http://www.telegraph.co.uk/…

A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.

This was startling. Across the world there were reports of unseasonal snow and plummeting temperatures last month, from the American Great Plains to China, and from the Alps to New Zealand. China’s official news agency reported that Tibet had suffered its “worst snowstorm ever”. In the US, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration registered 63 local snowfall records and 115 lowest-ever temperatures for the month, and ranked it as only the 70th-warmest October in 114 years.

So what explained the anomaly? GISS’s computerised temperature maps seemed to show readings across a large part of Russia had been up to 10 degrees higher than normal. But when expert readers of the two leading warming-sceptic blogs, Watts Up With That and Climate Audit, began detailed analysis of the GISS data they made an astonishing discovery. The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.

The error was so glaring that when it was reported on the two blogs - run by the US meteorologist Anthony Watts and Steve McIntyre, the Canadian computer analyst who won fame for his expert debunking of the notorious “hockey stick” graph - GISS began hastily revising its figures. This only made the confusion worse because, to compensate for the lowered temperatures in Russia, GISS claimed to have discovered a new “hotspot” in the Arctic - in a month when satellite images were showing Arctic sea-ice recovering so fast from its summer melt that three weeks ago it was 30 per cent more extensive than at the same time last year.

A GISS spokesman lamely explained that the reason for the error in the Russian figures was that they were obtained from another body, and that GISS did not have resources to exercise proper quality control over the data it was supplied with. This is an astonishing admission: the figures published by Dr Hansen’s institute are not only one of the four data sets that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) relies on to promote its case for global warming, but they are the most widely quoted, since they consistently show higher temperatures than the others.

When it comes down to it… the climate changes regardless of humanity. The human caused global warming alarmists are losing credibility constantly yet they many have more faith in their predictions then Jesus. Numbers fudged, data point biases ignored, all contrary data dismissed without serious consideration and the shutting up of all those who speak out, and perhaps worse… ignoring the economic realities of the situation and instead of making practical plans to deal with the possible warming and seeing if it would actually be a negative they preach doom.

Sorry, I mean global climate change.

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/…

Arguably the most influential graphic from the latest IPCC report is Figure SPM.2 from the IPCC WG 2’s Summary for Policy Makers (on the impacts, vulnerability and adaptation to climate change). This figure, titled “Key impacts as a function of increasing global average temperature change”, also appears as Figure SPM.7 and Figure 3.6 of the IPCC Synthesis Report (available at http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr.pdf). Versions also appear as Table 20.8 of the WG 2 report, and Table TS.3 in the WG 2 Technical Summary. Yet other versions are also available from the IPCC WG2’s Graphics Presentations & Speeches, as well as in the WG 2’s “official” Power Point presentations, e.g., the presentation at the UNFCCC in Bonn, May 2007 (available at http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/pr-ar4-2007-05-briefing-bonn.htm).

Notably the SPMs, Technical Summary, Synthesis Report, and the versions made available as presentations are primarily for consumption by policy makers and other intelligent lay persons. As such, they are meant to be jargon-free, easy to understand, and should be designed to shed light rather than to mislead even as they stay faithful to the science.

Let’s focus on what Figure SPM.2 tells us about the impacts of climate change on water.

The third statement in the panel devoted to water impacts states, “Hundreds of millions of people exposed to increased water stress.” If one traces from whence this statement came, one is led to Arnell (2004). [Figure SPM.2 misidentifies one of the sources as Table 3.3 of the IPCC WG 2 report. It ought to be Table 3.2. ]

What is evident is that while this third statement is correct, Figure SPM.2 neglects to inform us that water stress could be reduced for many hundreds of millions more — see Table 10 from the original reference, Arnell (2004). As a result, the net global population at risk of water stress might actually be reduced. And, that is precisely what Table 9 from Arnell (2004) shows.

It’s been a while since I read through the IPCC report abstract but I recall several instances where they made dire predictions without adequate backing or explanation. Perhaps it was due to it being an abstract but at 70+ pages if I remember correctly they could have in the least made reference to the data.

The whole global climate change movement is sneaky like this. Even when they are honest the solutions to any problem is increased government control even though in almost every country it’s in fact the government which does the most polluting and is responsible for ignoring property rights thereby allowing others to pollute.

http://www.epa.gov/…

September 4, 2008, Final Rule: Control of Emissions of Air Pollution from New Nonroad Spark-Ignition Engines, Equipment, and Vessels

EPA has finalized a new emission control program to reduce hydrocarbon emissions from small spark-ignition engines by about 35 percent. The new exhaust emissions standards will take effect in 2011 or 2012, depending on the size of the engine. The final rule also includes new standards to reduce evaporative emissions from these fuel systems. These standards will reduce the harmful health effects of ozone and carbon monoxide from these engines.

This page provides consumer information, regulations, guidance, and compliance fee and certification data for ten categories of nonroad spark-ignition engines, ranging from lawn and garden equipment through airport service equipment. For the homeowner, there is information about maintaining a yard and lawn, while minimizing air pollution from spark-ignition engines. For additional information about our emission standards, see our Fact Sheet: Final Emission Standards for New Nonroad Spark-ignition Engines, Equipment, and Vessels | PDF Version (xx pp, xxK, EPA420-F-08-013).

I’m sure lawnmowers are a significant contributer to global warming cooling climate change. Thank baby Jesus the EPA is there to save us.