AGW science falling apart

[melon....]

The only thing that’s over is your ability to see reason. Despite your declarations there is a vast amount of evidence that still points to human induced climate change. Have mistakes been made yes, but to declare “it’s over” because of those mistakes only serves to prove your utter farkin ignorance of the subject!



No you don’t! You believe in any bullshit conspiracy theory that backs up your deluded garbage! And I’ll prove that later in this post.



I don’t believe in democracy or freedom of speech! Is that another one of your facts that you believe in Melon or just more of your deluded bullshit rhetoric that suits the river of garbage you keep spewing?



You embrace it you just don’t want to farkin pay for it!! Someone else can do that for you and your family eh??



You wouldn’t know a fact about this topic if it sucked your dick! You offer nothing to the debate Melon, nothing at all. Just more of the same rhetoric and garbage that you’ve been regurgitating since this thread began.

Chook.

I offer teh following:

The leaked emails from East Anglia University where IPCC and Pro AGW "scientists" admit to staging facts and figures, and altering statistics to suit their story.

I offer, your God, Al Gore, has gone into hiding and has not stood to defend the "claims" of forged and fabricated data.

I offer the unwillingness of the majority of the world's countries to pass, agree or move towards any joint targets or courses of action. I also present the farcical outcome of the Coppenhagen circus, when teh African nadout Kings almost canibbalised each other over how much funding the unfortunate and stupid West was to forfeit over to these dictatorships.

I offer the only 2 Australians that still believe in AGW are Penny Wong and you.

We know what Penny's problem is - she is dickless but thinks she's hung like John Holmes. Her ego is too big to admit she got it wrong.

I still dont know why you are adamant on this failed money spinner. I dont believe your ego is as big as Senator Wrong's. And I reckon yor heart's in a good place, albeit your judgement is clouded in the bulldust thats still settling.

Other than continually swearing by failed fraudulent evidence, what else do you have to offer as evidence Chook? There is no other evidence other than the faked figures presented to date by the IPCC.

Its over dude. There is no AGW, and man cannot change a naturally altering climate.

[Guest]

I offer teh following:

The leaked emails from East Anglia University where IPCC and Pro AGW "scientists" admit to staging facts and figures, and altering statistics to suit their story.

I offer, your God, Al Gore, has gone into hiding and has not stood to defend the "claims" of forged and fabricated data.

I offer the unwillingness of the majority of the world's countries to pass, agree or move towards any joint targets or courses of action. I also present the farcical outcome of the Coppenhagen circus, when teh African nadout Kings almost canibbalised each other over how much funding the unfortunate and stupid West was to forfeit over to these dictatorships.

I offer the only 2 Australians that still believe in AGW are Penny Wong and you.

We know what Penny's problem is - she is dickless but thinks she's hung like John Holmes. Her ego is too big to admit she got it wrong.

I still dont know why you are adamant on this failed money spinner. I dont believe your ego is as big as Senator Wrong's. And I reckon yor heart's in a good place, albeit your judgement is clouded in the bulldust thats still settling.

Other than continually swearing by failed fraudulent evidence, what else do you have to offer as evidence Chook? There is no other evidence other than the faked figures presented to date by the IPCC.

Its over dude. There is no AGW, and man cannot change a naturally altering climate.

Then we shall agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Chook.

[Pass the Ball]

I don't think there is anyone who disagrees with the fact that the climate is changing.
(As it had before humans existed, and as sure as it will continue to long after we are gone)..

Let's say that Bondi Beach is going to disappear in 100 years. What will an ETS do to this date??? Won't Bondi Beach just be gone in 101 years rather than 100..??

I mean, you give a guy like Tim Flannery an award and he thinks he can change the weather...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You know when you have your child's Birthday party booked at a park on the weekend...

You prey that it doesn't rain..That's as close to influencing the weather as we are going to get..

I am interested in your thoughts on this one Chook...

