"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...
Friday, 30 January 2015
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. ..."
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
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
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."
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
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 "
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.”
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."
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? "
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
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."
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? "
Thursday, 22 January 2015
The position of the Australian Academy of Science on global warming was last stated in August, 2010. It basically regurgitated the 2007 findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) with some Australian temperature trends thrown in – from 1910, thus eliding the inconvenient 19th century heatwaves."
BOM ignores pre-1910 temperatures, because know they were much hotter." (Real Science)
Roger Pielke Jr's post on the PhD thesis of Eija-Riitta Korhola is a must-read. Korhola is the wife of Atte Korhola, some of whose thoughts on climate science form the epigraph to Chapter 15 of The Hockey Stick Illusion.
As an MEP, Dr (as I assume we must call her now) Korhola has an insider's view on mainstream climate policy, which she views as a failure so monumental that it is actively harmful. "
Berkeley Earth has published a nice analysis of their 2014 data [link]. Summary of their main findings:
1. The global surface temperature average for 2014 was nominally the warmest since the global instrumental record began in 1850; however, within the margin of’error, it’s tied with 2005 and 2010 and so we can’t be certain it set a new record.
Meanwhile, the ‘warmest year’ is noticeably missing in the satellite data sets of lower atmospheric temperatures. Roy Spencer reports that 2014 was third warmest year since 1979, but just barely."
In 2015, I predict, the cause of global warming will continue to lose ground, even if, as expected, Pope Francis outs himself as a convert to the Church of Global Warming. Temperatures will again fail to behave as projected by the computer models, the public will again yawn at the faithful’s threats of the coming apocalypse and politicians will again pay lip service to global warming while kissing renewables subsidies goodbye."
If anybody is still in any doubt that it is UNSCIENTIFIC to make claims about hottest years, without taking into account error bars, I would advise what the World Meteorological Organisation had to say on the issue in their report on global temperatures for 2006: “All temperature values have uncertainties, which arise mainly from gaps in data coverage. The size of the uncertainties is such that the global average temperature for 2006 is statistically indistinguishable from, and could be anywhere between, the first and the eighth warmest year on record.” –Paul Homewood, Not A Lot of People Know That, 17 January 2015
Nasa climate scientists: We said 2014 was the warmest year on record... but we're only 38% sure we were right
Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much. .......
Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount. Its report said: ‘Numerically, our best estimate for the global temperature of 2014 puts it slightly above (by 0.01C) that of the next warmest year (2010) but by much less than the margin of uncertainty."
Tuesday, 20 January 2015
I really don’t know what the underlying motivation of the GOP and the Pope is, but if they really care about the poor, they won’t force them further into poverty – and kill millions unnecessarily – by following a pipe dream which only enriches the renewable snake oil salesmen."
Saturday, 17 January 2015
As has been suspected for a few months now, GISS have announced that 2014 was the “hottest year on record”. Nowhere does their press release tell us that it only beat the previous record by a tiny, effectively unmeasurable 0.02C. Nor do they mention that the error bars are many times greater, or even tell us what they are. .........................As has been said elsewhere, with satellite temperatures indicating that 2014 was nowhere near a record, the divergence between actual temperatures and those scary models becomes ever greater and important. That is why the likes of Gavin Schmidt has to resort to misrepresenting the data."
The Art of Lying by OmissionBack in the old days, when scientists had standards, they would never get excited over one hot year and certainly not over one meaningless hundredth of a degree.
The NOAA and NASA spinmeisters are parsing their press releases carefully, using vagueness to speak in half-truth-tongues. They utter no outright lie, yet misinform the crowd with lies by omission.
NOAA and NASA don’t say their models still don’t work, that the world was supposed to be a lot warmer and the “pause” continues. Nor do they admit that it has been warmer before many times in history. They don’t say the warming trend started long before we pumped out CO2. They don’t mention how tiny the “record” is, so tiny it could, and probably will, disappear with the next man-made adjustment. They don’t mention that the record depends entirely on which dataset you pick, and better instruments, satellites, show it wasn’t a record. NASA may launch satellites, but they prefer a thermometer in a carpark or beside a runway for measuring temperatures. They don’t mention how much hotter it was than the last record. That’s because it looks very uncool — scientifically speaking — to get excited over two hundredths of a degree, when the error bars are 500% bigger. It’s called “noise”, in real scientific publications."
According to NOAA definitions, global surface temperatures for 2014 were “More Unlikely Than Likely” the highest on record, but they failed to note that on the main page of their State of the Climate report. NOAA used a specific ENSO index to claim that El Niño conditions did not exist in 2014, when at least one other index says El Niño conditions existed. And NOAA failed to discuss the actual causes of the elevated global sea surface temperatures in 2014, while making it appear that there was a general warming of the surfaces of the global oceans.
