"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...
Wednesday, 31 March 2010
We saw the France Monthly Anomalies chart in the Europe Atlantic Coastal series. It shows France dropping steadily in temperature anomalies until about 1990. Then we get a sudden “Hockey Stick” to get us back up to Zero. A nice “head fake” and we can rapidly “Hide The Decline”. ....
"OK, I’ve put trend lines on some of the months. What do you notice? First off, summers are NOT getting hotter. It’s dead flat over the whole history of France. .....
"..It provides a nice summary of issues, complaints and responses but adds very little new substance, which is probably to be expected as the report is based on a single day of testimony and has been prepared in just a few weeks. It punts some of the more challenging issues to other ongoing investigations. ...The matters of greater importance are not about the behavior or language used by certain individuals, but rather what the released emails say about the culture and norms of institutions of climate science."
"Barring an about face by nature or adjustments, it appears that for the first time since 2001, Arctic Sea ice will hit the “normal” line as defined by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) for this time of year."
"Thousands of homes were still without power today and hundreds of drivers were trapped in snow overnight as Britain was once again battered by blizzards and gale-force winds.The severe winter storms knocked down power lines and caused widespread transport havoc as around two million holidaymakers prepared to flee the country for the Easter weekend."
"In my submission to the Parliamentary Committee, I observed that the “trick” wasn’t “clever” – it was the deletion of inconvenient data. ....Unfortunately, NIgel Lawson – who, to my knowledge, does not have in-depth knowledge of Climate Audit issues – was invited by the Committee to testify on Climate Audit issues and made incorrect and exceedingly ill-judged comments on the topic, comments that were seized upon by the Committee as follows: .....From these ill-judged comments, the Committee concluded:
[The trick] appears to be a colloquialism for a “neat” method of handling data.
This is absurd. The trick was not a “neat” way of handling data, nor a recognized form of statistical analysis. The trick was a clever way of tricking the readers of the IPCC 2001 graphic into receiving a false rhetorical impression of the coherency of proxies – a point understood at the beginning by Jon Stewart of the Daily Show, but now misunderstood due to continued disinformation." .....Once again, the fact that the decline is discussed in a Nature paper does not justify the deletion of the inconvenient data in the IPCC spaghetti graph in order to provide the false rhetorical consistency that IPCC was seeking. The issues are entirely separate and the Committee should have been able to discern this.In addition, their suggestion that Jones and others were doing nothing more than “discarding data known to be erroneous” is simply absurd. ..."
"So, the results of the first Climategate enquiry are in. And guess what? It’s a word that begins with “W” and ending with “-hitewash.”.....In short, it was a very dodgy, deeply unscientific way of deleting inconvenient data. It was also, entirely typical of the lying, cheating and fraud exposed in the Climategate emails. Let us not forget, we pay for scientists like Phil Jones with our taxes. How entirely typical that a body representing the most corrupt, money-grubbing taxpayer-funded roach pit of the lot – our Houses of Parliament – should have found it so very easy to exonerate the Climategate scientists of all wrongdoing."
"..The MPs admitted that their enquiry into the emails was "limited" in its scope as only a single evidence session was held and the committee's deliberations had to be rushed through ahead of the general election."
"The parliamentary science and technology select committee has done its job on the East Anglia CRU "inquiry", finding that, "There was no evidence to challenge the 'scientific consensus' that global warming is induced by human activities."
"..I'm struggling to say something polite about this. By way of an illustration, can you imagine the reaction if a scientist reported in the safety literature that there was a critical flaw in the design of a nuclear power station, but told policymakers that everything was fine? Do the committee really think it's fine to hide important information from policymakers so long as you report it in the literature? Astonishing."
"Climate scientists must publish all their raw data and methods to ensure the research is "irreproachable", MPs examining the "climategate" row over global warming science said today. .....But Mr Willis said the committee's short inquiry - one of three reviews launched in the wake of the emails emerging - had found no evidence that Prof Jones hid or manipulated data to back up his own science. .....he committee also said it sympathised with Prof Jones over his frustration at requests from sceptics asking for information "purely to undermine his research".But Mr Willis said: "In reality, that's no excuse. If people want that information for whatever motive, provided it is a scientific motive, it's important in terms of confidence to make that available." "Climate change is a matter of global importance," Mr Willis said."Governments are spending trillions of pounds on mitigating global warming and the quality of the science has to be irreproachable."
Monday, 29 March 2010
"Fears that global warming will shut down the Gulf Stream and plunge Britain into a mini-ice age are unfounded, according to a new study.Climate scientists say there is no evidence that the phenomena - which brings a constant flow of warm water and mild weather to northern Europe - has slowed down over the last 20 years. ..But the new Nasa study concluded that there was no decrease in the Gulf Stream in the last seven years, and that it is 'unlikely' to have weakened in the last two decades."
" March 28 (Bloomberg) -- French President Nicolas Sarkozy was right to scrap a planned tax on carbon emissions, according to the majority of people in an Ipsos option poll.The poll released today found 69 percent of those surveyed endorsed Sarkozy’s decision, while 21 percent said it was wrong. 948 people were surveyed on March 26 or 27 and no margin of error was given. ..."
H/T Climate Depot
"Perhaps there was a time, in the early days of wind farms, when these men could have pleaded ignorance of just how evil and useless wind farms are. Not any more. So much strong evidence has now emerged of the damage wind farms do to bird life and to the natural beauty of the landscape, in return for no real benefit to anyone except heavily-subsidised wind-farm-owners, ...."
"...Critics say it is ironic that the Renewables Obligation certificate (Roc) scheme was created by a Labour government but is handing large profits to investors and country landowners.Under the system, renewable energy generators can claim a Roc certificate for each megawatt hour of electricity produced. A 3MW turbine produces about 7,000 megawatt hours a year, with the electricity fetching £320,000 and the Rocs another £350,000 at current prices.Power companies are obliged to buy Rocs to meet government targets for renewable power but pass the cost to consumers. They also take the bulk of wind farm profits."
Sunday, 28 March 2010
National Trust campaign highlights how gardens will look if global warming brings Mediterranean weather to Britain
"The striking images are part of a National Trust campaign to highlight how gardens will look if global warming brings Mediterranean weather to Britain in the next few decades."
Ed: This is a 'serious' article, honest..
"In the real UK (the one that exists outside the Met Office Supercomputers) the last three summers have all been complete washouts, the last two winters have been bitter cold, and over the last eighty years, summertime temperatures have risen only 0.5C.Most of the observed 0.5C rise has likely been due to UHI effects, as the UK population has increased by 50% since 1930. Many people in England would prefer to see the tropical paradise which the National Trust promises, but in the meantime they will just have to live with the usual UK rain. However, it is commendable that the National Trust employs top notch artists with an active imagination."
"Climate change activists opposed to air travel are travelling to a conference in South America...by plane.Campaigners from Climate Camp -- who helped blockade Heathrow at the height of the summer holidays in 2007 -- face claims of hypocrisy having decided to send two members to an international meeting in Bolivia to discuss ‘transnational protests’ against climate change.The 12,000-mile round trip to the Climate Change and Mother Earth’s Rights conference next month involves changing planes at least twice. ...."
