Tag: Climate change

The Climate Treaty That Isn’t

The liberal blogosphere is all aflutter because the US and China have agreed to cut greenhouse gas emissions:

China and the United States made common cause on Wednesday against the threat of climate change, staking out an ambitious joint plan to curb carbon emissions as a way to spur nations around the world to make their own cuts in greenhouse gases.

The landmark agreement, jointly announced here by President Obama and President Xi Jinping, includes new targets for carbon emissions reductions by the United States and a first-ever commitment by China to stop its emissions from growing by 2030.

Administration officials said the agreement, which was worked out quietly between the United States and China over nine months and included a letter from Mr. Obama to Mr. Xi proposing a joint approach, could galvanize efforts to negotiate a new global climate agreement by 2015.

A climate deal between China and the United States, the world’s No. 1 and No. 2 carbon polluters, is viewed as essential to concluding a new global accord. Unless Beijing and Washington can resolve their differences, climate experts say, few other countries will agree to mandatory cuts in emissions, and any meaningful worldwide pact will be likely to founder.

Here’s the thing. This agreement means nothing. It’s not a binding treaty (which is why Obama doesn’t have to send it to Congress). Nor does it lock us into any policies. It’s a statement of goals to achieve things that may or may not happen long after both men are out of power. It’s symbolism, plain and simple. And such agreements will always be symbolism because the only way greenhouse gas emissions will ever fall — as they have in the United States — is when the right technology comes along.


China’s 2030 emissions target is set in terms of a date but says nothing about the level at which emissions will peak.

China’s target for primary energy consumption is expressed in terms of “non-fossil fuels”, which means a big increase in nuclear power as well as wind, solar and hydro.

And of course, US has seen its emissions drop 10% below 2005, but this is mainly because of a recession and fracking. The next reduction will be much harder, and likely not coming, as 2013 showed an *increase*, not further decrease

Normally, I would let this sort of stuff slide. But there was a very illuminating statement from Friends of the Earth that came out after this:

“The cuts pledged by President Obama are nowhere near what the US needs to cut if it was serious about preventing runaway climate change. These US voluntary pledges are not legally binding and are not based on science or equity,” said Sara Shaw, Friends of the Earth International Climate Justice and Energy coordinator.

“This agreement deliberately ignores the issue of equity. Industrialised nations, and first of all the world’s largest historical polluter, the US, must urgently make the deepest emission cuts and provide the bulk of the money if countries are to share fairly the responsibility of preventing catastrophic climate change,” she added.

“The good news is that China is taking the fight against climate change ever more seriously and intends to peak its emissions in next 15 years. We urge China and all nations to urgently switch from emissions-causing dirty energy to community-based renewable energy.”

You catch that? Friends of the Earth bashes Obama for pledging a 25% cut in CO2 emissions while praising China — which currently emits 50% more CO2 than the United States — for promising, maybe, to start curbing their emissions in 15 years.

I’m convinced that global warming is real. I’m also convinced that the so-called green organizations see this danger as a vehicle for anti-corporatism, anti-Americanism and anti-capitalism. How else do you explain a green organization praising the world’s biggest polluter?

Ignore the greens. And ignore this agreement. Concentrate on the technology. That’s the real battle.


The Left Wing is atwitter over documents leaked from the Heartland Institute, a think tank that is at the forefront of climate skepticism. There’s a bunch of stuff there but … I’m kind of unimpressed. Most of it is about raising money from the likes of the Eeevil Koch Brothers. These are the evil pair who funded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature program which … um, confirmed the purported temperature trends using the most robust analysis yet. Yeah, so … uh … get your Evil Act together guys!

The most damning document is about coordinating a campaign aimed at teachers to spread misinformation about climate science. However, Heartland is saying that while the other documents are real, this one is a fake.

We’ll see what shakes out. As with Climategate, I suspect this will turn out to be overblown. Heartland pushes climate skepticism and so they collect donations from people whose business interests might be harmed by global warming legislation. This is neither surprising nor revelatory. The same game is played by business interests who would benefit from global warming legislation, such as Obama’s entire multi-billion dollar “green energy” program and the failed European cap and trade experiment.

Let’s stick to the science and ignore who is funding whom.

Update: This “scandal” is falling apart as we speak. Megan McArdle goes through the bad memo and shows why it’s at least odd, if not faked. And the Koch Brothers indicate their support or Heartlands was for health programs, not climate issues. Yes, climate hysterics, Heartland does more than climate skepticism.

