"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 December 2014
What I’m about to say isn’t a spoof. It’s the result of research and discussions with scientists working in the field. For all of you who need the data, I’ll give them in summary, but you go look up the mountain of references, do some research for yourself, even get a meter if you like. You’ll believe the numbers below better if you discover them on your own. And you won’t need to believe me when I say “I told you so.”
The following summarizes levels of CO2 under various conditions:
40,000 ppm: The exhaled breath of normal, healthy people.
8,000 ppm: CO2 standard for submarines
2,500 ppm: CO2 level in a small hot crowded bar in the city
2,000 ppm: The point at which my CO2 meter squawks by playing Fur Elise
1,000 to 2,000 ppm: Historical norms for the earth’s atmosphere over the past 550 million years
1,000 to 2,000 ppm: The level of CO2 at which plant growers like to keep their greenhouses
1,000 ppm: Average level in a lecture hall filled with students
600 ppm: CO2 level in my office with me and my husband in it
490 ppm: CO2 level in my office working alone
390 ppm: Current average outdoor level of CO2 in the air
280 ppm: Pre-industrial levels in the air, on the edge of "CO2 famine" for plants
150 ppm: The point below which most plants die of CO2 starvation
Tuesday, 23 December 2014
Satellite records show that 2014 will not be the warmest year on record, but satellites are not used by government weather and climate agencies to make their average global temperature estimates."
How to separate creative genius from creative mistakes? Not with peer-review. It is a consensus filter.
Classical peer review is a form of scientific gatekeeping (it’s good to see that term recognized in official literature). Unpaid anonymous peer review is useful at filtering out some low quality papers, it is also effective at blocking the controversial ones which later go on to be accepted elsewhere and become cited many times, the paradigm changers. And the more controversial the topic, presumably, the worse the bias is. What chance would anyone have of getting published if, hypothetically, they found a consequential mathematical error underlying the theory of man-made global warming? Which editors would be brave enough to even send it out for review and risk being called a “denier”? Humans are gregarious social beings, and being in with the herd affects your financial rewards, as well as your social standing. Even high ranking science journal editors are afraid of being called names. ....................Anyone who thinks “peer review” is somehow part of the scientific method does not know what science is."
Friday, 19 December 2014
Climate Custers’ Last Stand…Top German Climate Scientists See No End To “Warming Pause”. Now Concede Oceans A “Major Climate Factor”
Germany’s so-called Climate Consortium here has published a telling statement on this year’s “record warm year” in Germany and the reasons behind it. The Climate Consortium represents the collective position of all Germany’s scientific climate institutes. ..."
The 97% “consensus” study, Cook et al. (2013) has been thoroughly refuted in scholarly peer-reviewed journals, by major news media, public policy organizations and think tanks, highly credentialed scientists and extensively in the climate blogosphere. The shoddy methodology of Cook’s study has been shown to be so fatally flawed that well known climate scientists have publicly spoken out against it, "
Monday, 8 December 2014
It’s a global poll done by the United Nations, with over six million responses from all over the planet, and guess what? ..The revealed truth is that of the sixteen choices given to people regarding what they think are the important issues in their lives, climate change is dead last. Not only that, but in every sub-category, by age, by sex, by education, by country grouping, it’s right down at the bottom of the list. NOBODY thinks it’s important."
Phil Jones and Michael Mann are two of the most influential figures in the whole "climate change" racket. What these documents reveal is the greatest scientific scandal of our times - and a tragedy. It's not just their graphs but their battle lines that are drawn all wrong. Science is never "settled," and certainly not on the basis of predictive models. And any scientist who says it is is no longer a scientist. And the dismissal of "skeptics" throughout the Jones/Mann correspondence is most revealing: a real scientist is always a skeptic."
Which brings me to How the Science Got Settled, the latest posting by Mark Steyn on the fifth anniversary of the release of the “climategate” emails. Here I’ll just repeat the quotes from the various climate scientists quoted by Steyn but do go to the article to see the context and the commentary. ................It’s a scandal but the biggest scandal is that just about no one seems to be scandalised."
Experts say that very complex and divergent Mann-made destructive processes, have caused the ice to be almost exactly normal at both poles.
Further unprecedented human interference may well cause increased normalcy."
Saturday, 6 December 2014
But, in what has already been hailed by Forbes magazine as a new "Climategate", Booker records week's revelation of a document showing that a campaign which last year pushed the EU into a damaging ban on certain insecticides was deliberately engineered, on the basis of highly questionable evidence, by a group of environmentally committed scientists working for a green pressure group, the International Union for Conservation in Nature (IUCN). ......But – as we reported earlier, it emerges that IUCN was funded by the EU itself to the tune of £19 milllion, with £350,000 going specifically to a "task force", headed by an environmentalist who was one of the co-founders of the Dutch WWF, to come up with the evidence needed to justify a ban.
Minutes of the task force's first meeting in 2010 show that its only purpose was to find evidence to support a ban. Since 2004 neonics have been successfully used to control crop damage by farmers in 120 countries. On the back of papers produced by the task force, other green lobby groups – some also funded by the EU - launched a Europe-wide campaign calling for a ban, particularly focussed for propaganda purposes on the damage these chemicals were purportedly doing to bees.
When the Commission accordingly proposed its ban, few questioned it more strongly than the chief scientific adviser to the UK's Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), which was why opposition to it in Brussels was led by his minister Owen Paterson. Defra's own field trials had shown no damage to bees, whereas the IUCN relied only on highly artificial laboratory experiments. .......This is yet another example of the bizarre symbiosis the EU has established with green pressure groups, as it showers out hundreds of millions of euros a year for them to lobby it for the all-too often destructive policies they want.
