Not a Good Day for the Global Warming Alarmists

Global Warming is always a controversial topic, despite the "settled science" label that many try to give it.  The first of two articles today is about the scientist whose work, in part, was used to put the Polar Bears on the threatened species list. Then the EPA, using the "Clean Air Act", assumed sole authority for regulating CO2, and used the endangerment as basis for imposing far more CO2 regulation.  Environmentalist groups also began a series of lawsuits against many companies emitting CO2, citing endangerment of the polar bears as basis for the suit. 

Arctic scientist under investigation
July 28, 2011

Charles Monnett, an Anchorage-based scientist with the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, or BOEMRE, was told July 18 that he was being put on leave, pending results of an investigation into "integrity issues."
...
On Thursday, Ruch's watchdog group plans to file a complaint with the agency on Monnett's behalf, asserting that Obama administration officials have "actively persecuted" him in violation of policy intended to protect scientists from political interference.
...
They [Monnett and fellow researcher Jeffrey Gleason] said their observations suggested the bears drowned in rough seas and high winds and "suggest that drowning-related deaths of polar bears may increase in the future if the observed trend of regression of pack ice and/or longer open water periods continues."

The article and presentations drew national attention and helped make the polar bear something of a poster child for the global warming movement. Al Gore's mention of the polar bear in his documentary on climate change, "An Inconvenient Truth," came up during investigators' questioning of Gleason in January.

In May 2008, the U.S. classified the polar bear as a threatened species, the first with its survival at risk due to global warming. 

According to a transcript, investigator Eric May asked Gleason his thoughts on Gore referencing the dead polar bears. Gleason said none of the polar bear papers he has written or co-authored has said "anything really" about global warming.

I am not sure what the charges really mean.  Especially in the context of being another possible case of Chicago style thuggery.  The last statement should have significant fallout.  So the polar bears are not really at risk from CO2, implied from Gleason's statement, or at least it shouldn't be assumed.  Wonder how that fits with Obama's cap and trade view of CO2 regulations? 

If that isn't enough of a blow to the AGW (man caused global warming) crowd, the next article probably knocked them off their feet.  The entire global warming "settled science" belief comes from acceptance of complex mathematical models of global warming and thermal forcing functions (basically heat coming in and escaping the earth). The assumptions that go into these models are crucial to their accuracy and reliability.  Many doubts have been evinced in the last few years.  From the discrediting of Michael Mann's "hockey stick" model, to the "Climategate" loss of credibility at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the UK's University of East Anglia.  Now one of the key elements of the models is found to be very different from what has been assumed.


New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.

"The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," Spencer said in a July 26 University of Alabama press release. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."

In addition to finding that far less heat is being trapped than alarmist computer models have predicted, the NASA satellite data show the atmosphere begins shedding heat into space long before United Nations computer models predicted.

The new findings are extremely important and should dramatically alter the global warming debate.
...
In short, the central premise of alarmist global warming theory is that carbon dioxide emissions should be directly and indirectly trapping a certain amount of heat in the earth's atmosphere and preventing it from escaping into space. Real-world measurements, however, show far less heat is being trapped in the earth's atmosphere than the alarmist computer models predict, and far more heat is escaping into space than the alarmist computer models predict.

So much for planning on those warmer winters here in Minnesota.