Quadrant Online
Why can’t the global-warming catastrophe industry convince
the public that the scare underwriting its meal ticket is real? Even the
CSIRO’s annual survey last year showed that 53% of Australians reject
the official story. And even on the CSIRO’s figures,
Aussies rank climate fourteenth out of sixteen concerns overall, and we
rate it only seventh out of eight even among environmental concerns. In
Britain, more of the same, with a new survey showing those who describe
themselves “very concerned” about climate change falling to 18%, down
from 44% in 2005.
Partly to blame is that dratted 18-year halt to global warming, even
as man-made CO2 continues to pour into the skies. But my theory is that
the global warming industry has made itself so ridiculous over the past
30 years, so hyperventilatingly ludicrous, by predicting ever-more-dire
catastrophes by the year 20XX. But then year 20XX comes and goes and
life continues as normal. ..."
Friday, 30 January 2015
UK Met Office says 2014 was NOT the hottest year ever due to ‘uncertainty ranges’ of the data
WUWT
With the release of the 2014 HadCRUT4 data by the UK Met Office, and the previous release of global temperature data by Berkeley Earth, Nasa and Noaa, the main conclusion to be drawn from the data is that 2014 was a warm year, but not statistically distinguishable from most of the years of the past decade or so meaning that the “pause” in global annual average surface temperatures continues."
With the release of the 2014 HadCRUT4 data by the UK Met Office, and the previous release of global temperature data by Berkeley Earth, Nasa and Noaa, the main conclusion to be drawn from the data is that 2014 was a warm year, but not statistically distinguishable from most of the years of the past decade or so meaning that the “pause” in global annual average surface temperatures continues."
The hottest year on which record? Scientists seem to be adjusting the evidence. I’d still like to know why
Spectator
So it is with this ‘hottest year on record’ story. There are several reasons why it doesn’t stand up. The first is that it’s wilfully misleading. You read that headline and you think: ‘Wow! Hottest ever? That is serious.’ But it’s not when you consider the context. ‘On record’ means, in this case, since widespread global thermometer records began — which is as recently as 1880. There have been many, many occasions in history when the earth’s average temperature is reckoned to have been warmer than it is now: in the medieval and Roman warming periods, for example. Indeed, as the Canadian -scientist Dr Tim Ball has calculated by studying the evidence of ice-core data, earth’s recent temperatures rank in the lowest 3 per cent of those recorded since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. ................
And in any case, 2014’s claim to being the warmest on record is at best moot. As Goddard Institute director Gavin Schmidt has since grudgingly conceded, it is impossible to be sure which of the recent years has been warmest because the temperature differences — we’re talking 2/100ths of a degree — are smaller than the margin of error.
But the biggest problem is this, and few journalists are willing to touch it because it opens such a huge can of worms: the surface temperature readings used by and quoted by all the experts mentioned above no longer accurate or trustworthy. When you write this, it invites the obvious question: ‘You’re not seriously arguing, are you, that all the world’s top meteorological institutions are cooking the books because they’ve got the same hidden agenda?’ And instantly you look like a crackpot conspiracy theorist.
There’s plenty of evidence to support it, mind. Exhibit no. 1: the satellite records which, unlike the land-based records, show no rise in temperature in the past 18 years. Exhibit no. 2: the actual raw data from weather stations all over the world. This, it invariably turns out, tells a very different story from the narrative which has been imposed on it by the Keepers of the Flame of the Great Global Warming Scare."
So it is with this ‘hottest year on record’ story. There are several reasons why it doesn’t stand up. The first is that it’s wilfully misleading. You read that headline and you think: ‘Wow! Hottest ever? That is serious.’ But it’s not when you consider the context. ‘On record’ means, in this case, since widespread global thermometer records began — which is as recently as 1880. There have been many, many occasions in history when the earth’s average temperature is reckoned to have been warmer than it is now: in the medieval and Roman warming periods, for example. Indeed, as the Canadian -scientist Dr Tim Ball has calculated by studying the evidence of ice-core data, earth’s recent temperatures rank in the lowest 3 per cent of those recorded since the end of the last ice age 10,000 years ago. ................
