UK News:

A period of prehistoric global warming and not the decline of the dinosaurs could be responsible for the rise of mammals, it was claimed today.

Scientists have drawn up a new “tree of life” tracing the history of all 4,500 mammals on Earth which shows they did not spread as a result of the massive asteroid strike that killed off the dinosaurs 65 million years ago.

Most palaeontologists believe the extinction of T Rex and his terrifying cousins permitted our ancestors to flourish and begin the long evolutionary process culminating in the diverse array of species we see today.

But an international team of researchers, which has taken more than a decade to chart modern mammals from existing fossil records and new molecular analyses, show many of the genetic ‘ancestors’ of the mammals existed 85 million years ago – and survived the meteor impact that is thought to have wiped out the dinosaurs.

However, throughout the Cretaceous period 144 to 65 million years ago, when dinosaurs walked the earth, these mammal species were relatively few in number and were prevented from diversifying and evolving in ecosystems dominated by dinosaurs.

The tree of life published in Nature shows after the asteroid strike certain mammals did experience a rapid period of diversification and evolution.

But most of these groups have since either died out completely such as Andrewsarchus – an aggressive wolf-like cow – or declined in diversity such as the group containing sloths and armadillos.

The researchers believe our ‘ancestors’, and those of all other mammals on earth now, began to radiate around the time of a sudden increase in the temperature of the planet – ten million years after the death of the dinosaurs.

Biologist Professor Andy Purvis, of Imperial College London, said: “Our research has shown for the first 10 or 15 million years after the dinosaurs were wiped out present day mammals kept a very low profile while these other types of mammals were running the show.

“It looks like a later bout of ‘global warming’ may have kick-started today’s diversity – not the death of the dinosaurs.

“This discovery rewrites our understanding of how we came to evolve on this planet – and the study as a whole gives a much clearer picture than ever before as to our place in nature.”

Abstract of Nature article.

Hat tip to José Guardia

Hat tip to Michael Lawler.

Al Gore is not.

video

Hat tip to PJM Tel Aviv, aka Allison Kaplan Sommer.

Daniel Clark observes. The whole business is just a part of the feminization of modern society.

He’s right, too.

If a guy is shown a picture of a sad-looking polar bear adrift on an ice floe, his first thought will be something like, “I’ve heard that bear steaks are tough, but maybe if you marinated them in beer, they’d turn out all right.” At that point, the alarmists’ emotional ploy is foiled. In a world without guy stuff, however, his vacant mind may be invaded by irrationalities like, “Who will take care of the polar bears’ children?”

In this chicken-and-the-egg scenario, the success of the global warming movement is both the cause and effect of our society’s emasculation. It would have never gotten this far if the “Nineties Man” hadn’t paved the way. When “I feel your pain” became a successful presidential campaign slogan, we should have known that charcoal-grilled steaks would soon be on the endangered list.

Read the whole thing.

Hat tip to Karen Myers.

Melanie Phillips points out a Guardian book review by “Mike Hulme, professor in the school of environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia and the founding director of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research — a key figure in the promulgation of climate change theory,” which inadvertently spills the beans about which comes first from the eco-leftie point of view, the facts or ideology.

Too often with climate change, genuine and necessary debates about these wider social values – do we have confidence in technology; do we believe in collective action over private enterprise; do we believe we carry obligations to people invisible to us in geography and time? – masquerade as disputes about scientific truth and error…

The danger of a “normal” reading of science is that it assumes science can first find truth, then speak truth to power, and that truth-based policy will then follow…

If only climate change were such a phenomenon and if only science held such an ascendancy over our personal, social and political life and decisions. In fact, in order to make progress about how we manage climate change we have to take science off centre stage…

This is not a comfortable thing to say – either to those scientists who still hold an uncritical view of their privileged enterprise and who relish the status society affords them, or to politicians whose instinct is so often to hide behind the experts when confronted by difficult and genuine policy alternatives.

Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking, although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the socially contingent dimensions of a post-normal science. But to proffer such insights, scientists – and politicians – must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity.

It is always hilarious when the mask starts to slip.

Hat tip to Bird Dog.

Reports, like MSNBC’s today, of Global Temps setting a record are pretty easy to refute. In the first place, there is no such thing as a uniform global temperature whose changes can be monitored, recorded, or modeled, as three scholars recently noted in a paper published in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics.

UPI:

A Danish scientist said the idea of a “global temperature” and global warming is more political than scientific.

University of Copenhagen Professor Bjarne Andresen has analyzed the topic in collaboration with Canadian Professors Christopher Essex from the University of Western Ontario and Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph.

