<3373> Bradley: I’m sure you agree–the Mann/Jones GRL paper was truly pathetic and should never have been published. I don’t want to be associated with that 2000 year “reconstruction”.

<3115> Mann:  By the way, when is Tom C going to formally publish his roughly 1500 year reconstruction??? It would help the cause to be able to refer to that reconstruction as confirming Mann and Jones, etc.

<3940> Mann:  They will (see below) allow us to provide some discussion of the synthetic example, referring to the J. Cimate paper (which should be finally accepted upon submission of the revised final draft), so that should help the cause a bit.

<0810> Mann: I gave up on Judith Curry a while ago. I don’t know what she think’s she’s doing, but its not helping the cause.

As Ace puts it, “You know what you get when you mix science and politics? You get politics, period.”

Why, it’s almost as if scientists know they’re peddling junk science and don’t care as they pursue funding grants and environut adulation!  Almost, that is.

For me, that’s one of the bigger hangups I had with the guy.  There are others, chronicled here before.  But that was a biggie.

RATES of mental illnesses including depression and post-traumatic stress will increase as a result of climate change, a report to be released today says.

The paper, prepared for the Climate Institute, says loss of social cohesion in the wake of severe weather events related to climate change could be linked to increased rates of anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress and substance abuse.

As many as one in five people reported ”emotional injury, stress and despair” in the wake of these events.

The report, A Climate of Suffering: The Real Cost of Living with Inaction on Climate Change, called the past 15 years a ”preview of life under unrestrained global warming”.  (As opposed to “restrained global warming”?  As if it were real AND humans could “restrain” it?  LOL!  – CL)

These crazies are blaming everything but the drop in real estate values on a junk science fad.  Their desperation grows daily.

Then, we were considered on par with Truthers, the “9/11 was an inside job” nutbars: crazy, barely worth acknowledging, and whatever you do, don’t encourage them to talk about their lunacy.

But with more and more stories coming forward about doctored climate data, disenchanted scientists openly questioning the global “warming” alarmists’ methodologies, and hidden results, the climate Chicken Littles are now growing increasingly frightened that the world may not believe their eco-catastrophe bullshiite anymore.  And for once, they’re right.  So, these scoundrels have fallen to their lowest level yet: accuse proper-thinking people of racist (or racist-like) behavior.  Details:

One day climate change skeptics will be seen in the same negative light as  racists, at least so says former Vice President Al Gore.

In an interview with former advertising executive and Climate Reality Project  collaborator Alex Bogusky broadcasted on UStream on Friday, Gore explained that in order for  climate change alarmists to succeed, they must “win the conversation” against  those who deny there is a crisis. (RELATED:  Bill McKibben: Global warming to blame for Hurricane Irene)

“I remember, again going back to my early years in the South, when the Civil  Rights revolution was unfolding, there were two things that really made an  impression on me,” Gore said. “My generation watched Bull Connor turning the  hose on civil rights demonstrators and we went, ‘Whoa! How gross and evil is  that?’ My generation asked old people, ‘Explain to me again why it is okay to  discriminate against people because their skin color is different?’ And when  they couldn’t really answer that question with integrity, the change really  started.”

The former vice president recalled how society succeeded in marginalizing  racists and said climate change skeptics must be defeated in the same  manner.

“Secondly, back to this phrase ‘win the conversation,’” he continued. “There  came a time when friends or people you work with or people you were in clubs  with — you’re much younger than me so you didn’t have to go through this  personally — but there came a time when racist comments would come up in the  course of the conversation and in years past they were just natural. Then there  came a time when people would say, ‘Hey, man why do you talk that way, I mean  that is wrong. I don’t go for that so don’t talk that way around me. I just  don’t believe that.’ That happened in millions of conversations and slowly the  conversation was won.”

“We have to win the conversation on climate,” Gore added. …

Gore reminds me of the guy who is talking to a foreigner that doesn’t understand English: “If I just scream my English in a louder voice, then this guy will understand me!”  He is so desperate to keep his junk science charade going that he is getting louder, more shrill, and more frantic.  Unfortunately for Gore and his ilk, he’s not “winning the conversation” anymore.

Sorry, I wanted to get out in front before the environuts and Gore (pardon the redundancy) show me to be a prophet.

It may not rank as the most compelling reason to curb greenhouse gases, but reducing our emissions might just save humanity from a pre-emptive alien attack, scientists claim.

Watching from afar, extraterrestrial beings might view changes in Earth’s atmosphere as symptomatic of a civilisation growing out of control – and take drastic action to keep us from becoming a more serious threat, the researchers explain.

This highly speculative scenario is one of several described by a Nasa-affiliated scientist and colleagues at Pennsylvania State University that, while considered unlikely, they say could play out were humans and alien life to make contact at some point in the future.