And in any case, 2014’s claim to being the warmest on record is at best moot. As Goddard Institute director Gavin Schmidt has since grudgingly conceded, it is impossible to be sure which of the recent years has been warmest because the temperature differences — we’re talking 2/100ths of a degree — are smaller than the margin of error.
But the biggest problem is this, and few journalists are willing to touch it because it opens such a huge can of worms: the surface temperature readings used by and quoted by all the experts mentioned above no longer accurate or trustworthy. When you write this, it invites the obvious question: ‘You’re not seriously arguing, are you, that all the world’s top meteorological institutions are cooking the books because they’ve got the same hidden agenda?’ And instantly you look like a crackpot conspiracy theorist.
There’s plenty of evidence to support it, mind. Exhibit no. 1: the satellite records which, unlike the land-based records, show no rise in temperature in the past 18 years. Exhibit no. 2: the actual raw data from weather stations all over the world. This, it invariably turns out, tells a very different story from the narrative which has been imposed on it by the Keepers of the Flame of the Great Global Warming Scare."
Tuesday, 27 January 2015
Outed by FOIA – EPA strategy memo reveals deep flaws in the integrity of the agency, and lack of integrity of the press
WUWT
Attorney Chris Horner writes in with this bombshell which shows how “evangelism” has replaced factual analysis at the EPA, which is helped along by a compliant mass media. See the attached document obtained via FOIA.
His take on it includes:
* Obtained from the ongoing “Richard Windsor” FOIA, precisely as FOIA intended this allows the American public to see what bureaucrats and, in this case, ideological activists in government say among themselves and their pressure group allies, helping us keep a proper perspective about what these same activists tell the public.
* What this memo shows is the recognition that EPA needed to move its global warming campaign away from the failed global model of discredited Big Green pressure groups and their icons, that it has proved “consistently — an unpersuasive argument to make.” In it we see the birth of the breathtakingly disingenuous “shift from making this about the polar caps [to] about our neighbor with respiratory illness…”.
It also shows the conviction that if they yell “clean air” and “children” enough they, the media and the green groups will get their way."
Attorney Chris Horner writes in with this bombshell which shows how “evangelism” has replaced factual analysis at the EPA, which is helped along by a compliant mass media. See the attached document obtained via FOIA.
His take on it includes:
* Obtained from the ongoing “Richard Windsor” FOIA, precisely as FOIA intended this allows the American public to see what bureaucrats and, in this case, ideological activists in government say among themselves and their pressure group allies, helping us keep a proper perspective about what these same activists tell the public.
* What this memo shows is the recognition that EPA needed to move its global warming campaign away from the failed global model of discredited Big Green pressure groups and their icons, that it has proved “consistently — an unpersuasive argument to make.” In it we see the birth of the breathtakingly disingenuous “shift from making this about the polar caps [to] about our neighbor with respiratory illness…”.
It also shows the conviction that if they yell “clean air” and “children” enough they, the media and the green groups will get their way."
2014 Was NOT the Warmest Year on Record
The truth – not that any of this will ever be explained in Nature – is that we do not have a sufficiently resolved record to know whether the ocean is warming at all: But the simplest guide to whether the ocean is warming is to study whether the air (1,000 times less dense than the ocean) is warming. If the air is not warming, as it has not warmed for at least a decade, then the ocean is not warming either.
The Nature article says the warming of 0.05° Celsius in 2014 “should chasten climate sceptics who have used the past decade’s temperatures to deny that climate change is happening.” On the contrary, those who have repeatedly tampered with the terrestrial temperature record and have relied chiefly on the tampered results for their assertion that 2014 was “the warmest year on record” should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
But they won’t be. Their strategy is now clear: Cut worldwide CO2 emissions even though this is plainly unnecessary, and then – when temperature fails to rise as predicted – assert that the absence of global warming that would not have happened in any event is attributable to emissions cuts. On this daft basis, the world’s governments make policy at taxpayers’expense. "
New York City escapes Juno's wrath: 'Worst blizzard in history' fails to live up to hype as forecasters backtrack despite EIGHT states declaring emergencies and cars being banned from cities
Daily Mail
Americans
were quick to take to Twitter to express their disbelief after waking to
find the storm was nowhere near as bad as they had been told.
