"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 ten 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...
Friday, 27 February 2015
Congressman Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) has sent letters to universities requesting information on the sources of financial support of seven climate researchers. A few of these might well have some portion of their funding come from energy companies, I don’t know.
The implication, of course, is that research money from fossil fuel companies to any skeptics is bad, even though much greater amounts of fossil fuel money goes to Green organizations.
Can you spell “hypocrisy”?
One of the biggest misconceptions about climate research funding is that government funding is unbiased. That is, the belief that government funding does not favor one outcome over another.
This might be true for benign research projects, like the mating habits of the Arctic sea slug, but when it comes to research topics with massive political and economic implications, nothing could be further from the truth.
Government funding programs are, in part, formulated by government political appointees who prefer research with outcomes that support their government programs. ......
That Roger Pielke, Jr. is one of the current ‘Skeptical Seven’ targets is especially troubling. Roger is quite green and hardly considers himself a skeptic. In fact, he largely agrees with the IPCC. All he asks is that people stop making demonstrably incorrect claims that “climate change” is causing greater damage today than it ever has. (Total monetary losses due to weather rise as prosperity and infrastructure increases, even if weather becomes somewhat less severe). Yet, Roger is now backing out of climate change related research due to the current witch hunt.
I’ll leave it to others to decide whether McCarthyism is a good description of the current situation."
Alarmists started to come clean at a news conference in Brussels in early February when Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the U.N.'s Framework Convention on Climate Change, owned up to their agenda. She made clear what so many already know: The goal of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological ruin but to extinguish capitalism.
"This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution," she said. ......
Pachauri resigned this week from his cushy U.N. job after a female researcher lodged a sexual harassment complaint against him in his home country, India. In his letter of resignation, he explained why he did what he did at the U.N.
"For me, the protection of planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma."
Steyer is, at first glance, an unlikely leader of the environmental movement. He is rangy and square-jawed, and he has exquisite establishmentarian credentials, to say nothing of a vast pile of money. ......Steyer’s goal, at his fund-raiser for Obama, was not so much to berate the President, he said, as to “do the old F.D.R. thing,” showing Obama that the green movement was growing, and that supporting its goals was good politics. ......For many activists, the opposition to Keystone isn’t really about the pipeline; they admit that no single project will tip the balance on climate change. Rather, they want Obama to use Keystone as a symbolic opportunity to move America away from fossil fuels. ....The stakes for Obama are higher. There are few opportunities to influence the politics of climate change and leave a legacy on the issue."
Greenpeace enlists Justin Gillis & John Schwartz of the NY Times in Journalistic Terrorist Attack on Willie Soon – Miss Target, Hit Smithsonian Instead
I cannot bring myself to quote from this unconscionable piece of journalistic malfeasance:
Instead, I simply let my title and the following excerpts from the so-called “supporting” documents offered by Greenpeace speak for themselves. Their [non-]journalist lackeys: Justin Gillis and John Schwartz of the NY Times, apparently didn’t actually read them – or they might have noticed that the contracts are between the Smithsonian (not Soon) and Southern and if they had stretched themselves, might have uncovered the definition of “deliverables”….I can’t believe Gillis and Schwartz allowed themselves to be duped again."
EDITOR: Roger Pielke Jr 's University received this letter from US Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ) and it is worthy of a look, to quote : " As you may have heard the Koch Foundation appears to have funded climate research by Dr Willi Soon....." This accusation has been robustly de-bunked (see above) yet the letter uses this as an excuse to smear Dr Pielke Jr, and intimidate his University. All because Dr Pielke Jr uses factual evidence in his testimony to the US Congress.
I was one of the earliest writers to respond to the NYT article by hack NYT journalist Justin Gillis in which astrophysicist Willie Soon was accused of writing for hire. A quite amusing accusation when you realize that Gillis himself was doing exactly that. As always, you just have to look at what Leftists say about conservatives to see what is true of Leftists themselves.
