The Great Global Warming Thread (merged)

[Dutchcedar]

Its time to change the thread title back to "The Great Global Warming Swindle" now that we're in the stage where our esteemed congress is prepared to "fix" things by taxing the crap out of us (swindle).

Not that any of us Nostradamus types saw any of this coming... just sayin'.

[AMDScooter]

Its time to change the thread title back to "The Great Global Warming Swindle" now that we're in the stage where our esteemed congress is prepared to "fix" things by taxing the crap out of us (swindle).

Not that any of us Nostradamus types saw any of this coming... just sayin'.

I've been waiting for the one who changed it to change it back seeing as it was an unrequested change to begin with.

[Dutchcedar]

^^^ You had the real problem pegged from day one.

[AMDScooter]

Dissenting views not welcome at the cult gatherings..


Polar bear expert barred by global warmists
Mitchell Taylor, who has studied the animals for 30 years, was told his views 'are extremely unhelpful’ , reveals Christopher Booker.

Over the coming days a curiously revealing event will be taking place in Copenhagen. Top of the agenda at a meeting of the Polar Bear Specialist Group (set up under the International Union for the Conservation of Nature/Species Survival Commission) will be the need to produce a suitably scary report on how polar bears are being threatened with extinction by man-made global warming.

This is one of a steady drizzle of events planned to stoke up alarm in the run-up to the UN's major conference on climate change in Copenhagen next December. But one of the world's leading experts on polar bears has been told to stay away from this week's meeting, specifically because his views on global warming do not accord with those of the rest of the group.

Dr Mitchell Taylor has been researching the status and management of polar bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, as both an academic and a government employee. More than once since 2006 he has made headlines by insisting that polar bear numbers, far from decreasing, are much higher than they were 30 years ago. Of the 19 different bear populations, almost all are increasing or at optimum levels, only two have for local reasons modestly declined.

Dr Taylor agrees that the Arctic has been warming over the last 30 years. But he ascribes this not to rising levels of CO2 – as is dictated by the computer models of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and believed by his PBSG colleagues – but to currents bringing warm water into the Arctic from the Pacific and the effect of winds blowing in from the Bering Sea.

He has also observed, however, how the melting of Arctic ice, supposedly threatening the survival of the bears, has rocketed to the top of the warmists' agenda as their most iconic single cause. The famous photograph of two bears standing forlornly on a melting iceberg was produced thousands of times by Al Gore, the WWF and others as an emblem of how the bears faced extinction – until last year the photographer, Amanda Byrd, revealed that the bears, just off the Alaska coast, were in no danger. Her picture had nothing to do with global warming and was only taken because the wind-sculpted ice they were standing on made such a striking image.

Dr Taylor had obtained funding to attend this week's meeting of the PBSG, but this was voted down by its members because of his views on global warming. The chairman, Dr Andy Derocher, a former university pupil of Dr Taylor's, frankly explained in an email (which I was not sent by Dr Taylor) that his rejection had nothing to do with his undoubted expertise on polar bears: "it was the position you've taken on global warming that brought opposition".

Dr Taylor was told that his views running "counter to human-induced climate change are extremely unhelpful". His signing of the Manhattan Declaration – a statement by 500 scientists that the causes of climate change are not CO2 but natural, such as changes in the radiation of the sun and ocean currents – was "inconsistent with the position taken by the PBSG".

So, as the great Copenhagen bandwagon rolls on, stand by this week for reports along the lines of "scientists say polar bears are threatened with extinction by vanishing Arctic ice". But also check out Anthony Watt's Watts Up With That website for the latest news of what is actually happening in the Arctic. The average temperature at midsummer is still below zero, the latest date that this has happened in 50 years of record-keeping. After last year's recovery from its September 2007 low, this year's ice melt is likely to be substantially less than for some time. The bears are doing fine.

Leave your money at the door.. keep moving..

[AMDScooter]

Bit on realclimate.. because for them.. it's not really about the climate. It's all about pushing their agenda.