Do you think any of the Lefties cackling with glee over this are going to admit it if this memo is shown to be a fake? I’m not holding my breath.

More stuff for the AGW cultists to dismiss!

It looks like we have a second round of e-mails from the church of AGW now doing the rounds, and as they did with the first batch of damning evidence, I expect the cultists to dismiss these e-mails replete with harmful information as inconsequential too. It’s damage control time for the cultists!

A fresh tranche of private emails exchanged between leading climate scientists throughout the last decade was released online on Tuesday. The unauthorised publication is an apparent attempt to repeat the impact of a similar release of emails on the eve of the Copenhagen climate summit in late 2009.

The initial email dump was apparently timed to disrupt the Copenhagen climate talks. It prompted three official inquiries in the UK and two in the US into the working practices of climate scientists. Although these were critical of the scientists’ handling of Freedom of Information Act requests and lack of openness they did not find fault with the climate change science they had produced.

Absolutely brilliant strategy this. Hold back more stuff, let the cultists act the fool, then dump a second round to force them to double down and again dismiss evidence that is inconvenient to their political movement.

The emails appear to be genuine, but the University of East Anglia said the “sheer volume of material” meant it was not yet able to confirm that they were. One of the emailers, the climate scientist Prof Michael Mann, has confirmed that he believes they are his messages. The lack of any emails post-dating the 2009 release suggests that they were obtained at the same time, but held back. Their release now suggests they are intended to cause maximum impact before the upcoming climate summit in Durban which starts on Monday.

The response from the powers that be to these revelations?

Norfolk police have said the new set of emails is “of interest” to their investigation to find the perpetrator of the initial email release who has not yet been identified.

Silence & punish the bastard that has torpedoed their lucrative power grab.

The new emails include similar statements apparently made by the scientists about avoiding requests for information. In one email, which has not yet been specifically confirmed as genuine, Jones writes: “I’ve been told that IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is above national FOI Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 [the IPCC’s fifth Assessment Report] would be to delete all emails at the end of the process”.

Ask yourself this: if the science was on these cultists’ side, why the need to hide this information? The whole scientific verification process lives & dies on the premise that when you postulate a hypothesis, you provide any and all information, in order to have the skeptics review and try to falsify your experiments, methodology, and claims, so as to then have them confirm your findings. So why the need to not allow others, especially the skeptics, access if what you are doing is all above water? The only one I find, short of national security reasons – and we can outright dismiss that card, if they ever try to use it, since I can not think of any reason or evidence that would compel that need other than this being some kind of nasty conspiracy to grab power – is that they have been playing fast & loose with the data, facts, and predictions, and are afraid this will justifiably discredit them all.

Don’t worry. They will set up another panel and some committees that will contort themselves into pretzels making excuses for why, while this is all wrong, smacks of politically motivated hackery, and is based on a pack of lies, the scientific findings of the AGW cultists still stand and remain relevant, and the faithful can just dismiss the evidence as inconsequential.

In the mean time those of us that pointed out this was all bullshit at least have the satisfaction of watching more and more people wise up to this bullshit and abandon the faith.

Berkeley Results

Just before we switched the blog over, I mentioned preliminary results from the Berkeley Earth project. This project, led by climate skeptic Richard Muller and funded by the eeevil Koch Brothers (and including Saul Perlmutter, who won this year’s Nobel Prize for Physics), was determined to do the most thorough analysis of global warming data yet. As I said then:

This is actually a pretty staggering and thorough piece of work, although it’s not entirely complete. You can read Ronald Bailey for a summary. They looked at over 39,000 temperature stations (4-8 times what anyone else has used). They carefully investigated the assertions of Anthony Watt, who has noted that many weather stations are located close to heat sources (conclusion: yes they are, but no it’s not causing the warming). They took random samples from the data to see if they could reproduce the measured trend. And they keep finding the same thing, only more reliably than any of the more hyped climate scientists.

At the time, they were doing a preliminary analysis of 2% of their data. They’ve now finished the full sample:

Global warming is real, according to a major study released today. Despite issues raised by climate skeptics, the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature study finds reliable evidence of a rise in the average world land temperature of approximately 1 C since the mid-1950s.

Analyzing temperature data from 15 sources, in some cases going back as far as 1800, the Berkeley Earth study directly addressed scientific concerns raised by skeptics, including the urban heat island effect, poor station quality, and the risk of data selection bias.

