Important new scientific report challenges EPA claims about mercury risks from power plants Real threat is from power plant closings, soaring electricity rates and lost jobs.

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites

A three part series that examines some of the systematic bias in Snow Course, SNOTEL, Streamflow data and Hydrologic Models.

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites

In an interview and paper published in 21st Century in 2007, I have shown that global sea level is not in an alarming rising mode, which is the main threat in the International Panel on Climate Change scenario.

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites

1. Research has shown that a focus on just carbon dioxide and a few other greenhouse gases as the dominant human influence on climate is too narrow, and misses other important human influences.

2. The phrases “global warming” and “climate change” are not the same. Global warming is a subset of climate change.

3. The prediction (or projection) of regional weather, including extremes, decades into the future is far more difficult than commonly assumed. In addition, the attribution of extreme events to a particular subset of climate forcings is scientifically incomplete if the research ignores other relevant human and natural causes of extreme weather events.

4. The climate science assessments of the IPCC and CCSP, as well as the various statements issued by the AGU, AMS, and NRC, are completed by a small subset of climate scientists who are often the same individuals in each case.

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites

The validity of the manmade global warming alarm requires the support of scientific forecasts of (1) a substantive long-term rise in global mean temperatures in the absence of regulations, (2) serious net harmful effects due to global warming, and (3) cost-effective regulations that would produce net beneficial effects versus alternatives such as doing nothing.

Without scientific forecasts for all three aspects of the alarm, there is no scientific basis to enact regulations. In effect, it is a three-legged stool. Despite repeated appeals to global warming alarmists, we have been unable to find scientific forecasts for any of the three legs.

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites

It has come to my attention that data and information from my team's upcoming paper, shared in confidence with Dr. Muller, is being used to suggest some early conclusions about the state of the quality of the surface temperature measurement system of the United States and the temperature data derived from it.

Normally such scientific debate is conducted in peer reviewed literature, rather than rushed to the floor of the House before papers and projects are complete, but since my team and I are not here to represent our work in person, we ask that this letter be submitted into the Congressional record.

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites

We have analyzed a wide variety of albedo and IR differences which are associated with rainfall variations on many different space and time scales. Our goal is to determine the extent to which we are able to accept or reject the reality of the Global Climate Model (GCM) simulations. The following analysis indicates that the GCM simulation of the influence of a doubling of CO2 give far too much global warming. We anticipate that a doubling of CO2 will act in a way to cause the global hydrologic cycle to increase in strength by approximately 3-4 percent. Our analysis indicates that there will be very little global temperature increase (~0.3oC) for a doubling of CO2, certainly not the 2-5oC projected by the GCMs.

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites

Global Warming: How to approach the science.
Richard S. Lindzen
Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, and Climate
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Testimony: House Subcommittee on Science and Technology hearing on A Rational Discussion of Climate Change: the Science, the Evidence, the Response
November 17, 2010

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites

The story of environmentalism is generally portrayed as one of citizens triumphing over evil corporate polluters, of public awareness, science, and affluence working together to solve pressing problems. There is no problem so huge or so abstract that we cannot solve it if we put our minds to it And solving these problems yields all sorts of positive side-effects and no drawbacks.

While that may be the perception, it is far from the fact. Public awareness is easily swayed by media campaigns that are little more than propaganda and supported by a press that would rather take sides than present balanced reports. Science is largely bought and paid for by politicians who control the agenda and the outcome. And our affluence, or what is left of it, is viewed as an inexhaustible source of revenue for whatever fantastic ideas the political class can dream up. Negative consequences of such folly are viewed as so impossible as to be unworthy of discussion.

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites