"Carbon (Dioxide) trading is now the fastest growing commodities market on earth.....And here’s the great thing about it. Unlike traditional commodities markets, which will eventually involve delivery to someone in physical form, the carbon (dioxide) market is based on lack of delivery of an invisible substance to no-one. Since the market revolves around creating carbon (dioxide) credits, or finding carbon (dioxide) reduction projects whose benefits can then be sold to those with a surplus of emissions, it is entirely intangible." (Telegraph)

This blog has been tracking the 'Global Warming Scam' for over five years now. There are a very large number of articles being published in blogs and more in the MSM who are waking up to the fact the public refuse to be conned any more and are objecting to the 'green madness' of governments and the artificially high price of energy. This blog will now be concentrating on the major stories as we move to the pragmatic view of 'not if, but when' and how the situation is managed back to reality. To quote Professor Lindzen, "a lot of people are going to look pretty silly"

PS: If you have arrived here on a page link, then click on the HOME link...

Monday, 8 May 2017

If The Data Doesn’t Match Theory, Change The Data

Real Science
Professional climate fraudsters claim that Greenland is losing ice 600% faster than predicted. As of yesterday, the Danish Meteorological Institute (DMI) showed Greenland surface mass gain for the winter at a record high. This is a direct contradiction to the lies being spread by climate alarmists. The DMI data was being widely cited by skeptics as evidence against global warming fraud, so today DMI changed the graph. They changed their baseline dates, and no longer show 2017 as being a record high. We have seen this identical story hundreds of times. Climate data being altered to avoid criticism from global warming alarmists. Apparently DMI doesn’t want to have gunfire directed at their office, like John Christy and Roy Spencer had after Bill Nye’s “March for Junk Science.”

In an attempt to discredit Judith Curry, Gavin at RealClimate shows how bad climate models really are

A recent poster here wrote that they had stopped looking at the Real Climate web site, and good for them. It has become a sad, inwardly focused group. It’s hard to see anyone in the Trump Administration thinking they’re getting value for money from their support of that site.
I still check in there occasionally and just now I found something too good not to share with the readers at WUWT. "

Thoughts on the Public Discourse over Climate Change

Richard Lindzen
...The accumulation of false and/or misleading claims is often referred to as the ‘overwhelming evidence’ for forthcoming catastrophe. Without these claims, one might legitimately ask whether there is any evidence at all."

Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup #269

Lindzen starts with the meme: 97% of scientists agree, which was exposed as a myth by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer in the Wall Street Journal. Another mime is “warmest years on record,” which covers many misconceptions. The prior warmest year, since about 1850 in the surface record, was 1998. A slight increase above that is immediately seized as evidence of dire global warming caused by carbon dioxide emissions, even though it cannot be felt by humans, given the enormous temperature range existing on the globe each day.
As Lindzen shows, from 1850 the “Globally Averaged Deviations from Average Temperatures Plotted on a Scale Relevant to the Individual Station Deviations” are remarkably stable over time. It is only by manipulating scales for visual impact, called “chartsmanship’, that the change appears significant. When Lindzen adds the range of uncertainty in the measurements, the record is far from clear. The same applies to the influence of carbon dioxide (CO2).
Similarly, Lindzen demolishes other memes; including extreme weather, sea level rise, Arctic sea ice, polar bear endangerment, ocean acidification, and death of coral reefs. These memes lead those who are not sceptics to accept that CO2 causes global warming and that global warming is the cause of everything. ..."

This needs to be repeated 20 million times, maybe someday it will be recognized by the #MSM.

Nye’s Quadrant

Judith Curry
Apart from the twitter aspect, here are other attributes of this quadrant:
  • Second order belief – allegiance to consensus. Individual has not  done primary research on the relevant topic or has not conducted an independent assessment of the evidence and research.
  • Shutting down scientific debate; science as dogma
  • Alarmism as a tactic to influence the public debate
  • Political activism and advocacy for particular policy solutions
  • Scientism: a demand that science dictate public policy
  • Advocacy research  ......"

Sunday, 26 February 2017

The Global Warming Scam Goes Super Cold Today

Tony Heller (Real Science)
We have been hearing non-stop propaganda about the super-hot Arctic melting down, and how it is President Trump’s fault. As with almost everything else you read in the press, it is fake news. Arctic sea ice extent is about the same as 2006 and 2016. Polar temperatures have plummeted, and are the coldest in several years. Greenland has gained record amounts of ice this winter. And the scam ends today! "

Lawrence Solomon: 97% cooked stats

FP comment,
.....This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2008 master’s thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, under the guidance of Peter Doran, an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences. The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers — in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change.  The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout."

