Climategate

"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 four 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...

Saturday, 19 April 2014

Bandt proves Brandis right: yes, the Greens want debate suppressed

Andrew Bolt,Herald Sun (Australia)
"Bandt and his kind are not trying to silence people who tell dangerous falsehoods about global warming. They are instead trying to protect them - and trying to suppress the truth."

First the Green Gestapo Came For our Lightbulbs, Then our Iced Drinks and Hot Showers. Now They're After Our Meatballs...

James Delingpole,Breitbart
"IKEA - the place you go to, reluctantly, because the furniture is so cheap and practical, not because you want to save the planet for Mother Gaia - actually employs a "head of sustainability"? If that's not a strong dump signal for the stock, I don't know what is.
What's worse, though, is that IKEA actually admits to allowing the kind of food it serves in its restaurants to be dictated not by the needs of its customers - who order 150 million plates of meatballs every year - but by activists from a hard-left environmental NGO like the World Wildlife Fund. That's not capitalism. That's not customer service. That's eco fascism.
This is not, of course, the first time that the democratically unaccountable political activists of the WWF have been invited to meddle where they have absolutely business whatsoever. From the Climategate emails, for example, we learn that in July 29, 1999, Adam Markham of the WWF wrote to University of East Anglia climate scientists Mike Hulme and Nicola Sheard, gently suggesting that they skew their scientific findings in accordance with the WWF's alarmist campaigning narrative."

Friday, 18 April 2014

WSJ: "'Shut Up' Is No Argument. It reveals a lack of confidence in global-warmist dogma"

The Hockey Schtick
"Most of all: "The debate . . . is over." A demand for silence is not a sign of intellectual self-confidence. And this is not the only subject on which the left is demanding that its opponents just shut up. For years we've been hearing that the debate about global warming--or "climate change" or whatever they're calling it this week--is settled. Early in the 2000s some news organizations declared they would banish dissenting points of view from their pages. The debate goes on."

3 Reasons Not to Trust the New Climate Report

Donna Laframboise (Canada)
"1. When the IPCC convicted humanity of triggering dangerous climate change, it acted as investigator, prosecutor, judge, and jury. .......2. Scientists are only human. Their judgment can be tainted by environmental activism, and they can be unconsciously seduced by the notion that they’re superheroes saving the planet. .......3. It is both fair and appropriate to judge an organization by it leader. The IPCC has been led, for the past 12 years, by a man who does not inspire confidence."

Climate change believers are using ‘medieval’ tactics to silence debate

JoNova(Australia)
" He describes how Penny Wong, the Labor Party senator for South Australia and minister for climate change in the Julia Gillard government, would ‘stand up in the Senate and say “The science is settled”. In other words, “I am not even going to engage in a debate with you”. It was ignorant, it was medieval, the approach of these true believers in climate change.’ Wong, whom Brandis tells me is ‘Australia’s high priestess of political correctness’, is far from alone in suffering from what the American journalist Joel Kotkin recently described as ‘The Debate Is Over’ Syndrome. Throughout eco-circles, and among the political and media elites more broadly, the idea that the time for debating climate change is over, and now we just need action, action, action, is widespread. And to Brandis, this speaks to a new and illiberal climate of anti-intellectualism, to the emergence of ‘a habit of mind and mode of discourse which would deny the legitimacy of an alternative point of view, where rather than winning the argument [they] exclude their antagonists from the argument’.

Saturday, 12 April 2014

No A-level for 'climate change denier’

Christopher Booker, Telegraph
"Not often does a senior Cabinet minister declare that a policy long pursued by his own department is “against the law”. But that was the response of Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, to a report exposing just how profoundly our education system has been hijacked by promoters of the official group-think on global warming."

How to convert me to your new religion of Global Warming in 14 easy steps

JoNova(Australia)

The fourteen easy steps

  • Step 1 – Stop making predictions that don’t come true.
  • Step 2 – When you make a prediction, don’t just say something “might” happen.
  • Step 3 – Don’t live your life like you don’t believe a word you’re saying.
  • Step 4 – Stop the hate.
  • Step 5 – Stop avoiding debate.
  • Step 6 – Answer questions.
  • Step 7 - Stop enjoying catastrophes.
  • Step 8 – Don’t use invalid arguments.
  • Step 9 – When you are wrong, admit it and apologise.
  • Step 10 – Stop claiming that 97% of scientists agree that humans are warming the globe significantly.
  • Step 11 – Stop lying.  If you think it is okay to lie if it’s for a good cause, you are wrong.
  • Step 12 – Rebuke your fellow Warmists if they act in an unscientific way.
  • Step 13 – Stop blaming everything on Global Warming.
  • Step 14 – Why are the only solutions always big-government “progressive” policies?

