Source:  NoTricksZone

by P. Gosselin

The Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and the German media are now in full panic mode. They can no longer get their stories straight.

Desperate to stem the flood of doubt now sweeping Germany, as the country is gripped by its harshest December in 100 years, including record snowfalls in Potsdam, the hyper-alarmist PIK and the German media are now throwing all they’ve got to explain away the embarrassing cold.

For years they preached endlessly that Germany would be experiencing balmy, southern European-type winters. Snow indeed had been relegated to the history books. The tables have since turned.

Everybody had predicted a brutal winter

Back in late summer and fall, meteorologists like Piers Corbyn, Joe Bastardi, and other German private forecasters, were all predicting cold winters ahead. Even Russian and Polish scientists had forecast the possibility of the harshest winter in a 1000 years. But the PIK and Met Office climatologists scoffed. The Met Office in England even went so far as to forecast a mild and wet winter, again.

Read full article here:  http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/23/potsdam-climate-instutute-now-says-to-expect-warmer-colder-winters/

Source: American Thinker

Russell Cook

Now, a reader tip at Anthony Watt’s popular blog site seems to indicate the Union of Concerned Scientists has set up, instead of a network to coordinate talking points, a media alert request page that could end up being an intimidation system against certain journalists. At the UCS web site, we are instructed to “Monitor the print and broadcast media outlets in your area and alert us to misrepresentations about global warming”. Considering the multi-tens-of-thousands of people reading Watts’s blogs, I think his followers are likely to crash the UCS email system with alerts about overblown reports of man-caused global warming. Following the article, one hilarious comment by Accu-Weather’s Joe Bastardi suggests a counter-group called “The Union of VERY concerned scientists.” (more…)

Source:  Lew Rockwell.com

The New York Times and Lies about ‘Acid Rain’

by William L. Anderson

As one who often reads the Newspaper of the Ruling Class, the New York Times, I tend not to be surprised when the “Newspaper of Record” distorts the record. Furthermore, one could do nothing but write comments refuting the various economic fallacies and outright distortions that accompany each edition of the Grey Lady.

However, in a recent editorial, the NYT managed to distort the record so much that I find it hard even to know how to answer, except to say that some of us have not lost our memories of what happened 30 years ago. Entitled “Acid Rain 30 Years On,” the editorial starts with the following statement:

Just over 30 years ago, a skeptical Daniel Patrick Moynihan persuaded his Senate colleagues to approve a major study to see whether a relatively unknown phenomenon called acid rain was worth worrying about. The study, completed in 1990, showed that pollution blowing eastward from coal-fired power plants was killing off aquatic life. One-quarter of the Adirondacks’ 3,000 lakes and streams had become too acidic to support fish life, or were headed that way. (more…)

Source:  SEPP

ACID TEST

by William Anderson

Published in Reason Magazine, January 1992

Although unpolluted by acid rain, this clearwater stream in Australia is highly acidic.

Some people don’t like what Edward Krug has to say about acid rain. That was apparent when he spoke at a seminar on the subject last April in Chattanooga, Tennessee. Krug, a soil scientist who had helped conduct a 10-year federal study of acid rain, spoke with some expertise. He told his audience that he and his fellow researchers on the National Acid Rain Precipitation Assessment Project had determined that acid rain was an environmental nuisance, not a catastrophe.

It was a message that environmentalists didn’t want to hear. One woman hissed at him, “You need to take a reality check.”

Unfortunately for Krug, she isn’t the only one who doesn’t like his ideas. Congress ignored NAPAP’s findings, and when Krug tried to point out that the federal government is forcing utilities to spend billions of dollars to solve a problem that doesn’t exist, a federal agency did everything in its power to keep the media from listening to him. Krug’s research has upset the plans of some of Washington’s most powerful bureaucrats, and they aren’t happy. Because of them, the 44-year-old Krug has experienced numerous reality checks. (more…)

Source:   NoTricksZone

By P Gosselin

Source: National Post

Stanford University’s Jon A Krosnick, a communications guru and advisor to the global warming camp, scored a coup in a New York Times oped last week that discredits polls by firms such as Gallup and Pew Research Center. The highly cited oped, entitled “The Climate Majority,” claims that these pollsters and others have it backwards and that “huge majorities of Americans still believe the earth has been gradually warming as the result of human activity and want the government to institute regulations to stop it.” For example, Krosnick’s own poll shows, “When respondents were asked if they thought that the earth’s temperature probably had been heating up over the last 100 years, 74% answered affirmatively. And 75% of respondents said that human behaviour was substantially responsible for any warming that has occurred.”

Krosnick, an expert in questionnaire design, produces studies geared to explaining why people answer the way they do, and how to get them to answer differently. One recent paper dealt entirely with one of the biggest embarrassments to the global warming camp, Gallup’s classic “Most Important Problem” question: “What do you think is the most important problem facing this country today?” (more…)

Source:  Telegraph

by James Delingpole

Are there really no depths to which ManBearPig-worshippers will not stoop in order to shore up their intellectually, morally and scientifically bankrupt cause?

Apparently not, as we see from the latest “study” – based on a petty, spiteful, Stasi-like blacklist produced by an obscure Canadian warmist – outrageously aggrandised by being published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

The study examined 1,372 scientists who had taken part in reviews of climate science or had put their name to statements regarding the key findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Scientists were grouped as “convinced” or “unconvinced”, and researchers examined how many times they had published papers on the climate.

The results showed that “unconvinced” scientists accounted for just three of the 100 most prolific authors on the subject, while papers by “convinced” scientists were more frequently cited in other research.

Well, no s***, Sherlock. And might this have anything to do, perchance, with the fact that – as the Climategate emails made abundantly clear – “unconvinced” scientists were deliberately shut out of the peer-review process by the “convinced” ones? (more…)

Source:  ABC

by Joanne Nova

The issue of the ClimateGate emails leaked or hacked from the East Anglia CRU is not that complicated. The emails are damning because anyone who reads them understands that they show petty, unprofessional, and probably criminal behaviour. We know the guys who wrote them are not people we’d want to buy cars from. They are hiding information. We don’t need a committee to state the obvious.

The emails show some of the leading players in climate science talking about tricks to “hide declines”, they boast about manipulating the peer review process, and “getting” rid of papers they didn’t like from the IPCC reports. It’s clear the data wasn’t going the way they hoped, yet they screwed the results every way they could to milk the “right” conclusion. Above all else, they feared freedom of information requests, and did everything they could to avoid providing their data. ClimateGate shows these people were not practising science, but advocacy and have been doing it for decades. (more…)

Source:  WSJ

By Rich Noyes

From the Media Research Center

The media has forged a consensus around climate change.

For more than two decades, the so-called mainstream media have preached the dangers of manmade global warming, insisting American businesses and consumers must make massive economic sacrifices to ward off a global climate catastrophe. Not even last November’s exposure of e-mails from leading scientists on the alarmist side of the debate — showing them conniving to fudge or suppress data, discredit critics and distort the peer review process — has caused journalists to finally take a skeptical approach to radical environmentalists’ doomsaying.

A new study from the MRC’s Business & Media Institute documents how ABC, CBS and NBC have been just as strident in their advocacy in the months following “ClimateGate” as they were in the 20 years that preceded the scandal. At the same time, a review of the Media Research Center’s archives going back to the late 1980s shows just how strongly reporters have pushed the liberal line on global warming. Here are just some of the many examples: (more…)