Among those who fell for the dubious science behind this particular ban was David Cameron. In their final tetchy interview last July he raised it as one of his chief reasons for sacking Mr Paterson: easily the best-informed and most effective Defra minister we've ever had."
Investigation: How Green Activist Scientists Rigged an EU Pesticide Ban Costing Farmers and Businesses Billions
What we found was appalling if not altogether surprising. The ban - heavily opposed by Britain's then-Environment Secretary Owen Paterson - had rather less to do with proven necessity than it did with political horse-trading. Indeed, the scientific evidence for justifying the ban seemed flimsy to the point of non-existence. ......So in the name of saving the environment, the Green Blob has once again succeeded in perverting the cause of science, damaging nature, harming the economy, ruining livelihoods and driving up prices. There is nothing new in any of this: it's how the Green Blob rolls - the destruction of the global economy, in this case in its ideological war on the intensive agriculture which keeps us fed, being one of its primary objectives. The only thing that's different this time is this: for a change - as with Climategate - the lying, cheating bastards got caught red-handed."
The war on carbon energy, the carbon tax, the renewable energy targets, escalating electricity costs and the voices in Parliament calling for Emissions Trading Schemes have all unnerved our big users of carbon fuels and electricity. Smelting and refining have become threatened industries in Australia, and closure of the Mount Isa copper smelter and the Townsville copper refinery has been foreshadowed. Already six major metal smelting/refining operations have closed in Australia this century and more are likely. The closures have affected copper, lead, zinc, steel and aluminium – the sinews of modern industry. And the car industry, with all its skills and tools, is closing.
More and more land and offshore waters are totally closed to exploration and mining. Offshore exploration for oil is very limited, except in the north-west. On land, there is no exploration in green no-go areas and the “lock-the-gate” rent-a-crowd are trying to prevent gas explorers from drilling even on their own exploration tenements. Local production and refining of oil is also declining, and it was estimated recently that by next year, half of Australia’s oil refining capacity will have closed. In the event of a disruption to tanker routes, Australia has just 12 days of diesel supplies before city fuel and food supplies start to dry up. Will we see charcoal burners on cars and trucks once again?
Heavy industry is scorned, and is migrating to Asia. We are losing the resources, skills and machinery needed for our own security, while we fritter away precious resources on green energy, direct action, carbon capture and storage and other pointless anti-carbon chimeras.
Our foolish green energy policies and the suicidal war on carbon fuels are killing real industry leaving us unskilled and defenceless – like a fat toothless walrus basking on a sunny beach.
Wake up Australia."
We now have the RSS satellite temperature data out for November, and, as with UAH, they show that this year will be nowhere a record, as is being touted for the surface datasets. Indeed, this year is running in only a modest 7th place."
The obvious message is that these particular proxies don’t work now and probably never did, and that this hockeystick shape depends on not using tree rings after 1980."
Thursday, 27 November 2014
If you suffer from an uncontrollable urge to claim that peer review is a part of The Scientific Method (that’s you Matthew Bailes, Pro VC of Swinburne), the bad news just keeps on coming. Now, we can add the terms “Peer Review Rigging” to “Peer-review tampering”, and “Citation Rings”.
Not only do personal biases and self-serving interests mean good papers are slowed for years and rejected for inane reasons, but gibberish gets published, and in some fields most results can’t be replicated. Now we find (is anyone surprised?) that some authors are even reviewing their own work. It’s called Peer-Review-Rigging. When the editor asks for suggestions of reviewers, you provide pseudonyms and bogus emails. The editor sends the review to a gmail type address, you pick it up, and voila, you can pretend to be an independent reviewer.
One researcher, Hyung-In Moon, was doing this to review his own submissions. He was caught because he sent the reviews back in less than 24 hours. Presumably if he’d waiting a week, no one would have noticed."
Described as a “professor of climate science,” Chris Rapley has no teaching duties. Described as a “climate scientist,” he has spent decades in administrative roles. ..... Who knew this was the path to glory? Spend decades as an administrator managing budgets and recruiting personnel, work hard at being politically-connected, dabble in psychology – and voilà! Before you know it, a university will dress you up as a Professor of Climate Science."
The US and Australia have charted different paths to achieve their common goal of reducing greenhouse emissions. While each makes a fine platform for green rhetoric and electoral posturing, neither course acknowledges the inescapable truth that the developing world couldn't care less about CO2 "
If Utopia last century was populated by Soviet Man, he has been superseded this century by Green Person, but with eerily similar yearnings – this time for a ‘sustainable’ world free of ‘inequity’.
Paradoxically, the contraction-and-convergence concept’s surprise creator, Aubrey Meyer, is neither eco-Marxist nor career UN climate bureaucrat. He is a musician (viola player) by training and former member of the UK Green Party. Now a climate campaigner and composer, he co-founded the Global Commons Institute in 1990.
According to Mr Meyer’s site, his first public “Contraction & Convergence” statement was published in The Guardian on June 18, 1991, with 250 signatories, including 50 UK Parliamentarians. The following year, he presented what appears to have been an influential paper on it — ‘The Unequal Use of the Global Commons’ — to a Policy Working Group at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Surely the developing world did not put the $$$-cart before the dangerous climate-horse? Yet Mr Meyer’s concept appeared years before any UNFCCC appeals to “settled” (climate) science; and before two-decades of confirmation bias led us to where we are today. But that is another story."
The Russian RT News Agency here reports that the plane “froze to the ground“. Yet another report says that it was actually the plane’s brake system that froze in the horrible -60°F Siberian cold, and not the tires to the surface. .....Whatever caused the frozen jet, global warming doesn’t seem to have come to Igarka at all. "
Forty years ago, experts said that cold, snowy winters in the East were caused by global cooling and excess Arctic ice – but now they are caused by global warming and a deficiency of Arctic ice. Isn’t science grand? "
Wednesday, 26 November 2014
Arctic sea ice extent has been at a 10 year high every day in November. Experts call the high ice extent an unprecedented meltdown."