Shawn Domagal-Goldman of Nasa’s Planetary Science Division and his colleagues compiled a list of plausible (“plausible”? Seriously? – CL) outcomes that could unfold in the aftermath of a close encounter, to help humanity “prepare for actual contact”.

So that’s what prompted Falling Skies!  The aliens have been watching us since the dinosaur days, and while Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, and Three Mile Island weren’t enough to prompt an invasion, the planet’s temperature inching up a nanodegree would be way more than they could take!  But hey, if there’s a silver lining here, it would be that NYT’s econorube Paul Krugman would have his dream of “alien invasion + Keynesian economics = cured economy” come true.

Maybe NASA should just stick to what they do best: Muslim outreach.

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) said Tuesday that he regrets making a commercial with then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on the need to address climate change.

Gingrich, who partnered with Pelosi while she was Speaker for the 2008 ad, said the spot was “misconstrued,” and for that reason, he wouldn’t do it again.

“I was trying to make a point that we shouldn’t be afraid to debate the left, even on the environment,” Gingrich said on WGIR radio of the 30-second television commercial. “Obviously it was misconstrued, and it’s probably one of those things I wouldn’t do again.”
…
Gingrich said in January that he “meant exactly what [he] said in that commercial,” which was produced by the Alliance for Climate Protection, a nonprofit organization founded by former Vice President Al Gore (D). In the ad, Gingrich makes no endorsement of any policy solution, but says the “country must take action to address climate change.”

Still spinning: I don’t regret anything I said, only that you people were too stupid to see the nuance of my appearance.

By the way, this line is crap: “we shouldn’t be afraid to debate the left”.  Dude, you weren’t “debating” the left on that junk science fad…you were agreeing with the left!  Agreeing with San Fran Nan while sitting on a couch with the Botox queen during the filming of a commercial produced by a Gore charity isn’t going to get you far in a primary, pal.

There is no global “warming”, or if you prefer, “global climate change” going on.  Period.  And if a purportedly intelligent man like Gingrich can’t see that, then he doesn’t merit my vote or yours.

It would appear so if this is being interpreted properly:

The chief of the world’s leading physics lab at CERN in Geneva has prohibited scientists from drawing conclusions from a major experiment. The CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets”) experiment examines the role that energetic particles from deep space play in cloud formation. CLOUD uses CERN’s proton synchrotron to examine nucleation.

CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer told Welt Online that the scientists should refrain from drawing conclusions from the latest experiment.

“I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them,” reports veteran science editor Nigel Calder on his blog. Why?

Because, Heuer says, “That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.”

Oh … “only one of many parameters”, eh?  So nice to see him admit that.  Does he mean like that big yellow thing that hangs in the sky each day?

A sun?  Affecting objects in a solar system?  The heck you say!

Read it all.  It’s not long and boring.  It’s short, informative, and destructive to the junk science fad known as global “warming” (or, when it’s blistering cold, “climate change”).

A heat wave is building and could reach dangerous levels in parts of the Midwest, the Plains and the Southeast this week.

Fifteen states are under heat advisories, which means temperatures are expected to exceed 105 degrees Fahrenheit.

Huh.  Must be global “warming”.

From Montana:

The race director of a 100-mile ultra-marathon foot race through the Flathead National Forest has cancelled the event due to lingering snow on the route that he says would make the course too dangerous for runners and likely prevent anyone from finishing within the required 36-hour limit.

Huh.  Must be global “warming”.

Yep, it’s happening.  Again.

Is climate change raising sea levels, as Al Gore has argued — or are climate scientists doctoring the data?

The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters — or about the thickness of a fingernail — every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.

“Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring,” said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.

Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

“We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger… water volume is expanding,” he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

Taylor calls it tomfoolery.

“There really is no reason to do this other than to advance a political agenda,” he said.

Climate scientist John Christy, a professor at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, said that the amount of water in the ocean and sea level were two different things.

“To me… sea level rise is what’s measured against the actual coast,” he told FoxNews.com. “That’s what tells us the impact of rising oceans.”

Taylor agreed.

“Many global warming alarmists say that vast stretches of coastline are going to be swallowed up by the sea. Well, that means we should be talking about sea level, not about global water volume.”

Zinger quote:

Taylor’s takeaway: Be wary of sea level rise estimates.

“When Al Gore talks about Manhattan flooding this century, and 20 feet of sea level rise, that’s simply not going to happen. If it were going to happen, he wouldn’t have bought his multi-million dollar mansion along the coast in California.”

Heh. 

For years, scientists have been predicting the Sun would move into solar maximum, a period of intense flares and sunspot activity by 2012, but lately a curious calm has suggested quite the opposite.

