I Demand a Recount! « Ken Green - The Enterprise Blog

I was surprised to find out that they think I’m Canadian (I’m not), that I still work at the Fraser Institute (I don’t), and that I have only published four—count’ em, four!—publications on climate change!

Apparently, the researchers didn’t feel the need to do much diligence when looking for publications of the sampled population. In my case, they probed Google Scholar searching for “K. Green.” As I’ve virtually never published under “K. Green,” it’s not surprising they’d come up with so little. Just searching Google Scholar with my full name of “Kenneth P. Green” would have gotten them this list of 13 climate-related publications, while searching for “Kenneth Green” associated with one of my places of employment would have gotten them this list of 113 publications, about half of which are mine. Of course, working in think tanks rather than academia, the vast majority of my publications are in the “grey literature,” which Google Scholar doesn’t seem to capture fully, but which the head of the IPCC recently defended for inclusion in their assessment reports—the very documents claimed to define the scientific consensus. According to my AEI bio, I’ve put out more than 50 publications on climate change just since 2006. Googling “”Kenneth P. Green” “climate” comes up with 179,000 hits!

Going Rogue, Part II: Environmental Protection Agency forsakes rationality » Columns » Bluefield Daily Telegraph, Bluefield, WV

The EPA has become nothing more than a political tool of leftist ideology that is taking aim at American industries, and may well be a key element in unraveling the U.S. economy.

'Don't Blame El Nino for Global Warming' : Discovery News

Last year, some Australian researchers took a look at global temperature statistics in relation to the El Nino Southern Oscillation and concluded that El Nino accounts for 68 percent of global temperatures in one 50-year data set and 72 percent of a 29-year record. Their study, they said, showed "that natural climate forcing associated with ENSO is a major contributor to variability and perhaps recent trends in global temperature, a relationship that is not included in current global climate models."

A Physical Scientist Looks at Dendroclimatology | Climate Skeptic

These questions to Briffa could have come from McIntyre:

(I) How can we be reassured about the choice of which raw data from which stations are to be selected, detrended and then included in the tree-ring data bases? Is there an algorithm that establishes the inclusion/exclusion? If I were setting out to establish the lowest possible net temperature rise over the last century is consistent with the available data, what fraction of tree-ring-data would then be included/excluded? Could I coerce the data to support a null hypothesis on global warming?

(2) In the range of papers we have reviewed, you have used a variety of statistical techniques in what is a heroic effort to get signals from noisy and patchy data. To what extent has this variety of techniques be reviewed and commented upon by the modern statistical community for their effectiveness, right use and possible weaknesses?

Dark Ecosystems Nurtured by Oil - Green Blog - NYTimes.com

...It based its global portrait on average, annual, petrochemical releases from 1990 to 1999.

Natural seeps turned out to account for 600 kilotons annually, or 47 percent of the total. Consumption — from such activities as boating, urban runoff and industrial wastes — came in second at 480 kilotons, or 38 percent of the total. In third place were releases from such transportation-related activities as leaky pipes, tanker spills and cargo-hold washings. They amounted to 160 kilotons annually, or 12 percent of the total.

In last place were releases to the sea that tend to make headlines — those associated with oil extraction, like the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig on April 20. Globally, that kind of release amounted to 38 kilotons annually, or 3 percent of the total.

PNAS Climate Change Expert Credibility Farce | The Resilient Earth

The PNAS paper is a meaningless propaganda piece, pure and simple. The “research” presented was designed to produce a bias answer. If students of mine submitted similar work they would receive a failing grade. It is so biased in its data collection and analyses that it is incapable of proving anything. As Wolfgang Pauli said, “This isn't right, it isn't even wrong.”

The fact that this pile of intellectual excrement is being published in PNAS shows how pervasive the climate change clique's influence is and the depth of hypocrisy in the climate science community. This paper's publication is an indication of how frightened the climate change alarmists have become. They obviously now feel that they must discredit any scientist who dares to speak against the IPCC dogma.