Sea Ice Extent – Day 327 ( Sunshine Hours)
Sunday, 23 November 2014
In other words, that Ecotricity advertisement was, in almost every respect, misleading; which is hardly surprising, since the firm’s owner, Dale Vince, is famous as a master of green propaganda. It was he who erected the most famous wind turbine in the country – and also one of the least efficient – seen by millions of motorists each year as they drive along the M4 past Reading. In 2006, I reported how, to mark the go-ahead for a monster wind farm in the Thames Estuary, the BBC announced a celebratory programme from Reading’s “Green Park”, to be powered entirely by Mr Vince’s windmill. Sure enough, the wind dropped, forcing the BBC to rely on a nasty, CO2-emitting diesel generator. Yet it is on machines like Mr Vince’s turbine that our government has centred Britain’s entire future energy policy."
The United States embassy in Canberra advised President Barack Obama not to make the provocative, anti-Abbott speech on climate change which he made at the University of Queensland in Brisbane. That the President acted against the advice of his own embassy reveals a deeply divided and in part dysfunctional Obama administration, unable to reconcile its foreign policy objectives and its domestic imperatives. Obama’s self-indulgent folly was in striking contrast to the masterful performances of China’s President Xi Jinping and India’s new Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Xi "
Saturday, 22 November 2014
Contrary to all the confidence and predictions of alleged experts, storms are no more intense nor frequent, while droughts, floods and sea levels have declined to confirm alarmists’ barely concealed hopes of disasters. The simple fact is that the alleged experts and their high-powered models were wrong. The climate has ceased to warm and, with little or no greenhouse warming, the entire theory of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW), aka Climate Change (CC), aka Global Warming, aka Extreme Weather, is left with no basis. ...............In retreat, climate alarmists are now trying to deny the lack of warming while fiddling the temperature record in an effort to “prove” it is continuing. Their ever-more imaginative explanations — the heat is hiding at the bottom of the ocean; trade winds are skewing sea-temperature readings — increasingly smack of desperation. Making matters worse for the alarmists, there is increasing evidence that the global climate has not only ceased to warm but may actually be starting to cool. Severe, often record-breaking winter weather demands more and more undeclared “adjustments” to the temperature record are being exposed. Overwhelmingly these serve to reduce past temperatures and increase more recent ones without which the lack of warming would be more obvious."
A superb essay by Australian marine biologist Walter Starck published at Quadrant Online exposes how
"The rent-seekers, opportunists, third-rate academics, carbon-market scam artists and peddlers of catastrophic prophecy can see the alarmist bubble deflating, so they're trying harder than ever to sustain the scare. Problem is, Mother Nature isn't cooperating"
Why is renewable energy such a total fail? Because, as Lewis Page explains here, it's so ludicrously inefficient and impossibly expensive that if ever we were so foolish as to try rolling it out on a scale beyond its current boutique levels, it would necessitate bankrupting the global economy.
In a nutshell, renewable energy is rubbish because so much equipment is needed to make it work - steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage - that it very likely uses up more energy than it actually produces.
Yet our political class remains committed to the fantasy that the emperor's green clothes are perfectly magnificent. Earlier this week, for example, the British government chucked £720 million of taxpayers' money into a cesspit labelled the Green Climate Fund."
A research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the programme. After 4 years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”. ...............There is simply no getout clause for renewables supporters. The people who ran the study are very much committed to the belief that CO2 is dangerous – they are supporters of James Hansen. Their sincere goal was not to simply install a few solar cells, but to find a way to fundamentally transform the economics of energy production – to make renewable energy cheaper than coal. To this end, the study considered exotic innovations barely on the drawing board, such as self erecting wind turbines, using robotic technology to create new wind farms without human intervention. The result however was total failure – even these exotic possibilities couldn’t deliver the necessary economic model."
James Hansen: astronomer / physicist
Michael Mann: mathematician/geologist
Al Gore: divinity major
Bill Nye: mechanical engineer
Rajendra Pachauri: railroad engineer
Gavin Schmidt: mathematician
David Suzuki: geneticist
Paul Nurse: geneticist
Eric Steig: geologist
John Cook: bachelor of physics
Joe Romn: physicist
John Holdren: plasma physicist
Grant Foster (Tamino): theoretical physics
Dana Nuccitelli: masters degree in physics
Wednesday, 19 November 2014
Saturday, 15 November 2014
The issue of why the political left is overwhelmingly supportive of the climate change alarmist ideology/faith, and hence there are relatively few left wing sceptics, is quite complex and would take more space and time than I intend to impose on you here. But may I, as a lifelong Labour supporter, offer a couple of broad observations. They are by no means comprehensive and omit many nuances. But they are major general factors which I have observed in the party for 61 years, and in Parliament for almost 30 years. ........I notice that my Labour colleagues who are troubled by the cost of the war on climate change, and especially when I point out that its costs fall heavily on the poorer classes, while its financial benefits go to rich landowners and individuals on the Climate Change Committee, still won't face those facts because they want to cling on to the new climate faith because they want to believe it is in the common good. ......While this need persists and there persists the misconception that the Green faith is somehow leftish and in pursuit of the common good, then most on the political left will stay with it. To shake them it will be necessary to show them that the costs of implementing climate alarmism will actually destroy the economic hopes of the poor and is often a cynical device to enrich the wealthy. That it enables self righteous middle class posturers to parade their assumed moral superiority at the expense of the poor."
