More inconvenient truths

Christopher Peterson writing in The Australian about a recent broadcast on ABC Radio National, that featured an interview involving the co-host of Counterpoint, Michael Duffy and Jennifer Marohasy, a biologist and senior fellow of Melbourne-based think tank the Institute of Public Affairs:

Duffy: "Can you tell us about NASA's Aqua satellite, because I understand some of the data we're now getting is quite important in our understanding of how climate works?"

Marohasy: "That's right. The satellite was only launched in 2002 and it enabled the collection of data, not just on temperature but also on cloud formation and water vapour. What all the climate models suggest is that, when you've got warming from additional carbon dioxide, this will result in increased water vapour, so you're going to get a positive feedback. That's what the models have been indicating. What this great data from the NASA Aqua satellite ... (is) actually showing is just the opposite, that with a little bit of warming, weather processes are compensating, so they're actually limiting the greenhouse effect and you're getting a negative rather than a positive feedback."

Duffy: "The climate is actually, in one way anyway, more robust than was assumed in the climate models?"

Marohasy: "That's right ... These findings actually aren't being disputed by the meteorological community. They're having trouble digesting the findings, they're acknowledging the findings, they're acknowledging that the data from NASA's Aqua satellite is not how the models predict, and I think they're about to recognise that the models really do need to be overhauled and that when they are overhauled they will probably show greatly reduced future warming projected as a consequence of carbon dioxide."

Duffy: "From what you're saying, it sounds like the implications of this could be considerable ..."

Marohasy: "That's right, very much so. The policy implications are enormous. The meteorological community at the moment is really just coming to terms with the output from this NASA Aqua satellite and (climate scientist) Roy Spencer's interpretation of them. His work is published, his work is accepted, but I think people are still in shock at this point."

The evidence is piling up like cord wood, and the fable we've been told about anthropogenic global warming will likely prove to be just that.

The FDC would like to remind readers that the climate does not react to the spin of politicians, scientists, environmentalists, or anyone else. The climate will be whatever God intends.

UW climatologist: "I'm willing to bet large sums of money that we will have a bottom in this cool period and we'll see the long-term trend again."

Here in Oregon it has been a cold winter with snow packs several feet above average in The Cascades. The Oregonian this morning had another masterful spin piece to soothe the worries of the local alarmists that this is just a temporary situation - stay tuned for more anthropogenic global warming.

Of course, the alarmists want global warming. They say they don't, but really, they do. Because, if anthropogenic global warming doesn't really happen, then they would look really foolish - and they really want to be able to say they told us so. Nevermind, that some perfect average cozy temperature is the supposed goal, right? Well, The FDC knows that's not the goal. The real goal is centralized planning of the use of all energy and emmissions, and the redistribution of the wealth to pay for it all. But I digress.

Anyway, Philip Mote is a climate scientist at the University of Washington quoted in today's Oregonian:

"If La Nina goes away and the long-term temperatures are still below average, I'll eat my hat."

We'd like to see that.

He went on to say:

"I'm willing to bet large sums of money that we will have a bottom in this cool period, and we'll see the long-term trend again."

Did you hear that Planet Gore? Did you hear that Rush Limbaugh? That sounds like a man who needs to put his money where his mouth is. This could be fun. El Rushbo would get his buddy Roy Spencer on board, and turn up the hype machine to 11.

Reality Deniers

Although Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D. doesn't go into the science in his National Review column today, he definitely addresses it here. Those that say "the science is settled", ought to take a look at the science.

I can appreciate Al Gore's passion in his crusade to "save the earth", but I'm suspicious of his motives. But seriously folks, Al Gore continues to answer (or shout down) his critics by saying, "the science is settled". Al Gore could gain the respect of the so-called "deniers" by heeding the words of Albert Einstein when he directly responded to doubts about his new E=mc2 theory:

"If I was wrong, they only needed to send one scientist to prove me wrong."

Well, Roy Spencer is one scientist, but Al doesn't want to give back his Nobel.