The NCDC has posted new USHCN data at:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/

This update is done every two years.

On Mar 6, 1:00 pm, "Roger Coppock" wrote:

The NCDC has posted new USHCN data at:

globaloney porn site snipped
Yawn.

On Mar 6, 11:16 am, "Bawana" wrote:
On Mar 6, 1:00 pm, "Roger Coppock" wrote:

The NCDC has posted new USHCN data at:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/

This update is done every two years.

globaloney porn site snipped
Yawn.
Data restored.

Fossil fools don't need data to make up lies.

On Mar 6, 2:22 pm, "Roger Coppock" wrote:
On Mar 6, 11:16 am, "Bawana"

globaloney porn site snipped
Yawn.

March 06, 2007
Warming to Failure
By J.R. Dunn
A certifiable paranoiac would have a high old time tracing out the
patterns behind the global warming campaign of the past month. The
effort has the feel of something long planned, well scripted, and
worked out to the final detail. It's hard to avoid thoughts of
conspiracy when contemplating the activities of the Greens.

Not that it's necessary to believe any such thing. (In analyzing cases
like this, I apply Dunn's First Law: With enough idiots, you don't
need a conspiracy.) It's part of the natural order -- birds flock,
insects swarm, and Greens campaign. But the actual point is, whether
carefully-hatched scheme, herd instinct, or sheer accident, it's clear
at this juncture that the effort has failed.

Let's take a closer look at those patterns. First we have the release
of the International Panel on Climate Change "report" (still referred
to that way throughout the legacy media, despite the fact that the
actual report isn't due out for several months yet). This was followed
by weeks of mounting hysteria in every possible media outlet,
culminating in Al Gore's Norma Desmond moment at the Oscars. Then at
last, the universal sigh of relief as the climate program telling us
exactly what we need to do to save ourselves was presented to the UN
by 18 (count 'em, 18 -- all mainstream, too!) scientists.

The big report you never heard about

What's that? You didn't catch that last part? Neither did anybody
else. (Notice that the link leads to the Voice of America, the only
site where I could find a complete report, and not the New York Times
or Washington Post) And that's an odd thing. The entire effort was
obviously building up to the revelation of What Must Be Done, to be
delivered in tones of thunder to a world agonized to the breaking
point. Instead it comes across as the standard piece of useless UN
paper - of the type dealing with fisheries policy in the Maldives or
primary schooling in Slovakia.

But this particular report went effectively uncovered, unmentioned,
and ignored - an awfully strange response to the solution to the most
terrifying threat in human history. Clearly, something went wrong. If
the campaign had been a success, it would have been covered, all right
- as much as the IPCC summary and then some. Al would have been at the
UN. So would Hillary, Chuck, and Nancy, more than likely. There would
have been speeches, and plenty of them. Parked SUV's would have been
trashed all around Manhattan. Somebody would have pointed out that
Turtle Bay would in short order be twenty, or forty, or sixty feet
underwater.

None of that happened - the unveiling of the grand solution was a
complete washout. (And what was the solution? Umm... carbon taxes
and... I forget.) With a failure as abject as this, there's no simple
means of recovery. The entire effort to sell anthropogenic global
warming will have to be redone from scratch. Look for another buildup
when the actual IPCC report is released sometime this Spring. It's a
good thing they can't do the Academy Awards all over again.

Three major factors are responsible for the Green's failu

* The weather
* Al Gore
* Science

Bad timing: a seasonal obsession

The weather is the key factor, the one that rendered it impossible to
push the warming thesis as an accomplished fact. The IPCC report was
released during the first days of the worst six weeks of weather in
several decades. While the UN, Al, and the media jabbered about how
hot it was getting, the rest of the northern hemisphere was digging
out of blizzards, enduring colder temperatures than any in recent
memory (this was the worst run of continuous low temperatures I have
seen personally since the infamous "ice age winter" of 1975), and in
some cases simply trying to live through it. Europe was hit by killer
blizzards, one of which shut down all of southeastern England. Japan,
China, and Korea suffered bone-chilling readings. Cambodia was treated
to temperatures of an unthinkable 40 degrees Fahrenheit, prompting the
distribution of blankets to the poor. The central and northern U.S.
went through weeks of below-freezing temperatures, (two and half weeks
here in western PA), with much of the rest of the country enduring
less than normal levels. Excessive snow, often reaching blizzard
heights, added to everyone's pleasure. Some are still going fighting
their way through it - on March 1, Governor Culver declared all of
Iowa a disaster area after an extra foot of snow fell in
one 24-hour period.

The result was a general popular tacit dismissal of "global warming"
talk as elitist nonsense, something to occupy the time of people who
don't have to dig out their sidewalks, free their cars, or rescue
stranded travelers.

Of course, weather is not climate - but the distinction is irrelevant,
as far as public attitudes are concerned. And as has been pointed out
here previously, there is a direct correlation to global warming as a
scientific proposition. The most plausible warming models predict that
the bulk of temperature rises will occur during the winter in high
latitudes. After thirty-odd years of uninterrupted warming, we should
be seeing some sign of this, and not a return to bitter mid-70s
winters. This is a case where the public mind is correct even when
it's wrong.

The possibility of something like this could have been foreseen.
February, after all, is the generally the coldest month of the year.
Could it be that the IPCC release was arranged by a UN bureaucrat from
a tropical country, one not all that familiar with northern weather
patterns? Whatever the case, the lesson to draw from this is: don't
put out your global warming material in mid-winter in the Northern
Hemisphere industrialized countries.