This past Tuesday I took my camera to Princeton University to conduct an interview with physicist Will Happer, whose work you probably know. This is a 4-minute video I put together after that interview, which I hope you’ll find interesting. I should be clear that no money or anything else exchanged hands, although Dr. Happer did buy me a cup of coffee."
Now that the mid-term elections are over in the US, Obama is free to announce the climate commitments that voters didn’t need to hear. (I did say this would happen.) It’s a “landmark” agreement and a “gamechanger”, but no one can point out what happens if either country doesn’t stick to its agreement.
The end-point of this grand theater of intent and glorious promises is Paris 2015."
Australia’s Left are ecstatic that Barack Obama has spoiled Tony Abbott’s party, putting global warming on the G20 agenda with an alarmist speech and the promise of $3 billion to a climate fund: .......
Once again, we see a key divide between the Left and conservatives - an obsession with seeming over doing. The Left is impressed by a seeming promise to seem to do something about what seems a problem. Conservatives note that it’s actually a highly qualified promise to spend unaffordable money on largely non-solutions to an unlikely problem.
Oh, and how rude is Obama to take on Abbott with politicking on a visit?"
A Sino-U.S. breakthrough on reducing carbon emissions proves a global deal on climate change is achievable, U.S. President Barack Obama said Saturday, as campaigners hailed new momentum in long-stalled talks.
Announcing a $3 billion contribution to a U.N.-backed climate change mitigation fund, Obama said the China-U.S. deal showed the way forward. “If China and the U.S. can agree on this, then the world can agree on this—we can get this done,” he said in a speech on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Brisbane. .........However, Republican James Inhofe, regarded as the chief climate change skeptic in the U.S. Congress, signaled Obama would struggle to get the funds through the legislature, particularly after his position was weakened in recent mid-term elections.
“President Obama’s pledge to give unelected bureaucrats at the U.N. $3 billion for climate change initiatives is an unfortunate decision to not listen to voters in this most recent election cycle,” Inhofe said."
Monday, 10 November 2014
Despite these social and economic advantages, eco-toffs put their self interest to one side and campaign selflessly for the greater Gaian good, worry about the effect that climate change will have on future generations and yearn for a more holistic version economic growth.
But is greenery really quite so selfless? Take climate change. The “synthesis report” of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, warns of an increased “likelihood” of severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts if emissions continue. But when you cut through the spin, what the IPCC is actually saying is that there is a range of possibilities, from no net harm at all (scenario RCP2.6) through two middling scenarios to one where gathering harm from mid century culminates in potentially dire consequences by 2100 (scenario RCP8.5).
This latter scenario makes wildly unrealistic assumptions about coal use, trade, methane emissions and other things; RCP2.6 is equally unrealistic in the other direction. So let’s focus on the two middle scenarios, known as RCP4.5 and RCP6. In these more realistic projections, if you use the latest and best estimates of the climate’s “sensitivity” to carbon dioxide (somewhat lower than the out-of-date ones still used by the IPCC), the most probable outcome is that world will be respectively just 0.8 and 1.2 degrees Celsius warmer than today by the last two decades of this century. .........
By contrast, the cost of climate policies is already falling most heavily on today’s poor. Subsidies for renewable energy have raised costs of heating and transport disproportionately for the poor. Subsidies for biofuels have raised food prices by diverting food into fuel, tipping millions into malnutrition and killing about 190,000 people a year. The refusal of many rich countries to fund aid for coal-fired electricity in Africa and Asia rather than renewable projects (and in passing I declare a financial interest in coal mining) leaves more than a billion people without access to electricity and contributes to 3.5 million deaths a year from indoor air pollution caused by cooking over open fires of wood and dung.
Greens think these harms are a price worth paying to stop the warming. They want (other) people to bear such sacrifices today so that the people of 2100, who will be up to seven times as rich, do not have to face the prospect of living in a world that is perhaps 0.8 - 1.2 degrees warmer. And this is the moral high ground? "
America's Democrats, and one well-heeled 'carbon capitalist' in particular, received a monumental thrashing in the US midterm elections, despite a lavishly financed ad campaign of eco-alarmist propaganda. It seems voters are nowhere near so dopey as their betters imagined"
Global warming pales when compared to many other global problems. While the WHO estimates 250,000 annual deaths from global warming in 30 years, 4.3 million die right now each year from indoor air pollution, 800 million are starving, and 2.5 billion live in poverty and lack clean water and sanitation. .........The fundamental problem is that green energy is too expensive, which is why it will need billions in subsidies the next two decades. Instead of making more failed promises to pay ever more subsidies, we should spend the money on research and development of the next generations of green energy sources."
ED: Bjorn Lomburg is a warmist pretending to be a critic.
Global Warmers are forever calling those of us who disagree with them 'Deniers.' This thinly veiled reference to the Holocaust and the murder of six million people is far from appropriate. Do Skeptics deny the Holocaust and the science? Of course not, but it brings up an interesting question:
Who denies natural climate change? ....."
EIKE: IPCC Synthesis Report “In Crass Contradiction To Almost Every Measurement And Trend In Nature”
Puls then provides a list contradictions, falsehoods and distortions stemming from the new Synthesis Report, all of which are refuted by measurements and facts which Puls provides: ...."
True to form, the IPCC Synthesis did not discuss IPCC deficiencies, but focused on dire predictions. The new operative term was irreversible. Unless drastic action is taken to stop all human CO2 emissions, dire consequences would result that is irreversible. A major issue with such predictions is that the Nongovernmental, International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) concluded that many natural, cyclical processes have not been incorporated in IPCC’s claims of human-caused climate change. If so, and if processes are cyclical, the effects are naturally reversible.