Climatologist slams RealClimate.org for 'erroneously communicating the reality of the how climate system is actually behaving' - Rebuts Myths On Sea Level, Oceans and Arctic Ice

Plus: A Climate Depot Exclusive: Real Climate Exposed! A Comprehensive Report on the "Real" RealClimate.org

The global warming promoting website RealClimate.org, is under fire yet again from a prominent scientist for presenting incorrect climate information. Climatologist Dr. Roger Pielke Sr. publicly rebuked the website in a June 30, 2009 article for "erroneously communicating the reality of the how the climate system is actually behaving." Pielke, the former Colorado State Climatologist and currently a senior scientist at the University of Colorado in Boulder, countered Real Climate's claim that warming was "progressing faster than expected" with the latest data on sea level rise, ocean heat content and Arctic ice.

In his article titled "Real Climate's Misinformation", Pielke also chastised readers of Real Climate for blindly accepting the incorrect climate claims promoted on the site.

"Media and policymakers who blindly accept these claims are either naive or are deliberately slanting the science to promote their particular advocacy position," Pielke Sr. wrote.

Realclimate.org, a website which much of the mainstream media has relied on for climate science developments, has come under increasing criticism and scrutiny from scientists. Real Climate's lead blogger and NASA scientist Gavin Schmidt was harshly criticized for some of his scientific claims in January 2009. Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a prominent scientist from the Netherlands, wrote a scathing denunciation of Schmidt in which he said he was “appalled” by Schmidt's “lack of knowledge” and added, “Back to graduate school, Gavin!”

The latest scientific woes by RealClimate.org were rebutted point by point by Pielke on June 20, 2009.

Real Climate claimed:

“Our regular readers will hardly be surprised by the key findings from physical climate science, most of which we have already discussed here. Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago - such as rising sea levels, the increase of heat stored in the ocean and the shrinking Arctic sea ice."

Pielke responded:

"First, what is 'physical climate science'? How is this different from 'climate science'. In the past, this terminology has been used when authors ignore the biological components of the climate system," Pielke wrote.

Pielke continued: "More importantly, however, the author of the weblog makes the statement that the following climate metrics 'are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago'":

1. Real Climate Claim: “rising sea levels”

Pielke's Response: "NOT TRUE; e.g. see the University of Colorado at Boulder Sea Level Change analysis. Sea level has actually flattened since 2006."

2. Real Climate Claim: “the increase of heat stored in the ocean”

Pielke's "Response: NOT TRUE; see
Update On A Comparison Of Upper Ocean Heat Content Changes With The GISS Model Predictions.
Their has been no statistically significant warming of the upper ocean since 2003."

3. Real Climate Claim: “shrinking Arctic sea ice”

Pielke's Response: "NOT TRUE; see the Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Anomaly from the University of Illinois Cyrosphere Today website. Since 2008, the anomalies have actually decreased."

Pielke Concluded: "These climate metrics might again start following the predictions of the models. However, until and unless they do, the authors of the Copenhagen Congress Synthesis Report and the author of the Real Climate weblog are erroneously communicating the reality of the how the climate system is actually behaving.

Media and policymakers who blindly accept these claims are either naive or are deliberately slanting the science to promote their particular advocacy position."

Climate Depot Exclusive Report: A Long History of Accuracy Woes and Activism for RealClimate.org

Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a prominent scientist from the Netherlands, wrote a scathing denunciation of Schmidt in which he said he was “appalled” by Schmidt's “lack of knowledge” and added, “Back to graduate school, Gavin!”