Once Upon a Time 75 out of 77 “Scientists” of Unknown Qualifications …

Sunshine Hours

Want to know where the 97% consensus figure comes from?
The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists.
And then … read it here.
Once all these cuts were made, 75 out of 77 scientists of unknown qualifications were left endorsing the global warming orthodoxy."

Dutch Expert: With Trump In Office, Now Safe To Expose The Many Myths Of Climate Alarmism

In fact vegetation is thriving, figures for wind power are misleading, “sinking” islands are not sinking, safer nuclear energy is in the offing, and more that can be said loudly now that there is a real climate skeptic in the White House. "

Blockbuster Paper Finds Just 15% Of CO2 Growth Since Industrialization Is Due To Human Emissions


CO2 Has Risen By 110 ppm Since 1750

 The Human Contribution Is Just 17 ppm

How progressive: ship dead trees 5,000km and burn them (use £450m for kindling)

It would make any hunter gatherer proud.
[The Times] Britain is wasting hundreds of millions of pounds subsidizing power stations to burn American wood pellets that do more harm to the climate than the coal they replaced, a study has found.
Chopping down trees and transporting wood across the Atlantic Ocean to feed power stations produces more greenhouse gases than much cheaper coal, according to the report. It blames the rush to meet EU renewable energy targets, which resulted in ministers making the false assumption that burning trees was carbon-neutral.
The UK tribes can thank chief Huhne (Energy and Climate secretary) for the 7.5 million tonnes of dead trees otherwise known as biomass — which  mostly come all the way from the US and Canada.
Naturally, doing something this improbable takes a lot of money.
Drax, Britain’s biggest power station, received more than £450 million in subsidies in 2015 for burning biomass, which was mostly American wood pellets. "

The journal Nature is going to begin requiring reproducibility in submitted papers

But will they take the next step and more actively police published research and denote when it is not replicable? There needs to be an accessible list of papers that sits between valid, replicated studies and the full blown Retraction Watch . I highly doubt that most journals are willing to self-police themselves, so just as Retraction Watch has come into being, perhaps there needs to be be a web site that aggregates the list of all papers published each year and allows researchers who are able to replicate results to make some fanfare when they are able to remove a paper from the list, since replications are usually quiet affairs.
In the face of the hockey shticks, 97%s, and PAL reviews, combined with researchers refusing to release data “because you want to find fault with it” or just handing their hard drives over to their dogs to chew on, what percentage of AGW-related studies should be listed as unreplicable, perhaps even nonredeemable? "

Richard Lindzen Petition to President Trump: Withdraw from the UN Convention on Climate Change

Dr. Richard Lindzen has sent a petition to President Trump, asking the President to withdraw the United States from the United Nations Convention on Climate Change.
The petition contains the names of around 300 eminent scientists and other qualified individuals, including physicists, engineers, former Astronauts, meteorologists, immunology specialists, marine biologists, chemists, statisticians, doctors, military weather specialists, geologists, accountants, a former director of NASA, economists, soil specialists, mathematicians, hydrologists, environmental scientists, computer modelling specialists, and many more. It is a long list."

Sunday, 12 February 2017

Bespoke Climate Science: Temperature and CO2 Data Made to Order

The revelation by Dr. John Bates that the “pause-busting” graph produced by NOAA was manipulated was no surprise. It was just another piece of bespoke science produced to push forward the AGW agenda and the Paris Climate Agreement. Bates used strange terminology by saying the graph was “hyped” and based on unverifiable, misleading, data. This is Orwellian Newspeak, for saying it was deliberately falsified for a predetermined result. They cheated. Bates is not a whistleblower because he waited until he retired to speak out. It is likely he would still be silent if Hillary Clinton were elected.
If he was such a good climate scientist, why didn’t he see the corrupted science that was going on for most of his career? The answer is a combination of he didn’t know much about climate, and it would jeopardize his career and pension. I can’t repeat often enough German meteorologist and physicists Klaus-Ekhart Puls experience.
“Ten years ago I simply parroted what the IPCC told us. One day I started checking the facts and data – first I started with a sense of doubt but then I became outraged when I discovered that much of what the IPCC and the media were telling us was sheer nonsense and was not even supported by any scientific facts and measurements. To this day I still feel shame that as a scientist I made presentations of their science without first checking it.”