[Rocky Rhodes]

The part where you don't understand that the climate scientists use dodgy manipulated temperature data in there modelling which makes any scientific debate you want to have irrelevant and a waste of time.

I have already stated I will not be voting Liberal this time. Life is to short to be wedded to one Party all your life.

The only thing being manipulated here pal is you. Manipulated to believe any piece of junk article. Here is your article:

There are 3 global temperature datasets that are used by all climate scientists. They are located at the University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Goddard Institute of Space Studies. All 3 have had allegations that the temperature data have been manipulated and corrupted. Any climate science that uses any of these sources is irrelevant.

That is my strongest point refuting claims that man significantly contributes to global warming if there is any.

Here is the truth..

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/1...ure-data-sets/

Comparing the Four Global Temperature Data Sets
19 05 2009

Reposted from Jennifer Marohasy’s website.

THERE are four official global temperature data sets and there has been much debate and discussion as to which best represents change in global temperature.

Here is where they are located:
GISS – Goddard Institute for Space Studies and home of James Hansen,
Hadley Centre – British Meteorological Office research centre
UAH – The University of Alabama, Huntsville, home of Roy Spencer with his colleagues including John Christy of NASA and
RSS – Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, California, a company supported by NASA for the analysis of satellite data.

That is my strongest point refuting claims that man significantly contributes to global warming if there is any.

Well, well well. Your strongest point based on lies and incorrect facts.
You really should change the title of this thread now to "RCPTN's case falling apart". Because that lie was the only thing you were standing on...your strongest and only point.

[Rocky Rhodes]

Enjoy RR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8Jns...ayer_embedded#

Oh how original. I suppose you are consistent though. You might have to claim that article as your strongest case.

[Rocky Rhodes]

Now that i have found your level of understanding rcptn, here is an article for you.

Proof of Global warming...enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryUcq1ztQN8

[Guest]

I am interested in your thoughts on this one Chook...

Not sure what I'm suppose to be commenting on?

Chook.

[Guest]

The only thing being manipulated here pal is you. Manipulated to believe any piece of junk article. Here is your article:



Here is the truth..

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/1...ure-data-sets/

Comparing the Four Global Temperature Data Sets
19 05 2009

Reposted from Jennifer Marohasy’s website.

THERE are four official global temperature data sets and there has been much debate and discussion as to which best represents change in global temperature.

Here is where they are located:
GISS – Goddard Institute for Space Studies and home of James Hansen,
Hadley Centre – British Meteorological Office research centre
UAH – The University of Alabama, Huntsville, home of Roy Spencer with his colleagues including John Christy of NASA and
RSS – Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, California, a company supported by NASA for the analysis of satellite data.



Well, well well. Your strongest point based on lies and incorrect facts.
You really should change the title of this thread now to "RCPTN's case falling apart". Because that lie was the only thing you were standing on...your strongest and only point.

How about you post the full article so we can all see the whole truth?

[Rocky Rhodes]

How about you post the full article so we can all see the whole truth?

Are you serious? Too lazy to click on a supplied link, also too lazy to do some proper research by the sound of things.

Anyways, here goes:

Comparing the Four Global Temperature Data Sets
19 05 2009

Reposted from Jennifer Marohasy’s website.

THERE are four official global temperature data sets and there has been much debate and discussion as to which best represents change in global temperature.

Tom Quirk has analysed variations within and between these data sets and concludes there is 1. Substantial general agreement between the data sets, 2. Substantial short-term variation in global temperature in all data sets and 3. No data set shows a significant measurable rise in global temperature over the twelve year period since 1997.

Global Temperature Revisited

Article by Tom Quirk

One of the most vexing things about climate change is the endless debate about temperatures. Did they rise, did they fall or were they pushed? At times it seems like a Monty Python sketch of either the Dead Parrot or the 5 or 10 Minute Argument.

However it is possible to see some of the issues by looking at the four temperature series that are advanced from:

GISS – Goddard Institute for Space Studies and home of James Hansen,
Hadley Centre – British Meteorological Office research centre
UAH – The University of Alabama, Huntsville, home of Roy Spencer with his colleagues including John Christy of NASA and
RSS – Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, California, a company supported by NASA for the analysis of satellite data.

