"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
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. "
...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."
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. ..."
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
.....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."
Want to know where the 97% consensus figure comes from?
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. "
CO2 Has Risen By 110 ppm Since 1750
The Human Contribution Is Just 17 ppm
It would make any hunter gatherer proud.
Naturally, doing something this improbable takes a lot of money.
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? "
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
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.”