On the basis of its analysis, according to Berkeley Earth’s founder and scientific director, Professor Richard A. Muller, the group concluded that earlier studies based on more limited data by teams in the United Sattes and Britain had accurately estimated the extent of land surface warming.

This is the temperature study we’ve been waiting for. I’m under no illusion that it will quiet the conspiracy theorists. But in a reasonable debate, this would put to bed talking points about Climategate, weather stations, normalization and heat island effect. Their analysis agrees almost completely with both HadCRU and NOAA and NASA. All the data are available from their website — one stop shopping for those who keep claiming, incorrectly, that the data are not available. The four papers they are publishing address a variety of other related issues.

It also demonstrates how important skeptics — real scientific skeptics — are for this debate. McIntyre and McKitrick’s criticism of the hockey stick didn’t disprove it in the end, but they made the result far more reliable. And Muller’s skepticism has now made the temperature data five times more robust than it has ever been.

One last note before my points disappear in an AGW comment shitstorm: this should also shut up some of the liberals claiming the Koch Brothers are the quintessence of evil. They helped fund this study and have made no effort to interfere or bury the results, despite the serious implications for their business interests. Of course it won’t silence them. Religions can survive without God, but not without the devil. And the secular religion of progressivism needs its Kochy devil, even if they don’t quite fit the role.

OK. Fight nice now.

CERN study more worried about politics than the scientific findings?

The U.K> based The Register has this article dealing with the recently published CERN paper entitled “Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation”. Their findings basically destroy the existing climate models used by the watermelon alarmists. Yes, the same ones we discovered where junk after the East Anglia scandal exposed them as rigged, are now going to need, according to the as politically correct as possible language being used to avoid pissing off the big government money machine banking on getting more power and control from selling the AGW myth, to quote the CERN scientists, some “major tweaking”.

CERN’s 8,000 scientists may not be able to find the hypothetical Higgs boson, but they have made an important contribution to climate physics, prompting climate models to be revised.

The first results from the lab’s CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets”) experiment published in Nature today confirm that cosmic rays spur the formation of clouds through ion-induced nucleation. Current thinking posits that half of the Earth’s clouds are formed through nucleation. The paper is entitled Role of sulphuric acid, ammonia and galactic cosmic rays in atmospheric aerosol nucleation.

This has significant implications for climate science because water vapour and clouds play a large role in determining global temperatures. Tiny changes in overall cloud cover can result in relatively large temperature changes.

Unsurprisingly, it’s a politically sensitive topic, as it provides support for a “heliocentric” rather than “anthropogenic” approach to climate change: the sun plays a large role in modulating the quantity of cosmic rays reaching the upper atmosphere of the Earth.

CERN’s director-general Rolf-Dieter Heuer warned his scientists “to present the results clearly but not interpret them”. Readers can judge whether CLOUD’s lead physicist Jasper Kirkby has followed his boss’s warning.

“Ion-induced nucleation will manifest itself as a steady production of new particles that is difficult to isolate in atmospheric observations because of other sources of variability but is nevertheless taking place and could be quite large when averaged globally over the troposphere.”

So far their study validated that those of us that have been pointing out that solar activity – that’s practically where all of earth’s exposure to cosmic radiation comes from, for you rubes – was a massive driver of temperature and temperature/climate changes, completely undermining the decade old attempt by the watermelons to minimize solar impact in order to sustain that man-made narrative they plan to ride into more power, was correct. As it stands they determined that changes in this radiation from solar activity, even small ones, can have massive impact on the amount of cloud formation and hence drastically affect the amount of heat trapped or released. They even have to admit the role of water vapor, the most prolific greenhouse gas, in this newly revealed – that was sarcasm on my part – equation! Basically their study has yet again found/provided scientific evidence that solar activity affects water vapor content, it drives cloud formation, and that this cloud formation drastically impacts how much heat is trapped or released by the atmosphere, and hence remains the dominant and most important, if not outright exclusive, player in climate change and global temperatures. Not new to those of us that understood this relationship, but apparently something that if you want to be generous to the AGW cultists is seriously flawed in their models. The good research dealing with the impact of the cosmic radiation on the oceans, and the relationship between clouds and trapped heat, is out there and plentiful BTW, and I certainly feel no need to rehash it all here. Google it.