Saturday, 27 March 2010
"There has been a curious by-product of the attempts being made by the University of East Anglia to whitewash last November's embarrassing leak of documents from its Climatic Research Unit. Since it set up not one but two supposedly "independent" inquiries into the "Climategate" affair, climate sceptics were intrigued but not entirely surprised to find that almost all their members were committed, even fanatical advocates of global warming, and hence unlikely to be over-critical of the CRU's bizarre record.
Most recently, the sceptics have been particularly intrigued by the background of the man chosen by the university to chair an assessment of the CRU's scientific record. Lord Oxburgh declared on his appointment that he is linked to major wind-farm and renewable-energy companies. ....What Lord Oxburgh kept quiet about, however, is that he is also a director and vice-chairman of a strange little private company few of us had heard of known as Globe International. The name stands for "Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment", and it describes itself as a worldwide network to lobby governments to take more drastic action on climate change. Globe is certainly well-connected, as it showed just before last December's Copenhagen conference by staging a seminar addressed by, among others, the conference's chairman Yvo de Boer, as well as Nancy Pelosi and Ed Markey, the leaders of the campaign to push a cap-and trade-scheme – which could make a lot of people fabulously rich – through the US Congress. ....."
Friday, 26 March 2010
"WASHINGTON — Less than a year ago, cap and trade was the policy of choice for tackling climate change. .....Today, the concept is in wide disrepute, with opponents effectively branding it “cap and tax,” and Tea Party followers using it as a symbol of much of what they say is wrong with Washington. Mr.Obama dropped all mention of cap and trade from his current budget. And the sponsors of a Senate climate bill likely to be introduced in April, now that Congress is moving past health care, dare not speak its name."
H/T Climate Depot
Thursday, 25 March 2010
"The UK House of Commons register of all-party groups for GLOBE appears here. Not very interesting, but it looks as though the board may have changed recently. The officers of the Parliamentary group (Who may be different to the company board) are:
Lord Hunt of Chesterton
Eric Joyce ....."
Oops: Chief Climategate investigator failed to declare eco directorship * Alert * Print * Post comment 'Dracula's in charge of the blood
"Exclusive The peer leading the second Climategate enquiry at the University of East Anglia serves as a director of one of the most powerful environmental networks in the world, according to Companies House documents - and has failed to declare it.
Lord Oxburgh, a geologist by training and the former scientific advisor to the Ministry of Defence, was appointed to lead the enquiry into the scientific aspects of the Climategate scandal on Monday. But Oxburgh is also a director of GLOBE, the Global Legislators Organisation for a Balanced Environment.
GLOBE may be too obscure to merit its own Wikipedia entry, but that belies its wealth and influence. It funds meetings for parliamentarians worldwide with an interest in climate change, and prior to the Copenhagen Summit GLOBE issued guidelines (pdf) for legislators. Little expense is spared: in one year alone, one peer - Lord Michael Jay of Ewelme - enjoyed seven club class flights and hotel accommodation, at GLOBE's expense. There's no greater love a Parliamentarian can give to the global warming cause. And in return, Globe lists Oxburgh as one of 23 key legislators. ...."
"Climategate exposed the greatest scandal in the history of modern science but you’re never going to hear this from any of the official investigations. Andrew Orlowski at The Register has uncovered why.
Turns out, that there’s this well-funded SPECTRE-like advocacy group called GLOBE (Global Legislators for a Balanced Environment) International which has co-opted leading parliamentarians from the main parties in both the Commons and the Lords into advancing the AGW agenda.
One of those is Lord Oxburgh, recently appointed – on the Royal Society’s recommendation -to lead one of the two official enquiries into Climategate. Mysteriously, Lord Oxburgh has failed to mention GLOBE in his register of interests. ...."
Wednesday, 24 March 2010
"President Nicolas Sarkozy on Tuesday scrapped the country's proposed carbon tax and reshuffled his cabinet in populist tilt after suffering a crushing electoral defeat over the weekend, when his Gaulliste UMP party lost every region other than in its bastion of Alsace and the Indian Ocean island of Reunion. ....The government said its energy tax was being postponed indefinitely in order not to "damage the competitiveness of French companies", fearing that it would be too risky for France to go it alone without the rest of the EU. Brussels has announced plans for an EU-wide tax, but the initiative already looks doomed. "
"....Given that, as Andrew Montford unequivocally demonstrates in his masterpiece The Hockey Stick Illusion the story of the hockey stick represents one of the greatest exercises in mendacity and fudgery in the history of science, is it really the right thing for the Economist to take this lofty “one side says this, the other says that: who are we to judge which one is right” stance? Could it not for once, on this issue, acquire some cojones?
Some of the Economist’s readers, admittedly, stand to grow very very rich if this AGW scam is allowed to progress to its full and terrible conclusion. Many, many more though, stand to end up considerably poorer.
I know The Economist makes a fair bit of money out of all those taxpayer-funded bribe ads from the Carbon Trust. I know in the world of business dosh is jolly important. But isn’t integrity more so?"
"New taxpayer-supported video propaganda on Global Warming was just released by the National Science Foundation, in which Michael Mann plays a prominent role. The discredited Mann hockey stick graph is shown with "hide the decline" and "Mike's Nature trick" included as a single continuous line between the tree ring and thermometer records. In answer to the question "what's unusual about the earth's warming during the past century?" Mann claims that the Medieval Warming Period and Little Ice Age (mostly erased using Mann-made statistics from his hockey stick graph) were regional only, whereas the current warming is global. Mann chooses to ignore the peer-reviewed studies of more than 800 scientists indicating that the Medieval Warming Period was global and most studies show hotter than today."
"...In sum, the review process of the IPCC failed miserably. AR4 of WG3 substantially and knowingly misrepresents the state of the art in our understanding of the costs of emission reduction. It leads the reader to the conclusion that emission reduction is much cheaper and easier than it will be in real life.
Dr Ottmar Edenhofer of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research was one of the lead authors of Chapter 11 where most of the “errors” originate. He has since been appointed as the co-chairperson of WG3 for the Fifth Assessment Report of 2014. "
Tuesday, 23 March 2010
"Fiona Harvey, the Financial Times' environment correspondent weighs in to the debate over Lord Oxburgh's appointment at the head of the Royal Society panel looking into the CRU-science, and the fact that the noble lord has a financial conflict of interest."
"I refer, of course to LIGHTS ON – the vital protest being co-ordinated by my colleague Damian Thompson in response to the hideous annual exercise of eco-fascist triumphalism sometimes known as Earth Hour.All Damian is asking us to do is that we screw up our courage, bump up our electricity bills and make damn sure we keep every single one of the lights in our home blazing between 8.30 and 9.30pm on Saturday March 27."
Monday, 22 March 2010
"Today in the Sunday Telegraph my colleague Christopher Booker breaks possibly the most important environmental story since Climategate: a devious plan, truly Blofeldian in its scope and menace, by a hard-left-leaning activist body to gain massive global political leverage and earn stupendous sums of money by exploiting and manipulating the world carbon trading market."
"The Royal Society (Motto: Nullius in Verba Unless It’s About Global Warming In Which Case We’re Happy To Believe Whatever Unsubstantiated Drivel We’re Fed By Michael Mann, Phil Jones, et al) has announced who’ll be chairing its “independent” inquiry into the science behind the Climategate scandal.