The first two groups use ground based data where possible with a degree of commonality. However since 70% of the surface of the earth is ocean and it is not monitored in a detailed manner, various procedures with possibly heroic assumptions and computer modelling, are followed to fill the ocean gap.

The last two groups use satellite data to probe the atmosphere and with the exception of the Polar Regions which are less than 10% of the globe, they get comprehensive coverage.

One question is of course are the two groups measuring the same temperature? After all the satellite looks down through the atmosphere, while the ground stations are exactly that.

There is an important distinction to be made between measuring the temperature and measuring the change in the temperature. Since the interest is in changing temperatures then what is called the global temperature anomaly is the starting point. The issue of measuring absolute temperatures should be put to one side.

[Guest]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rcptn
How about you post the full article so we can all see the whole truth?

Are you serious? Too lazy to click on a supplied link, also too lazy to do some proper research by the sound of things.

Anyways, here goes:


Quote:
Comparing the Four Global Temperature Data Sets
19 05 2009

Reposted from Jennifer Marohasy’s website.

THERE are four official global temperature data sets and there has been much debate and discussion as to which best represents change in global temperature.

Tom Quirk has analysed variations within and between these data sets and concludes there is 1. Substantial general agreement between the data sets, 2. Substantial short-term variation in global temperature in all data sets and 3. No data set shows a significant measurable rise in global temperature over the twelve year period since 1997.

Global Temperature Revisited

Article by Tom Quirk

One of the most vexing things about climate change is the endless debate about temperatures. Did they rise, did they fall or were they pushed? At times it seems like a Monty Python sketch of either the Dead Parrot or the 5 or 10 Minute Argument.

However it is possible to see some of the issues by looking at the four temperature series that are advanced from:

GISS – Goddard Institute for Space Studies and home of James Hansen,
Hadley Centre – British Meteorological Office research centre
UAH – The University of Alabama, Huntsville, home of Roy Spencer with his colleagues including John Christy of NASA and
RSS – Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, California, a company supported by NASA for the analysis of satellite data.

The first two groups use ground based data where possible with a degree of commonality. However since 70% of the surface of the earth is ocean and it is not monitored in a detailed manner, various procedures with possibly heroic assumptions and computer modelling, are followed to fill the ocean gap.

The last two groups use satellite data to probe the atmosphere and with the exception of the Polar Regions which are less than 10% of the globe, they get comprehensive coverage.

One question is of course are the two groups measuring the same temperature? After all the satellite looks down through the atmosphere, while the ground stations are exactly that.

There is an important distinction to be made between measuring the temperature and measuring the change in the temperature. Since the interest is in changing temperatures then what is called the global temperature anomaly is the starting point. The issue of measuring absolute temperatures should be put to one side.
Thats not even 50% of the article, I want you to post the full article so the whole truth is revealed. Not the edited version you posted above.

[Rocky Rhodes]

Thats not even 50% of the article, I want you to post the full article so the whole truth is revealed. Not the edited version you posted above.

Oh no, the data has been manipulated so it can't be true.

Sorry but you have a severe case of clutching at straws.

Everything relevant is there. Posting irrelevant parts of an article would be just that, irrelevant.

The facts are there for every reader to see:
Four Global Temperature Data Sets not three
The locations of the datasets are different.

Conclusion: Your global warming disbeliefs are based on a lie of a fabricated article therefore you have no substance whatsoever. Time to face the facts buddy.

[Guest]

Oh no, the data has been manipulated so it can't be true.

Sorry but you have a severe case of clutching at straws.

Everything relevant is there. Posting irrelevant parts of an article would be just that, irrelevant.

The facts are there for every reader to see:
Four Global Temperature Data Sets not three
The locations of the datasets are different.