However, to me at least, the most telling revelation, and what I see is the most disastrous one for the AGW cultists, is the admission by Kirby of the “political sensitivity of these findings”. Why should these findings be politically sensitive? So “sensitive” that they have to be explained in a scientific paper that tries its best to do a kabuki dance not to offend those that have dismissed the role of solar radiation and cloud formation in the past. So, how does politics factor into the scientific equation, if this is all about science?

Should not the paper and the research be completely about facts and the rigorous application of the scientific method and totally about what the results and facts obtained through that scientific process tells us? Why would the political class suddenly not like these findings that drastically undermine their premise that man is to blame for climate change, unless they have a plan predicated on that remaining the scientific consensus? The cultists have been telling us now for a long time that the science was settled and on their side, and that anyone that said otherwise was a denier, usually one motivated by politics and greed to boot, so is that why these CERN scientists felt the need to be political? Could avoiding that “denier” tag be the political sensitivity Kirby speaks about?

For those of us, of course, that realized that the exclusive and laser-like focus on CO2 – to the exclusion of all else – that is behind this schism dividing the two camps arguing about what was/is causing climate change, it was very clear that those refuting anything but the CO2 model pushed by the AGW proponents wasn’t based on much real respect for science, and clear that politics had tainted that “settled science” from the beginning, these findings of this aren’t a surprise at all. I would even hazard that it is not a surprise to the clergy of the AGW cult either. However, I don’t expect them to do anything but double down on their settled science, and come out with guns blazing over these findings. Well, that is, once they finally get to reporting on it, which I suspect will not happen until someone comes up with something that they figure allows them to dismiss the findings of this CERN study in the first place.

Think they will fix their broken models to account for these new revelations – to give cloud formation fueled by solar radiation the proper weight in them – then share them with us, though? No, me neither. I do expect them to tell us, regardless of any findings that undermine their plan, that we need to let them keep going with their program to control CO2 emissions with one or another kind of wealth redistribution scheme. At least we know that if we get more Sulfides into the air it will cause more clouds and thus more cooling. Let the games begin!

Nothing to see here!

They are at it again. This is the science these people use, and while I must admit that it is quite an ingenious trick, it’s plain bullshit. Read along.

The University of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group decided in May to add 0.3 millimeters — or about the thickness of a fingernail — every year to its actual measurements of sea levels, sparking criticism from experts who called it an attempt to exaggerate the effects of global warming.

“Gatekeepers of our sea level data are manufacturing a fictitious sea level rise that is not occurring,” said James M. Taylor, a lawyer who focuses on environmental issues for the Heartland Institute.

Steve Nerem, the director of the widely relied-upon research center, told FoxNews.com that his group added the 0.3 millimeters per year to the actual sea level measurements because land masses, still rebounding from the ice age, are rising and increasing the amount of water that oceans can hold.

“We have to account for the fact that the ocean basins are actually getting slightly bigger… water volume is expanding,” he said, a phenomenon they call glacial isostatic adjustment (GIA).

What a joke! Shouldn’t they instead be pointing out that nature seems to be itself dealing with the water level problem? It’s about as valid a conclusion as their ridiculous claim that they get to add a rise in ocean levels even when none is there, by of all things claiming that land is sponging upwards as an after effect of the ice age. Seriously, do they want me to believe that the entire planet was covered by ice in the last ice age? Because unless that was the case, I am sure they have a larger portion of the planet where land doesn’t need to bounce back that they could then quickly point towards and show actual sea level rises, right? Even a child should be able to see through this nonsense.

“If we correct our data to remove [the effect of rising land], it actually does cause the rate of sea level (a.k.a. ocean water volume change) rise to be bigger,” Nerem wrote. The adjustment is trivial, and not worth public attention, he added.

Really? Why? Since when is a correction that seems so counter intuitive something that only those members of the clergy are supposed to know about? WTF? Is this science or something else? Again, why is an ice age that affected just a portion of the northern hemisphere causing land all over the planet to now rise and cancel out their claims out a rise in ocean levels?

“For the layperson, this correction is a non-issue and certainly not newsworthy… [The] effect is tiny — only 1 inch over 100 years, whereas we expect sea level to rise 2-4 feet.”

To me it stands out like a dead body in the middle of a prom dance. But then again, I pay attention.

But Taylor said that the correction seemed bigger when compared with actual sea level increases. “We’ve seen only 7 inches of sea level rise in the past century and it hasn’t sped up this century. Compared to that, this would add nearly 20 percent to the sea level rise. That’s not insignificant,” he told FoxNews.com.