Steve
Keeley wrote: 'Now I know why they named this storm Juno. It's because
everyone's asking: 'Hey, Ju-know where the snow is?''
UrBanPerspectiv said: 'Glad I opted NOT to wait in long grocery lines yesterday... barely an inch or two in #Philly.'
Wonder if NYC mayor knows about these storms
Since 2 of them were in past 10 years, not like its blizzard of 1888 - HERE
Sydney enjoys coldest Australia Day for 58 years
Errors in IPCC climate science
Of course you are seeing this in MSM headlines?
Yesterday Sydney barely struggled above 20°C on Australia Day the 26th
January 2015 – in the face of the ever growing urban heat island too – 30 minute data preserved – online here – In 1965 the max was 20.7 (ACORN says 20.9) then in 1957 the max was 19.4 (ACORN said 19.6) Daily max and min data – as I write the BoM is slow to update the max for Monday. But Australian Weather News already has Monday the 26th at 20.0 "
Climategate, the sequel: How we are STILL being tricked with flawed data on global warming
Telegraph, Christopher Booker
Although it has been emerging for seven years or more, one of the most
extraordinary scandals of our time has never hit the headlines. Yet another
little example of it lately caught my eye when, in the wake of those excited
claims that 2014 was “the hottest year on record”, I saw the headline on a
climate blog: “Massive
tampering with temperatures in South America”. The evidence on
Notalotofpeopleknowthat, uncovered by Paul Homewood, was indeed striking.
Puzzled by those “2014 hottest ever” claims, which were led by the most quoted
of all the five official global temperature records – Nasa’s Goddard
Institute for Space Studies (Giss) – Homewood examined a place in the world
where Giss was showing temperatures to have risen faster than almost
anywhere else: a large chunk of South America stretching from Brazil to
Paraguay.
Noting that weather stations there were thin on the ground, he decided to
focus on three rural stations covering a huge area of Paraguay. Giss showed
it as having recorded, between 1950 and 2014, a particularly steep
temperature rise of more than 1.5C: twice the accepted global increase for
the whole of the 20th century.
But when Homewood was then able to check Giss’s figures against the original
data from which they were derived, he found that they had been altered. Far
from the new graph showing any rise, it showed temperatures in fact having
declined over those 65 years by a full degree. When he did the same for the
other two stations, he found the same. In each case, the original data
showed not a rise but a decline.
Homewood had in fact uncovered yet another example of the thousands of pieces
of evidence coming to light in recent years that show that something very
odd has been going on with the temperature data relied on by the world's
scientists. And in particular by the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), which has driven the greatest and most costly scare in
history: the belief that the world is in the grip of an unprecedented
warming."
Fracking: MPs demanding ban 'listened to ill-informed green groups not science'
Telegraph
But Government sources dismissed the EAC report as “total rubbish”, while academics criticised the Committee’s findings. Professor Quentin Fisher, Professor of petroleum geoengineering at the University of Leeds, said: “It is disappointing to see a Government committee putting the ill-informed views of anti-fracking groups ahead of evidence-based scientific studies." ......Ken Cronin, chief executive of the fracking industry body the UK Onshore Operators Group, said: "This rushed report ignores the fact that gas is not just a source of electricity but has a major impact on everyday life with respect to products we use, to heat our homes, the cooking we do and the jobs it sustains in industry. ........A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: “We disagree with the conclusion of this report. We have one of the most robust regulatory regimes for shale gas. UK shale development is compatible with our goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions.”