According to three studies released in the United States on Tuesday, experts believe the familiar sunspot cycle may be shutting down and heading toward a pattern of inactivity unseen since the 17th century.

The signs include a missing jet stream, fading spots, and slower activity near the poles, said experts from the National Solar Observatory and Air Force Research Laboratory.

‘This is highly unusual and unexpected,’ said Frank Hill, associate director of the NSO’s Solar Synoptic Network.

‘But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation.’

Solar activity tends to rise and fall every 11 years or so. The solar maximum and solar minimum each mark about half the interval of the magnetic pole reversal on the Sun, which happens every 22 years.

Experts are now probing whether this period of inactivity could be a second Maunder Minimum, which was a 70-year period when hardly any sunspots were observed between 1645-1715.

‘If we are right, this could be the last solar maximum we’ll see for a few decades. That would affect everything from space exploration to Earth’s climate,’ said Hill.

The findings of the three studies were presented at the annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society’s Solar Physics Division in Las Cruces, New Mexico.

So what does all this “solar inactivity” and “Maunder Minimum” mean?

Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the “Little Ice Age” when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past.

Al Gore, environuts hardest hit.

Exit question: If a new Little Ice Age is coming, shouldn’t we be building Hummers and factories like gangbusters right now? 

Global greenhouse gas emissions have risen even faster during the past decade than predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international agencies. According to alarmist groups, this proves global warming is much worse than previously feared. The increase in emissions “should shock even the most jaded negotiators” at international climate talks currently taking place in Bonn, Germany, the UK Guardian reports. But there’s only one problem with this storyline; global temperatures have not increased at all during the past decade.

The evidence is powerful, straightforward, and damning. NASA satellite instruments precisely measuring global temperatures show absolutely no warming during the past the past 10 years. This is the case for the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, including the United States. This is the case for the Arctic, where the signs of human-caused global warming are supposed to be first and most powerfully felt. This is the case for global sea surface temperatures, which alarmists claim should be sucking up much of the predicted human-induced warming. This is the case for the planet as a whole.

If atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are the sole or primary driver of global temperatures, then where is all the global warming? We’re talking 10 years of higher-than-expected increases in greenhouse gases, yet 10 years of absolutely no warming. That’s 10 years of nada, nunca, nein, zero, and zilch.

Exit question: When is Gore and the IPCC going to give back that Nobel Prize for science fiction?

Did you think he was kidding, America?  If so, the joke’s on you:

Consumers could see their electricity bills jump an estimated 40 to 60 percent in the next few years.

The reason: Pending environmental regulations will make coal-fired generating plants, which produce about half the nation’s electricity, more expensive to operate. Many are expected to be shuttered.

The increases are expected to begin to appear in 2014, and policymakers already are scrambling to find cheap and reliable alternative power sources. If they are unsuccessful, consumers can expect further increases as more expensive forms of generation take on a greater share of the electricity load.

The story goes on to show that not only will people be forking money over to the power companies, but to city and county governments who will also be incurring costs that they aren’t going to be eating.

I can see the campaign slogan now:

“Higher gas and power prices. Higher unemployment. HIgher health care costs. Inflation. Insolvency. Obama-Biden 2012. You’re welcome.”

It’s Saturday night, and you want to catch the latest summer blockbuster. You do a quick Google search to find the venue and right time, and off you go to enjoy some mindless fun.

Meanwhile, your Internet search has just helped kill the planet. Depending on how long you took and what sites you visited, your search caused the emission of one to 10 grams of carbon into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming.

Sure, it’s not a lot on its own — but add up all of the more than one billion daily Google searches, throw in 60 million Facebook status updates each day, 50 million daily tweets and 250 billion emails per day, and you’re making a serious dent in some Greenland glaciers.

Exit question: Since Al Gore supposedly invented the Internet, isn’t it ironic that his invention is sautéing the planet while he crusades against global “warming”? 

I remember when I was young, a young teenager growing up part of the time in the South, and I remember when my generation saw the fire hoses being turned on African-Americans and all of the resistance to the Civil Rights movement. And young people asked their parents in that era, “Explain to me again why it’s okay to have legal discrimination on the basis of skin color.” And when they could not answer that moral question coming straight from the conscience of young people, that’s when the laws began to change.

And you need to ask, “Tell me again why it’s alright to put 90 million tons of global warming pollution into the atmosphere every 24 hours, 20 percent of it will still be there in 20,000 years from now.” You need to ask that question and other related questions. Don’t they see the evidence? Don’t they hear what the scientists are saying? Do they actually believe this line from the large carbon polluters that the scientists are making this up, committing fraud in order to get research grants?