Exactly. So the response of those tacking on non-existent rises using ridiculous contrived excuses is what then?

Nerem said that the research center is considering compromising on the adjustment.

WTF? Compromise? This isn’t science at all then! There is no compromise in science just like there is no crying in baseball. When you are right, and try as they might nobody can dispute your finding/observation as they repeat your analysis and experiments, you r hypothesis becomes law and thus validates your findings. Or, if you are wrong, they find discrepancies and holes, discredit your work, and you are done and need to go back to the drawing board to start over. There is no compromise. These people need to be laughed at.

Exactly! Ocean levels are not disputable. It’s what you measure at the coast.

Seriously, if this isn’t obvious to people then we are in trouble. What’s next? They are going to tell us that both cold weather and warm weather are because of global warming? Oh wait. They already did that.

UPDATE: If you thought this was the only problem for these guys, well then check this revelation out:

The world’s foremost authority on climate change used a Greenpeace campaigner to help write one of its key reports, which critics say made misleading claims about renewable energy, The Independent has learnt.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), set up by the UN in 1988 to advise governments on the science behind global warming, issued a report last month suggesting renewable sources could provide 77 per cent of the world’s energy supply by 2050. But in supporting documents released this week, it emerged that the claim was based on a real-terms decline in worldwide energy consumption over the next 40 years – and that the lead author of the section concerned was an employee of Greenpeace. Not only that, but the modelling scenario used was the most optimistic of the 164 investigated by the IPCC.

Critics said the decision to highlight the 77 per cent figure showed a bias within the IPCC against promoting potentially carbon-neutral energies such as nuclear fuel. One climate change sceptic said it showed the body was not truly independent and relied too heavily on green groups for its evidence.

The allegations are particularly damaging as they represent the second controversy to hit the IPPC in a matter of years. In 2009, a tranche of emails from the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit were leaked two weeks before the crucial Copenhagen climate summit. Climate change sceptics said they showed scientists manipulating data to talk up the threat of global warming, as well as trying to suppress their critics.

Lovely! In case you didn’t know it they are having some kind of meeting over this bullshit cult’s plans again, and as usual, it went nowhere.

And then we have this revelation, which in light of some people defending this circle jerk on another recent post is quite funny:

One of the disturbing practices revealed by the great cache of emails out of the University of East Anglia — the so-called Climategate emails — was the attempted shortcutting or corruption of the oh-so precious peer-review process. The emails contained clear declarations of how the grand viziers of climate science would lean on journals and reporters to make sure certain critics did not get the validation, the laying on of peer-reviewed hands, so critical to full participation in the great climate debate. This was most succinctly expressed by the beautiful quote from Dr. Phil Jones of East Anglia that, “We will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what peer-review literature is.”

Much of what the world bizarrely allows to be called climate “science” is a closet-game, an in-group referring to and reinforcing its own members. The insiders keep out those seen as interlopers and critics, vilify dissenters and labour to maintain a proprietary hold on the entire vast subject. It has been described very precisely as a “climate-assessment oligarchy.” Less examined, or certainly less known to the general public, is how this in-group loops around itself. How the outside advocates buttress the inside scientists, and even — this is particularly noxious — how the outside advocates, the non-scientists, themselves become inside authorities.

It’s the perfect propaganda circle. Advocates find themselves in government offices, or on panels appointed by politicians disposed towards the hyper-alarmism of global warming. On the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) boards and panels, like seeks out like. And when the IPCC issues one of its state-of-the-global-warming-world reports, legions of environmentalists, and their maddeningly sympathetic and uninquisitive friends in most of the press, shout out the latest dire warnings as if they were coming from the very mouth of Disinterested Science itself.

A must read for those that want to understand what’s really going on.

Of course, as Hal already has pointed out in the first comment: climate change “science” is as settled and proven as gravity! So it is us non believers that are the dumb heretics that need to be mocked. Great one Hal!

Unsettling The Science

Anthropogenic Global Warning is one of those topics that I usually avoid, not because it is not timely or important, but because my science expertise has always been wanting, that,  and I figured that those experts in the field should know better than I. But it always bothered me when I heard things like the science is already settled and those  that deny AGW are anti science, discounting the need for not only further study but further scrutiny.

Well, it looks like another Indian left the reservation:

David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine.  He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. The other day he said:

“The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.”