And guess what? The man could scarcely be more parti pris if they’d given the job to Al Gore.
His name is Lord Oxburgh and, as Bishop Hill reports, he is:
* President of the Carbon Capture and Storage Association
* Chairman of wind energy firm Falck Renewables
* A member of the Green Fiscal Commission
So the chairman of this “independent panel” has a direct financial interest in the outcome."
"Australian climate scientist Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen tells the British parliamentary inquiry into Climategate just how much global warming science is corrupted by politics and money. ..."
Sunday, 21 March 2010
"THE first detailed study of Britain’s onshore wind farms suggests some treasured landscapes may have been blighted for only small gains in green energy.The analysis reveals that more than 20 wind farms produce less than a fifth of their potential maximum power output.One site, at Blyth Harbour in Northumberland, is thought to be the worst in Britain, operating at just 7.9% of its maximum capacity. Another at Chelker reservoir in North Yorkshire operates at only 8.7% of capacity.Both are relatively small and old, but larger and newer sites fared badly, too, according to analyses of data released by Ofgem, the energy regulator, for 2008."
"..However, so often does the media publish the entirely meaningless capacity figure for new wind developments that it is a real change to have Jonathan Leake write that an analyses of data released by Ofgem "reveals that more than 20 wind farms produce less than a fifth of their potential maximum power output."
Saturday, 20 March 2010
"Dr. Richard North of the EU Referendum sends word of this new revelation. North and Christopher Booker were the first to point out the money trail with Pachauri. Now the have followed the money on IPCC’s “Amazongate” all the way to the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). Here’s an excerpt from both."
"Appearing in the Booker column (and on Watts up with that?) is an account of how the "conservation" group WWF hopes to turn Amazonian trees into billions of dollars, all in the name of saving the planet. The background briefing on which Booker relied is posted below, detailing how the rainforests are to become a monstrous cash-making machine."
The carbon credits scheme would make WWF and its partners much richer, but with no lowering of overall CO2 emissions...
"If the world’s largest, richest environmental campaigning group, the WWF – formerly the World Wildlife Fund – announced that it was playing a leading role in a scheme to preserve an area of the Amazon rainforest twice the size of Switzerland, many people might applaud, thinking this was just the kind of cause the WWF was set up to promote. ....If it then emerged, however, that a hidden agenda of the scheme to preserve this chunk of the forest was to allow the WWF and its partners to share the selling of carbon credits worth $60 billion, to enable firms in the industrial world to carry on emitting CO2 just as before, more than a few eyebrows might be raised. .....WWF, which already earns £400 million yearly, much of it contributed by governments and taxpayers, has long been at the centre of efforts to talk up the threat to the Amazon rainforest – as shown recently by the furore over a much-publicised passage in the 2007 report of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC’s claim that 40 per cent of the forest is threatened by global warming, it turned out, was not based on any scientific evidence, but simply on WWF propaganda, which had wholly distorted the findings of an earlier study on the threat posed to the forest, not by climate change but by logging. "
Last week brought the latest shocking news about global warming’s horrific effects:Researchers have found that because of a rise in temperature, caused by an increase in greenhouse gas emissions by humans, the common brown butterfly now emerges from its cocoon 10 days earlier than it did 65 years ago. ....Two things are strange about this claim of early-emerging butterflies. First, it relies entirely on modelling the effects on butterflies, using old temperature records, rather than on a history of direct observation.Second, it relies on that temperature record not having been contaminated by any urban heat island effect, so that increasing urbanisation could not be said to have artificially increased the warming. ....Reader Alan RM Jones is puzzled. Here’s Laverton in 1946, around the start of the period covered by the butterfly survey: ...."
Ed : see the comparison....
Friday, 19 March 2010
Ed: worth a read...
"March 19th, 2010 13:57 GMT - Posted by Malcolm McClure
As a geologist who has followed the climate debate very closely, I consider that the increases in carbon dioxide and in global temperature are entirely within the scope of natural variability. CO2 has a residence time in the atmosphere of 5 to 15 years, not 100 years plus, as speculated in the 2007 IPCC report. Terrestrial vegetation and the colder oceans can easily absorb incremental carbon dioxide at rates far higher than those produced by industrial emissions. The current rise in CO2 is likely caused by gases absorbed during the Little Ice Age that are returning to the atmosphere from sojourn in the deep ocean, where CO2 residence time is 400 years.
Compared with those mega-scale processes, human efforts to reduce emissions are trivial. Rather than invent a plausible new rationale for Carbon Capture based on incalculable actuarial risks, it would be better to plan how the world can adapt to and manage what will be a very gradual process.
The climate has always been changing and the defining characteristic of humans is our adaptability. Don’t let the environmentalist’s scare scenarios panic us into making unwise economic investments."
"...Today’s bubble burst when the Climategate revelations exposed a government-funded clique of scientists as utter polemicists, sophists and necromancers. Leaked emails from this scandal show scientists puzzled by highly-compelling temperature data proving the world is more likely to now be cooling rather than warming contrary to scientific expectations. Rather than make this finding public it was hushed up – until now. We are thus confronted by confusion in a backdrop of the worst economic recession for 60 years and wher tax a weary public have grown thoroughly sick of being nagged by nanny governments to cut our carbon footprint.
The facts expose the pointlessness of expending any more hot air over what an increasing number of commentators are calling a non-problem since Britain’s most eminent government climate scientist, Professor Phil Jones admitted the planet has seen no statistically significant warming for over 15 years! Just as in the days of King George I, we see the hubris of ‘experts’ and politicians leaving behind them a profligate money trail exposing their gullibility to the dangers and the myth of consensus- it was all just a climate chimera. .."
Thursday, 18 March 2010
"Frank Lansner has done some excellent follow-up on the missing “decline” in temperatures from 1940 to 1975, and things get even more interesting. Recall that the original “hide the decline” statement comes from the ClimateGate e-mails and refers to “hiding” the tree ring data that shows a decline in temperatures after 1960. It’s known as the “divergence problem” because tree rings diverge from the allegedly measured temperatures. But, Frank shows that the peer reviewed data supports the original graphs, and that real measured temperatures did decline from 1960 onwards…sharply. Yet, in the GISS version of that period, temperatures from the cold 1970’s were repeatedly “adjusted” years later, and progressively made warmer."
..Three decades of adjustments
When did the “funny business” begin? By 1980 Hansen and GISS had already produced graphs that were starting to neutralize the decline. His graphs of 1987 and 2007 further fudged the decline, until the cooling from 1960 to 1975 was completely lost."
"..The most mysterious period is from 1958 to 1978, when a steep 0.3C decline that was initially recorded in the Northern Hemisphere. Years later that was reduced so far it became a mild warming, against the detailed corroborating evidence from rabocore data.
Raobcore measurements are balloon measures. They started in 1958, twenty years before satellites. But when satellites began, the two different methods tie together very neatly–telling us that both of them are accurate, reliable tools.The decline in the original graph in National Geographic in 1976 is apparently backed up by highly accurate balloon data, and was based on peer reviewed data: Budyko 1969 and Angell and Korshover (1975). These two sets overlap from 1958 to 1960, and correlate well, so stitching them together is reasonable thing to do and it doesn’t make much difference which year is chosen from the overlap period (indeed any other choice makes the decline slightly steeper)."