“Roger Pielke, Sr. has graciously invited me to add my perspective to his discussion with Gavin Schmidt at Real Climate. If this were not such a serious matter, I would have been amused by Gavin's lack of knowledge of the differences between weather models and climate models. As it stands, I am appalled. Back to graduate school, Gavin!” Tennekes wrote on January 29, 2009. Tennekes, is an scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes. Tennekes is also featured in U.S. Senate Minority Report Update: More Than 700 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims “Gavin Schmidt is not the only meteorologist with an inadequate grasp of the role of the oceans in the climate system. In my weblog of June 24, 2008, I addressed the limited perception that at least one other climate modeler appears to have,” Tennekes wrote. “From my perspective it is not a little bit alarming that the current generation of climate models cannot simulate such fundamental phenomena as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. I will not trust any climate model until and unless it can accurately represent the PDO and other slow features of the world ocean circulation. Even then, I would remain skeptical about the potential predictive skill of such a model many tens of years into the future,” Tennekes added.

Atmospheric Physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, also critiqued RealClimate.org on June 24, 2008. Peden wrote, “'Real Climate' is a staged and contracted production, which wasn't created by 'scientists,' it was actually created by Environmental Media Services, a company which specializes in spreading environmental junk science on behalf of numerous clients who stand to financially benefit from scare tactics through environmental fear mongering.”

Meteorologist Joe D'Aleo also launched a sharply worded critique of RealClimate.org in January 2009 titled “Response to Gavin Schmidt – Global Data Base Issues Are Real.” “To Gavin [Schmidt] and the other alarmists, it appears, a piece that is fair and balanced can make no mention of any other opinion except that carbon dioxide is causing global warming and action is needed now and will deliver gain and no pain, something the one sided media coverage has gotten them used to over the years,” D'Aleo wrote on January 13, 2009. D'Aleo served as the first Director of Meteorology at The Weather Channel and served as chairman of the American Meteorological Society's Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting.

Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv has also been critical. “The aim of RealClimate.org is not to engage a sincere scientific debate. Their aim is to post a reply full of a straw man so their supporters can claim that your point 'has been refuted by real scientists at RealClimate.org,'” Shaviv's website reported. Shaviv, who calls the website “Wishfulclimate.org,” noted that the “writers (at RealClimaet.org) try again and again to concoct what appears to be deep critiques against skeptic arguments, but end up doing a very shallow job. All in the name of saving the world. How gallant of them.”

. . .

[AMDScooter]

The cult of MMGW's leader at it again..

Gore: Fighting global warming is like fighting Nazis; Update: ToL scrubs its story of Nazi references

Just when you think you’ve heard every stupid thing a politician can say, Al Gore swoops in to the rescue. Faster than one can say Manbearpig, Gore tells an audience in Oxford that the fight against global warming needs the same kind of commitment that Winston Churchill demonstrated against the Nazis in World War II. Unfortunately, the only troops we see in this fight all wear green jackets:

Al Gore today compared the battle against climate change with the struggle against the Nazis.

The former US Vice President said the world lacked the political will to act and invoked the spirit of Winston Churchill by encouraging leaders to unite their nations to fight climate change. …

Speaking in Oxford at the Smith School World Forum on Enterprise and the Environment , sponsored by The Times, Mr Gore said: “Winston Churchill aroused this nation in heroic fashion to save civilisation in World War II.”

He added: “We have everything we need except political will but political will is a renewable resource.”

Consider this a slightly milder version of Paul Krugman’s Earth-treason argument. Gore isn’t quite calling skeptics traitors, but if politicians don’t stop listening to them, they will let the Nazis win. And we hate those guys, right?

Of course, this analogy suffers on several levels, including intellect and taste. World War II was not a debate over economic theories and governing philosophies, or even a difference of opinion on scientific hypotheses. The Nazis had more mundane concerns, like world domination and the extermination of the Jews. While Winston Churchill had warned about the Nazis for years and had been shunned for it by the British establishment as a war-monger, he had the political will to do something about the Nazis because the Nazis had begun attacking France and Great Britain. With guns, bombs, and real death, too, and not just hyperbole about a Waterworld future.

When advocates resort to this kind of hyperbole, it’s usually due to a lack of factual support to their arguments. Invoking the Nazis is about as hyperbolic as it gets. What’s next, the aliens from Independence Day?