An article just up on Anthony Watts' site does I think blow the whole nasty campaign out of the water. It points out, as I have done, that the money allegedly coming from business to Soon was in fact paid to the Smithsonian so was in no way clandestine and was part of normal academic procedures. Far from the money being "undeclared" income that the Smithsonian should look into it was in fact money given to the Smithsonian itself. If they were to investigate anything they would be investigating themselves! "
Before continuing, let me make one point abundantly clear: I have no funding, declared or undeclared, with any fossil fuel company or interest. I never have. Representative Grijalva knows this too, because when I have testified before the US Congress, I have disclosed my funding and possible conflicts of interest. So I know with complete certainty that this investigation is a politically-motivated “witch hunt” designed to intimidate me (and others) and to smear my name.
Congressman Grijalva doesn’t have any evidence of any wrongdoing on my part, either ethical or legal, because there is none. He simply disagrees with the substance of my testimony – which is based on peer-reviewed research funded by the US taxpayer, and which also happens to be the consensus of the IPCC (despite Holdren’s incorrect views)."
Roger has always struck me as one of the most robust participants in the climate debate. When someone as thick-skinned as he is is forced out then it really does tell you something about the trustworthiness of what climatologists and the IPCC tell us."
Again, Roger presented graphs of data that support his statements.
Yet, somehow, presenting data that contradict alarmist hype is worthy of an investigation by an elected US representative—an investigation that has so far been a waste of Roger’s time, the time of the President of the University of Colorado Boulder, and, of course, the time of US Representative Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ). "
Tuesday, 24 February 2015
Bottom line? Climate modelers are not scientists. Climate modeling is not a branch of physical science. Climate modelers are unequipped to evaluate the physical reliability of their own models.
The incredibleness that follows is verbatim reviewer transcript; quoted in italics. Every idea below is presented as the reviewer meant it. No quotes are contextually deprived, and none has been truncated into something different than the reviewer meant.
And keep in mind that these are arguments that certain editors of certain high-ranking climate journals found persuasive. ..."
The Sydney Morning Herald’s Peter Hannam Grossly Deceives His Readers Using Massively Doctored Photo
Reader Jim sent an e-mail bringing attention to probably the most amateur photo-shopping work on behalf of global warming propaganda I’ve seen in a long time, all used by eco-journalist Peter Hannam of the Sydney Morning Herald in a piece about the coal-fired Liddel Power Station in Hunter Valley, NSW.
Not only is the photo totally manipulated with the aim of deceiving readers, but Hannam’s facts are just as misleading as the photo-shopped power plant image itself: .... "
The resignation letter of the IPCC chairman is a two-page love letter to himself.
Pachauri’s letter talks about his “greatest joy,” and his “sublime satisfaction.” And about religion:
For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma. [bold added]Yes, the IPCC – which we’re told to take seriously because it is a scientific body producing scientific reports – has, in fact, been led by an environmentalist on a mission. By someone for whom protecting the planet is a religious calling.
Even here, at the end, Pachauri fails to grasp that science and religion don’t belong in the same sentence; that those on a political mission are unlikely to be upholders of rigorous scientific practice."
In this video, he shows how excellent thinker, leader, speaker, and manager he is. "My name is Ismail El Gizouli and I come from Soudan. I joined the Working Group 3 in 2002. And I was elected again in two thousand sevyn. I like the IPC. The IPC is very good. The IPC has won a Nobel prize with Al Gore. It is a good achievement. I want to look to the climate change issue. And to specific issues."
Another day, another attack on the integrity of the Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, this time in the New York Times.
I first became aware of Soon in 2009 when reading through the Climategate emails. One of them was a jocular suggestion by a warmist called Tom Wigley as to how best to smear Soon and his co-author Sallie Baliunas."
Firm believers in global warming are ganging up to attack the integrity of a Harvard astrophysicist, Breitbart reports. Dr. Willie Soon’s crime was to publish a peer-reviewed study showing that climate models are simply running too hot – they overestimate temperature increases."
The level of Soviet style criminal activity at the White House has reached spectacular new lows. On February 20, The White House sent out this E-mail announcing that they were going to start attacking individual scientists who dissented from the White House global warming agenda."
Head of UN climate change panel steps down over claims he sexually harassed a woman working at his office in Delhi
From the “the hornier they are the harder they fall” department: The head of the United Nations climate change panel (IPCC), Rajendra Pachauri, has stepped down amid sexual harassment allegations."