Conclusion: Your global warming disbeliefs are based on a lie of a fabricated article therefore you have no substance whatsoever. Time to face the facts buddy.

Here is the truth..

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/1...ure-data-sets/

Comparing the Four Global Temperature Data Sets
19 05 2009

Reposted from Jennifer Marohasy’s website.

THERE are four official global temperature data sets and there has been much debate and discussion as to which best represents change in global temperature.

Here is where they are located:
GISS – Goddard Institute for Space Studies and home of James Hansen,
Hadley Centre – British Meteorological Office research centre
UAH – The University of Alabama, Huntsville, home of Roy Spencer with his colleagues including John Christy of NASA and
RSS – Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, California, a company supported by NASA for the analysis of satellite data.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/1...ure-data-sets/

Comparing the Four Global Temperature Data Sets
19 05 2009

Reposted from Jennifer Marohasy’s website.
THERE are four official global temperature data sets and there has been much debate and discussion as to which best represents change in global temperature.
Tom Quirk has analysed variations within and between these data sets and concludes there is 1. Substantial general agreement between the data sets, 2. Substantial short-term variation in global temperature in all data sets and 3. No data set shows a significant measurable rise in global temperature over the twelve year period since 1997.
Global Temperature Revisited

Article by Tom Quirk
One of the most vexing things about climate change is the endless debate about temperatures. Did they rise, did they fall or were they pushed? At times it seems like a Monty Python sketch of either the Dead Parrot or the 5 or 10 Minute Argument.
However it is possible to see some of the issues by looking at the four temperature series that are advanced from:
GISS – Goddard Institute for Space Studies and home of James Hansen,
Hadley Centre – British Meteorological Office research centre
UAH – The University of Alabama, Huntsville, home of Roy Spencer with his colleagues including John Christy of NASA and
RSS – Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, California, a company supported by NASA for the analysis of satellite data.
The first two groups use ground based data where possible with a degree of commonality. However since 70% of the surface of the earth is ocean and it is not monitored in a detailed manner, various procedures with possibly heroic assumptions and computer modelling, are followed to fill the ocean gap.
The last two groups use satellite data to probe the atmosphere and with the exception of the Polar Regions which are less than 10% of the globe, they get comprehensive coverage.
One question is of course are the two groups measuring the same temperature? After all the satellite looks down through the atmosphere, while the ground stations are exactly that.
There is an important distinction to be made between measuring the temperature and measuring the change in the temperature. Since the interest is in changing temperatures then what is called the global temperature anomaly is the starting point. The issue of measuring absolute temperatures should be put to one side.
Data from 1997 to 2009 was drawn from the four group websites on the 28 April 2009. When data for 1997 to early 2008 was compared to data acquired in early 2008 differences were found as shown in the first table.
This is evidence of substantial reprocessing and re-evaluation of data. This is not unusual with complicated analysis systems but there is so much interest in the results that adjustments are regarded with great suspicion. This is the fault of those publishing the temperature data as they fail to make the point that monthly and even yearly measurements are about weather and not climate.
The latest series of temperature anomalies are shown in the graph where the monthly data has been averaged into quarters. All statistical analysis that follows is on the monthly data unless stated otherwise.
From inspection, there is substantial agreement over the years 1997 to 2008. This can be statistically measured through correlations. This is a measure of how closely related the series may be. A value of 0 implies independent series while a value of 1 implies complete agreement. The correlation in turn indicates the degree of commonality in the comparison.
This is remarkable agreement given the two very different techniques used.
It is important to note that the two satellite analysis groups draw measurements from the same satellites. So the differences in temperatures are a result of analysis procedures that are not simple. In fact corrections to the data have been the subject of exchanges between the two groups.
The ground based measurements also have a common data base but it is clear and acknowledged that the two groups have different analysis procedures. While the satellite analysis procedures have converged to reduce their differences over the last thirty years, this has not been the case for the ground based procedures.
It is also clear looking at the measurements that there are substantial short-term, say less than 2 years, variations over the period 1997 to 2009. In fact, while the overall monthly variations show a scatter with standard deviation of 0.20C, the month to month variations are 0.10C. This is a measure of features that are clear in the data. The short run sequences of temperature movement are a reflection of variability in the atmosphere from events such as El Ninos (1997-98) and La Ninas.
Looking for a simple trend by fitting curves through a highly variable series is both a problem and a courageous exercise. The results on an annual rather than a monthly basis are given in the third table. The problem of dealing with real short term variations was resolved by ignoring them.
So for twelve years there has been a rise 0.10C with a 140% error, in other words, no significant measureable temperature rise. You can play with the data. If you omit 1998 then you can double the change. But 1998 was an El Nino year followed in 1999 by a La Nina. If we omit both years then the results are unchanged.
However the lesson from this is to look at the detail.
There is so much variability within the 12 year period that seeking a trend that might raise the temperature by 20C over 100 years would not be detectable. On the other hand there are clearly fluctuations on a monthly and yearly scale that will have nothing to do with the predicted effects of anthropogenic CO2.
The twelve year temperature changes from the data of the four analysis centres reveal some possible differences. Since there is a high degree of commonality amongst the results, any differences may be systematic. Both the GISS and Hadley series show a larger temperature increase then the satellite measurements. This may be due to urban heat island effects.
Finally, if you are looking for temperature increases from CO2 in the atmosphere, then you should choose the satellite approach of measuring temperatures in the atmosphere!
Short term, less than thirty years, temperature series are not the place to seek evidence of human induced global warming.
**************************
Tom Quirk lives in Melbourne, Australia.