"Arctic Wildlife Index Increases 16% over last 34 years ....A total of 965 populations of 306 species (representing 35% of all known arctic vertebrate species) were used to generate the ASTI. In contrast to the global LPI, whose overall decline is largely driven by declines in tropical vertebrate populations, the average population of arctic species rose by 16% between 1970 and 2004. This pattern is very similar to the temperate LPI and is consistent in both the North American and Eurasian Arctic. "
Wednesday, 17 March 2010
"Firstly, a new study, funded by Nasa (which may be feeling the need to rehabilitate itself post-Climategate) has revealed that the ridiculous claim in the notorious IPCC 2007 report that up to 40 per cent of the Amazon rainforest could be drastically affected by even a small reduction in rainfall caused by climate change, so that the trees would be replaced by tropical grassland, is utter nonsense. That assertion has already been exposed as derived from a single report by the environmentalist lobby group WWF.
Now Dr Jose Marengo, a climate scientist with the Brazilian National Institute for Space Research and himself a member of the IPCC, says: “The way the WWF report calculated this 40 per cent was totally wrong, while (the new) calculations are by far more reliable and correct.” These calculations were done by researchers at Boston University and were published in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters. They used satellite data to study the drought of 2005, when rainfall fell to the lowest in living memory, and found that the rainforest suffered no significant effects.
So, the rainforest scare, like the Himalayan glaciers panic, is garbage. ...."
Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun (Australia)
"Danish engineer Frank Lansner is curious. Before global warming was fashionable, it was agreed the world has cooled dramatically in the 1940s and 1950s. Here’s how National Geographic in 1976 presented northern hemisphere temperatures. Now that warming is fashionable, that cooling has been “adjusted” into something much less significant, making the warming over the century seem more dramatic: ...."
"...This is a very significant result. It suggests the possibility that there has been essentially no warming in the U.S. since the 1970s. ....There is a clear need for new, independent analyses of the global temperature data…the raw data, that is. As I have mentioned before, we need independent groups doing new and independent global temperature analyses — not international committees of Nobel laureates passing down opinions on tablets of stone.
"From the Copenhagen Centre for Ocean and Ice of the Danish Meteorological Institute, which has maintained daily mean temperatures (untouched by Phil Jones & CRU) for the Arctic area north of the 80th northern parallel since 1958, the critical summer temperatures (the peak in the middle of the graphs) shows that the summer arctic temperatures were stable to considerably less for the summer of 2009 compared to the summer of 1959 (& 1958 and indeed most years in the record). ..."
"We’ve gone nowhere in almost 200 years. You can see “Eighteen Hundred And Froze To Death” as a down spike after a major volcanic event. You can see some rise out of the Little Ice Age. You can even see a hot 1934 as recorded in our history. Notice also the relatively cold period of 1951 to 1980 where GIStemp put their baseline period. The entire Industrial Revolution is substantially “Flat with a ripple”. And that is what I mean by “Flat” in North America. (We will see a much prettier, but harder to read, version at the very bottom of this posting, that starts time in 1825 just to show how flat it has been). ..."
"The Source of Warming
Just to finish out the set, here are the rest of the countries that are ‘warming’. These have pretty much universally had either a “step function” or a “hockey stick” at the point of a change of “Duplicate Number Flag”. That is, “The Splice” that makes the “The Trick” work. There are none with a smooth rise over time or even a sin wave superimposed on a rising trend as one would expect from a CO2 accumulation signature.
Tuesday, 16 March 2010
"...Al Gore is the most visible beneficiary. The world's greatest climate-change fear-monger has amassed millions in book sales and speaking fees. His science-fiction movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," won an Academy Award for best documentary and 21 other film awards. He was co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for his "efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."
Meanwhile, Mr. Gore was laying his own foundations. As he was whipping up hysteria over climate change, he cannily invested in "green" firms that stood to profit in the hundreds of millions of dollars (if not more) from increased government regulations and sweetheart deals from connected politicians and bureaucrats. The multimillionaire climate dilettante was given a free pass by reporters, who refused to ask him hard questions about the degree to which he was profiting from the panic he was causing. "
"...However, the greatest potential profits are in the ill-defined "carbon trading" industry, currently valued at $126 billion. Gore, of course, is heavily involved with his Generation Investment Management LLP, which he chairs. Pachauri, through the Chicago and now the Indian climate exchange also has his fingers in the till. Thus, says the paper, given the clear conflicts of interest of those who both promote and profit from climate-change alarmism, the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize should be rescinded. "
"..Are you saying that the scientific community, through the IPCC, is asking the world to restructure its entire mode of producing and consuming energy and yet hasn’t done a scientific uncertainty analysis?
Yes. The IPCC itself doesn’t recommend policies or whatever; they just do an assessment of the science. But it’s sort of framed in the context of the UNFCCC [the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change]. That’s who they work for, basically. The UNFCCC has a particular policy agenda—Kyoto, Copenhagen, cap-and-trade, and all that—so the questions that they pose at the IPCC have been framed in terms of the UNFCCC agenda. That’s caused a narrowing of the kind of things the IPCC focuses on. It’s not a policy-free assessment of the science. That actually torques the science in certain directions, because a lot of people are doing research specifically targeted at issues of relevance to the IPCC. Scientists want to see their papers quoted in the IPCC report."
"Global warming campaigners have started what appears to be a concerted media campaign and the media is doing what it always does, failing to question anything they are fed by the PR people inside the climate machine. I've already pointed to Sir John Houghton's article in the Times. We've also had Lord Stern on Radio 4, desperately trying to shift the burden of proof onto those who doubt the word of the activists. US scientists have started a letter writing campaign, led by the usual suspects. The Australians have bashed together a six (!) page report repeating the mantra one more time. ...."
"When Al Gore was caught running up huge energy bills at home at the same time as lecturing on the need to save electricity, it turns out that he was only reverting to "green" type.
According to a study, when people feel they have been morally virtuous by saving the planet through their purchases of organic baby food, for example, it leads to the "licensing [of] selfish and morally questionable behaviour", otherwise known as "moral balancing" or "compensatory ethics".
"Greens steal more than non-Greens; they are more likely to cheat and lie. And it’s not me making this up here. We’re talking hard scientific fact. Way harder than anything you’d find in, say, the Fourth IPCC Assessment report. See for yourself. It’s in The Guardian.
Do Green Products Make Us Better People is published in the latest edition of the journal Psychological Science. Its authors, Canadian psychologists Nina Mazar and Chen-Bo Zhong, argue that people who wear what they call the “halo of green consumerism” are less likely to be kind to others, and more likely to cheat and steal. “Virtuous acts can license subsequent asocial and unethical behaviours,” they write."
"Professor John Quiggin complains of smears by sceptics:
In recent years, science and scientific institutions have come under increasingly vociferous attack, with accusations of fraud, incompetence and even aspirations to world domination becoming commonplace… Scientists have been constrained in fighting back by the fact that they are ethically constrained to be honest, whereas their opponents lie without any compunction.
