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.

Al Gore & Big Green

Chris Horner over at Planet Gore:

"...Gore, who left office worth less than $3 million, had just plunked $35 million into a particular “firm that selects the private funds for clients and invests in makers of environmentally friendly products.” Mr. Gore and his advisors are savvy enough not to place all of his wealth in one fund, it seems — the same sources report this wealth as “well in excess of” $100 million. It’s been a good seven years. Mr. Gore also has a position in a Silicon Valley “green” venture capital outfit — another group of people investing in companies that would be worth real money in an America with Gore-favored environmental policies."

Now, Gore is always trying to marginalize so-called "global warming deniers" by saying they are supposedly funded by Big Oil. In his movie, An Inconvenient Truth, Gore trots out an old Upton Sinclair line:

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, if his salary depends on him not understanding.”

Gore could have just as easily been talking about himself.

A reader over at Planet Gore makes the same point. Well, actually that reader was yours truly.

FDC Global Temperature Climate Model

OK, The FDC is the first to admit that nobody on the staff is a climate scientist. But, we are at least as qualified to practice climate science as say...Al Gore.

So here goes. In the past year, the earth's average global temperature has cooled between .65 and .75 degrees Celsius. Erring on the side of caution let's use the .65 degrees Celsius number. If that change is extrapolated out in a computer model, then the...Wait a minute! Gore always uses the worst case scenario, so we we do likewise.

Gore:

"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality, and the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous [global warming] is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are."

OK, let's start with a comfortable, balmy 21.1 degrees Celsius (American readers: 70 degrees Fahrenheit), and subtract out an annual temperature decrease of .75 degrees Celsius, in 100 years, the average global temperature will be -53.9 degrees Celsius (American readers: 65 degrees Fahrenheit below zero).

Brrrrrrr, that's mighty cold. We're talking about icebergs in Hawaii, the extinction of those cute camels, and who knows what else.

Global Cooling

According to severl recent reports, solar activity has decreased, and sunspots have virtually vanished. The last time this happened was at the advent of the Maunder Minimum which gave birth to The Little Ice Age.

Maybe what we'll need is more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - you know, to take the chill off. Soon the politicians will be guaranteeing a Hummer in every garage, and other acts of governmental intervention encouraging citizens and corporations to spew more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere - and China and India have already climbed on the bandwagon!

The moose didn't get the memo from Gore

Proving that nature does not respond to political spin, The Oregonian is reporting today that moose (no, it's not mooses or meese or meeses) have uncharacteristically moved into northeastern Oregon from colder, snowier climes.

What's bringing these moose? Colder weather and and plenty of snow. Despite predictions by environmentalist funded cliatologists that the warm climates would be shifting to the north, the opposite is true in northeastern Oregon - hence, the moose.

Despite the anthropogenic global warming alarmists, there have been many reports recently that the Earth is entering a phase of global cooling due to changes in solar patterns and sun spots, so these moose could be a harbinger of what's to come.