The Australian Climate Sceptics
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! "
Monday, 10 November 2014
Wind farms paid £43million to stand idle so far this year because they were producing more power than the National Grid could handle
Daily Mail
- 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
U.S. Mid-Terms, Tom Steyer and the Death of 'Climate Change' As a Serious Political Issue
Breitbart
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)? "
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)? "
New IPCC Climate Report: Buy Our Snake Oil or the World Gets It
Breitbart
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."
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."
Big lesson for Australia from US voters. Climate change is over as an election issue.
JoNova (Australia)
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: ....."
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: ....."
ClimateProgress’s Joe Romm Translates the IPCC’s 2014 Synthesis Report
WUWT
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. ................................
Related:
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). "
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. ....................
Related:
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
New paper finds a huge false physical assumption of IPCC climate models
The Hockey Schtick
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. "
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
NoTricksZone
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."
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."
John Coleman fires back on the IPCC Synthesis Report
WUWT
The
first four words are very important. “Climate Change is happening.”
You bet it is. The climate of planet Earth has been constantly changing
for 4.5 billion years. Earth has been frozen into a sort of ice ball at
least four times in its history (the Ice Ages) and has been as
warm or warmer than it is today at least three times (Interglacial
Periods) during its history. Smaller changes such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age occur more often and still smaller swings in climate occur almost constantly.
Climate
scientists, the media, environmentalists, bureaucrats and politicians
have all been thinking about climate in a wrong way for a couple of
decades now. They seem to have been thinking that there is a “normal” climate and it was what the climate as it existed on the day mankind burned fossil fuel for the first time. They have been positioning the climate debate to tell us that it is our responsibility to return the climate to exactly as it was then. ...........
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."
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."
Fact Checking the ABC — the Big-Myth about the “World’s Scientists”
JoNova (Australia)
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."
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’s a bit cold in the North Oceans
E M Smith
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…
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
NoTricksZone
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."
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."
Earliest Snow in Columbia, SC
Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D
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)
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)
Millions for the Met Office to carry on getting it wrong
Christopher Booker,Telegraph
Of course, the main reason why the Met Office’s record has become much worse
than just a national joke is that it relies on computer models programmed to
assume that the chief factor determining our changing climate is the steady
rise in CO2. Hence all those “hotter, drier summers” and “warmer than
average” winters. As its smug recent annual report shows, still nothing has
led them to question that belief. Yet those same computer models are the
basis not only for Britain’s crazy national energy policy, but also for the
projections on which the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
relies to predict how the world’s climate will change over the next 100
years.
Instead of giving them £97 million for yet another new computer, can anyone
explain why we do not call the Met Office staff to account for perpetuating
one of the most catastrophically influential scientific blunders in history?"
George Christensen, Australian MP, calls for an inquiry into the BOM: The media finally notices
JoNova (Australia)
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.
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.
“I rise to paint a picture of climate
change — a picture where Camden, just to the south-west of Sydney, is
sweltering in 50-degree heat. Over in the west it is 51 degrees in the
shade at Geraldton. Perth is 44, Geelong is 43, Wilcannia 48, Carnarvon
49½ and Southern Cross is 50 degrees. The death rate is 12 in 100,000
from heat-associated deaths—435 dead over the summer!
This is not a Greens scare campaign but the Federation Drought, 118 years ago. It has never been as hot since.
See our post about the extreme heat of 1896
for the original links to the news archives that underlie what
Christensen is talking about. Much of this work is fueled by the number
crunching and research of Ken Stewart, Chris Gilham, Lance Pidgeon and
others on the independent BOM audit team. See also the heat map of Australian 50+ temperatures, and all my posts on Australian Temperatures. It’s great to see this material being spoken in Parliament yet again."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)