Al Fin: Rational Video Lecture Presentations on Climate

The more you know about the energy balance of our planet, and how it can change and affect the planetary climate, the less you will trust the catastrophic predictions for anthropogenic climate change. Here are two video presentations covering some quite pertinent aspects of the climate debate, for those inclined to keep learning more.

2010 Brings First Tornado-Free February

According to the Storm Prediction Center (SPC), no tornadoes were reported last month.

"It's a phenomenal feat that we went a month without a tornado," said AccuWeather.com Expert Senior Meteorologist Henry Margusity.

If the statistic stands, it would be the first tornado-free February in at least 60 years.

February typically has 22 tornadoes on average, based on reports dating back to 1950 from the SPC.

The Hockey Schtick: Another Bogus Graph created for IPCC AR4

The legend, however, notes that the data comes from 4 different sources each from vastly different time periods, the carbon concentration is only the anthropogenic fraction (3-4%) of the total carbon emissions which has a different spatial distribution than the anthropogenic only, and there is an inverse correlation between sea level rise above 60 degrees N 1993-2003 and temperature decrease in the same region 1955-2003 (note anthropogenic climate changes are supposed to be most pronounced at the poles). In sum, the graph proves nothing and on close inspection just weakens the IPCC "message". How does junk science like this get through the "extensive review process of hundreds of international experts"? Probably the same way as the IPCC paleoclimate reconstructions.

Phil Jones admits withholding scientific data | CLIMATEGATE

He seemed very nervous.

He was all over the place on his answers regarding the question of if data was withheld and why, but he did end up admitting that he had withheld some scientific data about global temperatures.

Why would he not want to release it? Well, for one thing, even though he said it would be a good idea, it was “not standard practice.” Following up, Labour MP Graham Stringer asked him: “If that’s not standard practice, how can science progress?” Professor Jones replied: “Maybe it should be but it isn’t.”

He also said, “because all he [a skeptic] wants to do is find something wrong with it.” To which Mr. Stringer again challenged Jones: “But scientists make a name by proving and disproving things, don’t they? The statement seems to be anti-scientific. It is an absolutely clear denial of the man’s attempt to get at what you were doing. He wanted your information and you refused to give it to him? Why?”

Jones’ answer: “Because we had invested a lot of work and resources in it, and this was before FOI [Freedom of information legislation] started.”

And he’s calls himself a scientist?