cultural modifications (some good, some bad). However, regardless of whether I consider the hysterics’ or the deniers’ arguments, my somewhat objective opinion tends to be this: AGW is hardly the most important issue we face. If t
Science Fiction from the Climate Research Unit.
The CRU is has not been practicing the scientific method for almost two decades. The scientific method requires that the researcher publish the original data, models and procedures needed for a skeptical analysis of any of their work. Since they are not using the scientific method then they simply are not doing science, they are writing fiction.
Ponds and Fleishman may have been wrong about cold fusion, but they were at least real scientists. They did their experiments, published the results and their data, procedures and description of the apparatus and the methods. They where shown to be in error, fine, but they were still scientific in their work. The outputs from the CRU are in comparison junk, so I ask, why are these fictional 'research' papers allowed to remain in the realm of scientific publications? Why do people continue to quote the CRU as if they were the work of Albert Einstein rather than the work of Mark Twain?
This is the balance of my comment above....not sure what happened...??
AGW is hardly the most important issue we face. If the poorest populations in our global community were having their needs successfully addressed (HIV/Aids, clean water, sanitation, food and nutrition, malaria) I would gladly take up with either side, provided their arguments represented a scientific, economic and moral basis for sustaining adequate attention to these most pressing of problems. Until that day, hyper-arguments for either side represent nothing more than “climate clutter”…..in my opinion.
Most of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activity does not remain in the atmosphere, but is instead absorbed by the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems. In fact, only about 45 percent of emitted carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere.
However, some studies have suggested that the ability of oceans and plants to absorb carbon dioxide recently may have begun to decline and that the airborne fraction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions is therefore beginning to increase.
Many climate models also assume that the airborne fraction will increase. Because understanding of the airborne fraction of carbon dioxide is important for predicting future climate change, it is essential to have accurate knowledge of whether that fraction is changing or will change as emissions increase.
Read entire article:www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/12/091230184221.htm
I do not agree with you: If you think that 2009 was a bad year for climate change alarmists, wait until you see 2010.
I am looking forward to it.
They proclaim, as o'er 2009 they pout,
"We're down, but not out".
Unfortunately that may be true
For they've naught else to do.
But pester the public generally
With predictions of calamity
Out of whole cloth derived
But quite craftily contrived.
Causing heads of state, galore,
To believe in Climate Guru, Al Gore;
And editors, reporters, and anchors (TV)
Only images of warming to see.
And in-boxes, Google "climate change" alerted,
Filled to capacity by alerts frequently inserted
Will likely see no relief--
For to report it in brief
From their mission the "stop climate changers" can't be diverted.
How many university science programs teach that global warming is not real?
How many accredited high school science programs teach that global warming is not primarily man-made?
The overwhelming majority of climate scientists acknowledge the evidence that indicates that global warming is real and primarily man-made.
The United Nations has outlived its usefulness. I grow tired of these one-world government advocates. Hand-wringing bureaucrats who want to control the very air I exhale with a tax. No thanks. First it was global cooling, the rain forest, then the ozone layer, now global warming. Will these cultists ever find something productive to do? stoptheaustinecad.blogspot.com
Yea, man-made global warming is real.
The CRU and other men were making it up to fit their agendas.
You should have said Mann-made!
OF course the climate is changing it always has! even before man came into the picture on the earth
When will Al Gore, Michael Mann, Phil Jones, and James Hansen finally be indicted for conspiracy to commit fraud and attempted theft by deception? This stuff has got to stop.
Tmack, a 'climate change advocate' is an agent for the power elites and their toadies: the Marxists, secrect societies, tax feeders and useful idiots who promote climate change fraud. 'Man climate change theory' exists only in computer models and political manifestos. Manmade climate change is a polical tool to achieve a global communist state and higher taxes. There is no confusion.
dmac, the US public education system was founded by and has always been controlled by the power elites and their stooges, who are the same tax feeders and useful idiots who are promoting climate change fraud.
Al Gore invented the internet, it is fitting that the internet debunked his other invention, global warming.
Environmentalists have felt entitled to hold everyone else accountable. It is time to hold them accountable for their false claims. Why don't they ever have to prove many of their claims? The climate scare isn't the 1st hoax. The spotted owl never need "old growth" trees to survive. Many species claimed endangered are not endangered at all & wouldn't be missed anyway. How many times should they be allowed to lie before they are allowed to halt so much business, industry and private property rights? They are nothing more than a Marxist movement out to kill any form of capitalism and our basic constitutional liberties. It's time to hold them accountable to prove what they claim.
dmac wrote:
"The overwhelming majority of climate scientists acknowledge the evidence that indicates that global warming is real and primarily man-made."
Do you have anything other than your own word to back up this silly claim? This past year's news cycle has shown that there is only a tiny, loud minority of activists among the scientific community who are pushing this pseudo-scientific hypothesis. None of the "scientists" who susbscribe to this nonsense are climatologists. Not a one.
The overwhelming majority of climate scientists acknowledge the evidence that indicates that global warming is real and primarily man-made.
***********
Then where is this evidence, let alone proof, that hasn't already been thoroughly debunked as either junk science or in most cases outright fraud. Fraud is a criminal offense and so is conspiracy to commit fraud, and where it concerns the man made global warning scam, both should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law just like any other type of fraud.
I agree with Rob and LeChat that these climate change gangsters need to be prosecuted and jailed to end this fraud against humanity. Unfortunately, the justice system, legislature, academia, and the military are all controlled by the power elites and their stooges -- Anthony C. Sutton exposed this fact in his brilliant masterpiece titled America's Secret Establishment: Introduction to the Order of Skull and Bones. The Climategate scandal will be whitewashed, the propaganda will intensify, and humanity will be further enslaved.
When you have a culture that takes a "likely to happen by 2035" and falsely spins it as "highly likely", when you've got a culture that thinks a WWF article counts as "peer review" but denies real scientists any sight of the raw data. Basically, when you've got a culture that is all spin and almost no science - it is hardly surprising you get comments like "hiding the decline" and "it's a pity we can't explain the." cooling in private and in public "there's no such thing as cooling".
The Himalayan glacias are only the tip of the iceberg - there's no doubt 2010 is going to see a drip drip of more scandal - its inevitable given the lack of quality control - dare I even say "integrity" in this area - there's even clear allegations of fraud and there are so many accounts of "sexed up data" in the IPCC that some will be true. The individuals involved are totally incapable of weighing up the evidence with any kind of scientific detachment - in short this subject is not science!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!