But Government sources dismissed the EAC report as “total rubbish”, while academics criticised the Committee’s findings. Professor Quentin Fisher, Professor of petroleum geoengineering at the University of Leeds, said: “It is disappointing to see a Government committee putting the ill-informed views of anti-fracking groups ahead of evidence-based scientific studies." ......Ken Cronin, chief executive of the fracking industry body the UK Onshore Operators Group, said: "This rushed report ignores the fact that gas is not just a source of electricity but has a major impact on everyday life with respect to products we use, to heat our homes, the cooking we do and the jobs it sustains in industry. ........A spokesman for the Department of Energy and Climate Change said: “We disagree with the conclusion of this report. We have one of the most robust regulatory regimes for shale gas. UK shale development is compatible with our goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions.”
Massive Tampering With Temperatures In South America
Paul Homewood
One of the regions that has contributed to GISS’ “hottest ever year” is South America, particularly Brazil, Paraguay and the northern part of Argentina. In reality, much of this is fabricated, as they have no stations anywhere near much of this area, as NOAA show below. ......
....So we find that a large chunk of Gavin’s hottest year is centred around a large chunk of South America, where there is little actual data, and where the data that does exist has been adjusted out of all relation to reality. Even by GHCN standards, this tampering takes some beating."
One of the regions that has contributed to GISS’ “hottest ever year” is South America, particularly Brazil, Paraguay and the northern part of Argentina. In reality, much of this is fabricated, as they have no stations anywhere near much of this area, as NOAA show below. ......
....So we find that a large chunk of Gavin’s hottest year is centred around a large chunk of South America, where there is little actual data, and where the data that does exist has been adjusted out of all relation to reality. Even by GHCN standards, this tampering takes some beating."
Man-made adjustments transform cooling to warming in Paraguay, South America
JoNova (Australia)
). In San Juan Bautista, and Puerto Casasdo the old thermometers get
adjusted down by around two degrees. Perhaps there are reasons for the
adjustments, but if old thermometers so so bad, and station changes have
made such a difference, why does any scientist pretend we can calculate
global temperatures accurately? "
It’s not fossil fuels causing global warming, it’s man-made adjustments. Stop the adjustments!
In South America, there are hardly any rural land thermometers. GISS tells us the area is warming (see the map below). Paul Homewood looked at the raw data. There are only three rural stations currently operating in the area, Puerto Casado, Mariscal, and San Juan, and they all show a raw trend that falls. As in so many other situations, after adjustments, all three show a rising trend. The changes are breathtaking. In Mariscal raw temperatures of 25.5C turned out to be “really” 22.5C. (Those 1950 thermometers were hopeless
). In San Juan Bautista, and Puerto Casasdo the old thermometers get
adjusted down by around two degrees. Perhaps there are reasons for the
adjustments, but if old thermometers so so bad, and station changes have
made such a difference, why does any scientist pretend we can calculate
global temperatures accurately? "
Environmental Audit Committee Report is Total Clusterfrack
Guido Fawkes
To say the EAC report on the environmental risks of fracking is unduly influenced by the loony green lobby would be somewhat of an understatement. ........
The lack of hard evidence in the report is nothing short of astonishing. At one point it even counters Public Health England’s conclusion that the “currently available evidence indicates that the potential risks to public health from exposure to the emissions associated with shale gas extraction will be low” with a claim by Green Party member Philip Mitchell that he had “surveyed people” in Yorkshire and was concerned that there have been an increase in respiratory problems. The “surveys” weren’t submitted.
Perhaps most puzzling is EAC’s claim that “Extensive production of unconventional gas through fracking is inconsistent with the UK’s obligations under the Climate Change Act and its carbon budgets regime“, a claim so spurious that even even the lefty wonks at the IPCC disagree, stating last year that it was “quite clear that shale gas can be very consistent with low carbon development and decarbonisation“. Every scientific fact is countered by ideological hippy anecdotes."
To say the EAC report on the environmental risks of fracking is unduly influenced by the loony green lobby would be somewhat of an understatement. ........
The lack of hard evidence in the report is nothing short of astonishing. At one point it even counters Public Health England’s conclusion that the “currently available evidence indicates that the potential risks to public health from exposure to the emissions associated with shale gas extraction will be low” with a claim by Green Party member Philip Mitchell that he had “surveyed people” in Yorkshire and was concerned that there have been an increase in respiratory problems. The “surveys” weren’t submitted.