Give me a break. They are trying to kill us, too.

Well, heck!  Louise Slaughter (D-NY) figured out we’re trying to kill women (and Republican women are apparently trying to get all jihadist-like and kill themselves and other women).  Now Gore has picked up our plot at mass extinction…which must mean we’re trying to kill ourselves, too, since we live on the same planet as he does.  Well, physically we live on the same planet.  Obviously, mentally speaking, we are on a far different and more reality-based planet than the one he occupies.

Exit question: Using Gore’s line of thinking, does Gore’s energy hog of a house count as a weapon of mass destruction?

In this case, said schmuck is the global “warming” crowd.  Tim Blair outlines their lunacy, starting with the opening line:

“An earthquake with an 8.9 magnitude struck Japan,” writes a concerned citizen. “And some say climate change isn’t real?!”

Um, yes, “concerned citizen”, “some” say that “climate change” isn’t real. I don’t know if even Gore is stupid enough to blame this on his junk science fad, but I don’t want to give the Father of the Internet too much credit if it’s not due. Continuing:

She wasn’t alone. Lots of warmist idiots immediately connected the Japanese disaster – which might have killed more than 1000 – to climate change:

So far, today’s tsunami has mainly affected Japan – there are reports of up to 300 dead in the coastal city of Sendai – but future tsunamis could strike the U.S. and virtually any other coastal area of the world with equal or greater force, say scientists. In a little-heeded warning issued at a 2009 conference on the subject, experts outlined a range of mechanisms by which climate change could already be causing more earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic activity.

“When the ice is lost, the earth’s crust bounces back up again and that triggers earthquakes, which trigger submarine landslides, which cause tsunamis,” Bill McGuire, professor at University College London, told Reuters.

An appropriate response is here.

These people are clinically deranged, period.

Hilarity ensues.

Senate Environment and Public Works Committee members sparred Wednesday over whether there existed a consensus in the 1970s that the earth was cooling.

During the hearing, Republican Sens. James Inhofe of Oklahoma and John Barrasso of Wyoming questioned the supposed need to enact policies to combat global warming by pointing to similar predictions in the 1970s of a global cooling phenomenon.

The exchange started with Barrasso addressing the committee’s witness, Environmental Protection Agency Director Lisa Jackson. “Forty years ago, the same scientists that are predicting the end of the world now from global warming were predicting the end of the world from global cooling,” said Barrasso. “So if we had committed the same amount of taxpayer resources and government manpower that the administration now wants us to commit to prevent global warming — if we’d done that prevent global cooling, we wouldn’t be the most prosperous nation on earth.”

He continued: “The fact is that the same doomsday predictions we were getting 40 years is the exact same thing this agency and this administration today. Only now…the problem is man-made global warming.”

…

Still later, Inhofe got into the science debate by citing a 1971 study by Dr. John Holdren, who just so happens to be President Obama’s advisor on science technology. In that study Holdren wrote, “The effects of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely need elaboration here.” Holdren went on to write that the effects could “generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.”

A visibly satisfied Inhofe then turned to Boxer, and stated, “So even the president’s people are agreed with me, Madam Chairwoman!”

You mean there wasn’t consensus about global cooling in the late 1970′s, when the issue was featured prominently in various MSM outlets and on the front page of Time magazine? Huh. Could have sworn there was.

Watch this video clip and see how ol’ Babs (and her white knight Udall (D-NM)) beclowned themselves in front of the camera.

Business leaders are equally frank. “The fact is that climate around the world is changing,” says Sunny Verghese, chief executive officer at Olam International, among the world’s three biggest suppliers of rice and cotton. “That will cause massive disruptions.”

Civilization has faced down pandemics and world wars — and has emerged stronger for having met the test. The current series of droughts and floods are not simply wreaking havoc on food supplies. They’re harbingers of life in a hotter (except it’s not. CL) and more chaotic climate. Could hunger, and the threat to power that accompanies it, be what finally forces political leaders to act?

Point to ponder: If we want all dictatorial weirdbeards out of power in the Arab world, shouldn’t we ALL be rushing out to buy Hummers right now?

Actually, I would argue that if there is any correlation to global “warming” and starving revolutionaries, it is that the environuts that have perpetuated this junk science fraud known as global “warming” (or “climate change”, when it’s friggin’ freezing outside) are to blame.  They have convinced corn producers to grow corn for fuel instead of for food.  As a result, corn is going into our fuel tanks instead of our guts, and thus, food is seeing a supply pinch that it shouldn’t be seeing.

The world is starving so we can try to address a problem that isn’t even real, and in turn, we create food shortage problems that are very real indeed.  Thanks, you greenie whackadoodles.