NOAA never stated specifically that 2014’s record high surface temperatures were a result of human-induced global warming, but they implied it…thus all the hoopla. NOAA has omitted key discussions within that report, which biases it toward human-induced global warming. In other words, the NOAA State of the Climate report was misleading. NOAA has once again shown it is a political entity, not a scientific one. And that’s a damn shame. The public needs openness from NOAA about climate; we do not need to be misled by politically motivated misdirection and misinformation."
A major peer-reviewed paper in Science Bulletin, a respected academic periodical, has accused the IPCC’s climate model of being riddled with errors. The authors of the paper -‘Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model’ – have presented a new “simple model” that suggests the doubling of CO2 emissions could warm the planet by 1°C- significantly less than the IPCC’s predicted 3.3°C rise. "
Friday, 16 January 2015
Peer-reviewed pocket-calculator climate model exposes serious errors in complex computer models and reveals that Man’s influence on the climate is negligible
A major peer-reviewed climate physics paper in the first issue (January 2015: vol. 60 no. 1) of the prestigious Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and, as the Orient’s equivalent of Science or Nature, one of the world’s top six learned journals of science, exposes elementary but serious errors in the general-circulation models relied on by the UN’s climate panel, the IPCC. The errors were the reason for concern about Man’s effect on climate. Without them, there is no climate crisis."
A few years ago, Mikey told us that he doesn’t trust tree rings after 1960. Now he says he doesn’t trust satellites either. ......The whole idea of global warming is that CO2 warms the troposphere. But the troposphere isn’t warming, so the experts ignore it."
Scientists balk at ‘hottest year’ claims: Ignores Satellites showing 18 Year ‘Pause’ – ‘We are arguing over the significance of hundredths of a degree’ – The ‘Pause’ continues
'The NASA press release is highly misleading...talk of a record is scientifically and statistically meaningless.'
ED: Read the rest here.....
Tuesday, 13 January 2015
University Of Augsburg 44-Year Veteran Meteorologist Calls Climate Protection “Ridiculous”…”A Deception”!
The Augsburger Zeitung wanted to know Hager’s views on climate change. Hager doesn’t hold back any punches, claiming that “people are being deceived” on the subject and that man’s influence on the climate is very small."
I had naively assumed that after the publication of Menne (2009), that USHCN trends published after 2009 would remain fixed because data had been quality controlled for all known changes in location and instrumentation and further homogenized whenever Menne’s algorithm assumed a changing trend might not be natural. Anthony Watts, myself and many others have questioned the distortions created by homogenization and have warned about resulting warming biases. .......The bizarre consequences of USHCN’s monthly homogenization adjustments are seen by comparing changes in Death Valley’s maximum temperature trends over the past 2 years (solid black line). Adjustments were inflicted despite the fact the data had been quality controlled and adjusted several years before. ......By what possible logic, would 2 years of additional data suddenly reverse a cooling trend since the 30s and create a warming trend? I suggest we need to ask Congress for a full investigation. (Hat tip to Miesler) .......Although there is no excuse for the lies, distortions and rudeness posted by Mielser or Slandering Sou, I must sympathize to a limited degree. Their delusions have been supported by bad science from the USHCN and elsewhere, and when skeptics reveal the truth, it surely drives them mad."
The world may be warming, but not as much as some U.S. weather stations have shown. A new University of Montana study found that western U.S. weather stations have been showing more warming in the temperature record than has actually been observed."
Look at these stunning graphs of temperatures in Alabama and Mississippi. Temperatures were very hot there from 1921 to 1957, and then plummeted in 1958 Temperatures in the deep south show no correlation with CO2. However, they do show a strong correlation with something else that happened in 1958. Why doesn’t peer reviewed science look at the actual climate? Probably because a small group of people at NCDC tamper with the data, and thus makes it useless and misleading to scientists. They adjust temperatures upwards linearly with atmospheric CO2 content, to create an appearance of a correlation – which does not actually exist."
Wednesday, 7 January 2015
German Physicist Sees Dangerous Return To “Medieval Scholasticism” – Climate Models Have Failed Conclusively
The distinguished professor ends by blasting climate policymakers, warning they are bordering on “criminal activity” in their conscious misuse of science to formulate policy: ..."
The Pope's decision to link himself with one of the most atrocious and kitschy pseudoscientific myths of the present is unfortunate and dangerous for the future of the Catholic Church. ......This discussion isn't new: CO2 is beneficial, not harmful, which is a basic fact about life on Earth that the proponents of new and higher taxes including Larry Summers prefer to obscure, hide, and distort."
The point finally is this: To an engineer, climate science as the IPCC have it is simplistic nonsense. There are far far better models available, to explain climate change based on the complexity of water interactions with temperature. Unfortunately they are far too complex even for the biggest of computers to be much use in simulating climate. And have no political value anyway, since they will essentially say ‘Climate changes irrespective of human activity, over 100 thousand year major cycles, and within that its simply unpredictable noise due to many factors none of which we have any control over’