Friday, 20 February 2015
It appears that when the Navy built the Norfolk base during WWII, they failed to consider sea level rise. And now 70+ years later we have a problem. Neither article makes much, if any, mention of subsidence from filling in swamps or that area falling into a meteor crater. The sea level rise as the total problem has been debunked on Junkscience, WUWT and by Charles Battig. No one seems to mention the greatly increased population in the Hampton Roads area over the past 75 years as a contributing factor to flooding.
No one is denying that we have a long-term problem, but stopping the seas from rising won’t stop the area from sinking."
The ominous and often cited 97% consensus for the acceptance of the AGW theory in climate science does not exist. Thus the scientifically hostile demand for “an end to the climate discussion” is morally and computationally way offsides. In the Cook et al. study it is clearly shown that the protagonists of the climate catastrophe bring their social-political positions in scientific papers. Finally, in the given study a comparison is made between diametrically opposed socio-political positions using a subjectively selected sampling amount as a yardstick for a supposed consensus in the entire climate sciences.
The one positive result the study yields is that it allows us to determine that in climate science there is still a “silent” two thirds majority who choose to refrain from the socio-political discussion in their scientific publications. In the end, however, in the public depiction of climate science, the socio-political opinion of a one third minority is being sold as scientific 97% majority consensus."
Has the scientific problem of climate been solved in terms of basic physics and mathematics? No, but you will be forgiven if you thought otherwise. For decades, the most rigorous treatments of climate have been done through climate models. The clever model pioneers understood many of their inherent limitations, but tried to persevere nonetheless. Today, few academics are even aware of what the pioneers understood, let alone what has been learned since about the full depth of modelling difficulties.
Meanwhile popular expressions of the scientific technicalities are largely superficial, defective, comically nonsensical, and virtually uncorrectable. All of the best physics and all of the best computer models cannot put this Humpty Dumpty together, because we face some of the most fundamental problems of modern science in climate, but hardly know it. If you think you want to have a go at those problems, there are at least a couple million dollars in prizes in it, not to mention a Fields Medal or two."
The Department of Energy & Climate Change are probably wishing they hadn’t commissioned a “Social Listening Evaluation” in an attempt to justify a “Tweetathon” they held last year. The 45 page report published today comes to a shocking conclusion. No one was really bothered. "
From the comments:
"The reason nobody cares much is because most people realise that having a "Department for Climate Change" is about as sensible as having a "Department for the Sky". They regard it as just Civil Servants talking to each other, thinking up yet more stupid ways to waste our money, whilst real people actually get on with life, dealing with whatever comes their way - come hail, rain or shine."
Monday, 16 February 2015
What’s ultimately up for grabs in Paris is a global bureaucracy that can control carbon emissions (meaning energy) worldwide. It is one of the largest and most ambitious political and scientific ambit claims ever, and it is hidden in plain view (but don’t hold your breathe waiting for the media to point it out)."
The Australia Academy of Science has recently published a Q&A about human-induced global warming titled The science of climate change. Their press release is here. Examples from around the blogosphere:
- Andrew Montford discussed it briefly in his post The Oz guide to climate change at BishopHill.
- The Australian published the article Academy warns of climate risks to Australia.
- Jo Nova briefly mentioned it in her post The quickening for Paris has started: gravy train begins PR avalanche.
“Correctly replicate”? Apparently the Australia Academy of Science has a very low threshold for their use of the word “correctly”. We illustrated and discussed how poorly CMIP5-archived climate models simulate surface temperatures in the posts:
- Model-Data Comparison with Trend Maps: CMIP5 (IPCC AR5) Models vs New GISS Land-Ocean Temperature Index
- Model-Data Difference – Global Surface Temperature Anomalies – GISS, HADCRUT4 & NCDC
- On the Elusive Absolute Global Mean Surface Temperature – A Model-Data Comparison
Sunday, 15 February 2015
Joe Bastardi Schools Dr. Michael Mann On How To Read A Weather Chart … Heavy Snow “Is Because It’s Cold”
The Northeast USA is being socked by frightful cold and massive snow. The brutal New England winters are back and now we are witnessing last ditch efforts by disgraced climate scientists to blame the brutally cold winters on a warming planet (which in reality has not warmed in 18 years)."