For your information you asked for my strongest point refuting AGW. Which I posted. It was not posted straight from an article you goose. But I admit I made a mistake and that I did not know that there is 4 not 3 global temperature datasets as confirmed by the link you provided to a site that has the truth about AGW.

Of course the full article which you heavily edited shows evidence of no statistical warming since 1997

[Guest]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rocky Rhodes
Oh no, the data has been manipulated so it can't be true.

Sorry but you have a severe case of clutching at straws.

Everything relevant is there. Posting irrelevant parts of an article would be just that, irrelevant.

The facts are there for every reader to see:
Four Global Temperature Data Sets not three
The locations of the datasets are different.

Conclusion: Your global warming disbeliefs are based on a lie of a fabricated article therefore you have no substance whatsoever. Time to face the facts buddy.

Here is the truth..

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/1...ure-data-sets/

Now that you have stumbled upon a website with the truth you might like to read some more articles from the same website

Met Office pushes surface temperature Do Over

2009 Paper confirming IPCC sea level conclusions withdrawn , mistakes cited

Fudged Fevers in Frozen North

Lindzen on Climate Science Advocacy and Modeling -"at this point, the models seem to be failing"

More on John Coleman's Special Tonight Kusi Press Release says NASA improperly manipulated data

GISS adjustments in Australia


Your right mate this website you found is a treasure trove of truth

Happy reading plenty more truth from that website too come

[Guest]

Interesting article from the New York Times in January 1989. This is just before they culled the worldwide temperature dataset from 6000 to 1500 temperature removing the ones that predominantly showed cooling and not warming. This is how they made sure of warming being prevalent over the past 2 decades.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/01/26/us...gewanted=print

January 26, 1989
U.S. Data Since 1895 Fail To Show Warming Trend
By PHILIP SHABECOFF, Special to the New York Times
Correction Appended
WASHINGTON, Jan. 25— After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.

While the nation's weather in individual years or even for periods of years has been hotter or cooler and drier or wetter than in other periods, the new study shows that over the last century there has been no trend in one direction or another.

The study, made by scientists for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was published in the current issue of Geophysical Research Letters. It is based on temperature and precipitation readings taken at weather stations around the country from 1895 to 1987.