Excelsior!

Update: The Times of London has now scrubbed all of the references to “Nazi” from its article at the link. Simon at Deceiver wonders “who got to them.” Apparently, the ToL doesn’t have the testicular fortitude to stand up to Gore and his disciples. Looks like a white feather is in order.

In related news.. that "warming" continues to not exist..

June Global Temperatures Drop Again, 8 Year Downtrend Continues

Hurry up and pass cappintrade!!

[AMDScooter]

A bit more on the Goracle..

Fisking Al Gore

I really hate to use the medium he invented against him, but someone has to do this:

Al Gore invoked the spirit of Winston Churchill today by encouraging political leaders to follow the example of Britain’s wartime leader and unite their nations to fight climate change.

So, skeptics are Nazis now (and no I’m not stretching it here – the original headline, now changed, had Gore comparing skeptics to Nazis)? I’m not sure if that’s better than a “traitor to the planet”, but it sure seems the Warmers are left with nothing but name calling as an argument.

The former US vice-president accused politicians around the world of exploiting ignorance about the dangers of global warming. He said lack of awareness among voters allowed governments to avoid taking difficult decisions.

You have got to love this one – this is said by Gore in a country in which a court ruled that his film, “An Inconvenient Truth” couldn’t be shown in schools without an addendum explaining at least 9 factually incorrect points.

“The level of awareness and concern among populations has not crossed the threshhold where political leaders feel that they must change.”

Perhaps that’s because the level of “science” presented by Gore has been found to be wanting in several areas and the skeptics are being successful in making the point that much of Gore’s data is dated or wrong.

“The only way politicians will act is if awareness raises to a level to make them feel that it’s a necessity.” Mr Gore, who brought the issues around climate change to a mass audience with the 2006 documentary An Inconvenient Truth, said the great hope for the future lay in the high level of environmental awareness among young people.

Or said another way, get ‘em while they’re young and don’t know any better and you have a fairly decent shot at getting them to do whatever you want (after all, that’s what schools are for).

He said sceptics who refused to believe dramatic cuts in carbon emissions could be delivered should consider the example of the young scientists in the Nasa team which put a man on the moon on 1969.

“The average age of scientists in the space centre control room was 26, which means they were 18 when they heard President Kennedy say he wanted to put a man on the moon in 10 years. Neil Armstrong did it eight years and two months later.”

Yup, and Buzz Aldrin said that AGW was a batch of cow cookies. I mean if we’re going to invoke the name of astronauts let’s at least keep it germane to the subject.

He said future generations would put one of two questions to today’s adults.

“It will either be ’what were you thinking, didn’t you see the North Pole melting before your eyes, didn’t you hear what the scientists were saying?’ “Or they will ask ’how is it you were able to find the moral courage to solve the crisis which so many said couldn’t be solved?’.

Actually there’s a third question – “How did you muster the courage to stand up against bad science and horrible politics in order to save the world as we know it from economic catastrophe when it is clear now that the AGW group was completely wrong?”

Gotta appreciate the fallacy of the false choice though, don’t you? Al Gore uses all the tricks to run his nonsense by you.

I’m sure Gore gave that a lot of thought as he winged his way home on his private jet.

~McQ

[AMDScooter]

At odds....

Huge CO2 Emissions Disagreement Between EPA and Energy Dept. Ignored by MSM

The mainstream media loves to tell the public about how "unreliable" the blogosphere is as an information source. However, there is a huge story out there that is only being covered by the blogosphere, in particular at Watts Up With That?, which is currently being completely ignored by the MSM.

It is about a significant disagreement between the Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lisa Jackson and Energy Secretary Steven Chu over the amount of worldwide CO2 emissions if the United States acts alone should a climate bill pass in both Houses of Congress. Basically EPA's Jackson says that such a bill, if passed, would have very little effect on global CO2 emissions while Chu disagrees with that assessment.