By ignoring significant failures in its science, the IPCC continues to raise the question is climate science, as interpreted by the IPCC, a natural (physical) science or is it a human construct? "
As Donna Laframboise wrote in her book “The Delinquent Teenager….”…scientists are fully aware that the IPCC is controlled by politicians and that its reports serve a larger political purpose. The Summary for Policymakers documents are similar to diplomatic treaties. When every word is carefully negotiated we can be sure that any scientific facts that happen to survive are there for one purpose only: to promote a handful of political agendas.Not a science report, only a political report! "
Wind farms paid £43million to stand idle so far this year because they were producing more power than the National Grid could handle
- Millions given to wind farms in 'constraint payments' for unused energy
- Last year energy suppliers were paid £32milion by the National Grid
- In 2012 only £6million was paid out and £174,000 two years before that
- Experts warn too many wind farms have been built too quickly
Friday, 7 November 2014
If you had to pick one person who embodied everything that is most irritating and wrong about the Obama administration - the Solyndra-style crony capitalism, the war on free markets, small business and cheap energy, the hypocrisy, the injustice, the dogged pursuit of suicidal leftist causes - then liberal billionaire Tom Steyer is your man.
And this is what is so good about the US mid-term results. Not only did they personally cost Steyer many millions of dollars in wasted campaign expenditure - nearly $75 million of the funding for his Nextgen Climate superPAC came out of his own pocket: think how many tartan ties you could buy with that! - but they represented the US electorate's comprehensive repudiation of the notion that "climate change" is the most pressing political issue of our age.
No it isn't. It really, really isn't. Anyone with half a brain could have told you that the economy, for a start, is much more important. The idea that anyone should ever have thought otherwise - especially people as eminent and influential as the President of the USA and his Secretary of State John Kerry (who considered climate change at least as great a threat as Islamic State) - will surely remain one of the greatest puzzles to future historians of the Obama administration.
Why, these historians will wonder, did Obama choose to stake his reputation - in his second term especially - on an issue so relatively trivial and so liable to blow up in his face as new scientific evidence emerged (eg the fact that there has been no "global warming" since 1998)? "
What neither appears to have realised is that the report contains no new "science" whatsoever. That is because it is a political document not a scientific one. It merely synthesises the three (heavily criticised) reports released over the last 13 months by the IPCC's three Working Groups, cherrypicks the scariest bits, turns the hysteria up to 11, then asserts on this basis that drastic measures must be taken if disaster is to be averted.
Again, what is going here most definitely isn't science. It's pure propaganda."
Australians may have missed what happened this week in the US (especially if they only watch the ABC). Climate Change is over as a voting issue. Will Australian Opposition Leader, Bill Shorten, get the message? Just last month he pledged to put carbon trading on the next election agenda (again). The conservatives across the nation must be cheering.
In the US, Tom Steyer threw $74 million into a campaign to convince voters to be very afraid and vote out the Republicans. Nearly all of Steyers favourite candidates failed. It was no accidental issue. The NextGen Climate Action Super Pac took Steyers money, and spent it all (and more) to push President Obama’s green agenda, specifically targeting coal “for extinction”. The Republicans supported energy of all kinds from coal to oil, fracked gas, and more pipelines.
This was the “biggest investment the environmental community has ever made in politics”, and yet it failed dismally: ....."
Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
It’s been months since I’ve wandered over to the ClimateProgress wing of the political blog ThinkProgress. The title of the November 4, 2014 blog post by alarmist Joe Romm is truly remarkable. Please sit. Put down your coffee, unless you want to spritz your keyboard. (I have a standby keyboard from my old computer just in case I run into something like this.) Here it comes, ready or not. ....................
Pierre Gosselin of NoTrickZone reports on “contradictions, falsehoods and distortions“ in the new IPCC Synthesis Report, which were discovered and documented by the Germany-based European Institute for Climate and Energy (EIKE). See Pierre’s post EIKE: IPCC Synthesis Report “In Crass Contradiction To Almost Every Measurement And Trend In Nature”.
Additionally, maybe you recall the blog post or news story from recent days. It was by a science reporter who had documented that many portions of the IPCC’s new synthesis report weren’t supported by their year-old 5th Assessment Report (AR5). "
Wednesday, 5 November 2014
A new paper published in PNAS finds an astonishing deficiency and major false assumption of climate models, which has major implications for Arctic and global warming/climate change, the Earth's energy budget, and which is also another nail in the coffin for the overheated and falsified IPCC climate models. IMHO, it is effectively a death knell to conventional climate models and their projections, as well as the attribution statement of the IPCC based upon such models and blaming allegedly "more than 100%" of global warming on man-made greenhouse gas emissions. "
Good Luck Getting Kyoto II Ratified In The Senate Now! Voters Deliver Massive Blow To Global Climate Treaty
When it comes to climate change policymaking, the proposed so-called global treaty designed to protect climate (i.e. the global temperature, precipitation amounts, pressures, relative humidities, wind speeds, etc.) now faces a formidable obstacle: a US Congress now in the hands of the GOP Party."
The bottom line is that our climate is changing but not very much and no climate change crisis seems to be occurring. ................
The steady rise in CO2 is well documented. Think about that: the pause in temperature increases is rolling on despite the continuing steady increase in the level of CO2 in the air. So the basic theory that man is causing climate change by burning fossil fuels has failed to verify. Scientifically it is just plain dead."
A tiny percentage of total scientists would call themselves “climate scientists”. They have never been able to convince the tens of thousands of other scientists with their bizarre theory about a trace gas being the dominant driver of our climate. Around the world climate scientists say one thing, but tens of thousands of physicists, engineers, mathematicians, chemists, and medical science leaders disagree. Skeptical scientists have won Nobel Prizes in Physics* (and we don’t count “Peace” as a prize in science) and they’ve walked on the Moon, flown around it, and returned to Earth. Unskeptical scientists have wasted billions of dollars, predicted warming that didn’t happen, asked for desalination plants that were not needed, and told everyone to stop the storms by building windmills.