The entire article is interesting because it talks about the science behind the modeling and how this science has been co opted for political purposes.


Not one prone to wag my finger with pronouncements of phonies, charlatans, and imposters, but it has always been clear that money can buy expertise. As any defense attorney can attest, finding a so called expert in any field willing to say anything on the witness stand, and have the pedigree and credentials to back it up is very easy depending on the money involved. So it really is not a stretch to think that oil companies can find “experts” to provide a voice for their self interests. Ditto that with universities willing to accept grant money from organizations positing a certain premise, then having the studies support said premise, astonishing.


In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory.

And this is where we are today, still gathering empirical evidence.

I’m not prepared to say that AGW is all a bunch of horse poop as I believe that it is impossible for the growing population and it’s resultant pollution to not have a material effect on the planet. But for all those global warming converts who accuse me of living in the dark ages and being anti science, can we at least admit that, aside from greenhouse gases are increasing, that  the science is still ongoing, so at this point, very little is actually settled?

The Plankton Panic

Last fall, a paper came out claiming that global warming had reduced plankton populations by about 40%. There was a wide-spread freakout in AGW circles. Plankton are the foundation of the ocean food chain and the source of half the world’s oxygen. In his book Death from the Skies, Phil Plait talked about the danger presented by a nearby supernova or gamma ray burst: it would kill of the plankton. Not long after, oxygen levels would plunge, much sea life would die and CO2 levels would soar. It’s doubtful human civilization could survive that. Grim stuff.

At the time, I was highly skeptical:

While I accept global warming, the idea that we’re facing a phytoplanton apocalypse seems dubious. The planet has been a lot warmer in the past than it is today and supported more abundant life.

That was a comment from one of my linkoramas. To be honest, their claim sounded kind of crazy. A drop of 40% in plankton, given how crucial they are to the Earth’s ecosystem, is something we would have noticed. Ocean life would be in severe decline, rather than recovering. CO2 levels would be soaring even faster than they are.

Well, turns out, they may have been full of shit:

Now, three “brief communications,” essentially rebuttal papers, have been published in Nature pushing back strongly against the paper’s core conclusion. Links to the summaries are below. I’ve queried the authors of those papers and the original analysis and will post an update when that discussion begins.

You really should read that entire link, which walks you through the process. What has happened here is not some global conspiracy of evil global warming socialists. What’s happened is science. A new study came out making a bold claim and every climate scientists and marine biologist in the world started looking over it and found it was deeply flawed. Their analysis shows, if anything, an increase in phytoplankton mass (which one might expect with more CO2 — i.e, plankton food — in the air) and attributes the supposed decline to using two different methods of measuring plankton mass. Revkin again:

The eagerness to find the “Pearl Harbor moment” or line of evidence that jogs people to act on the long-term risk of human-driven climate change, combined with the “tyranny of the front-page thought,” will long cause the kind of reaction that the initial plankton paper engendered — and that past papers on frog extinctions, Atlantic Ocean currents, ice-sheet behavior, hurricane dynamics and other facets of the climate puzzle have done.

“The tyranny of the front page” is one of biggest problems in science today. It’s a sort of Peter Principle of science. The more flawed the research, the more likely it is to make a hysterical claim and the more likely it is to find prominence in the media. We see similar things in, for example, hysterical and wildly inaccurate claims about teen prostitution.

In many ways, this is refreshing. It shows that the scientific process is still working. For all the anti-AGW chatter about the conspiracy among scientists to hide the truth, it was the scientists came out and debunked this thing almost immediately.

Notice, however the thunderous silence from the “reality-based” Left and many AGW supporters on this debate. Many of them highlighted the initial plankton study precisely as a “Pearl Harbor Moment”. They’ve been a little more quiet now that the attacking planes have turned out to be made of balsa wood.

(Not that the anti-AGW faction is any better when they continue to repeat long-debunked talking points about global cooling or the Earth not having warmed since 1998 or AGW following solar cycles.)

I’ve long said that while I think AGW theory is accurate, projections about long-term climate damage and second and tertiary effects of AGW are, at best, suspect and, at worst, voodoo. Looks like a little bit more of the voodoo has turned out to be doodoo.

Update: As long as I’m up, I tweeted about this yesterday. There is no evidence that tornados increase with global warming … none. This makes the Left’s gloating over the deaths of 300+ people extra disgusting. The null hypothesis is not that global warming causes tornados; the null hypothesis is that it doesn’t.