The U.K. Daily Mail reported Saturday that “a leaked copy” of the “final draft of a report to be published later this month by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)” – “the ultimate watchdog whose massive, six-yearly ‘assessments’ are accepted by environmentalists, politicians and experts as the gospel of climate science” – “makes the extraordinary concession that the world has been warming at only just over half the rate claimed by the IPCC in its last assessment, published in 2007.”
This global warming/climate change slapping news follows The Daily Mail’s Oct. 13, 2012 revelation that a report by the U.K. Met Office regarding “data, compiled from more than 3,000 measuring points on land sea” – “issued quietly on the internet, without any media fanfare” – showed that “the world stopped getting warmer almost 16 years ago.”
The figures, which have triggered debate among climate scientists, reveal that from the beginning of 1997 until August 2012, there was no discernible rise in aggregate global temperatures.
Caught flat-footed, the scientists then insisted that the global temperature “plateau” was simply a “pause” in the previous prediction of pending doom.
However, The Daily Mail asserted the obvious flaw in their argument.
This means that the ‘plateau’ or ‘pause’ in global warming has now lasted for about the same time as the previous period when temperatures rose, 1980 to 1996. Before that, temperatures had been stable or declining for about 40 years.
“Only six years ago,” The Daily Mail also disclosed in a separate report Saturday, “the BBC reported that the Arctic would be ice-free in summer by 2013.”
Unfortunately, “a chilly Arctic summer has left nearly a million more square miles of ocean covered with ice than at the same time last year – an increase of 60 per cent.”
Some eminent scientists now believe the world is heading for a period of cooling that will not end until the middle of this century – a process that would expose computer forecasts of imminent catastrophic warming as dangerously misleading.
The commotion caused by The Mail’s latest climate change debunking report sent the IPCC scurrying to organize a pre-summit “crisis meeting” in Stockholm “later this month,” where “40 of the 250 authors who contributed to the report – and supposedly produced a definitive scientific consensus” – will meet “with representatives of most of the 195 governments that fund the IPCC, who “have tabled 1,800 questions and are demanding major revisions, starting with the failure to account for the pause.”
This isn’t the first time temperature data in an IPCC report was called into question.
The Telegraph reported Feb. 15, 2010 that – while the IPCC used data collected from global weather stations “to back up claims that greenhouse gases had already caused a 0.7C rise in temperature, and gave warnings that further warming of up to 6C by 2100 could have devastating effects on civilization and wildlife" -- a report co-written by American meteorologist and climate skeptic Anthony Watts "showed photographs of weather stations near heat-generating equipment which could be distorting their readings."
Some are next to air-conditioning units or on waste-treatment plants, while one sits alongside a waste incinerator. A weather station at Rome airport was found to catch the hot exhaust fumes emitted by taxiing jets.
The IPCC isn’t the only group of scientific “experts” that used questionable data to push the global warming/climate change theory.
NASA, NOAA and (perhaps most famously), the scientific “experts” at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit, have all been busted for intentionally skewing data to perpetuate the global warming/climate change myth.
Then there are the conflicting reports.
The Washington Post’s Jason Samenow reported Sept. 5 that the new “major NOAA-lead report” concluded that “manmade climate change played a substantial role in the exceptional warmth in the eastern U.S. during the spring of 2012.”
“High temperatures such as those experienced in the [north central and northeast] U.S. in [summer] 2012,” NOAA predicted, “are now likely to occur four times as frequently due to human-induced climate change."
However, as Examiner noted Sept. 7, the “’major’ NOAA report offers more contradictions than proof.”
First, neither NOAA or Samenow addressed The Weather Channel’s Aug. 18 report -- that “it’s been a cool summer across a large portion of the central and eastern U.S” and that “the persistent cool weather is well-reflected in national extreme temperature statistics from the National Climatic Data Center.”
“Although links between human-induced climate change and some extreme weather phenomena are minimal (tornadoes) to equivocal (hurricanes),” Samenow opined, “the evidence that warm weather extremes are increasing is difficult to dismiss, in my view.”