Dr. Kirby Hanson, the meteorologist who led the study, said in a telephone interview that the findings concerning the United States do not necessarily ''cast doubt'' on previous findings of a worldwide trend toward warmer temperatures, nor do they have a bearing one way or another on the theory that a buildup of pollutants is acting like a greenhouse and causing global warming. He said that the United States occupies only a small percentage of Earth's surface and that the new findings may be the result of regional variations.

Readings taken by other scientists have suggested a significant warming worldwide over the last 100 years. Dr. James E. Hansen, director of National Aeronautic and Space Administration's Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, has reported that average global temperatures have risen by nearly 1 degree Fahrenheit in this century and that the average temperatures in the 1980's are the highest on record.

Dr. Hansen and other scientists have said that that there is a high degree of probability that this warming trend is associated with the atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other industrial gases that absorb and retain radiation.

But other scientists, while agreeing with this basic theory of a greenhouse effect, say there is no convincing evidence that a pollution-induced warming has already begun.

Dr. Michael E. Schlesinger, an atmospheric scientist at Oregon State University who studies climate models, said there is no inconsistency between the data presented by the NOAA team and the greenhouse theory. But he said he regarded the new data as inconsistent with assumptions that such an effect is already detectable. More Droughts Predicted

Many of the computer models that predict global warming also predict that certain areas, including the Midwest in the United States, would suffer more frequent droughts.

Dr. Hanson of NOAA said today that the new study does not in any way contradict the findings reported by the NASA scientists and others. He said that his study, in which he was joined by George A. Maul and Thomas A. Karl, also of NOAA, looked at only the 48 contiguous states.

Dr. Hanson said that global warming caused by the greenhouse effect might have been countered by some cooling phenomenon that has not yet been identified and that the readings in his study recorded the net effect.

''We have to be careful about interpreting things like this,'' he said. What About Urbanization? One aspect of the study that Dr. Hanson said was interesting was the finding that the urbanization of the United States has apparently not had a statistically significant effect on average temperature readings. A number of scientists have theorized that the replacement of forests and pastures by asphalt streets and concrete buildings, which retain heat, is an important cause of rising temperatures.

Dr. Hansen of NASA said today that he had ''no quarrel'' with the findings in the new study. He noted that the United States covered only 1.5 percent of Earth. ''If you have only one degree warming on a global average, how much do you get at random'' when taking measurements in such a relatively small area, he asked rhetorically.

''We are just arguing now about whether the global warming effect is large enough to see,'' he added. ''It is not suprising we are not seeing it in a region that covers only 1.5 percent of the globe.''

Dr. Hansen said there were several ways to look at the temperature readings for the United States, including as a ''statistical fluke.'' Possibililty of Countereffects

Another possibility, he said, was that there were special conditions in the United States that would tend to offset a warming trend. For example, industrial activity produces dust and other solid particles that help form liquid droplets in the atmosphere. These droplets reflect radiation away from Earth and thus have a cooling influence.

Dr. Hansen suggested that at some point there could be a jump in temperature readings in the United States if the measurements in the new study were a statistical aberration or the result of atmospheric pollutants reflecting heat away from Earth. He noted that anti-pollution efforts are reducing the amount of these particles and thus reducing the reflection of heat.

Several computer models have projected that the greenhouse effect would cause average global temperatures to rise between 3 and 8 degrees Fahrenheit in the next century. But scientists concede that reactions set off by the warming trend itself could upset these predictions and produce unanticipated changes in climate patterns. Legislative Action Sought

Coincidentally with the new report, legislation was introduced in the Senate today prescribing actions for addressing the threat of global warming. Senator Al Gore, Democrat of Tennessee, introduced a bill that calls for creating a Council on World Environmental Policy to replace the White House's Council on Environmental Quality. This change would emphasize the international aspects of environmental issues.