Only 62 scientists reviewed the chapter that mattered in the IPCC Assessment Report 4, and presumably the numbers wouldn’t be that different in the latest report."
Saturday, 1 November 2014
It was already cold. Now it is getting way colder way fast. The only warm spots are some coastal areas around the mid latitudes of the Southern Hemisphere.
I think we are starting to see what happens when the Sun takes a nap, and UV drops by double digit percentages.
Coupled with the reports of early snows and cold / crop failures, it looks like Global Warming Has Left The Building…
Coming Europe Winter: “Meteorologists Agree” It is “Going To Be Damned Cold!”…Early Siberia Snow Bodes Ill
When alarmist climate institutes roll out papers claiming global warming is going to cause severely cold winters, then you have to wonder if they know something is up and are acting preemptively to salvage their crumbling climate science, which not long ago predicted with high confidence balmy snowless winters."
Columbia, SC has just experienced their earliest snow in 125 years of weather records, beating the Nov. 9, 1913 earliest snow record by 8 days. Current South Carolina weather shows it’s still snowing in Greenville, SC.
The Christian Science Monitor is reporting Greenville was especially hard hit with downed trees and power outages. The Smokey Mtns received up to 16 inches overnight. The current U.S. snow cover map shows 18 states with some amount of snow this morning." (1st November 2014)
Momentum is growing. In Federal Parliament this week George Christensen (Nationals party, Qld) gave an excellent summary of questions Jennifer Marohasy and I have been raising about the Bureau of Meteorology, and announced he would be calling for an inquiry.
It’s long past time. Why does the BOM have so little curiosity about the burning Australian heat before 1910? Why do older thermometers seem to need correction 90 years later for reading “too warm”? Why do so many hot or dry empirical measurements remain invisible in our national conversation about the climate? And with so many questions, why do the Bureau insist they are 95% certain they know what they are talking about?
The Transcript from Quadrant — Wanted: Straight Answers from the BoM.
Friday, 31 October 2014
Is the latest sea-level rise unusual? Kurt Lambeck said it was, based on his version of the Holocene seas, calculated with modeled crustal movements (to try to guess the rises and falls of the beaches where the sea levels were changing). Obedient science reporters
‘I am sceptical humans are causing global warming’: Buzz Aldrin says more research - and less politics - is needed
Col. Cunningham: “Models are not data… I’m here to encourage everyone to look at the data themselves, not just buy what they’re told. I find that my standards for science are more important to me than anything else, and I hate to see them being depreciated by the alarmists’ claims today. Politics and the media and what have you have allowed us now to be facing one of the biggest scientific hoaxes in history. That’s what’s being pushed on us.”
Tuesday, 28 October 2014
So having electricity ‘skyrocket’ and forcing folks to ‘decarbonize’ by taking more (paid / costly) transit and buying yet more expensive electricity (to replace the wood or coal or gas stove) just means there is that much LESS left over to buy, oh, I don’t know, maybe cars and shoes and bread… that causes demand to drop… "
Analysis shows the "missing heat" has gone to space & less "heat trapping" from increased greenhouse gases
A post today from Kiwi Thinker examines recent trends in the greenhouse effect from satellite data since 1979 and shows, opposite of warmist claims, that the greenhouse effect and "heat-trapping" of the atmosphere has steadily decreased along with the increase in greenhouse gas levels. The author concludes from this empirical NOAA data,
1. The "missing heat" has gone back to space as it always has...via outgoing longwave infrared radiation.
2. And more importantly, the greenhouse effect is not increasing as per IPCC dogma.
Thus, Trenberth's "missing heat," which only exists in falsified climate models, is not present in the atmosphere or oceans, and is now past Alpha Centauri located 4.3 light years away, i.e. it's not "in the pipeline" and is never coming back.
The analysis supports that of Dr. Noor van Andel, who unfortunately passed away three years ago, finding that IR radiation to space increased over the past 62 years, the exact opposite of the predictions of CAGW theory and computer models. "
The case against carbon dioxide — the stuff we breathe out and plants breathe in — has never been weaker. The climate doom criers insist that CO2, as a “greenhouse gas,” causes planetary temperatures to rise. According to the measurements of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, global average carbon dioxide levels are currently higher than ever, up 8 percent since 1998. So why have we been in a “pause” in global warming for the past two decades if CO2 and temperatures are directly linked?
From the GWPF: Cold Winter Could Cause Britain’s Lights To Go Out
Emergency measures to prevent blackouts this winter have been unveiled by National Grid after Britain’s spare power capacity fell to just 4 per cent.
–Emily Gosden, The Daily Telegraph, 27 October 2014
The capacity crunch has been predicted for about seven years. Everyone seems to have seen this coming – except the people in charge.
–Andrew Orlowski, The Register, 10 June 2014 ........."
Sunday, 26 October 2014
I am a bit surprised at some of the waffling in the meteorological community on the ENSO event ( then again, maybe it is I who will be surprised). Its evolving . I stated on our weatherbell.com site at the start of the month to get ready for the drop in the SOI that would allow the warmer sub surface water to come up and its like clockwork, its coming. Look at the SOI this month, and notice how over the last 15 days, alot of double digit negatives have shown up after a period that was basically a wash. I don’t know why there is all the hand wringing with this event."
For every scientific paper that pushes this particular long-familiar scare story, another points out that to talk about the oceans turning to acid when their average pH level is still way above 7.0 is just scientific bunkum. But what the warmists also overlook is the science that tells us that when the oceans grow warmer they give off more CO₂ rather than the other way round. So, if the oceans are warming, as the warmists like to claim, they should contain less CO₂, not more. They cannot have it both ways."