Ethically unconstrained, Professor John Quiggin smears a sceptic:
In writing my previous post on the “Climategate” break-in to the University of East Anglia computer system, I remained unclear about who was actually responsible for the break-in theft of the emails, which were then selectively quoted to promote a bogus allegation of scientific fraud. Looking over the evidence that is now available, I think there is enough to point to Steven McIntyre as the person, along with the actual hacker or leaker, who bears primary moral responsibility for the crime… "
Quiggin complains of his own behaviour Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun (Australia)
Quiggin’s second effort is still a slime Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun (Australia)
Monday, 15 March 2010
"Sir John Houghton, an ex-boss of the IPCC, and the hockey stick graph, visually demonstrating that the flawed hockey stick graph has "never" played any important role for the IPCC statements. ...Note that Houghton considers skepticism "dangerous". This very sentence makes his reasoning fundamentally incompatible with the scientific method. The mood of skepticism is not dangerous: it is a basic pre-requisite for science. ....Sir John Houghton may call himself and his ilk "we scientists" but that won't change that they're crooks who have nothing whatsoever to do with the scientific integrity."
ED: Now go to the blog - it's a 'must read'.
"“Let’s be honest….” says Sir John Houghton, formerly chief of the Met Office and leading climate doom-monger, in a fascinating article in today’s Times. Fascinating, that is, for what it is says about our supine MSM’s apparently boundless appetite for allowing itself to be used as the climate fear promotion lobby’s uncritical propaganda mouthpiece. .....The IPCC is not “science at its best”: it is a shame that discredits all of science and is dragging all other scientific disciplines under the water. It doesn’t deserve to be defended: it deserves to be eliminated. People should pray that the damage caused by the IPCC to the institutionalized science in the whole world may be corrected in a foreseeable future."
"In the UK only about 26 per cent of the population believe the scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is man-made. ..Let’s be honest, sometimes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does get it wrong. It was an error to include a poorly sourced claim in its 2007 report about the rate at which Himalayan glaciers are melting;..." The IPCC process also makes it impossible for green propaganda to be slipped in."
Sir John Houghton in the Times (Bishop Hill)
"t's well worth a read, but it's amusing to note that he accepts the glaciergate errors, which you will remember involved the use of claims from a WWF report. At the same time Sir John also claims that:
...a report from Greenpeace or any other campaigning body would not be included because the science would not be considered robust enough.
There are also some interesting claims about the recent lack of warming being a function of El Nino and natural variation. "
"Today the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO released a six page document purporting to provide more evidence that climate change is to inflict damage on Australia.
The first four pages show some trends from 1960 to 2009. The fifth page shows trends in global CO2 concentrations (over different periods).
The final page shows a giant leap in logic (or rather, absence of logic) by asserting:
* Australia will be hotter in coming decades;
* much of Australia will be drier in coming decades;
* it is very likely that human activities have caused most of the global warming observed since 1950; and
* climate change is real.
I need make only three points. First, past trends are not evidence of the future. Second, correlation is not necessarily causation. And finally, the data just shows that the climate fluctuated between 1960 and 2009. That doesn’t prove that “climate change is real” for all periods.
I am distressed that these two once august institutions are willing to compromise their integrity to push a political point – AGW."
Sunday, 14 March 2010
"TWO government advertisements that use nursery rhymes to warn people of the dangers of climate change have been banned by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) for exaggerating the potential harm.The adverts, commissioned by Ed Miliband, the energy secretary, used the rhymes to suggest that Britain faces an inevitable increase in storms, floods and heat waves unless greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control.The ASA has ruled that the claims made in the newspaper adverts were not supported by solid science and has told the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) that they should not be published again.It has also referred a television commercial to the broadcast regulator, Ofcom, for potentially breaching a prohibition on political advertising."
Labour ads banned for lying about warming Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun (Australia)
".....But back here, any old rubbish gets through: ..."
Saturday, 13 March 2010
"..Rahmstorf explains that he sees this error as being worse than the 2035 glacier error (emphasis added):
Why do I find this IPCC problem far worse than the Himalaya error? Because it is not a slip-up by a Working Group 2 author who failed to properly follow procedures and cited an unreliable source. Rather, this is the result of intensive deliberations by Working Group 1 climate experts. Unlike the Himalaya mistake, this is one of the central predictions of IPCC, prominently discussed in the Summary for Policy Makers. What went wrong in this case needs to be carefully looked at when considering future improvements to the IPCC process."
"The same hills that provide lift for soaring birds offer heavily subsidised profits for wind farm developers, ..... In all my scores of items over the years on why the obsession with wind turbines will be seen as one of the major follies of our age, there is one issue I haven’t touched on. The main practical objection to turbines, of course, is that they are useless, producing derisory amounts of electricity at colossal cost. (Yet the Government wants us to spend £100 billion on building thousands more of them which, even were it technically possible, would do virtually nothing to fill the fast-looming 40 per cent gap in our electricity supply.)
A feature of these supposedly environment-friendly machines that I haven’t mentioned, however, is their devastating effect on wildlife, notably on large birds of prey, such as eagles and red kites. Particularly disturbing is the extent to which the disaster has been downplayed by professional bodies, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in Britain and the Audubon Society in the US, which should be at the forefront of exposing this outrage, but which have often been drawn into a conflict of interest by the large sums of money they derive from the wind industry itself. ...."
The shift in these views during the past two years has been particularly striking. The percentage who said global warming would pose a serious threat increased gradually from 1997 through 2008. The trend in these responses changed course last year, with slightly fewer Americans saying global warming would have a significant effect in their lifetimes. This year, that percentage is down even more, marking a six-point drop from 2009, and roughly similar to where it was nine years ago."
"When it was published in 2007, the paper in the journal Science by Saleska et al caused quite a stir. It suggested that, contrary to expectations, the Amazon rainforest had "greened-up" in response to a short, intense drought in 2005. .....Trying to be as balanced as possible, one has to conclude that, either we have missed something pretty fundamental, or simply that the confidence of the IPCC in the science – its version of it - is unwarranted. Either way, the IPCC owes us an explanation, and a degree of clarity about precisely how it reached its conclusions on the possible fate of the Amazon rainforests.
Not least, also, we need to get past the unremitting negativity of the warmists, and their assumptions – seemingly based on modelling various scenarios which have not occurred and which do not ever seem to have been experienced. On the basis of what we know, far from the Armageddon picture painted, even totally cleared land seems to recover completely within 40 years. "
"...So, a very obvious whitewash and presumably very satisfactory to the IPCC camp. Nevertheless, I repeat, it is probably the most serious mistake the AGW fanatics have so far made. This is because they have seriously underestimated the amount of trouble they are in. Any competent political spin doctor (and the AGW scam is pure politics, not science) would have told them that, as things stand in 2010, they had one last chance – and only one chance – to salvage their bogus crusade.
That was to allow a genuinely independent investigation, including highly qualified sceptics, to analyse the 2007 report and expose all its fallacies – which are already in the public domain in any case. They could then have apologised, sacked Pachauri (which they will probably do anyway) and prepared an equally mendacious but more sophisticated report, jettisoning the more extravagant scare-mongering for the time being, and so clawed back wavering support among the public. ..."