Heads are breaking the law if they preach eco agenda, warns Gove: Education Secretary's 'concern' at report that accuses 'activist' teachers

Daily Mail
"Headteachers who brainwash children with green propaganda are breaking the law, Michael Gove has suggested. The Education Secretary has read ‘with concern’ a report which accused ‘activist’ teaching staff of trying to turn pupils into ‘foot soldiers of the green movement’. It found the marks children were awarded in exams depended on ‘parroting’ the green agenda. And many widely-used textbooks included inaccurate examples. A spokesman for Mr Gove said: ‘The Secretary of State read this report with concern. ‘Schools should not teach that a particular political or ideological point of view is right – indeed it is against the law for them to do so.’

Lovejoy’s 99% ‘confidence’ vs. measurement uncertainty

WUWT
"Let us be blunt. Not least because of those uncertainties, compounded by data tampering all over the world, it is impossible to determine climate sensitivity either to the claimed precision of 0.01 Cº or to 99% confidence from the temperature data. For this reason alone, the headline conclusion in the fawning press release about the “99% certainty” that climate sensitivity is similar to the IPCC’s estimate is baseless. The order-of-magnitude error about the measurement uncertainties is enough on its own to doom the paper. There is a lot else wrong with it, but that is another story."

Monday, 7 April 2014

Global Warming: Anthropogenic or Not?

AITSE , Professor Robert (Bob) Carter, geologist & environmental scientist
"The current scientific reality is that the IPCC’s hypothesis of dangerous global warming has been repeatedly tested, and fails. Despite the expenditure of large sums of money over the last 25 years (more than $100 billion), and great research effort by IPCC-related and other (independent) scientists, to date no scientific study has established a certain link between changes in any significant environmental parameter and human-caused carbon dioxide emissions."

Green 'smear campaign' against professor who dared to disown 'sexed up' UN climate dossier

Daily Mail
"Richard Tol claims he is fighting a sustained attack on his reputation Professor from Sussex University is a highly respected climate economist Criticised by campaigners after saying report summary was 'alarmist' In his opinion, it focused on 'scare stories' ...........................How IPPC report was ramped up to predict wars, extreme weather and famine... while its authors slept on the job .......................Real cost of Climate McCarthyism, apart from big bills, is to free speech"

Friday, 4 April 2014

We have a new climate change consensus — and it's good news everyone

Matt Ridley,The Spectator
" The received wisdom on global warming, published by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was updated this week. The newspapers were, as always, full of stories about scientists being even more certain of environmental Armageddon. But the document itself revealed a far more striking story: it emphasised, again and again, the need to adapt to climate change. Even in the main text of the press release that accompanied the report, the word ‘adaptation’ occurred ten times, the word ‘mitigation’ not at all."

Climate Craziness of the Week: Peer reviewed paper says it’s OK to manipulate data, exaggerate climate claims

WUWT
"The paper appears to openly advocates “information manipulation” to further the cause of man-made global warming and “enhance global welfare.”

Thursday, 3 April 2014

Debunking every IPCC climate prophesy of war, pestilence, famine, drought, impacts in one line

JoNova (Australia)
"We could spend hours analyzing the new IPCC report about the impacts of climate change. Or we could just point out: Everything in the Working Group II report depends entirely on Working Group I. ( see footnote 1 SPM, page 3). Working Group I depends entirely on climate models and 98% of them didn’t predict the pause. The models are broken. They are based on flawed assumptions about water vapor." --------------------------------
Don't Fear the Doomsday Global Warming Prophecies of the IPCC Report ( James Delingpole)

Thursday, 27 March 2014

Maybe the IPCC’s Modelers Should Try to Simulate Earth’s Oceans

WUWT
"...The climate science community somehow believes their science is settled…or at least we’ve been led to believe it’s settled. But the climate scientists who contribute to the IPCC are no closer to being able to discern man’s fingerprint on climate than they were in their first report back in 1990. That is a sad reality that they refuse to accept. Or maybe the scientists understand it, and it’s the politicians, those who fund climate science and steer its course, those who are ultimately responsible for its failings, who refuse to accept that climate science has been stymied by its focus on the assumed effects of manmade greenhouse gases…without understanding of the fundamental roles of natural variability."