Those contingency measures, to be set out in full next week, are on both the supply and demand sides of the electricity system. To boost supply, “mothballed” plants could be brought back into use. Generating companies could also be told to “max-generate”, running at full capacity for a short-term surge. New demand-side contingencies are potentially more disruptive. In the event of a sudden shortage of power, big industrial consumers such as factories would be paid to switch on emergency backup generators and produce their own power."
Bishop Hill : Lights on factories off
EXPOSED: How a shadowy network funded by foreign millions is making our household energy bills soar - for a low-carbon Britain
- Shadowy pro-green lobbyists working at every level of the Establishment
- Organisations are channelling tens of millions of pounds into green policies
- Elite lobby group linked to Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace and the WWF
- Current energy policies shaped by the Green Blob will cost up to £400billion
- If continued, there will be further eye-watering energy bill rises for Britons
Monday, 20 October 2014
Step forward, for example, Graham Stuart, the MP for Beverley and Holderness.
Who? For those who don’t know, he was elected to his current seat in 2005. Since then he has been working away on a raft of rather predictable local constituency issues, including most recently a lack of a defibrillator in a local village, and in trying to reduce toll charges on the Humber Bridge. All very commendable.
But said Mr Stuart has a deeper, darker purpose. He is a climate change alarmist zealot – and in that capacity, he was elected global chairman in 2013 of a body called Global International.
I had not heard of it, either.
Turns out (website here) that it has vast resources, is supported by governments throughout the world (including of course the United Kingdom’s ). Its purpose is to create a mass of international legislation – broadly in line with what the EU also wants - that ensures that all the principles of climate change alarmism are incorporated in domestic national legislation throughout the world. And of course – surprise, surprise – Tony Blair had a major hand in consolidating its power, back in 2005 at the Gleneagles G8 summit.
Reading the website turned my stomach. Here is a body that clearly has vast resources – from precisely where it does not condescend to tell us (these bodies never do) – and in train is a vast, multi-layered agenda with one overarching purpose – to ensure that politicians everywhere adopt measures that ensure that the objectives of ‘sustainability’ are foisted upon, whoops – sorry – adopted, by the peoples of the world."
Sunday, 19 October 2014
Brandon Shollenberger writes: I thought you might be interested to hear the final version of the IPCC AR5 WGII report has been published, and a number of changes were made between it and the Final Draft people have been using for the last seven months or so. The only way anyone can find them is by comparing the text in the two versions as the IPCC apparently does not disclose these changes."
Friday, 17 October 2014
A paper published today in Climate of the Past reconstructs water pH and temperature from a lake in central Japan over the past 280,000 years and clearly shows that pH increases [becomes more basic or alkaline] due to warmer temperatures, and vice-versa, becomes more acidic [or "acidified" if you prefer] due to cooling temperatures. This finding is the opposite of the false assumptions behind the "ocean acidification" scare, but is compatible with the basic chemistry of Henry's Law and outgassing of CO2 from the oceans with warming.
Thus, if global warming resumes after the "pause," ocean temperatures will rise along with CO2 outgassing, which will make the oceans more basic, not acidic. You simply cannot have it both ways:
"Either the oceans are getting warmer and the CO2 concentration in seawater is decreasing, which means that ocean acidification from man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is nonsense.
Or the oceans are getting cooler and the man-made CO2 from the atmosphere is dissolving in those cooler oceans and causing – insignificant – ocean acidification, which means that warming oceans and the associated sea level rises are nonsense.
Take your pick – REAL SCIENCE says you can’t have both."In addition, the paper shows that pH of the lake varied over a wide range from ~7.5 to 8.8 simply depending on the temperature of each month of the year. As the "acidification" alarmists like to say, a variation of 1.3 pH units is equivalent to a 1995% change in hydrogen ions due to the logarithmic pH scale, just over a single year! Summer months are of course associated with warmer temperatures and more alkaline, higher pH and winter months associated with colder temperatures and much more "acidified" lower pH values. Note also how pH varies widely over ~7.5 to 8.8 simply dependent on the depth at a given time, because colder deeper waters can hold higher partial pressures of CO2 than the warmer surface waters: ..."
Monday, 13 October 2014
Scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration have demolished claims by global warming activists that global warming caused or worsened many extreme weather events last year.
According to NOAA’s new publication, Explaining Extremes of 2013 from a Climate Perspective, there is no discernible connection between global warming and 2013 extreme weather events such as the California drought, Colorado floods, the UK’s exceptionally cold spring, a South Dakota blizzard, Central Europe floods, a northwestern Europe cyclone, and exceptional snowfall in Europe’s Pyrenees Mountains.
The California drought provides a good example of global warming activists making false and irresponsible claims regarding global warming to deliberately mislead people who aren’t familiar with scientific studies and evidence. The liberal Center for American Progress and its media allies such as the Washington Post, San Jose Mercury News, Associated Press, and others have all published stories claiming global warming caused or worsened the ongoing California drought. Scientists, however, say just the opposite. “[F]or the California drought, which was investigated by three teams from the United States, human factors were found not to have influenced the lack of rainfall,” NOAA reported in an accompanying press release."
I have a computer model, which I use for predicting the weather. The algorithm is fairly straightforward and goes something like this:
It will rain tomorrow.(Round where I live that's likely to be a pretty effective prediction.)
Anyway, if I run my computer model repeatedly, I find that 100% of the runs give the same result - "It will rain tomorrow". I conclude, therefore, that we can say with 100% confidence that it will rain tomorrow. ............"