Instead, they have opted for a very obvious whitewash, discredited from the day of its launch, that will provoke hilarity and increased scepticism when it reports. After that, there will be no road back. We should be grateful that the arrogance and over-confidence engendered by their longstanding immunity from challenge (but not any more) prompted the AGW fraudsters to create so inadequate a smokescreen.
Friday, 12 March 2010
"Earth Day (April 22) is only six weeks away, and I just noticed that the EPA recently updated air quality data for 2008 and thought it was worth featuring now in anticipation of the 40th anniversary of Earth Day:
Predictions made around the time of the first Earth Day in 1970:
“Air pollution is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone,” Paul Ehrlich in an interview in Mademoiselle magazine, April 1970. ..."
Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun (Australia)
"Here we are 40 years later, the U.S. population has increased by more than 50%, traffic volume (miles driven) in the U.S. has increased 160%, and real GDP has increased 204%; and yet air quality in the U.S. is better than ever - nitrous dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide and lead have all decreased between 46% and 92% between 1980 and 2008 (see chart).
Hadi Dowlatabadi is Canada research chair and professor in Applied Mathematics and Global Change at the University of British Columbia.
Richard Lindzen is a professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
The debate is in a 50 min video - click link to watch
H/T The Hockey Schtick
Thursday, 11 March 2010
"The warmist response to Climategate — the discovery of the thoroughly corrupt practices of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) — was that the tainted CRU dataset was just one of four independent data sets. You know. So really there’s no big deal.
Thanks to a FOIA request, the document production of which I am presently plowing through — and before that, thanks to the great work of Steve McIntyre, and particularly in their recent, comprehensive work, Joseph D’Aleo and Anthony Watts — we know that NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) passed no one’s test for credibility. Not even NASA’s."
H/T Climate Depot
"..The big difference is that Fort Collins has tripled in size over the last 40 years, and Boulder has grown much more slowly. Fort Collins population is shown in blue and Boulder in red below. Until the mid-1960s, NCDC temperatures in the two cities tracked each other quite closely, as you can see below. Again, Fort Collins in blue, and Boulder in red – with Fort Collins temperatures shifted upwards by two degrees to normalize the left side of the graph. Since 1965, temperatures in Fort Collins have risen much more quickly than Boulder, paralleling the relative increase in population."
"They all show clear evidence of UHI warming, even for small population density increases at very low population density. A population density of only 100 persons per sq. km exhibits average warming of about 0.8 deg. C compared to a nearby unpopulated temperature monitoring location..."
"What marvellous news to learn that the UN secretary general Ban Ki Moon is to launch a thorough investigation into the science behind climate change! It’s the equivalent of Kenneth Lay promising to organise a full and frank investigation into the accounts at Enron, or Herod ordering an urgent inquiry into the appalling and mysterious slaughter of infants in Judaea: all it will do is end up confirming the prejudices of the person who commissioned the report.
And as Ban Ki Moon himself says, keeping a studiedly neutral position on the issue:
“I have seen no credible evidence that challenges the main conclusions of that [Fourth IPCC Assessment] report. The threat posed by climate change is real.”
Make no mistake, we are accelerating at breakneck speed towards hell. There are now so many political entities dedicated to creating a regulatory system predicated on the existence on AGW – besides the UN these include the European Union, the Obama administration, the EPA, the terrifying Carbon Disclosure Project, the Labour government and the forthcoming Heath administration – that none of them is remotely interested in hearing any answers they don’t want to know. It will be like another of those EU referenda where the only acceptable answer is “Yes”, even when the people keep saying “No.”
Wednesday, 10 March 2010
"The United Nations is to announce an independent review of errors made by its climate change advisory body in an attempt to restore its credibility.A team of the world’s leading scientists will investigate the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and ask why its supposedly rigorous procedures failed to detect at least three serious overstatements of the risk from global warming.The review will be overseen by the InterAcademy Council, whose members are drawn from the world’s leading national science academies, including Britain’s Royal Society, the United States National Academy of Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.The review will be led by Robbert Dijkgraaf, co-chairman of the Interacademy Council and president of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences.He has been asked to investigate the internal processes of the IPCC and will not consider the overarching question of whether it was right to claim that human activities were very likely to be causing global warming. "
"...The InterAcademy Council is a Netherlands-based organization of the science academies of 15 nations. "They will run the review themselves," said a scientist close to the situation, who asked not to be named because the researcher was not authorized to talk publicly. "It will be independent... They are choosing the reviewers."
H/T Climate Depot
Tuesday, 9 March 2010
"There is an English saying that you have “lies, damned lies and statistics”. Here, I would like to introduce a variation on this expression: “There are lies, damned lies, statistics … and sloppy science”.
This morning, there was lot of noise in the Dutch media (unfortunately in Dutch only) about new research that was claiming a dramatic warming of 4 degrees in 2050. The news report quoted Dutch econometricians from the University of Tilburg. .....Yikes. This dataset is not to be used for the type of study performed by these econometricians. Never. Period. Don’t use it. Lies, damned lies, statistics and very sloppy science."
H/T Bishop Hill
"News has just reached me that the great Professor Ian Plimer, scourge of climate-fear-promoters everywhere, has been suddenly disinvited by the Royal Society of Artists (RSA) from a lecture he was due to give in May before an audience including the Duke of Edinburgh. .....As Plimer puts it: “Strange that those who preach environmentalism at The Palace are feted as concerned scientists with no political agenda whereas those that try to speak rationality are regarded as political.”
Monday, 8 March 2010
"... In a flexing of its federal muscle the European Union (EU) is reported as drawing up plans for its first direct tax with proposals expected to be announced next month that will provide the United States of Europe with its first funding derived from direct taxation.Although many people are ignorant of the fact the EU has appointed a “commissioner for taxation” who is said to be planning a “minimum rate of tax on carbon” to be imposed across the federal union."
"BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Loopholes in the United Nations climate treaties could actually amount to an increase in global climate-warming emissions and the chance to rein in temperatures may be slipping away, a draft European Union report showed.
"Optimistic assessments...indicate that a pathway toward limiting the global temperature increase to no more than 2 degrees Celsius is still feasible, but more pessimistic assessments indicate this chance is disappearing fast," it added. European Climate Commissioner Connie Hedegaard will announce her strategy on Tuesday for advancing international climate talks after the conclusion of a weak deal in Copenhagen in December.
ED: Tax loopholes perhaps?
"Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, a former NASA Physicist, published his peer-reviewed provocative saturated greenhouse theory 3 years ago challenging the widespread belief in man-made global warming, and his work remains unchallenged with no peer-reviewed rebuttal nor critique published. Dr. Miskolczi concludes,
"Earth-type planetary atmospheres, having partial cloud cover and unlimited reservoirs of water vapor, maintain an energetically maximized (constant, ‘saturated’) greenhouse effect that cannot be increased by emissions."
The Hockey Schtick
""Scientists are beginning to find that methane frozen in permafrost under the Arctic Ocean is bubbling up to the surface and reaching the atmosphere, raising concerns that one of the most-feared potential self-reinforcing effects of climate change may be starting to get under way." ....Then we learn that "Only a tiny amount of methane has been released so far compared to what is emitted elsewhere in the world and the Alaskan researchers are only beginning to track how the methane moves into the atmosphere."
