Please enable JavaScript to view the comments powered by Disqus. blog comments powered by Disqus

Global Warming and Halloween

2012, the summer of the great US drought, has provided the growing conditions necessary for yet another record giant pumpkin: a 2009 pound whopper grown by Ron Wallace of Greene, RI, and exhibited at the Topsfield Fair in Topsfield, MA, in late September.

Record pumpkin weights have been trending the same way as global temperatures over the last few years, the previous record (1818.5 pounds) being set by a Quebecker in 2011, and before that 1810.5 pounds by a Wisconsin individual in 2010, 1725 pounds by an Ohian in 2009, 1689 pounds by a Rhode Island example in 2007, 1502 pounds in 2006 by this year’s record grower Ron Wallace, 1469 pounds by a Pennsylvanian in 2005 and 1466 pounds by an Ontarian in 2004. The 2008 result is unknown, but it did not break the record of the previous year.

Below we plot the GISS global temperature anomalies (vs the 1951-1980 period) for the June-July-August season -- prime pumpkin-growing time -- in hundredths of a degree C, and pumpkin weights in pounds (we couldn’t be arsed converting them to metric). It can be seen that pumpkin weights have a smaller natural variability than global temperature but a slightly steeper trend. This would make them ideal for use as an IPCC temperature proxy (possibly even better than marmots) were it not for the fact that giant pumpkins are extremely rare in the fossil record, which limits their utility for paleoclimatic applications.
Pumpkins vs T

The emissions produced in transporting these pumpkins to the various county fairs, pumpkin shows and harvest festivals are unrecorded but must be substantial. This suggests that increased atmospheric CO2 might in fact be due to increasing pumpkin weights (but with a lag time very much shorter than 800 years) rather than vice versa.

Happy Halloween!
Climate zombies everywhere rejoice!

Corbella: UN Climate Change Body worse than a Delinquent Teen

Talk about a case of mistaken identity.

Most people, if they know anything at all about the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), believe that it is made up of “the world’s leading scientists” at the peak of their careers.

Indeed, Donna Laframboise, an Ontario-based investigative journalist who wrote for the Toronto Star and was a member of the National Post’s editorial board, said she too had once assumed that the IPCC’s reports into climate change were written by the personification of “a meticulous, upstanding professional in business attire.”

Instead, after spending more than two years investigating just who is behind the IPCC, she came to the conclusion that the world’s “Climate Bible” is “produced by a slapdash, slovenly teenager who has trouble distinguishing right from wrong.”

That’s how she came up with the title for her book, The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken for the World’s Top Climate Expert.

During a luncheon hosted by the Friends of Science and co-sponsored by the Frontier Centre on Wednesday at the Metropolitan Centre, Laframbois told the crowd of 300 that when she began the journey of writing her book, she set out intending to “examine arguments for and against dangerous, human-caused climate change.

“What I learned along the way turned me into a climate skeptic or — as I like to call myself these days — a climate rebel.”

And this rebel has a cause — to expose the real IPCC — to pull back the curtain, if you will, on this Wizard of Oz and expose — well, a phoney.

When she started looking into the IPCC, she was told repeatedly by august scientific publications, newspapers and the chairman of the IPCC himself, Rajendra Pachauri, that the IPCC is made up of the world’s top scientists and best experts and that any information that is not peer reviewed is discarded from the report.
Most people just accept these statements as fact.

So what did Laframbois find? Yes, “a number of talented and experienced scientists have indeed helped to write IPCC reports over the years. The problem is that many other IPCC authors don’t come close to being leading scientists at the top of their profession,” said Laframbois to the crowd made up of many geologists, geophysicists and astrophysicists.

On the screen, Laframbois flashed the photos of three “20-somethings,” who were lead authors and even co-ordinating lead authors of entire chapters of the IPCC Climate Bible that directs the governments of 185 countries into actions like raising gasoline prices, imposing carbon taxes and the like.

Richard Klein, for instance, was 23 in 1992 when he completed his master’s degree in geography and worked as a Greenpeace campaigner. Two years later, he was a lead author for the IPCC. Since 1994, he has been a lead author for six IPCC reports, and beginning in 1997, he was promoted to co-ordinating lead author — the IPCC’s most senior author role — at the age of 28. “That’s six years prior to him completing his PhD. Neither his youth nor his thin academic credentials prevented the IPCC from regarding him as one of the world’s top experts,” she said.

Laurens Bouwer was a lead author for the IPCC in 1999-2000, BEFORE earning his master’s degree in 2001.

The most egregious example is Sari Kovats. In 1994, Kovats was one of 21 people “in the entire world selected to work on the first IPCC chapter” looking into the affects of climate change on human health.

But she wasn’t anywhere near being one of the world’s top scientists or experts in her field. Indeed, she didn’t publish her first academic paper until three years after she acted as an “expert” and she didn’t earn her PhD until 2010 — a whopping 16 years after being tagged as one of the top 21 experts in the world.

And it gets worse. The IPCC is filled with environmental activists, not objective scientists measuring data and coming to conclusions.

Among a list of people she cites, Laframbois notes that Jennifer Morgan spent several years as the World Wildlife Fund’s chief spokesperson on climate change and then in 2010 the IPCC appointed her “to work on a report it describes as objective, rigorous and balanced.”

Indeed, two-thirds of the chapters of the IPCC’s Assessment Report 4 included at least one WWF affiliated scientist. Two-thirds! Laframbois calls that a “full-scale invasion.”

“This is the equivalent of a judge in a murder trial — a judge who’s supposed to be neutral and impartial — partying with the prosecution team in the evening while the trial’s going on during the day,” said Laframbois.

It’s important to note here that while a columnist with the Toronto Star, it was Laframbois who questioned the science that convicted Guy Paul Morin of murder. Years later, she was proved right when DNA evidence exonerated the innocent man in 1995 of killing a child.

Pachauri has often claimed that the IPCC relies only on peer-reviewed research and material and says all non-peer reviewed work should be thrown “into the dust bin.” Laframbois conducted an audit to see if that’s indeed the case. It is not. Laframbois found that 21 out of 44 chapters in the 2007 IPCC report used less than 60 per cent peer reviewed material. Pachauri should follow up and throw the entire report into the dustbin. So should the world.

By the end of her talk, Laframbois was shown to be understated by calling the IPCC a delinquent teenager. More like a dangerous mob boss with a knack for fraud and hijacking. Time to lock him up.

Licia Corbella is a columnist and editorial page editor

Schweinsgruber says: Licia clearly proves that the research performed over decades all over the work is invalid and that the Arctic ice is melting for no good reason.


Friends of Science warming in Hell

Friends of Science 10th Anniversary
friends of friends pictures