The British Government vehicle scrapage scheme has come under fire for creating more CO2 than it saves. An inconvenient fact ignored by wealth redistributionists is that the life cycle of a car is: manufacture, use and destruction, not just use. When facts like this are considered the Toyota Prius is an environmental holocaust and SUV’s like the Range Rover and Hummer have less environmental impact.

It looks like the old saying “figures don’t lie but liars figure,” is again proven true. According to the article in today’s Times Online the cash for clunkers programs create more Co2 than they remove. Another “backfire” in the Antropogenic Global Warming con game. More at Climategate.com

Anthropogenic Global Warming has become a religion:

George F Will in The Washington Post argues that, “A religion is what the faith in catastrophic man-made global warming has become.” Thus, he tells us, “It is now a tissue of assertions impervious to evidence, assertions that everything, including a historic blizzard, supposedly confirms and nothing, not even the absence of warming, can falsify.” Hat tip to Richard North for the story.

Bringing Skillful Observation Back To Science:

Archimedes had his eureka moment while sitting in the bathtub. Newton made a great discovery sitting under an apple tree. Szilárd discovered nuclear fission while sitting at a red light.

There was a time when observation was considered an important part of science. Climate science has gone the opposite direction, with key players rejecting observation when reality disagrees with computer models and statistics. More sense at Watts Up With That

Climate scientists withdraw journal claims of rising sea levels, what more claims with drawn due to fudged or incorrect data?

Apparently so say the Guardian:

Many scientists criticised the IPCC approach as too conservative, and several papers since have suggested that sea level could rise more. Martin Vermeer of the Helsinki University of Technology, Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany published a study in December that projected a rise of 0.75m to 1.9m by 2100. Announcing the formal retraction of the paper from the journal, Siddall said: “It’s one of those things that happens. People make mistakes and mistakes happen in science.” He said there were two separate technical mistakes in the paper, which were pointed out by other scientists after it was published. A formal retraction was required, rather than a correction, because the errors undermined the study’s conclusion. “Retraction is a regular part of the publication process,” he said. “Science is a complicated game and there are set procedures in place that act as checks and balances.”

Strange how the peer review process has missed so many mistakes which only a few weeks ago were beyond doubt, the science settled.