You can see the EPA chart below the fold followed by the transcript of a video of both these Obama administration officials responding at complete odds with each other under questioning from Oklahoma Senator Jim Inhofe at the Senate hearing yesterday on a climate bill:

SENATOR INHOFE: ...This is what we determined during the Warner-Lieberman bill last year, 13 months ago, and that was the EPA that said this is the difference it would make. And let's keep in mind, the IPCC said they wanted to keep it down below 550 parts per million. And this shows by the EPA chart that with or without the developing nations it makes virtually no change. Do you still agree with this chart? I'm sure you've seen it....Okay, Dr. Chu, the Chairman wants me to direct that at you.

SECRETARY CHU: Uh, no, I don't agree with that chart.

INHOFE: Do you, Secretary Jackson?

ADMINISTRATOR JACKSON: I believe that essential parts of the chart are that the U.S. action alone will not impact CO2 levels but...

Watt's Up With That concludes with Inhofe's analysis on the effects of the bill if the USA acts unilaterally without China and India:

“I am encouraged that Administrator Jackson agrees that unilateral action by the U.S. will be all cost for no climate gain,” Sen. Inhofe said. “With China and India recently issuing statements of defiant opposition to mandatory emissions controls, acting alone through the job-killing Waxman-Markey bill would impose severe economic burdens on American consumers, businesses, and families, all without any impact on climate.”

“...I was somewhat surprised that Secretary Chu disagreed with EPA’s analysis of what would happen if the U.S. acts alone to address climate change, which cap-and-trade supporters claim is a global problem,” Sen. Inhofe said. “EPA’s analysis that global greenhouse gas emission levels can only be stabilized with meaningful, mandatory action by China and India is widely accepted. I extend an invitation to the Secretary to see whether he wants to clarify his remarks.”

So without the participation of China and India, the climate bill will have virtually no impact on global CO2 emissions. And for that very limited outcome, the Obama administration wants to upend our economy.

It seems that the MSM is concentrating on the wrong Jackson. They should take just a little time out of their wall-to-wall coverage of Michael Jackson and devote some attention to EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson and her stunning admission of how little impact the United States acting alone would have on CO2 emissions.

Of course, such attention would run counter to their game plan of emphasizing how important the Waxman-Markham bill is supposed to be even though it will have almost no impact on CO2 emissions according to the EPA administrator.

CORRECTION: It turns out that there was ONE media outlet that did cover this story---Fox News.

[SteveW]

Careful there Scooter, you may upset some of the lefties around here.

Yep, that's been my assertion all along: The US consumes ~20% so WTF kind of impact will this bull$hit make to world wide emissions? Little or none.

What kind of impact will it have on our economy? Huge.

I really can't understand the mentality behind this crap.

[AMDScooter]

Careful there Scooter, you may upset some of the lefties around here.

Yep, that's been my assertion all along: The US consumes ~20% so WTF kind of impact will this bull$hit make to world wide emissions? Little or none.

What kind of impact will it have on our economy? Huge.

I really can't understand the mentality behind this crap.

Like many have said.. it's just another way for them to tax the f*ck outta us to fight a nonexistent threat and funnel monies to their special interest pals. India and China told the messiah to F-off in no uncertian terms. They ain't killing their economies just so the messiah's and his socilist pals can ram their agenda down our throats.

[AMDScooter]

Speaking of retarded moonbats & MMGW..



Greenpeace activists arrested for banner on Mount Rushmore

[AMDScooter]

Here's a good idea.. make the cultists pay! Perhaps The Goracle can kick down some of the tens of millions he's bilked pimping this vapor ware.

Luetkemeyer Bill Would Save Taxpayers $12.5 Million, Denies Funding for UN's Junk Science

WASHINGTON, D.C. _ U.S. Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (MO-9) today introduced legislation that would save taxpayers $12.5 million this year and millions more in the future by prohibiting the United States from contributing to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is fraught with waste and is engaged in dubious science.