We are told over and over again that the globe has warmed by 0.8°C since 1880 or 1850. Lately we have seen article after paper after publication that states this number in Fahrenheit, 1.44°F, because that sounds larger. But is this number correct? What is it based on?
A paper published today in Earth and Planetary Science Letters finds evidence that one of the largest glaciers in West Antarctica, the Thwaites Glacier, is primarily melting from below due to geothermal heat flux from volcanoes located along the West Antarctic Volcanic Rift System, i.e. not due to man-made CO2.
CAGW proponents have alleged that West Antarctic glaciers such as such as the Thwaites Glacier and the neighboring Pine Island Glacier are rapidly melting due to man-made greenhouse gases and/or ocean heating, despite observations showing the air temperature in the Antarctic hasn’t risen since 1979, Antarctic sea surface temperatures have fallen since 2006, and ARGO ocean heat content of the Southern Ocean shows no increase at any level of the top 2000 meters since the system was put in place in 2004. The authors find the neighboring Pine Island Glacier also overlies the same volcanic rift system and thus may also be melting from geothermal heat below.
The West Antarctic Volcanic Rift System is illustrated by JoNova below, and just so happens to correspond to the areas of notable glacier melt and alleged warming. In contrast, East Antarctica, which holds > 80% of Antarctic ice mass and does not have any known underlying volcanoes, is significantly increasing in ice mass.
The paper joins several others finding geothermal heat largely if not entirely responsible for glacier melt in multiple regions in both Antarctica and Greenland, i.e. not anthropogenic. "
It has been nearly five years since President Obama killed the space program. so that the formerly great agency could focus on junk science and CO2 based superstition."
ED: from the comments:
If ever you've worried about vanishing Arctic ice, the 'expert' almost certainly to blame is a Cambridge professor called Peter Wadhams. For years now, Wadhams has been the go-to doommonger of choice for any newspaper or green pressure group or huckster politician in need of a scare story about why the Arctic sea ice will very soon be a thing of the past, that it's all our fault and that basically we're all doomed. And because he's a professor from a highly respected university who just happens to specialise in studying sea ice and who has led more than 40 expeditions to the Arctic and Antarctic people have tended to believe him. ......Poor Peter Wadhams is being thrown to the wolves not because his science is flawed and unduly alarmist - it's quite obvious that his contemporaries have known this for quite some time - but rather because these unconscionable creeps need a handy sacrificial victim to distract from their corruption, incompetence and malpractice.The many journalists who so credulously reported on his nonsense deserve little credit either. In their eagerness to get a quick attention-grabbing story they not only failed in their basic duty to check the credibility of their sources but also they helped promulgate a myth which formed one of the main pillars of the great global warming narrative."
Bad News for the alarmists: 'Missing Heat' from Non-Existent 'Global Warming' isn't Hiding in the Ocean After All
Using a combination of satellite observations and direct measurements taken by a network of 3,000 floating Argo temperature probes, the NASA team set out to calculate temperature changes and thermal expansion in the deep ocean (below 1.24 miles).
What they have found is that the deep ocean has not warmed measurably since at least 2005.
This unfortunate discovery represents a major problem for the climate alarmists because the "missing heat" supposedly hiding in the deep oceans has long been their favoured explanation as to why there has been no measured "global warming" for the last 18 years."
Friday, 10 October 2014
A new paper published in the Open Journal of Atmospheric and Climate Change by renowned professor of physics and expert on spectroscopy Dr. Hermann Harde finds that climate sensitivity to a doubling of CO2 levels is only about 0.43C, about 7 times less than the IPCC claims, but in line with many other published low estimates of climate sensitivity.
The paper further establishes that climate sensitivity to tiny changes in solar activity is comparable to that of CO2 and by no means insignificant as the IPCC prefers to claim. "
Monday, 6 October 2014
Satellite data shows that the Earth hasn’t warmed much since they were launched in the late 1970s. But it is even “less worse” than that. Besides the fact that the start date of 1979 was one of the coldest years on record in the Northern Hemisphere, two volcanic eruptions on the left half of the temperature graph greatly exaggerate the trend, by artificially cooling the past.
The animation below removes those volcanic years except for 1983 – which I very conservatively adjusted upwards for the super El-Nino which occurred that year, but was masked by dust from El Chichon. As you can see, a realistic evaluation of temperature data shows that there has only been a tiny amount of warming since the very cold year of 1979 ......As an extra bonus, in 1975 the National Academy of Sciences showed no warming from 1900 to 1970."
According to the NOAA, California Precipitation for Sept-Aug is the 3rd lowest of all time behind 1923/24 and 1976/77.
It must be “Global Warming” caused by CO2 if it is almost as dry as 1923."
Which causes more summer heatwaves: carbon dioxide or Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) adjustments?
Ken Stewart has analyzed the adjustments used to create the all-new ACORN wonder dataset and compared them with another BOM dataset called AWAP, and finds, extraordinarily, that the trend in average summer maximums has been tripled by adjustments that the BOM imply are neutral.
Since summer maxima are the ones used to generate the most headlines in Australia, I ask again if the Bureau of Meteorology is a scientific agency or a PR group? Increasing the trend in summer maxima would produce more headlines of hottest ever month, season, heatwave, and weekend.
In this graph Stewart splits the data into months, and compares the trends in maxima in the AWAP and ACORN datasets, across the entire nation. We see that most of the adjustments happen to data from the hottest months of the year, October to March. Even though the measured maxima in February and March are possibly cooler now than they were in the early 1900s, they have been adjusted to show warming trends.
When was the last time you heard the BOM tell you that their “hottest ever” February record depended on adjusting down the past hotter records? ......We might be worried about “two degrees of warming” but people living in 1926 got two degrees of cooling some 88 years after the fact."