"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...
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.”
Monday, 6 February 2017
NASA and NOAA are engaged in the biggest fraud in science history, and this needs to end now that criminals are no longer in control of our government. Under the Trump administration, government employees stand to make huge amounts of money by whistleblowing fraud."
The unstable land readings: Scientists at NOAA used land temperature data from 4,000 weather stations (pictured, one in Montana, USA). But the software used to process the figures was bug-ridden and unstable. NOAA also used ‘unverified’ data that was not tested or approved. This data as merged with unreliable sea surface temperatures .......The ‘adjusted’ sea readings: Average sea surface temperatures are calculated using data from weather buoys (pictured). But NOAA ‘adjusted’ these figures upwards to fit with data taken from ships – which is notoriously unreliable. This exaggerated the warming rate, allowing NOAA to claim in the paper dubbed the ‘Pausebuster’ that there was no ‘pause’
35 Scientific Papers: Global Sea Levels Were 1 – 2 Meters Higher Than Now For Most Of The Last 7,000 Years
The fundamental problem for the CO2-rise-causes-sea-level-rise paradigm, then, is that rising CO2 concentrations have not been correlated with rising sea levels for nearly all of the last 12,000 years. In fact, the opposite has been observed during the last 2,000 years, or during the Late Holocene: CO2 levels have risen (gradually, then rapidly) while sea levels have fallen overall, with recent changes so modest (inches per century) that they do not override the overall trend). In the 8,000 years before that, sea levels rose rapidly while CO2 concentrations remained flat. Simply put, the supposed anthropogenic “signal” in sea level rise trends has largely gone undetected — a point that has been affirmed by more and more scientists. "
David Rose’s excellent investigative journalism in the Mail on Sunday has turned up a remarkable story of poor scientific practice, lack of openness and bias regarding the Karl et al (2015) paper in Science. This is the paper that was quickly dubbed the “pausebuster” as it was said to have removed any evidence of a “pause” or “hiatus” in the rate of increase of surface warming over the past 20 years or so contradicting the IPCC’s own assessment of two years earlier. ......The Mail on Sunday piece is the most important piece of climate science journalism in a decade, opening a door on the hitherto closed world of internal NOAA discussions, revealing how scientific data can be massaged and timed, towards a predetermined end. It is rightly being taken very seriously by many people and will likely lead to further U.S. investigations."
The abominable Karl et al paper came out in the nick of time to pretend that the “pause” didn’t happen. We knew the paper was junk thanks to hard sleuthing, especially from Ross McKitrick, now Dr John Bates, a pal of Judith Curry is speaking up from the inside to confirm that the paper used bad and unapproved datasets which were so flawed they have already been revised. The data wasn’t archived either, which is a mandatory requirement. Bates retired from NOAA and was given a medal for setting up the “binding” standards which were ignored for the sake of generating headlines in time for Paris."