“We all know that the UN is incompetent when it comes to spending money, and that is why American taxpayers should not be forking over millions more to one of its organizations that not only is in need of significant reform but is engaged in dubious scientific quests,” Luetkemeyer said. “Folks in Missouri and across the country are tired of this never ending government spending spree, and my goal is to deliver some of our people’s hard-earned money back into their pocketbooks instead of spending it on international junk science.”

Luetkemeyer’s legislation would prohibit U.S. contributions to the IPCC, which is nothing more than a group of U.N. bureaucrats that supports man-made claims on global warming that many scientists disagree with.
More than 700 international scientists signed on to the U.S. Senate Minority Report expressing their concerns about man-made claims on global warming promoted by the UN IPCC. The dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number of UN scientists, 52, who authored a report claiming that human emissions of carbon dioxide are responsible for dangerous and unprecedented warming. The dissenting scientists are from all over the world, including Japan, Italy, UK, Czech Republic, Canada, the Netherlands and the U.S. that are affiliated with institutions including, NASA, U.S. Navy, U.S. Defense Department, Energy Department, U.S. Air Force and the EPA.

Meanwhile, our very own Environmental Protection Agency recently reported that we are undergoing a period of worldwide cooling.

Luetkemeyer also filed the legislation as an amendment to the Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs Appropriations Act.

Supporters of the cap-and-trade legislation are using the questionable findings by the UN IPCC as one reason to support the onerous legislation, which is nothing more than a national energy tax and will be debated soon by the U.S. Senate. Luetkemeyer voted against this legislation and will continue to voice his concerns with the majority’s cap-and-tax legislation.

[kbohip]

Careful there Scooter, you may upset some of the lefties around here.

Yep, that's been my assertion all along: The US consumes ~20% so WTF kind of impact will this bull$hit make to world wide emissions? Little or none.

What kind of impact will it have on our economy? Huge.

I really can't understand the mentality behind this crap.

Precisely. What's even worse is we're being fed the "We'll lead the world on carbon reduction" line. Sure, I can just see China now chomping at the bits in ways to increase the cost of production to help lessen their carbon footprint.

[AMDScooter]

Ya don't say. Whodathiunkit..? Even electric cars need to get their energy from somewhere...

GAO: Electric cars won’t reduce carbon emissions

[otoc]

Bit on realclimate.. because for them.. it's not really about the climate. It's all about pushing their agenda.

Climatologist slams RealClimate.org for 'erroneously communicating the reality of the how climate system is actually behaving' - Rebuts Myths On Sea Level, Oceans and Arctic Ice

lol, and the rebuttal. Yes, agendas do make a difference...

1 July 2009 More bubkes

Filed under:

• Climate Science

— group @ 9:09 PM - ()
Roger Pielke Sr. has raised very strong allegations against RealClimate in a recent blog post. Since they come from a scientific colleague, we consider it worthwhile responding directly.
The statement Pielke considers “misinformation” is a single sentence from a recent posting:

Some aspects of climate change are progressing faster than was expected a few years ago – such as rising sea levels, the increase of heat stored in the ocean and the shrinking Arctic sea ice.

First of all, we are surprised that Pielke levelled such strong allegations against RealClimate, since the statement above merely summarises some key findings of the Synthesis Report of the Copenhagen Climate Congress, which we discussed last month. This is a peer-reviewed document authored by 12 leading scientists and “based on the 16 plenary talks given at the Congress as well as input of over 80 chairs and co-chairs of the 58 parallel sessions held at the Congress.” If Pielke disagrees with the findings of these scientists, you’d have thought he’d take it up with them rather than aiming shrill accusations at us. But in any case let us look at the three items of alleged misinformation:

1. Sea level. The Synthesis Report shows the graph below and concludes:

Since 2007, reports comparing the IPCC projections of 1990 with observations show that some climate indicators are changing near the upper end of the range indicated by the projections or, as in the case of sea level rise (Figure 1), at even greater rates than indicated by IPCC projections.