Perhaps most puzzling is EAC’s claim that “Extensive production of unconventional gas through fracking is inconsistent with the UK’s obligations under the Climate Change Act and its carbon budgets regime“, a claim so spurious that even even the lefty wonks at the IPCC disagree, stating last year that it was “quite clear that shale gas can be very consistent with low carbon development and decarbonisation“. Every scientific fact is countered by ideological hippy anecdotes."
Saturday, 24 January 2015
Before They Could Create The Hockey Stick, They Had To Get Rid Of The Post-1940 Cooling
Real Science
The post 1940 cooling wrecked the hockey stick, so government climate scientists realized that they would have to make it disappear, in order to keep their funding coming in. .......The global warming scam is a complete fraud, which is why a personality like Barack Obama is so attracted to it."
The post 1940 cooling wrecked the hockey stick, so government climate scientists realized that they would have to make it disappear, in order to keep their funding coming in. .......The global warming scam is a complete fraud, which is why a personality like Barack Obama is so attracted to it."
The polarisation of the climate debate has gone too far
Matt Ridley
What sealed my apostasy from climate alarm was the extraordinary history of the famous “hockey stick” graph, which purported to show that today’s temperatures were higher and changing faster than at any time in the past thousand years. That graph genuinely shocked me when I first saw it and, briefly in the early 2000s, it persuaded me to abandon my growing doubts about dangerous climate change and return to the “alarmed” camp.
Then I began to read the work of two Canadian researchers, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. They and others have shown, as confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, that the hockey stick graph, and others like it, are heavily reliant on dubious sets of tree rings and use inappropriate statistical filters that exaggerate any 20th-century upturns.
What shocked me more was the scientific establishment’s reaction to this: it tried to pretend that nothing was wrong. And then a flood of emails was leaked in 2009 showing some climate scientists apparently scheming to withhold data, prevent papers being published, get journal editors sacked and evade freedom-of-information requests, much as sceptics had been alleging. That was when I began to re-examine everything I had been told about climate change and, the more I looked, the flakier the prediction of rapid warming seemed.
I am especially unimpressed by the claim that a prediction of rapid and dangerous warming is “settled science”, as firm as evolution or gravity. How could it be? It is a prediction! No prediction, let alone in a multi-causal, chaotic and poorly understood system like the global climate, should ever be treated as gospel. With the exception of eclipses, there is virtually nothing scientists can say with certainty about the future. It is absurd to argue that one cannot disagree with a forecast. Is the Bank of England’s inflation forecast infallible? "
What sealed my apostasy from climate alarm was the extraordinary history of the famous “hockey stick” graph, which purported to show that today’s temperatures were higher and changing faster than at any time in the past thousand years. That graph genuinely shocked me when I first saw it and, briefly in the early 2000s, it persuaded me to abandon my growing doubts about dangerous climate change and return to the “alarmed” camp.
Then I began to read the work of two Canadian researchers, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. They and others have shown, as confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences in the United States, that the hockey stick graph, and others like it, are heavily reliant on dubious sets of tree rings and use inappropriate statistical filters that exaggerate any 20th-century upturns.
What shocked me more was the scientific establishment’s reaction to this: it tried to pretend that nothing was wrong. And then a flood of emails was leaked in 2009 showing some climate scientists apparently scheming to withhold data, prevent papers being published, get journal editors sacked and evade freedom-of-information requests, much as sceptics had been alleging. That was when I began to re-examine everything I had been told about climate change and, the more I looked, the flakier the prediction of rapid warming seemed.
I am especially unimpressed by the claim that a prediction of rapid and dangerous warming is “settled science”, as firm as evolution or gravity. How could it be? It is a prediction! No prediction, let alone in a multi-causal, chaotic and poorly understood system like the global climate, should ever be treated as gospel. With the exception of eclipses, there is virtually nothing scientists can say with certainty about the future. It is absurd to argue that one cannot disagree with a forecast. Is the Bank of England’s inflation forecast infallible? "
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)