NASA has repeatedly altered global temperature data, causing a net doubling of 1880-1980 global warming since their 1981 version. Pre-1965 years keep getting colder, and post-1965 years keep getting warmer. (Note that prior to 2003, NASA did not even pretend to know pre-1950 ocean temperatures.) This is on top of the changes Hansen had already made by 1981, erasing half of the 1940-1970 cooling. Since 1981 they have erased the rest of the 1940-1970 cooling. One thing driving this is the disappearance of truly rural stations, which is causing more and more UHI damage to the temperature record."
It might be possible to view the ever-rising slope of BoM temperature charts and conclude that the world really is melting down, but only if you regard "adjusted" records as more accurate than actual ones. Now, for the first time, independent statisticians will analyse those methods "
Monday, 9 February 2015
Following my last article, Homewood checked a swathe of other South American weather stations around the original three. In each case he found the same suspicious one-way “adjustments”. First these were made by the US government’s Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN). They were then amplified by two of the main official surface records, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (Giss) and the National Climate Data Center (NCDC), which use the warming trends to estimate temperatures across the vast regions of the Earth where no measurements are taken. Yet these are the very records on which scientists and politicians rely for their belief in “global warming”. Homewood has now turned his attention to the weather stations across much of the Arctic, between Canada (51 degrees W) and the heart of Siberia (87 degrees E). Again, in nearly every case, the same one-way adjustments have been made, to show warming up to 1 degree C or more higher than was indicated by the data that was actually recorded. This has surprised no one more than Traust Jonsson, who was long in charge of climate research for the Iceland met office (and with whom Homewood has been in touch). Jonsson was amazed to see how the new version completely “disappears” Iceland’s “sea ice years” around 1970, when a period of extreme cooling almost devastated his country’s economy.........
Homewood’s interest in the Arctic is partly because the “vanishing” of its polar ice (and the polar bears) has become such a poster-child for those trying to persuade us that we are threatened by runaway warming. But he chose that particular stretch of the Arctic because it is where ice is affected by warmer water brought in by cyclical shifts in a major Atlantic current – this last peaked at just the time 75 years ago when Arctic ice retreated even further than it has done recently. The ice-melt is not caused by rising global temperatures at all.
Of much more serious significance, however, is the way this wholesale manipulation of the official temperature record – for reasons GHCN and Giss have never plausibly explained – has become the real elephant in the room of the greatest and most costly scare the world has known. This really does begin to look like one of the greatest scientific scandals of all time."
Friday, 6 February 2015
German Analysis: “Current Warm Period Is No Anthropogenic Product” – Major Natural Cycles Show No Signs Of Warming!
The current warm period is no “anthropogenic product”, rather it is the natural result of a repeating 1000-year cycle that goes back far into the past. Today’s warm period does not even reach the temperatures seen in the past warm periods, which at times were 1 to 2°C higher. Moreover it is important to note that during both of the past temperature maxima of 1000 and 2000 years ago, the CO2 values were at 280 ppm while today they are at 400 ppm. This indicates that the earlier warmer periods likely were related to natural solar activity and not to a rise in CO2 because there was no CO2 rise during those warm phases."
Monday, 2 February 2015
The media has been abuzz with claims that the January 2015 New England Blizzard was worsened by human-induced global warming. One of the outspoken activist members of the climate science community who has been quoted often on the storm is NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth. An example of Trenberth’s interviews can be found in the ClimateNexus post Blizzard of 2015: Normal Winter Weather, Amplified by Climate Change. The subtitle is actually quite funny, bringing back the old “consistent with climate models” nonsense: “Above average sea surface temperatures increase snowfall, consistent with model projections.” ...........The models are in no way “consistent with” reality. ..........Apparently, alarmist climate-change advocates are still willing to furnish misinformation to the public about the contribution of human-induced global warming to weather events. Somehow, I don’t think many readers will find that surprising. It’s been the norm for many years. "