This graph is an update of Rahmstorf et al., Science 2007, with data through to the end of 2008. (Note the comparison is with IPCC TAR projections, but since AR4 projections are within 10% of the TAR models this makes little difference.)
Pielke claims this is “NOT TRUE” (capitals and bold font are his), stating “sea level has actually flattened since 2006” and pointing to this graph. This graph shows a sea level trend over the full satellite period (starting 1993) of 3.2 +/- 0.4 mm/year and is very similar to an independent French analysis of those very same satellite data shown in the Synthesis Report (blue lines above). The best estimate of the IPCC models for the same time period is 1.9 mm/year (coloured dashed lines in the middle of the grey uncertainty range). Hence the conclusion of the Synthesis Report is entirely correct.
The “flattening of sea level since 2006” that Pielke refers to is beside the point and deceptive for several reasons (note too that Anthony Watts has extended this even further to declare that sea level from 2006 to present is actually “flat”!). First of all, trends over such a short sub-interval of a few years vary greatly due to short-term natural variations, and one could get any result one likes by cherry-picking a suitable interval (as Pielke and Lomborg both have). The absurdity of this approach is see by picking an even more recent trend, say starting in June 2007, which gives 5.3+/-2.2 mm/yr! Secondly, this short-term trend (1.6 +/- 0.9 mm/yr) is not even robust across data sets – the French analysis shown above has a trend since the beginning of 2006 of 2.9 mm/year, very similar to the long-term trend. Third, the image Pielke links to shows the data without the inverted barometer correction – the brief marked peak in late 2005, which makes the visual trend (always a poor choice of statistical methodology) almost flat since then, disappears when this effect is accounted for. This means the 2005 peak was simply due to air pressure fluctuations and has nothing to do with climatic ocean volume changes. The trend from 2006 in the data with the inverse barometer adjustment is 2.1 +/- 0.8 mm/yr.
2. Ocean heat content. The Synthesis Report states:

Current estimates indicate that ocean warming is about 50% greater than had been previously reported by the IPCC.

This is a conclusion of a revised analysis of ocean heat content data by Domingues et al., Nature 2008, and it applies to the period 1961-2003 also analysed in the IPCC report. Pielke claims this is “NOT TRUE” and counters with the claim: “There has been no statistically significant warming of the upper ocean since 2003.” But again this is not relevant to the point the Synthesis Report actually makes and again, Pielke is referring to a 5-year period which is too short to obtain statistically robust trends in the presence of short-term variability and data accuracy problems (the interannual variability for instance differs greatly between different ocean heat content data sets):

For good reasons, the Synthesis Report discusses a time span that is sufficiently long to allow meaningful comparisons. But in any case, the trend in from 2003 to 2008 in the Levitus data (the Domingues et al data does not extend past 2003), is still positive but with an uncertainty (both in the trend calculation and systematically) that makes it impossible to state whether there has been a significant change.
3. Arctic Sea Ice. The Synthesis Report states:

One of the most dramatic developments since the last IPCC Report is the rapid reduction in the area of Arctic sea ice in summer. In 2007, the minimum area covered decreased by about 2 million square kilometres as compared to previous years. In 2008, the decrease was almost as dramatic.

This decline is clearly faster than expected by models, as the following graph indicates.

Pielke’s claim that this is “NOT TRUE” is merely based on the statement that “since 2008, the anomalies have actually decreased.”
Yes, same thing again: Pielke’s argument is beside the point, since the Synthesis Report is explicitly talking about the summer sea ice minimum reached each September in the Arctic, and we don’t even know yet what its value will be for 2009. And Pielke is again referring to a time span (“since 2008”!) that is far too short to have much to do with climatic trends.
We thus have to conclude that there are no grounds whatsoever for Pielke’s wild allegations against us and implicitly the Synthesis Report authors. The final sentence of his post ironically speaks for itself:

Media and policymakers who blindly accept these claims are either naive or are deliberately slanting the science to promote their particular advocacy position.

Indeed.