"Caught telling untruths several times in the last few years, and most notably twice in the last six months, left-leaning climate scientists supporting the theory of “anthropogenic global warming” are getting ready to counterattack. Among the tactics they plan to employ is organizing climate researchers into a non-profit organization, from which they’ll obtain donations to use to pay for back-page ads in the New York Times excoriating the critics and other climate anthropogenic change skeptics. .....Undaunted by his failures, however, Ehrlich has found a new boogeyman to scare us – “anthropogenic global warming” – but his methodology is the same old same old. You see, Ehrlich’s error over 40 years ago was to take a snapshot of current trends and project it forward into the future, without regards for any changes in the extremely complex processes he was trying to model. In the case of the Population Bomb, he was trying to project population growth vs. technological change, which in the end he got completely wrong. Now, he and other leftist climate scientists are trying to project a snapshot of recent global average temperature trends into the future. Unfortunately for them, they understand the climate change process about as well as they understand the process of technological advancement."
H/T Climate Depot
Sunday, 7 March 2010
"IT was meant to be a cultural response to climate change. The mission: charter a sailing boat in the Arctic and take 12 leading artists and writers to ponder on the perils of climate change in their work.Unfortunately, no one seems to have explained the plot to Ian McEwan, the novelist. His new work, Solar, sends up the expedition with such glee that it has received a frosty reception from some of his fellow adventurers. ...McEwan, who received his MA degree in English literature at the University of East Anglia, the same institution which was immersed in the “climategate” scandal of alleged manipulated figures, saves his best satire for the scientists."
"The row sparked by the leak of climate change emails from a British university has the potential to "undermine" the reputation of science as a whole, two respected scientific organisations have warned. ......The Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) and the Royal Statistical Society (RSS) have both issued statements declaring that it is essential that scientific data and evidence compiled by researchers be made publicly available for scrutiny.Their comments come after the Institute of Physics said that emails sent by Professor Phil Jones, head of the CRU, had broken "honourable scientific traditions" about disclosing raw data and methods.In a written submission to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, which is conducting an inquiry into the disclosure of data from the CRU, the RSC said a lack of willingness to disclose research data had "far-reaching consequences".
Saturday, 6 March 2010
"...The only problem is that two recent studies have shown why carbon capture and storage on this scale is simply not physically possible. Two academic petroleum experts in Texas, Michael and Christine Economides, have shown that it is impossible to inject such huge quantities of CO2 into underground aquifers – 20,000 tons a day for a 1 gigawatt power station – without fracturing the surrounding rock, making further injection impossible. This finding is confirmed in a study by the Grantham Institute at Imperial College.
In other words, that £4 billion to be spent in Britain (with a further £3.3 billion to be spent by the EU on eight pilot schemes) will be wholly wasted. Burying CO2 in holes in the ground is no more than a hugely expensive fantasy. Yet the Tory party insists that no coal plants can be replaced without a system which cannot physically work. "
"Some of America’s top ”warmist” scientists, demoralised at how their faith is being discredited, are planning a counter-attack on the “climate sceptics”, according to the Washington Times. “We’re not in a gentlepersons’ debate, we’re in a street fight against well-funded, merciless enemies who play by entirely different rules,” says Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University. ..."
The money trail
""Somehow the tables have turned. For all the smears of big money funding the "deniers", the numbers reveal that the sceptics are actually the true grassroots campaigners, while Greenpeace defends Wall St. How times have changed...."
"HAIL has blanketed Melbourne like snow as a severe thunderstorm ripped through the city, forcing the cancellation of horse racing and sporting events.Nineteen millimetres of rain bucketed down over the city in less than 18 minutes this afternoon, the weather bureau said.The huge storm cell, which hit about 2.40pm (AEDT), resulted in a total of 26 millimetres of rain in Melbourne in less an hour, bringing emergency services to a grinding halt as reports of flooding came in from across the city."
Ed: Proof of Global Cooling ? ;-)
Melbourne flood - Elizabeth Street, February 1972
"..In an article in the newsletter of the IOP south central branch in April 2008, Mr Gill wrote: “If you do not ‘believe’ in anthropogenic climate change, you risk at best ridicule, but more likely vitriolic comments or even character assassination. For many people the subject has become a religion, so facts and analysis have become largely irrelevant.” .....The Institute has published a clarification to its submission in which it says that it does not doubt the basic science that human activities are causing global warming.Some members of the Institute are understood to be considering resigning in protest over its submission. "
"In June 2007 Rajendra Pachauri, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), gave an interview to an Indian publication that appeared in five parts. In the section titled "The science is absolutely first rate," Pachauri declared: "The IPCC doesn't do any research itself. We only develop our assessments on the basis of peer-reviewed literature." .....The more one examines IPCC publications, however, the more evident it becomes that we've all been told a fairy tale. Andreas Bjurström of Sweden's Göteborgs Universitet, had a guest post on Roger Peilke Jr.'s blog yesterday regarding the previous IPCC report. Among his startling findings: only 62 percent (less than two-thirds) of the sources cited by the IPCC back in 2001 were peer-reviewed. ....Others also have some explaining to do. According to the IPCC (see a graphic here), 2,500 people served as expert reviewers on the 2007 report. Eight hundred more were contributing authors, and another 450 were lead authors. That's roughly 4,000 souls who were in a position to know that the claim that the IPCC report is based solely on peer-reviewed literature is absolute fiction. .."
The Weekly Standard
"It is increasingly clear that the leak of the internal emails and documents of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in November has done for the climate change debate what the Pentagon Papers did for the Vietnam war debate 40 years ago—changed the narrative decisively. Additional revelations of unethical behavior, errors, and serial exaggeration in climate science are rolling out on an almost daily basis, and there is good reason to expect more. .......The ruckus about “weather is not climate” exposes the greatest problem of the climate campaign. Al Gore and his band of brothers have been happy to point to any weather anomaly—cold winters, warm winters, in-between winters—as proof of climate change. But the climate campaigners cannot name one weather pattern or event that would be inconsistent with their theory. Pretty convenient when your theory works in only one direction. ...."
"Green jobs are a waste of space, a waste of money, a lie, a chimera. You know that. I know that. We’re familiar with the report by Dr Gabriel Calzada Alvarez of the Rey Juan Carlos University in Spain which shows that for every “green job” that is created another 2.2 jobs are LOST in the real economy.We also know that alternative energy is a fraud – only viable through enormous government (ie taxpayer subsidy) and utterly incapable of answering anything more than a fraction of our energy needs. ..."
Climate scientist delivers false statement in parliament enquiry
"It has come to our attention, that last Monday (March 1), Dr. Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU), in a hearing with the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee made a statement in regards to the alleged non-availability for disclosure of Swedish climate data.
Dr. Jones asserted that the weather services of several countries, including Sweden, Canada and Poland, had refused to allow their data to be released, to explain his reluctance to comply with Freedom of Information requests.
This statement is false and misleading in regards to the Swedish data.