The bill would also require a ban on industrial chemicals that not only are depleting the atmosphere's ozone layer, which blocks harmful ultraviolet radiation, but are believed to be contributing to the warming trend. It would also require stricter fuel-economy standards for automobiles to reduce the consumption of gasoline to reduce carbon dioxide.

graphs of temperatures and rainfall from 1895 to 1987 (Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

[Guest]

A nice long informative article on most but not all the faulty and fraudulent AGW science.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/denial

In Denial
The meltdown of the climate campaign.
BY STEVEN F. HAYWARD
March 15, 2010, Vol. 15, No. 25



It is increasingly clear that the leak of the internal emails and documents of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in November has done for the climate change debate what the Pentagon Papers did for the Vietnam war debate 40 years ago—changed the narrative decisively. Additional revelations of unethical behavior, errors, and serial exaggeration in climate science are rolling out on an almost daily basis, and there is good reason to expect more.

The U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), hitherto the gold standard in climate science, is under fire for shoddy work and facing calls for a serious shakeup. The U.S. Climate Action Partnership, the self-serving coalition of environmentalists and big business hoping to create a carbon cartel, is falling apart in the wake of the collapse of any prospect of enacting cap and trade in Congress. Meanwhile, the climate campaign’s fallback plan to have the EPA regulate greenhouse gas emissions through the cumbersome Clean Air Act is generating bipartisan opposition. The British media—even the left-leaning, climate alarmists of the Guardian and BBC—are turning on the climate campaign with a vengeance. The somnolent American media, which have done as poor a job reporting about climate change as they did on John Edwards, have largely averted their gaze from the inconvenient meltdown of the climate campaign, but the rock solid edifice in the newsrooms is cracking. Al Gore was conspicuously missing in action before surfacing with a long article in the New York Times on February 28, reiterating his familiar parade of horribles: The sea level will rise! Monster storms! Climate refugees in the hundreds of millions! Political chaos the world over! It was the rhetorical equivalent of stamping his feet and saying “It is too so!” In a sign of how dramatic the reversal of fortune has been for the climate campaign, it is now James Inhofe, the leading climate skeptic in the Senate, who is eager to have Gore testify before Congress.

The body blows to the climate campaign did not end with the Climategate emails. The IPCC—which has produced four omnibus assessments of climate science since 1992—has issued several embarrassing retractions from its most recent 2007 report, starting with the claim that Himalayan glaciers were in danger of melting as soon as 2035. That such an outlandish claim would be so readily accepted is a sign of the credulity of the climate campaign and the media: Even if extreme global warming occurred over the next century, the one genuine scientific study available estimated that the huge ice fields of the Himalayas would take more than 300 years to melt—a prediction any beginning chemistry student could confirm with a calculator. (The actual evidence is mixed: Some Himalayan glaciers are currently expanding.) The source for the melt-by-2035 claim turned out to be not a peer-reviewed scientific assessment, but a report from an advocacy group, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), which in turn lifted the figure from a popular magazine article in India whose author later disavowed his offhand speculation.

But what made this first retraction noteworthy was the way in which it underscored the thuggishness of the climate establishment. The IPCC’s chairman, Rajendra Pachauri (an economist and former railroad engineer who is routinely described as a “climate scientist”), initially said that critics of the Himalayan glacier melt prediction were engaging in “voodoo science,” though it later turned out that Pachauri had been informed of the error in early December—in advance of the U.N.’s climate change conference in Copenhagen—but failed to disclose it. He’s invoking the Charlie Rangel defense: It was my staff’s fault.

The Himalayan retraction has touched off a cascade of further retractions and corrections, though the IPCC and other organs of climate alarmism are issuing their corrections sotto voce, hoping the media won’t take notice. The IPCC’s assessment that 40 percent of the Amazonian rain forest was at risk of destruction from climate change was also revealed to be without scientific foundation; the WWF was again the source. The Daily Telegraph identified 20 more claims of ruin in the IPCC’s 2007 report that are based on reports from advocacy groups such as Greenpeace rather than peer-reviewed research, including claims that African agricultural production would be cut in half, estimates of coral reef degradation, and the scale of glacier melt in the Alps and the Andes. Numerous other claims were sourced to unpublished student papers and dissertations, or to misstated or distorted research.