Al Gore

The second factor is something vaster and more certain than mere
weather or climate: Al Gore's arrogance.

It can't be said that Al didn't deserve what he got. The revelation
that his Nashville mansion uses more electricity each month than the
last twelve Olympics (he must have felt right at home among all those
spotlights on Oscar night) has struck his halo of Green rectitude a
serious blow. Later revelations that his explanation was bogus may
well have shattered it. (He claimed to be making up for all that power
usage by purchasing carbon offsets.

The problem is that they were being purchased from Generation
Investment Management -- chairman, Albert Gore, Jr. In other words, Al
was paying Al for the privilege of wasting electricity. It's as if
Gandhi had been photographed inside his ashram wearing spats and a
waistcoat and sipping Boodles gin. From now on all the little gestures
- riding in the hybrid limo, having the private jet pilot sign the
carbon offset certificate, and for all we know, touring the North
American continent in a solar-powered blimp - are going to look just
the slightest bit hollow.

Gore can't help this. He was born to make the wrong move at the
absolute worst time. Any doubts about that are erased by two even more
recent incidents: sneaking his party past security at Nashville
airport ("It's okay, they know me here..."), and, as Iowa was being
shut down by the worst blizzards since the retreat of the glaciers,
giving his customary warming Jeremiad to a crowd in Oklahoma only a
few hundred miles south.

What this means is that the Greens will have to cultivate a new
messiah. Gore's campaign will continue, and media inertia being what
it is (don't you feel sorry for all those people predicting his run
for the presidency in '08?) he'll get plenty of coverage. But his
effectiveness as a spokesman for the Green cause is nil. Al Gore has
once again become what he was after his post-2000 election tantrum --
a joke. And while there are second acts in American lives, pushing for
a third is really tempting the fates.

The Science

The final element is science - namely, its lack of respect for
anybody's opinion, even that of its own most mainstream elements. "The
debate is over" was supposed to be one of those catchphrases that
enters common usage and sweeps all resistance before it, like "Women
don't lie" or "We want change". But even as the warming campaign was
unfolding, we were given a clear demonstration that science never
produces final answers. Over the past month, two scientific challenges
to the warming thesis were made public, one of them speculative, the
other damning.

The speculative aspect is provided by a theory advanced by Danish
astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark of the Center for Sun-Climate
Research. Svensmark's theory is complex, but can be summarized easily
enough. It is based on the observation that cosmic rays assist in
cloud formation by encouraging condensation. A rise in solar activity
strengthens the sun's magnetic field, which shields the inner solar
system from cosmic rays. Cloud formation drops slightly but
significantly, lowering the earth's albedo - its reflectivity -
resulting in increased temperatures.

Solar activity is currently at all-time high, with the intensity of
incoming cosmic rays correspondingly low. Have rising temperatures
been a mere coincidence? Svensmark doesn't think so, and has convinced
one of Britain's premier science writers, Nigel Calder, to collaborate
with him on a book, The Chilling Stars, not yet published in the U.S.

The other challenge was embodied in an op-ed by NASA climate scientist
Roy W. Spencer in the New York Post. Not your average scientific
journal, it's true, but it's been along time since this was merely a
scientific question. Spencer points out a glaring omission in nearly
all climatology dealing with warming: a complete neglect of the
phenomenon of precipitation. Spencer explains that precipitation
lowers atmospheric temperature, with effects on the climate in general
that remain unknown. The lack of consideration of precipitation in
the global warming model is a gross error, on the level of putting the
wrong lenses on the Hubble Telescope or confusing metric and English
measurements while constructing the lost Mars probe.

How much is overall temperature lowered by precipitation? We don't
know. Has the level and frequency of precipitation increased? We don't
know that either. Precipitation is probably the least understood
element of climate. We don't even know the total amount of
precipitation in the world. A clearer indictment of warming "science"
is impossible to make.

Svensmark's theory remains to be tested, and the data concerning the
effects of precipitation need to be collated and analyzed. But their
implications cannot be ignored. The fact that two such major elements,
one cosmic, one prosaic, have been overlooked undercuts the warming
thesis completely. The warming theorist's obsession with carbon
dioxide buildup - only one factor in an infinitely complex system -
has blinded them to everything else. They're in the position of a pack
of hounds so intent on the rabbit that they missed the cliff edge
right in front of them.

It's heartening to see that the Greens, whether technical, political,
or media, have retained their basic ineptness. They're such cookie-
cutter true believers that they really can't grasp how they can go
wrong or why anyone wouldn't listen to them. As a result they begin
their push in the middle of winter, choose the current prince of the
also-rans as their champion (such individuals, who include figures
such as Wendell Wilkie and Hubert Humphrey, can often go on to make
serious and valuable contributions. But not this time.), and ignore
the fact that science marches on without regard to anybody's agenda.

The campaign will continue. We'll be hearing about global warming
until the glaciers return, the same way we occasionally still hear a
few frightened voices crying about overpopulation, in a world where
population collapse is the challenge. The Greens may pass some taxes,
get some cosmetic programs pushed through, but the idea of a Green
millennium, of some kind of apocalyptic phase-change resulting in a
global environmentalist state, is something we can forget about.

They had their shot, and they have blown it. The past few weeks could
serve well as a textbook example of how not to influence public
opinion. In time (and it can't be soon enough), global warming will
take its place in the museum of folly alongside overpopulation,
nuclear winter, and the coming ice age. There aren't any spotlights
there, and they don't give out prizes either.

J.R. Dunn is a consulting editor of American Thinker. Page Printed
from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/...o_failure.html
at March 06, 2007 - 10:28:10 AM EST