"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...
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.