It is generally assumed the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans have grown warmer during the recent 50 years because of an upward trend in the so-called global temperature, which is the result of complex calculations and averaging of air temperature measurements taken around the world.

“It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth,” said Andresen, an expert on thermodynamics. “A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate”.

He says the currently used method of determining the global temperature — and any conclusion drawn from it — is more political than scientific.

The argument is presented in the Journal of Non-Equilibrium Thermodynamics.

Syun-Ichi Akasofu of the International Arctic Research Center takes issue with IPCC Report.

There seems to be a roughly linear increase of the temperature from about 1800, or even much earlier, to the present. This warming trend is likely to be a natural change; a rapid increase of CO2 began in about 1940. This trend should be subtracted from the temperature data during the last 100 years. Thus, there is a possibility that only a fraction of the present warming trend may be attributed to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities. This conclusion is contrary to the IPCC (2007) Report, which states that
“most” of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. One possible cause of the linear increase may be that the Earth is still recovering from the Little Ice Age. It is urgent that natural changes be correctly identified and removed accurately from the presently on-going changes in order to find the contribution of the greenhouse effect.

Many older people like myself have no difficulty at all recalling that, back in the 1970s (when we were experiencing some colder winters), environmentalists were predicting a new Ice Age resulting from emissions produced by human industrial activity.

Al Gore, however, must be getting senile. A New York Times article, devoted to brushing away scientific criticism of Gore’s exaggerated claims of imminent doom (“…in terms of the big picture, he got it right.”), admiringly quotes Gore’s self-deprecatory assessment of his own performance:

He said that after 30 years of trying to communicate the dangers of global warming, “I think that I’m finally getting a little better at it.”

Actually, though the weather began getting milder after the late 1970s, awareness of a “Global Warming” crisis dates back only to 1988, when NASA scientist James Hansen testified to Congress of a “cause and effect” relationship between human emissions and a warming climate.

Of course, though Gore would have been working to avert Global Cooling, not Global Warming, 30 years ago, by a curious coincidence, he was undoubtedly advocating precisely the same solutions: bigger government, higher taxes, more regulation and restriction of energy consumption.

Hat tip to Frank Dobbs.

The Telegraph reports:

Scientists who questioned mankind’s impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

They say the debate on global warming has been “hijacked” by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

“Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened,” said the professor…

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology… recently claimed: “Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges.

“Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science.”

The need to stifle debate indicates all too clearly the quality of the science behind Anthropogenic Global Warming theory.

The full documentary is now available.

1:15:56 video

Channel 4’s documentary was broadcast yesterday evening in Britain. Some excerpts have already been uploaded.

2:12 Part 1

3:14 Part 2

3:13 Part 3

2:56 Part 4

4:30 Part 5

4:11 Part 6

I expect that the entire program will soon be available.

Britain’s Channel 4:

In a polemical and thought-provoking documentary, film-maker Martin Durkin argues that the theory of man-made global warming has become such a powerful political force that other explanations for climate change are not being properly aired.

The film brings together the arguments of leading scientists who disagree with the prevailing consensus that a ‘greenhouse effect’ of carbon dioxide released by human activity is the cause of rising global temperatures.

Instead the documentary highlights recent research that the effect of the sun’s radiation on the atmosphere may be a better explanation for the regular swings of climate from ice ages to warm interglacial periods and back again.

The film argues that the earth’s climate is always changing, and that rapid warmings and coolings took place long before the burning of fossil fuels. It argues that the present single-minded focus on reducing carbon emissions not only may have little impact on climate change, it may also have the unintended consequence of stifling development in the third world, prolonging endemic poverty and disease.

The film features an impressive roll-call of experts, including nine professors — experts in climatology, oceanography, meteorology, environmental science, biogeography and paleoclimatology — from such reputable institutions as MIT, NASA, the International Arctic Research Centre, the Institut Pasteur, the Danish National Space Center and the Universities of London, Ottawa, Jerusalem, Winnipeg, Alabama and Virginia.

The film hears from scientists who dispute the link between carbon dioxide levels and global temperatures.

‘The ice core record goes to the very heart of the problem we have’ says a respected climatology expert in the documentary. ‘They said if CO2 increases in the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas, then the temperature will go up’.

In fact, the experts in the film argue that increased CO2 levels are actually a result of temperature rises, not their cause, and that this alternate view is rarely heard. ‘So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change due to humans, is shown to be wrong.’

‘I’ve often heard it said that there is a consensus of thousands of scientists on the global warming issue, that humans are causing a catastrophic change to the climate system,’ says an emminent earth science expert. ‘Well I am one scientist, and there are many, that simply think that is not true.’