However, Samenow failed to address the obvious conflict between his “view” and NOAA’s own “Chronological List of All Hurricanes: 1851-2012 (Revised in June 2013 to reflect the 1941-1945 revisions),” which showed that the earth is experiencing the slowest start to a hurricane season on record and that the number of intense storms are decreasing.
Nor did he address NOAA’s April 2013 report that showed fewer tornadoes have struck the United States during the past 12 months than in any other 12-month period in U.S. history.
A May 17 report by ABC News’ Chief Meteorologist Jennifer Zeppelin added that “meteorologists with the national severe storms laboratory” – who “track all the tornado stats for the U.S.” – also “noticed an interesting trend over the last decade – fewer tornadoes.”
Second -- as Examiner noted of an article Samenow wrote less than two weeks prior to his whole-hearted testimony that climate change is "man-induced" -- not only did he say Al Gore’s “characterization of the links between global warming and hurricane intensity is a bit fast and loose,” he expressed little faith in Gore’s theory that humans contribute to climate change.
“If you believe former Vice President Al Gore,” Samenow excoriated, “global warming is morphing science fiction into reality.”
Apparently, Samenow's opinion was different then.
Some climate change scientist “experts” even issue reports that conflict their own past reports.
A May 24 analysis by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. and the University of Tasmania, Sandy Bay, Australia "of ocean data collected more than 135 years ago by the crew of the HMS Challenger oceanographic expedition" touted its findings as providing "further confirmation that human activities have warmed our planet over the past century.
However, Forbes reported July 27, 2011 that a study of NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 -- co-authored by Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville and U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA's Aqua satellite -- showed “the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted.”
In a Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory/NOAA review -- issued Sept. 3, 2008 and "last Revised January 30, 2013" -- Thomas R. Knutson concluded that “there are better than even odds that anthropogenic (man-made) warming over the next century will lead to an increase in the numbers of very intense hurricanes in some basins—an increase that would be substantially larger in percentage terms than the 2-11% increase in the average storm intensity.”
While GFDL's website says it "works cooperatively with NOAA to advance its expert assessments of changes in national and global climate through research, improved models, and products" -- Knutson's review stands in direct conflict with NOAA's “Chronological List of All Hurricanes: 1851-2012 (Revised in June 2013 to reflect the 1941-1945 revisions)." which shows the opposite is happening.
"As a scientist," Ogden noted of Knutson’s review -- then updated as of Nov. 28, 2012 -- "Knutson had set out a hypothesis, i.e. that global warming had led to an increase in Atlantic hurricane activity, and found that, upon a fair assessment of the data, the hypothesis could not be proven."
The report should have ended there. Instead Knutson changes the focus of his report to making predictions about the future of hurricanes incorporating into those predictions all kinds of scary projections about rising temperatures.
“So in a nutshell,” Ogden concluded, “Knutson set out to prove that global warming had resulted in increased hurricane activity."
Failing to find data to support that, Knutson switches to making guesses about the future of hurricanes based on "model simulations of greenhouse warming.
Meanwhile, as Examiner noted June 11, Obama's agenda squad -- Organizing for Action (OFA) -- has launched an email campaign encouraging global warming/climate change advocates to call out "climate deniers" on Capitol Hill.
On Aug. 10, Examiner reported that Florida Republican Sen. Marco Rubio was named as the first target.
Perhaps a future OFA email will explain why global warming/climate change science "experts" keep having to issuing revisions of their reports each time their predictions fail to come to fruition and/or they get caught skewing data to push the global warming/climate change theory.
Considering the fact that most global warming/climate change expeditions, conferences, lectures, summits and meetings -- including a global warming House subcommittee meeting in March -- have been cancelled due to snow, one can only hope that the IPCC's forthcoming global warming/climate change "crisis" meeting -- to address the 1,800 revisions being sought by the "representatives of most of the 195 governments that fund the IPCC" from “40 of the 250 authors who contributed to the report – and supposedly produced a definitive scientific consensus” -- will not meet the same frigidly embarrassing fate.