All Swedish climate data are available in the public domain. As is demonstrated in the attached correspondence between SMHI (Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute), the UK Met Office and Dr. Jones (the last correspondence dated yesterday March 4), this has been clearly explained to Dr. Jones. What is also clear is that SMHI is reluctant to be connected to data that has undergone “processing” by the East Anglia research unit.
Göran Ahlgren, secretary general
12 27 Stockholm, Sweden
Friday, 5 March 2010
"..Last year it was ridiculed for claiming the UK was ‘odds on for a barbecue summer’. Although temperatures were warmer than average, July and August were a wash-out.It also made a disastrous prediction for winter - claiming there was only a one in seven chance of a cold December to February.It turned out to be the coldest winter in three decades.And last week, the agency came under fire for handing out bonuses worth £12million in the last five years to its 1,800-strong staff - including a £40,000 bonus to its chief executive last year."
"Some people seem to be unwilling to accept that the era of the global warming panic that couldn't even be questioned is over. ...n 1967, Paul Ehrlich predicted that hundreds of millions of people would starve to death in the 1970s and 1980s. Later, he updated his prediction and argued that most of the U.S. population would starve to death before 2000.His whole career has been built on making absolutely preposterous statements of this kind."
H/T Climate Depot
"A sharp-eyed viewer has noticed that when I was debating George Monbiot on TV yesterday and I mentioned that his cherished “peer-reviewed science” had been discredited by Climategate he bared his teeth like a cornered cur. Says my body language expert John Lish:
.....Monbiot isn’t the only one. Consider the paranoid tone of this email from climate-fear-promoter Paul Ehrlich, during an exchange with fellow members at the National Academy of Scientists on how best to deal with the Denier threat: "
Dramatic rescue of 1,000 people trapped on ferries as 50 ships get stuck in Baltic Sea ice after worst winter in 50 years
"Heavy ice cover is not uncommon further north, but the ice rarely gets thick enough in the Stockholm archipelago to trap powerful passenger ferries like the Amorella. ..Three Swedish icebreakers helped free the ship. Finland also dispatched an ice breaker to help out, said Benny Paulsson from a maritime rescue center on Finland's southwest coast."
Arctic puts Wilkinson’s alarmism on ice (Andrew Bolt, Herald Sun, Australia)
"Surprise! Anthony Watts presents the evidence showing the Arctic sea ice cover keeps recovering from its 2007 lows. For instance, the Danish Meteorological Institute shows the ice extent at nearly the highest in its six-year record: "
The ice floes of reality (Dr Richard North)
"..This brings home the salient point that mass shifts in Arctic ice have more to do with wind patterns than they do temperature, something Anthony Watts helpfully confirms in a recent post. As a result, Arctic ice extent is recovering from its 2007 low and is currently within a million square kilometres of normal and increasing as peak coverage approaches."
Thursday, 4 March 2010
"The greatest scandal connected to global warming is not exaggeration, fraud or destruction of data to conceal the weakness of the argument. It is those who are personally profiting from promoting this fantasy at the expense of the rest of us.Al Gore is the most visible beneficiary. The world's greatest climate-change fear-monger has amassed millions in book sales and speaking fees. ....The greatest potential profits are possible in the ill-defined "carbon trading" industry, currently valued at $126 billion. ...Mr. Gore is heavily involved in this scam through Generation Investment Management LLP, which he chairs, and Mr. Pachauri also has been accused of making millions from carbon trading. "
H/T Climate Realists
"In late 2009, Anthony forecast that Arctic sea ice would continue to recover in 2010. ....So how is Arctic sea ice looking at this point, near the winter maximum? NSIDC shows ice extent within 1 million km2 of normal and increasing."
"And so it is with the Great Moonbat who in a rare break with tradition spoke perfect sense in his Guardian column the other day. Here he is, laying into the great government-sponsored solar panel rip-off:
Those who hate environmentalism have spent years looking for the definitive example of a great green rip-off. Finally it arrives, and nobody notices. The government is about to shift £8.6bn from the poor to the middle classes. It expects a loss on this scheme of £8.2bn, or 95%. Yet the media is silent. The opposition urges only that the scam should be expanded.
On 1 April the government introduces its feed-in tariffs. These oblige electricity companies to pay people for the power they produce at home. The money will come from their customers in the form of higher bills. It would make sense, if we didn’t know that the technologies the scheme will reward are comically inefficient. ..."
"Somehow the tables have turned. For all the smears of big money funding the "deniers", the numbers reveal that the sceptics are actually the true grassroots campaigners, while Greenpeace defends Wall St. How times have changed.
Sceptics are fighting a billion dollar industry aligned with a trillion dollar trading scheme. Big Oil's supposed evil influence has been vastly outdone by Big Government, and even those taxpayer billions are trumped by Big-Banking.
The big-money side of this debate has fostered a myth that sceptics write what they write because they are funded by oil profits. They say, follow the money? So I did and it's chilling. Greens and environmentalists need to be aware each time they smear with an ad hominem attack they are unwittingly helping giant finance houses. ...."
Only another million (Dr Rchard North)
"...Back in the "real" world, continuing my laborious (to say nothing of tedious) search on climate change spending, I happened on a press release from DECC. Of recent origin (18 January 2010), it tells us that "the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and the United Arab Emirates have today announced £1m of joint funding for renewable energy policy research."
Wednesday, 3 March 2010
"There is an interesting set of quotes in the New York Times today from blogger and NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt. Schmidt is the principle behind Real Climate, a blog self-described as: 'RealClimate is a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists'.In the Times, Schmidt has the following odd statement:'But some scientists said that responding to climate change skeptics was a fool’s errand.“Climate scientists are paid to do climate science,” said Gavin A. Schmidt, a senior climatologist with the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies. “Their job is not persuading the public.”
The statement is odd because Schmidt and his climate scientist colleagues have devoted much of the effort on their blog to countering "skeptics" and persuading the public and the media that their views are the authoritative ones. Was Schmidt misquoted? Is Real Climate shutting down?
"...I fully agree with Gavin's last quote, that good science is the best revenge. Let's take a look at this in action, from the recently released NASA FOIA files part 4 is a series of emails detailing a trouncing by 3 scathing reviews of a paper written by Gavin Schmidt et al submitted not once but twice to BAMS (the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society) and ultimately rejected outright. Followed by this are emails regarding a blog posting at climatedepot.com in 2009 stating "prominent scientist appalled by Gavin Schmidt's lack of knowledge"."
"A forlorn polar bear cub is comforted by its mother as they drift miles from shore on a rapidly shrinking ice floe.The Arctic-dwelling animals have become an iconic cause for green campaigners, who claim dramatic images such as these prove that global warming is destroying the world.But despite this image being released today, it was actually taken in August last year, when it is normal for coastal ice to naturally break up and melt."
"TUG OF WAR OVER ICON OF ENVIRONMENT CAMPAIGN - Melting Arctic ice is believed to threaten the survival of the bears and green campaigners point to the startling 2007 U.S Geological Survey study to back their claims. It predicted a decline in sea ice could lead to the loss of two-thirds of the polar bear population within half a century.
However, this contrasts with the views of Dr Mitchell Taylor. The academic, who has been researching the status of the bears in Canada and around the Arctic Circle for 30 years, insists that far from decreasing polar bear numbers are in fact increasing.